Hello:

It USED to be, that self defense meant that you could use deadly force only IF you had NO means of escape. It was simple. It made sense. And, it was universally accepted. Then, at the urging of the NRA, SOME states passed laws that said you can kill somebody if he's attacking you by "standing your ground". Being able to AVOID a confrontation is NO longer the issue. The issue is, you can now kill somebody if you have a chip on your shoulder.

Of course, by trying to change a basic law that everybody understood, they muddled it up. The obvious question pops up, as to exactly WHO has the right to "stand your ground". If you're being pursued, don't YOU have a right to "stand your ground" at some point? What if BOTH people are "standing their ground", and one shoots the other??

Trayvon Martin didn't have that right, apparently. Do we need to go back to a saner period?

excon

PS> I misspelled Trayvons name in my title. My apologies to his parents, but I can't edit it.
Pps> No worries I did, CB..

Ex, my heart goes out to Trayvon's family and friends. This was a senseless tragedy and if the investigation reveals what is being said about it I hope that obviously paranoid piece of human waste that shot him gets his due.

On the other hand, I'm not going to let one idiot's senseless stupidity turn this into a new race war as Leonard Pitts would like. And standing your ground is one thing, stalking the kid instead of letting the cops do their job is another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

On the other hand, I'm not going to let one idiot's senseless stupidity turn this into a new race war

---

Hello Steve:

You'll note that I didn't mention race. I don't know whether race had anything to do with the killing or not.. But, in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary, when the cops say the shooter IS the victim, their racism is obvious. Now, they're INVESTED in that theory, so we'll NEVER get the truth from them. That's why the feds need to take over the investigation..

But, the particulars of that case, as tragic as they are, aren't really the basis for my question.. I'm going straight for the idiotic LAW that allows murderer's to go free.

You DO understand that I'm COOL will killing somebody if you CAN'T escape. But, I'm NOT cool with killing somebody because you decided to "stand your ground"... It just looks like MURDER to me, like abortion looks like MURDER to you.

excon

I mentioned race because that's how I first heard of it, Pitts made it about race."He existed while black," was his crime according to the race baiters such as him so I launched a preemptive strike. One idiot's actions don't speak for the rest of us.

Now, I know you don't like this "stand your ground" stuff but the fact is many of us are going to do just that if attacked regardless of the law. If I'm attacked and believe I am in danger and I'm carrying you shouldn't have attacked me because given the chance, I will shoot you in self defense. Period.

You'll also notice I distinguished between standing your ground which I believe is justified, and stalking a kid then attacking him which is not justified. If that's what the guy did and it appears to be so, then throw the book at him.

I'm opposed to neighborhood watch groups being armed . The Guardian Angels aren't and they are arguably the most effective group in the country .

"Watch" being the operative word here.

I for one don't believe Zimmerman . Even if he got in the scuffle with the kid... Think about it... someone who isn't a cop confronts you with a gun in his hand . It's likely the kid was acting in self defense by attacking .

I don't know about the Florida law... but a similar law in Nevada makes it clear that you can't manufacture the circumstances to use deadly force as a self defense.

They can try to make it a racial case. The fact that Zimmerman is a mixed race Hispanic should not deter them. I think this is more like a Paul Kersey (Charles Bronson character ) wannabee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

It's likely the kid was acting in self defense by attacking .

---

Hello again, tom:

After a close examination of the law, he's going to get away with it.. Absent evidence that the shooter was NOT acting in self defense, and there's NONE, HIS word is all they've got. According to the Florida "stand your ground and murder who you please as long as you don't shoot him in the back", law, he'll get away with it.

excon

I don't know that and that is only a presumption . Doubt if a jury will agree.

They have the 9-1-1 call . There was no need for him to get out of the truck after that . He provoked the confrontation .

I think Zimmerman is in a whole lot of trouble . The big problem I see is foot dragging on the investigation. If the Feds need to come in ,then so be it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

They have the 9-1-1 call . There was no need for him to get out of the truck after that . He provoked the confrontation .

---

Hello again, tom:

I HATE defending this guy. But it's absolutely true, he pursued him and provoked him, and he GOT attacked as a result. At the most, he'll be convicted of reckless endangerment.

Because of the Florida "stand your ground and make sure you KILL the guy, so you're the only one left to say what happened", law, he WON'T be convicted of murder OR manslaughter.

He'll do 6 months.

excon

Well I'm not so willing to assume a sentence . Let's see what the Grand Jury comes up with 1st . Or let's put it this way. Without witnesses ;he could plea a self defense with or without the Fla law. Zimmerman had a legit concealed carry permit . So without a witness ,all that is known is that he called in a 9-1-1 ;got out of his truck ;scuffled with the kid ,and shot him. We are only guessing who initiated the violence that preceded the killing.

Interesting laws you have there, but then with gun culture you have too

I hate the idea of getting involved in political discussions because frankly, I don't have the brain power for it. Too often, I know what I want to say but wind up saying something that later gets twisted around as me meaning something else.

With that said...

I live in a state with the "stand your ground" law. Nowhere in this law does it say that you can cause a problem and kill someone simply because you "have a chip on your shoulder". The actual intention of the law was to allow you to use deadly force within reason... it is not a license to kill.

The way the law was (here anyway), if you were sitting in your home and someone broke in, you were required to get to another room or out of the house if possible. You could only defend yourself if you had nowhere else to get to. Really? Whether I would have done that or not doesn't matter. By law, I was required to. Never mind that the guy kicking in my door obviously didn't have good intentions. Never mind I have a wife and child to protect. I was required to first attempt to retreat to somewhere else. The law now says that if this happens, I am allowed to "stand my ground" and defend myself right there. It also allows me to defend myself on my property or in my car if I am in fear of my life or someone else's.

The law still maintains that I have to do whatever I can to avoid confrontation. I can't incite someone to kick my door in, you know? I am not allowed to simply shoot an unarmed person because I fear him. I still am required to have a reason for it... and I need a good reason or I can, and probably will be prosecuted.

Now... after all that... what happened in this case is terrible. I could be wrong but from the sounds of it, I think the kid was murdered. Just my opinion. On the other hand, I can't blame the "stand your ground" law for this. I blame the police that are handling it. This situation would have most likely happened anyway with or without the law. Before the law, you were still allowed to defend yourself with deadly force... if you were in danger. The police blew it. Plain and simple. They would have blown it before the law. Zimmerman said he was attacked, giving them reason to believe he was in fear for his life. They didn't bother to actually consider, or maybe they didn't care, that he may have caused this whole situation to escalate to the point that it did. That is where the blame lies... with the cops... with Zimmerman... not with the specific law that allows law abiding citizens to defend themselves in the face of danger.

I do hope that somehow this investigation gets turned in the right direction and Zimmerman pays for doing this. He could have avoided all of it by simply not getting out of the truck.


Let me also add that I have never had to shoot anyone. I am a responsible gun owner with a license to carry concealed. I have had 2 instances where it was possible the situation could have escalated. The one time, I simply took a different route and got away from the situation. The other time, I was surrounded (2 in front and 1 in back) so I had nowhere to go. I lifted my shirt, put my hand on the grip of my gun and undid the thumb snap. They quickly left. I mention this only to point out that not all of us that own and carry guns are maniacal killers just looking to pop someone. Most of us would rather not have to ever pull the gun from the holster.

I just know that if this happened where I live there would be riots in the streets

They use to riot here too, but getting action by peaceful means is a better way of bringing it to national attention, and get the proper results, JUSTICE!

So how does a nut case get a gun permit, and allowed to be in the neighborhood watch? Seems like the cops should know him well after 46 calls to 911. And why was he not detained and questioned to verify his story? That's what's more disturbing to me, the way the cops handled it from the time they arrived on the scene.

I think after proper questioning it would have given them probable cause for an arrest, given he was the aggressor, and instigated the encounter. Law or no law, the cops dropped the ball!

Two factors Tal who you know and who you are

Bottom line is that Zimmerman cannot use the law as a defense, because he was not standing his ground... he was pursuing .So the law does not apply.

Good answer odinn7. By the way, like baseball?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Bottom line is that Zimmerman cannot use the law as a defense, because he was not standing his ground...he was pursuing .So the law does not apply.

---

Hello again, tom:

I WISH that were true, but it ain't. Oh, if you take THAT moment of time, you're correct... But, in the NEXT moment of time, he could be afraid for his life and shoot in "self defense".. With NOBODY to say otherwise, the cops hands are tied.

The law is faulty. Previously, being cornered meant there were PHYSICAL barriers that could be MEASURED. With NO barriers, there is ONLY the word of the shooter, IF the victim is dead..

I say again, the law is faulty. VERY VERY RIGHT WING FAULTY. It gives a murderer the RIGHT to kill IF he has a chip on his shoulder, even IF my friend Odinn says otherwise.

excon

Today's news is that there was a phone call between Trayvon and his girl friend while this was going down. Hard to believe that he was attacking Zimmerman while he was giving an up to date account about how he was being pursued for no reason.

Now if you are saying the law needs some tweeking ;that's possible and I know the State legislature is already reviewing the law. The wording of the law has to match the intent . The intent is not to have some vigilante provoking a confrontation. The law is meant for real self defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The law is meant for real self defense.

---

Hello again, tom:

Oh, I understand WHY right wingers passed the law.. It's that when they pass laws based on POLITICAL considerations, instead of real life issues, bad stuff happens... And BAD stuff IS happening...

The old law on self defense worked PERFECTLY. You COULD not claim you shot somebody in self defense IF you had a means of escape. It's TRUE. It's SIMPLE. It's PROVABLE. It's UNDERSTOOD. It DIDN'T need strengthening... The ONLY reason a person WOULDN'T run away, IF he could, would be to CONFRONT his pursuer. You cannot tell me that a confrontation such as that would be based on FEAR..

excon

Since you say it's "VERY VERY RIGHT WING FAULTY" I'm guessing you believe liberals don't carry. Dude, leftists can be very, very mean. They are in fact responsible for most domestic terrorism in spite of what the SPLC says. I need my gun to protect myself from libs who wish me harm you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Since you say it's "VERY VERY RIGHT WING FAULTY" I'm guessing you believe liberals don't carry.

---

Hello Steve:

Couple things.

We carry - and we KNOW what self defense IS. Apparently, right wingers don't, so they pass laws that let people get away with murder. We don't do that. That's a VERY VERY RIGHT WING thing to do.

excon

This guy wasn't in fear of his life when he made the call to the cops, followed his victim, or got out of his car to confront him. I doubt he was in fear of his life when he got into a scuffle with a younger smaller guy either. He was looking for trouble, and caused it.

As to the law itself, backed by the NRA, this new law has caused confusion among law enforcement, and opens the door to all kinds of abuse, and misuse. This case is but one of many. The number of justifiable homicides have tripled since Florida enacted this law, and that alone has to cause a closer look at the law, or the way law enforcement goes about enforcing it.

I mean if this guy or any other for that matter, gets away with murder, then SOMETHING is terribly wrong with the law. Its just not FAIR to my way of thinking. I fully recognize the intent of the law, but the practical application of it provides NO justice, or protection for the citizens as a whole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Steve:

Couple things.

We carry - and we KNOW what self defense IS. Apparently, right wingers don't, so they pass laws that let people get away with murder. We don't do that. That's a VERY VERY RIGHT WING thing to do.

excon

---

Dude, I have never shot anyone. I'm guessing most right-wingers with the exception of Cheney have never shot anyone either. But you know the law is not a license to murder and that was never its intent. And we all seem to agree that Zimmerman was in the wrong and if the law needs to be tweaked then so be it. So what exactly do you have left to whine about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

This guy wasn't in fear of his life when he made the call to the cops, followed his victim, or got out of his car to confront him. I doubt he was in fear of his life when he got into a scuffle with a younger smaller guy either. He was looking for trouble, and caused it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Hard to believe that he was attacking Zimmerman while he was giving an up to date account about how he was being persued for no reason.

---

Hello guys:

Nobody disagrees with the above assessments.. After reviewing the law, I'm even sure the COPS agree with the above assessments... AND, I'm even sure that the FEDS and the GRAND JURY will come to those conclusions, too.

The problem is the LAW. In the final analysis, when Zimmerman takes the stand and says that he feared for his life, in THAT moment of time, there's NOBODY to say he didn't. The law allows him to DO that very thing. Prosecutors won't even bring charges...

Now, maybe the feds can charge Zimmerman with a violation of Trayvons civil rights. THAT would be a great legal approach.. But, the law ties the hands of EVERYBODY in Florida.

excon

PS> (edited) There is some talk of racial epithets on the tape, and I heard him say "they always get away with it".. Maybe THAT'LL be enough to show intent and charges brought.

Nah you shoot someone you have to be accountable. But we already agree that if the wording of the law needs to be revised ,then the legislature should do so.

I predict that NO BODY ;including a jury ,will buy the line that he was not the aggressor.

And I want to know why NK can post the word sh*t without the asterisk and you deleted Cheney's first name? Are you kidding me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I predict that NO BODY ;including a jury ,will buy the line that he was not the aggressor.

---

Hello again, tom:

At THAT MOMENT in time, you don't know what happened.. Even after being followed, you don't know whether Trayvon turned on Zimmerman and attacked him. THAT moment in time is what the law addresses...

I UNDERSTAND you want to take the TOTALITY of events to make your case... I WANT to, too. It would make SENSE. But, the law is clear. I think you want to believe it because it'll vindicate the law, or the NRA, or the Republicans who wrote it. I don't know.

excon

If indeed Zimmerman's story is true ,then he had a right to use the gun under the old self defense laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

If indeed Zimmerman's story is true ,then he had a right to use the gun under the old self defense laws.

---

Hello again, tom:

Nope..

As I said earlier, being cornered can be MEASURED and PROVEN.. There would be PHYSICAL objects preventing escape... Out in the open there's NOTHING preventing a person from RUNNING AWAY, and you couldn't claim there was. Under the old law, he'd be convicted in a heartbeat.

excon

See you don't know that as a fact. Not that I want to defend Zimmerman ;but he has the facial wounds to prove he was in a physical struggle .

Now I think the evidence is the only thing that matters here . The evidence points to the fact that he initiated the confrontation.

Without that ;and if the story is that he was overpowered by the kid and thought his life was threatened... then even under the old laws he would've been permitted to use his gun in his self defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Without that ;and if the the story is that he was overpowered by the kid and thought his life was threatened ....then even under the old laws he would've been permitted to use his gun in his self defense.

---

Hello again, tom:

NO, he couldn't. I don't know WHY you argue with me. The old law was SIMPLE. If there IS a means of escape, it MUST be taken. That's IT. It's no more difficult than that.

IF you're OUT in the open, and you're being attacked, you MUST RUN. If you're on the ground, and he's standing over you, and you have NO MEANS OF ESCAPE, you can shoot.. Other than that, you MUST RUN.

But, I'm sure you're going to tell me otherwise.

excon

Quote:

---

But, I'm sure you're going to tell me otherwise.

---

yes I am . Zimmerman had a bloody nose ;was bleeding from the back of his head ,and had grass stains on the back of his shirt. That is evidence that could possibly lead to the fact that he had been over powered and had no means of escape.

That's all I know of the physical evidence . The other evidence leads one to believe that he was the aggressor . That is what the grand jury will weigh. Whatever political perceptions you have about the law will probably not be the determining factor in the end.

Deleted

I have to add more. I read up on the laws and it turns out that Stand Your Ground and the Castle Doctrine are 2 slightly different laws. Here, in my state, we have the Castle Doctrine law which states what I had said earlier. The Stand Your Ground law takes that one step further by allowing you the same defense outside of your home, vehicle, and property. No need to retreat at all really. That does seem somewhat extreme to me... at least on the surface.

I have to say, if someone violently confronted me and I felt I had no choice, I would do what I had to... law or no law. Protect myself first, worry about the law second. Looking at it a different way though, I would not be looking for a confrontation just to test that out. This idiot made a 911 call and was told to stop following the kid and to stay in his truck. The police were on their way. He got out anyway and caused the confrontation. The law does not allow this. Yes, he is allowed to defend himself, but he caused this. There is the 911 call as evidence that it all could have been avoided. That is the key and anyone responsible that does carry a gun, would have avoided the confrontation. I am thinking that because of that 911 call, he will be prosecuted because it shows he went looking for trouble. The law is Stand Your Ground... to defend yourself. It's not Confront And Kill... the law does need a little tweaking but I do think that because he made that call, it shows he could have avoided all of this... and for that, I think he is going to face charges.

I think the lack of proper police action is at the heart of this dreadful incident, as who takes the word of the guy who does the shooting without a thorough investigation? Nothing in the law says they have to take some ones word for anything when investigating and no way is this the proper handling of the case.

That is patently ridicules, no matter who did what. Bloody nose or not, how do you end up in a scuffle if you had kept you arse in your vehicle? Sorry, at the least he should have been taken in for clarity of the facts before given his gun, and a pat on the back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

I think the lack of proper police action is at the heart of this dreadful incident, as who takes the word of the guy who does the shooting without a thorough investigation? Nothing in the law says they have to take some ones word for anything when investigating and no way is this the proper handling of the case.

That is patently ridicules, no matter who did what. Bloody nose or not, how do you end up in a scuffle if you had kept you arse in your vehicle? Sorry, at the least he should have been taken in for clarity of the facts before given his gun, and a pat on the back.

---

Agree... although besides an arrest ,which we know didn't happen ; and a statement from Zimmerman ,which we know happened... we really don't know what else the police have done in this case .