
Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf
topshelf wrote:Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with tonight's verdict, one thing everyone should agree on is that the "Stand Your Ground" law is horribly flawed. There is too much wiggle room, left far too open for interpretation, and the price is way too high.
topshelf wrote:Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with tonight's verdict, one thing everyone should agree on is that the "Stand Your Ground" law is horribly flawed. There is too much wiggle room, left far too open for interpretation, and the price is way too high.
Hockeynut! wrote:It didn't have any relevance in this case, but Stand Your Ground does potentially give a "mall cop" a sense of protection when entering into an altercation. For example, in the Texas case I linked a few pages back, the guy went to a neighbor's birthday party and start yelling at them about loud music. When they basically told him to f off, he drew his weapon and said, "I'm standing my ground" before eventually shooting and killing someone.
Grunthy wrote:Hockeynut! wrote:It didn't have any relevance in this case, but Stand Your Ground does potentially give a "mall cop" a sense of protection when entering into an altercation. For example, in the Texas case I linked a few pages back, the guy went to a neighbor's birthday party and start yelling at them about loud music. When they basically told him to f off, he drew his weapon and said, "I'm standing my ground" before eventually shooting and killing someone.
Just because some crazy ******* does something doesn't mean a law is bad.
Hockeynut! wrote:It didn't have any relevance in this case, but Stand Your Ground does potentially give a "mall cop" a sense of protection when entering into an altercation. For example, in the Texas case I linked a few pages back, the guy went to a neighbor's birthday party and start yelling at them about loud music. When they basically told him to f off, he drew his weapon and said, "I'm standing my ground" before eventually shooting and killing someone.
DelPen wrote:And he was convicted of murder because this wasn't SYG. SYG laws only differentiate from basic self defense in the idea of duty to retreat. In SC for example, if you can get out of a situation without increasing your danger, you need to do that before using deadly force. In FL you don't need to. But the element of a reasonable fear of great harm or death still needs to exist.
DelPen wrote:And he was convicted of murder because this wasn't SYG. SYG laws only differentiate from basic self defense in the idea of duty to retreat. In SC for example, if you can get out of a situation without increasing your danger, you need to do that before using deadly force. In FL you don't need to. But the element of a reasonable fear of great harm or death still needs to exist.
But in this case, it's basic self defense because you can't retreat when someone is on top of you hitting you.
topshelf wrote:DelPen wrote:And he was convicted of murder because this wasn't SYG. SYG laws only differentiate from basic self defense in the idea of duty to retreat. In SC for example, if you can get out of a situation without increasing your danger, you need to do that before using deadly force. In FL you don't need to. But the element of a reasonable fear of great harm or death still needs to exist.
But in this case, it's basic self defense because you can't retreat when someone is on top of you hitting you.
My problem with it here in Florida, DelPen, is "reasonable fear" is left far too open for interpretation. My original post isn't a cry to get rid of "Stand Your Ground", as I think the premise of the law is sound, but what stops a guy from killing someone out of rage and then stating that he feared his life? It's way to vague when you consider a life can be lost because of one's interpretation of feelings.
count2infinity wrote:oh god facebook... I swear some of the people I see posting haven't read a single article or watched a single snippet from the trial, except for what they saw immediately after TM's death. You can be outraged by this verdict if you want, but the jurors decided the case based on the evidence and testimony given in court and that's the way our legal system works.
count2infinity wrote:I had posted about that a few pages back. What is reasonable fear? One punch? Two punches? Three? Does a punch even need to be thrown? Do you have to be bleeding? If so how much blood? Do you have to be almost unconscious to claim self defense? There is ZERO information as far as what happened between the 911 phone call from Zimmerman and gun shot other than there was a scuffle and multiple witnesses corroborate that TM was on top. The apparently was enough for the jury to decide there was a reasonable fear in GZ mind to shot TM.
MRandall25 wrote:Didn't take long for people to basically say "Zimmerman got off because he's white and Trayvon was black".
malkinshair wrote:Mark O'Mara (lead defense attorney) also said bluntly that, in his opinion, had GZ been black no charges would've been filed.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests