Stand Your Ground Florida, Stand Your Ground

[Cain]

This has been a lot of fun. It's better than the most of the totally legal shootings under various states' "Make My Day" laws, but it still doesn't hold a candle (ha) to the Craigslist John who gunned down a harlot stealing $150. The Lone Star state allows someone "to use deadly force to recover property during a nighttime theft." Nighttime! God, I love Texas. Some might say our laws are "backwards" and "barbaric" but maybe they're just awesome and great.

 

[This is The End]

All of the US has pretty much the same self-defense law, if you have a reasonable belief that your life is in imminent danger, you can use deadly force.

Where the differences come in is if you have a duty to try and retreat prior to doing so.

Again, your "only difference" is the exact same ****** one under discussion.

This is how much sense your argument makes:

Person A: Boys and Girls have different genitalia.

You: You have no idea what you are talking about!! Boys and Girls are exactly the same as each other. The only difference is they have different genitalia!!

Person A: Um, yeah. That's what we are talking about...

 

[This is The End]

Nearly all other states:

1) do not insist that the state prove that there was no "reasonable fear" involved - instead, the defendant would have to prove that he or she did have reasonable fear.

This is incorrect.

You are wrong. Mumbles is incorrect. Perhaps you don't understand the difference between trial and pre-trial.

It is plain that McGlockton was the aggressor in this case, having escalated a purely verbal confrontation (which is not illegal) into a physical one (which is illegal). McGlockton committed a crime of assault.

Wrong on both counts.

The verbal confrontation can be illegal or legal. If he was threatening violence that would be illegal. If he was making demands that would be illegal. If he was disturbing the peace that would be illegal.

The physical confrontation could also be illegal or legal. If he was protecting someone it would be legal. If he was protecting himself it would be legal.

Your racial bias is showing.

 

[This is The End]

Somehow I'm not surprised that you're unwilling to have your beliefs challenged. I guess you will just keep on believing the fantasy world you developed. But hey, you do you.

Mumbles is 100% correct. And if you would read the appropriate thread and facts of the case you would know that.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Again, your "only difference" is the exact same ****** one under discussion.

This is how much sense your argument makes:

Person A: Boys and Girls have different genitalia.

You: You have no idea what you are talking about!! Boys and Girls are exactly the same as each other. The only difference is they have different genitalia!!

Person A: Um, yeah. That's what we are talking about...

How does if there is a duty to retreat or not effect that you can only use deadly force if you have a reasonable belief that you are in imminent threat of losing your life, or suffering severe bodily harm?

If I take on your analogy, I am arguing that Boys and Girls are both human despite the minor difference of genitalia. You are arguing that Boys aren't human because they have different genitalia to Girls.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Mumbles is 100% correct. And if you would read the appropriate thread and facts of the case you would know that.

Why would I bother with threads that filled with speculation and myths created out of thin air by people with no connection to the case when I can get the direct evidence and facts as given in court at the time by those that were there and dealt with the case?

 

[This is The End]

Why would I bother with threads that filled with speculation and myths created out of thin air by people with no connection to the case when I can get the direct evidence and facts as given in court at the time by those that were there and dealt with the case?

What matters are the actual facts in the case. Not where they are acquired. Mistakes can happen in courts just as often as in internet forums as we all saw in the Amanda Knox case.

IOW, nice appeal to authority fallacy.

All of the evidence that Zimmerman was not justified in shooting is from Zimmerman's own mouth. Mostly from the Sean Hannity interview, the walk-through video, and the various phone calls, including the clandestinely recorded jailhouse phone calls.

2 of the 6 six jurors said they made the wrong decision within one week of the case being over. After they were shown all of the evidence that the defense was able to block.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

It's pretty amusing to see people still being this wrong about the Zimmerman / Trayvon affair this long afterward.

That case and the opinions people held about it were an absolute clown show. Many, many people were brought over to the alt-right because of how the media approached that case and how clearly it revealed (like the OJ verdict before it) just how irrational, tribal and criminal-loving most blacks in the U.S. are.

I watched every moment of the trial, and pre-trial, and every piece of media I could get my hands on. I confess to having been obsessed with it.

There is really no question or doubt at all that the verdict was correct and that Zimmerman (with all his faults) was legally justified in shooting Martin. The law and evidence were VERY clear and the only reason a trial or charges took place was appeasement of ignorant racial mobs crying out for blood and vengeance.

It was quite clear what happened. A busybody neighborhood watch guy was being arguably a bit over proactive and maybe trying to feel like a bit of a hero by being the eyes and ears of the cops and ended up irritating a young criminal thug who resented being kept track of, so the thug attacked him viciously.

Trayvon had every opportunity in the world to come out of that night alive, probably even well into his physical assault upon Zimmerman. But he just kept at it because the same poor impulse control and violent nature which inspired him to approach and attack GZ in the first place continued to inspire him to take it way too far even as his victim laid there screaming bloody murder.

Richly deserved fate. Richly deserved acquittal.

2 of the 6 six jurors said they made the wrong decision within one week of the case being over. After they were shown all of the evidence that the defense was able to block.

Incorrect. After they were exposed to the madness the rules of sequestration were specifically in place to shield them from.

They came into contact with a torrent of insane, emotional, and threatening nonsense which made it quite clear that backpedaling and disavowing their verdict might be an appealing option to get some heat off them.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It's possible the shooter was looking for a fight.

Yea but there is nothing illegal about that in florida.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Tough to claim self defense when you picked the fight.

If you are losing there it seems pretty easy.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yet another thread where a hotheaded idiot with a gun will find defenders despite his inexcusable actions.

What a hero! Zimmerman-like qualities. Starts abusing and bullying a young woman who commits a minor misdemeanour, suffers a reasonable reaction from her partner, kills him.

NRA has yet another poster boy.

I wonder how much he will be able to auction the gun off for? Gun owners love these guns.

 

[ponderingturtle]

This appears to be bull-****. The man was pushed over, and the deceased was standing away, not attacking, and telling the man on the ground to get **********... and then he was executed. Keep lookin' good, Florida. Keep Lookin' good.

Starting a fight and losing it is always an acceptable reason to shoot in florida, see Zimmerman.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Yea but there is nothing illegal about that in florida.

If you are losing there it seems pretty easy.

It would really help if you actually knew what you were talking about instead of pulling crap out of your arse.

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony;  or

(2) Initially provokes the use or threatened use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force or threat of force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use or threatened use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant;  or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use or threatened use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use or threatened use of force.

Please stop it with your BS, all you are doing is making yourself look silly and weakening your own arguments.

 

[ponderingturtle]

But shooting the guy who is backing away from you after pushing you to the ground is? Even if he is never arrested, I think the shooter is going to end up paying for his actions for the rest of his life.

Yep this is why making it illegal is unnecessary.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Zimmerman, like this guy, was plainly the aggressor, and white, while the murdered person in both cases was black.

*shrug* Not sure why anyone is surprised by this, I fully expected it after various racists rushed to Zimmerman's defense and claiming that Martin was some sort of black brute, jive-talking stereotype.

ETA: regarding World Star Hip Hop: haven't seen anyone concern themselves with that site for years - it was a place to see nuditiy in amateur rap videos, and to watch idiots injure themselves or others.

You'll note that I didn't specify black idiots. Mostly because pretty much anyone getting beaten or tazed would cut it. College kids rioting because their team won or lost, that guy that grabbed a waitress' ass and got bodyslammed the other day,

Clearly he should have shot her for that. That would have been legal in all 50 states apparently.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

They came into contact with a torrent of insane, emotional, and threatening nonsense which made it quite clear that backpedaling and disavowing their verdict might be an appealing option to get some heat off them.

Interesting what the death of another human being, justified by a ridiculous law, does to people.

It's insanity.

 

[Wolrab]

I watched the video. There is no audio. What I see is a man checking out a vehicle. He approaches the driver's side and then backs off a step or two and appears to be pointing out other parking spaces. He does not appear to be gesticulating too wildly. When the boyfriend comes out, the old guy is distracted by the vehicle door opening and does not see or react the the boyfriend coming at him. The boyfriend violently shoves the guy to the ground. We can't see if his head strikes the ground as it is blocked by the boyfriend's body. The guy on the ground goes for his weapon and shoots the boyfriend within 4 seconds of hitting the ground. We don't know what the boyfriend was saying before the guy shoots.

Speculation does not help.

 

[Drewbot]

Disagree. The deceased blindsided him and wrecked him. That would be 15 yards and an ejection for targeting. The guy who got blindsided seemed totally dazed.

Pro tip, do not park in handicapped spots.

Video of the initial assault with intent to injure.

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=szemB_1532302198

 

[ponderingturtle]

This is just plain wrong. Every State requires this. Self Defense has no burden on the Defendant to show it being true beyond their normal burden to convince the jury it is, it is part of the Defense's case and just with any other part of the Defense's case, the burden is on the State, which has to show that it is not true beyond reasonable doubt.

I don't know about that, I don't think that proving no reasonable fear or not would come into the grand jury in other states for example.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I honestly wouldn't bother, a number of posters here have convinced themselves that their make-believe world around that case is the real truth, despite the fact that the Zimmerman trial is one of the few US Court Cases that can be watched in it's entirety on YouTube.

Yep nothing aggressive about stalking someone in their own neighborhood. It becomes a simple question on who is black then.