Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Advocates of the law, the first of its kind in the country and now copied in more than 20 other states, say violent crime has fallen since it was enacted.
But critics see the self-defense law as emblematic of racial bias and unequal justice in America, since some studies have shown that defense claims made under the law are far more likely to be successful when the victim is black.
Two of the six jurors in the Zimmerman case have said the Stand Your Ground law left them with no option but to acquit him.
Oh look, more nonsense from ignorant left wingers. Complete with the accusation of racism and all. Well played.
George Zimmerman didn't get off because of SYG. 5 jurors could have thought he was guilty - that still wouldn't equal a conviction.
Any juror who found SYG relevant is a moron anyway, it had zero relevance to the case. There is no way in hell they could have proven an ability to retreat, and none of you would dare try to explain to me why if it weren't for SYG he would have been any more guilty. Because you can't. Because you don't know the law or the distinctions of it from regular self defense law, as you've done such a good job proving through all this hype.
So yeah, anyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size should just toss that theory in the garbage.
Just another phase in the manufactured outrage over this case. It's cool though, the type of people who are led around like sheep like this usually don't have the longest attention spans. The law won't change, and they'll forget about it.
But I must say I'm shocked that CCW hasn't come under attack yet, maybe that's next?
Here, this is from Mother Jones, you'll like this.
Quote:
If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
And consider it they did. According to the most outspoken juror, known only as Juror B-37, Stand Your Ground was key to reaching their verdict. She told CNN's Anderson Cooper in an interview that neither second-degree murder nor manslaughter applied in Zimmerman's case "because of the heat of the moment and the 'stand your ground.' He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right."
I'm really having a hard time even imagining how you all can be more dishonest.
A law is cited that includes a stand your ground provision, the juror cites that part of the law that mirrors practically every other self defense law in the country, and you all pin it on stand your ground.
Go ahead, prove he had the ability to retreat but chose not to. Can't do it? Okay then, well the concept of stand your ground is not a relevant one.
Quote:
They may also have calculated that it would hurt their case, says Laura Cutilletta, a senior attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and an expert on state gun laws. "We think the reason the defense did not request a shoot-first hearing or raise the law at trial is because doing so would contradict their theory of the case—that Zimmerman was being held down and beaten and had no opportunity to retreat," she says. "Shoot-first would only be applicable if he was conceding that he had an opportunity to retreat and that instead of doing so, he used deadly force."
Yes, and all of the evidence backed this up. About a thousand times more than was necessary to establish reasonable doubt. So... there you go. SYG was of no use to GZ. This is plain as day.
Quote:
Zimmerman's attorneys themselves dismissed the relevance of the statute, which allows armed citizens to use deadly force with no obligation to retreat from a confrontation if they reasonably believe their lives are threatened. Perhaps Zimmerman's team shied away from using the law—also known as "shoot first"—because they knew it would be controversial and felt that they didn't need it to win on self-defense.
Smart lawyers - they sure know a lot more than you all do.
Unless there's a new program to get a law degree by skimming through some left wing blogs.
I like how Mother Jones tosses this little irrelevancy into the argument too.
Quote:
How Florida authorities let Zimmerman walk: For nearly six weeks after the killing, Zimmerman remained a free man; he was arrested and charged only after a national outcry and after the case was handed over to a special prosecutor. A subsequent New York Times investigation revealed that the Sanford PD's handling of the case was marred by serious lapses—in tandem with letting Zimmerman go the night of the killing based on his claim of self-defense, police investigators failed to secure key evidence. Bill Lee Jr., then Sanford's police chief, told the Times: "We were basing our decisions, which were made in concert with the state attorney's office, on the findings of the investigation at the time, and we were abiding by the Florida law that covers self-defense."
Lee, who was forced to resign in the wake of the killing, went on to tell CNN this month that Stand Your Ground had no bearing on the investigation. But there are reams of evidence that the law has hamstrung Florida authorities for years and kept them from effectively pursuing homicide prosecutions.
So... a bunch of random crap avoid securing evidence, then a vague allusion to "the law has hamstrung Florida authorities" in the past. That's the argument?
The following is the only one that could be considered halfway valid, but it's more of an indictment of ignorance of the law than of the law itself. Ironically, the best argument you all have, you almost never use it. Then again, it is pretty weak.
Quote:
An armed Zimmerman knew about Stand Your Ground years ago: As witnesses testified during the trial, Zimmerman had for years pursued an interest in a law enforcement career. At a Florida college in 2010, he earned an A in a criminal-justice class taught by an Army prosecutor whose course work included the state's Stand Your Ground law. That same year, Zimmerman applied to participate in a police ride-along, writing that his motivation was "solidifying my chances for a career in law enforcement." (However, Zimmerman's ability to retain certain law enforcement knowledge apparently vanished after he killed Martin; the self-styled neighborhood watchman, who obsessively called 911 to report suspicious activity, told Fox News' Sean Hannity last summer that he'd never heard of Stand Your Ground.)
But really, go ahead and tell the class how you could have proven that GZ had the ability to retreat, thus making the concept of SYG relevant to the case.
Gun nut: Gun enthusiast, one who enjoys shooting sports, a gun collector.
Once again, the leftist extremists attempt to tie the Zimmerman case to "Stand Your Ground," even though it was not used as a defense in the case, which would have meant that the case would not have gone to a jury trial at all.
Zimmerman is, and was, a responsible gun owner. It is unfortunate that he found himself in a circumstance where, after being attacked and being brutally beaten by his attacker, he was forced to use his gun to end an attack which at minimum, would have resulted in serious bodily harm, if not death.
To the O.P., this woman would also be a "Gun nut:"
Oh look, more nonsense from ignorant left wingers. Complete with the accusation of racism and all. Well played.
George Zimmerman didn't get off because of SYG. 5 jurors could have thought he was guilty - that still wouldn't equal a conviction.
Any juror who found SYG relevant is a moron anyway, it had zero relevance to the case. There is no way in hell they could have proven an ability to retreat, and none of you would dare try to explain to me why if it weren't for SYG he would have been any more guilty. Because you can't. Because you don't know the law or the distinctions of it from regular self defense law, as you've done such a good job proving through all this hype.
So yeah, anyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size should just toss that theory in the garbage.
Just another phase in the manufactured outrage over this case. It's cool though, the type of people who are led around like sheep like this usually don't have the longest attention spans. The law won't change, and they'll forget about it.
But I must say I'm shocked that CCW hasn't come under attack yet, maybe that's next?
The Left continues to mischaracterize "Stand Your Ground" as a right to shoot at will, not a right to self defense. They also do not understand that in a true "SYG" case, there is no jury trial.
Of course (and this is no surprise), the Left simply hates the Second Amendment. Period. This is because they do not understand our Constitution, or our rights. In truth, most of the Left would rather that we didn't have a Constitution. They see it as an obstacle (Obama certainly does).
Here, this is from Mother Jones, you'll like this.
I'm really having a hard time even imagining how you all can be more dishonest.
A law is cited that includes a stand your ground provision, the juror cites that part of the law that mirrors practically every other self defense law in the country, and you all pin it on stand your ground.
Go ahead, prove he had the ability to retreat but chose not to. Can't do it? Okay then, well the concept of stand your ground is not a relevant one.
Yes, and all of the evidence backed this up. About a thousand times more than was necessary to establish reasonable doubt. So... there you go. SYG was of no use to GZ. This is plain as day.
Smart lawyers - they sure know a lot more than you all do.
Unless there's a new program to get a law degree by skimming through some left wing blogs.
I like how Mother Jones tosses this little irrelevancy into the argument too.
So... a bunch of random crap avoid securing evidence, then a vague allusion to "the law has hamstrung Florida authorities" in the past. That's the argument?
The following is the only one that could be considered halfway valid, but it's more of an indictment of ignorance of the law than of the law itself. Ironically, the best argument you all have, you almost never use it. Then again, it is pretty weak.
But really, go ahead and tell the class how you could have proven that GZ had the ability to retreat, thus making the concept of SYG relevant to the case.
I'll be waiting patiently.
Very patiently...
A SYG hearing does not involve a jury. The defendent appears before a judge and if they win, there is no trial. Zimmerman waived his right to that hearing and wanted a trial because if the SYG hearing did not go his way, it would have had an effect on the jury.
Here, this is from Mother Jones, you'll like this.
I'm really having a hard time even imagining how you all can be more dishonest.
A law is cited that includes a stand your ground provision, the juror cites that part of the law that mirrors practically every other self defense law in the country, and you all pin it on stand your ground.
Go ahead, prove he had the ability to retreat but chose not to. Can't do it? Okay then, well the concept of stand your ground is not a relevant one.
Yes, and all of the evidence backed this up. About a thousand times more than was necessary to establish reasonable doubt. So... there you go. SYG was of no use to GZ. This is plain as day.
Smart lawyers - they sure know a lot more than you all do.
Unless there's a new program to get a law degree by skimming through some left wing blogs.
I like how Mother Jones tosses this little irrelevancy into the argument too.
So... a bunch of random crap avoid securing evidence, then a vague allusion to "the law has hamstrung Florida authorities" in the past. That's the argument?
The following is the only one that could be considered halfway valid, but it's more of an indictment of ignorance of the law than of the law itself. Ironically, the best argument you all have, you almost never use it. Then again, it is pretty weak.
But really, go ahead and tell the class how you could have proven that GZ had the ability to retreat, thus making the concept of SYG relevant to the case.
I'll be waiting patiently.
Very patiently...
its hard to retreat when you've got a thug sitting on your chest pounding your head into the pavement.
Stand your ground removes the duty to retreat if you are attacked, and that is all. It does not give you a license to kill, it only prevents people from being persecuted because they didn't give into an attacker. In order for SYG to be "activated", you first must be attacked and reasonably believe your life is in danger.
The issue in the Zimmerman case was whether or not it was self-defense. If Zimmerman was found to have attacked Martin then SYG would not apply because it would not have been self-defense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
