Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Debate rages over 'Stand Your Ground' law. Who couldn't have predicted this? The Zimmerman case has been used as a tool by the left to further divide races and to dust off the left's favorite project - gun control. If Zimmerman is lying, then he did not follow the law, so why is changing the law being discussed? This strange logic has been used before. Illegal aliens ignore our immigration laws, so the politicians follow suit and even sue states if they dare try adhering to the law. The war on drugs wasn't going well because criminal kept ignoring drug laws, so some want to do away with laws and legalize drugs. Now, they just want to do away with a law that allows people to defend themselves. Of course, they don't want to stop with the law, they just want to take away guns so people won't have the means to defend themselves. The criminals always win when the leftie lawyers (and most Democrat politicians are lawyers) get involved and start making changes.
If they overturn the SYG law, only honest citizens will be affected. I know they are trying to make Zimmerman the criminal here, like they did with AZ for protecting borders and anti-amnesty groups. The left doesn't recognize the enemy as the gangs, drug dealers, illegal aliens or other criminals. They'd sooner convict a tea party member for holding up a sign they don't like than tackle gangs committing drive by shootings.
Some claim that Zimmerman murdered intentionally and is trying to twist the law to his advantage. The left has to push that theory if they are to use this case as an argument for gun control. I don't see any evidence that Zimmerman is using the SYG law. Self defense has been a legitimate defense forever and Zimmerman's lawyer will need to prove that.
I think it's the media and the left twisting this whole story to fit an agenda. Why else did they put out so much false information and continue to do so after they knew they were reporting lies? They had to keep reporting that Zimmerman was white, Martin was just a little kid and that the Florida law allowed Zimmerman to get away with murder. If they had been honest, this case would be the worst example to use for their argument of gun control and white racism.
Y! Big Story: After Zimmerman arrest, questions about
Did you even bother to read or comprehend the article you linked?
No one is contemplating eliminating SYG, the article examines whether or not the Zimmerman defense team will be able to make use of the statue.
Even state sponsors of SYG concede it may not be applicable in the Zimmerman case:
Supporters [of SYG] such as former Republican senator Durell Peaden and Rep. Dennis Baxley, who co-sponsored the bill, or former Florida governor Jeb Bush, who signed the bill into law, have said Zimmerman lost his right to this defense when he sought out Martin. Bush stated that "Stand your ground means stand your ground. It doesn't mean chase after somebody who's turned their back."I think it's the media and the left twisting this whole story to fit an agenda.
Thats rightwing partisan idiocy, youve got republican politicians stating Zimmerman likely isnt covered by the provision.
Serious question...
**IF** Zimmerman attacked Martin and Martin was in fear of imminent death or great bodily injury - would he be justified in the use of force and even lethal force under FL Statute 776.012 to defend himself?
>>>>
Serious answer:
I see zero evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin (except for the final shot).
But, as a purely hypothetical question, IF Zimmerman had attacked Martin, according to the Florida Law it sure appears that YES he would have been within his legal right to stand his ground and meet the use or threatened us of force with a forceful response. Indeed, if the fear of death or great bodily injury reasonably existed, the right to use force in response would have included the use of deadly force.
It would be (in most cases) for a judge and or a jury to determine whether or not the justification defense was warranted, though.
Thank you very much for the serious answer.
The problem we in the public have right now is that we are not privy to all the evidence that has been developed in this case, much of it probably developed AFTER the event. Given the information we have available there is a critical gap in determining exactly (a) who initiated hostilities, and (b) if at any time during the course of hostilities EITHER Zimmerman or Martin had the chance (as an aggressor) to disengage and apply the reasonable person requirement to flee prior when the event escalated to the point of imminent death or great bodily injury. Such things as:
- The autopsy report showing the bullets path of travel and where Zimmerman would have had to be in relationship to Martin for that path (Under Martin? Over Martin? At some distance from Martin?).
- Toxicological report on Martin, was he under the influence of any drugs or alcohol? (If he was, then that lends credibility to Zimmerman's Dispatcher call, if not, then that shows Zimmerman may have been embellishing the initial call to produce a police response.) To bad there was no toxicological tests run on Zimmerman to see if he was under the influence.
- Forensic analysis for Martins clothes pertaining to the the gunshot. (Was the gun in contact with the clothes? Did it occur at some distance?)
- Forensic analysis of Martins phone. If it was a "smartphone" was GPS enabled, if yes were their GPS logs on the phone showing Martin's position during the event. If there were and the showed Martin continuing to move away from Zimmerman's truck, then that undercuts Zimmerman's story that he was proceeding back to the truck and Martin ambushed him.
- Etc.
Given the information available to the public and lack of evidence forthcoming, than if I was on the jury and had to make a call right now, I'd vote "Not Guilty" because their is a reasonable doubt. That opinion could change though if new information come available.
>>>>
No. Zimmerman should hang regardless if he violated the "spirit" or letter of the law. It compromises all of us should he have done so. If I was on his jury, I would up the anty myself and press for his gassing. I do not want anything to jeopardize my right to "Stand My Ground."
Sorry I disagree.
I assume this post is intended to either be hyperbole.
>>>>
Please then explain. I thought I understood the reading of your post correctly.
I don't know that the police came to ANY such conclusion. I don't know that the thing I saw on the back of Zimmerman's head wasn't related to the alleged pounding. I don't know whether or not Zimmerman HAD any broken nose.
I don't think any of us presently KNOW any such thing one way or the other.
Good points, the prosecution has the evidence, the Judge found only PROBABLE CAUSE. We will learn later what the evidence is.
A judge found that an affidavit alleged probable cause.
That's not really much of anything to base any conclusion on.
It amounts to a determination that IF the prosecutor's allegations are established, then there is probable cause to arrest an accused. But no judge has yet heard any actual evidence to determine whether or not the prosecutor's allegations ARE established or even able to BE established.
Ultimately, we may know. Right now, for the most part, we barely know diddly dog.
Circuit Court Judge Jessica Recksiedler spoke with Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, on speaker phone inside the courtroom. Recksiedler's husband is partners in a legal firm with Mark Nejame, the legal analyst hired by CNN.
O'Mara said he had not filed a motion asking her to recuse herself at this time but would make a decision by Monday.
Recksiedler asked him to file, if he decides to do so, as soon as possible. She said she disclosed the information immediately to allow it to be addressed.
"If you do choose to file a motion, we do have a bond hearing Friday," she said.
Sorry I disagree.
I assume this post is intended to either be hyperbole.
>>>>
Please then explain. I thought I understood the reading of your post correctly.
Right now, given the limited information available to the public - there is little to no corroborative evidence from the dispatcher call by Zimmerman to the time the first witness arrived on scene (and even then there are conflicting reports). At this point in time and given the concept of reasonable doubt, if I were on the jury and had to vote I'd say "not guilty"
Without corroborative evidence we DON'T KNOW who the aggressor was. Zimmerman is facing criminal charges, of course he claims Martin attacked him. Martin is unavailable to provide his story. The best that can be hoped for is that the police have been able to develop witness profiles that support or undermine Zimmerman's story. That law enforcement has been able to develop forensic evidence that supports or undermines Zimmerman's story.
There are at least two possible scenarios:
Scenario #1:
Martin was the aggressor and Zimmerman was attacked. In which case Zimmerman was authorized the use of deadly force at the point he felt threatened with imminent death or great bodily injury. Zimmerman would be authorized under the law to shoot Martin.
Scenario #2:
Zimmerman was the aggressor and Martin was attacked. In which case Martin was authorized the use of force and could respond to Zimmerman's attack including wrestling him to the ground and attempting to render him unconscious by smaking his head into the ground if he felt he could not disengage or if Zimmerman prevented him from disengaging.
At this point in time and given the concept of reasonable doubt, if I were on the jury and had to vote I'd say "not guilty"
Does that help?
>>>>
I gave you an answer...I can't help it IF you took it other than how it was presented.Ah, I see, a question you don't want to answer because it appears to not conform to your preconceived bias in the case.
Having a hard time thinking in terms of Martin being the one exercising his right to self-defense under Stand Your Ground?
>>>>
You see NOTHING of the sort. I am asking questions...YOU however are a presumptive SOB.
Sometime a lack of answer and resorting to personal insults is all the answer that is required.
>>>>
Boy T I gotta hand it to you, you got the goods right at your fingertips. Kudos.
i gave you an answer...i can't help it if you took it other than how it was presented.you see nothing of the sort. I am asking questions...you however are a presumptive sob.
sometime a lack of answer and resorting to personal insults is all the answer that is required.
>>>>
Not my problem...in your purview. Context is everything...asshole.
i gave you an answer...i can't help it if you took it other than how it was presented.sometime a lack of answer and resorting to personal insults is all the answer that is required.
>>>>
Not my problem...in your purview. Context is everything...asshole.
>>>>
i gave you an answer...i can't help it if you took it other than how it was presented.
Not my problem...in your purview. Context is everything...asshole.
>>>>
Glad you find humour in it.
Perhaps the two of you might have more in common than not? Just asking.
Perhaps the two of you might have more in common than not? Just asking.
By now, the scene is familiar: Two men get into an altercation one black, one Hispanic. One is armed with a handgun and shoots the other dead. The victim is unarmed; the shooter claims self-defense and walks free. For more than a month, the victim's family waits to see whether authorities will file charges against the shooter. Except this tragedy did not play out in Sanford, Fla., where an unarmed black teen was shot and killed by a Hispanic neighborhood watch volunteer. It occurred in a Taco Bell parking lot in Phoenix on April 3, when a black driver and an Hispanic pedestrian got into a shouting match and the driver shot the pedestrian dead.
As in the Trayvon Martin case in Florida, where police did not arrest George Zimmerman for 45 days, a stand-your-ground law is influencing law enforcement action in the Phoenix shooting. Since Trayvon's death, these laws and how they are applied by police and prosecutors are under renewed scrutiny. At least 21 states have adopted some variation of the controversial law that says a person does not have to retreat in the face of a threat and can use deadly force if they fear they are in danger of death or serious harm. "I look at the Trayvon Martin case, and what happened to my son is almost the same thing," says Daniel Adkins, 59, who mourns the death of his only son and namesake, Daniel Jr., 29. "I want justice. Why haven't they arrested him?"
Most stand-your-ground laws grant a person who uses deadly force the presumption that he acted reasonably unless there is evidence to the contrary. If there are no witnesses and the victim is dead, or if the evidence is conflicting, the chances are greater that someone can "get away with murder," Savannah Law School professor Elizabeth Megale. "The statute can be used and distorted by hard-core criminals or someone who has committed a crime," she says. "Most times, someone will get arrested if the other person does not die. It's ironic. If someone dies, the other person is less likely to get arrested."
John Roman, a fellow with the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute, analyzed homicides in the U.S. from 2005 to 2009. He found that homicides are twice as likely to be ruled justifiable in stand-your-ground states than in those without such laws. The presumption that a person acted reasonably is appropriate, says Charles Heller, co-founder of Arizona Citizens Defense League, which advocates for gun rights. "People have a right to defend themselves," he says. The presumption of reasonableness makes police and prosecutors think twice before charging someone. "It stops avaricious prosecutors from overdoing their jobs."
MORE
