Don't Ignore the Evidence: Stand Your Ground Is Bad for Florida

[SecularMotion]

As the director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, I've dedicated much of my career to researching the issue of gun violence. Too often I have seen policy makers make decisions about guns which were dictated not by the scientific evidence but rather by emotion and special interests. Thus their policy decisions have often reduced rather than promoted public safety. I hope the same phenomenon does not occur in Florida with respect to its Stand Your Ground Law.

Following the tragic shooting of Trayvon Martin, Florida Governor Rick Scott's Task Force on Citizen Safety and Protection has spent five months reviewing the state's Stand Your Ground law. I was pleased to hear that one of its monthly meetings would be devoted to scholarly research about the effects of the law since its passage in 2005. This was the Task Force's chance to take scientific evidence into its assessment of what has understandably become an emotionally charged issue.

The Task Force asked the University of Florida to conduct research on the impact of the state's Stand Your Ground law. Not surprisingly the researchers were unable to draw strong conclusions given the data and the short time frame they were allowed. But frighteningly, the Task Force seemed to take the researchers' incomplete report as evidence that Stand Your Ground is a good law. Task Force member and Stand Your Ground bill sponsor Rep. Dennis Baxley even went so far as to assert that the data supported his contention that the law is not associated with an increase in violent crime.

Contrary to that claim, the best available research evidence indicates that Stand Your Ground laws are dangerous, with few redeeming benefits to society.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-hemenway-phd/stand-your-ground_b_2119322.html

[orpupilofnature57]

1. There shouldn't be a law, for something that SHOULD virtually have Minuscule

odds of happening . It's promoting Idiots, like that Wanna-be a cop that shot that Child earlier this year .

[Eleanors38]

3. SYG is a self-defense law which places the burden

on the state to prove a crime was committed in a SYG situation. Before SYG, the state could bring up all matter of action against a "defender," centered on whether sufficient warnings were given, he/she ran far and fast enough, fled to a house, or used disproportionate force against, say, a knife-wielder. Further, SYG hearings don't always go the defenders way. It's not perfect, but it's better than before.

I'll wait for the legal outcome, but that "child" was bigger than most adults.

[JDPriestly]

6. The problem with SYG in terms of the law is that it makes it cruelly easy to

presume that a killing of an innocent, non-threatening person is self-defense.

My criticism of SYG laws is that they grant a benefit of the doubt to the killer. In traditional self-defense law, the killer who claims to have been acting in self-defense bears the burden of proving that he faced a REASONABLE threat of harm to himself or others. With the SYG laws, that burden remains but is placed on the prosecution -- which was not present at the killing.

In my opinion, this shifting of that burden is a negation of centuries of Anglo-Saxon law. It signals to me a terrible decline in our society's morality and respect for human life.

I am disgusted with SYG laws and believe that the people who support them are being fooled by the gun industry. These laws are a first step into a world of the barbaric. These laws mean that the life of a person carrying a gun is more highly valued than the lives of those who do not carry a gun. Before long we will have gun fights in the street. I do not believe that to be an exaggeration.

I strongly oppose SYG laws. Our traditional self-defense laws were fine as they were. The burden of proof with regard to self-defense should be on the killer. It is not enough that a person honestly believed he was in dire danger. That belief must be reasonable, and the person claiming to have believed that a situation was extreme enough to warrant killing another person should be responsible for proving that his or her belief was warranted.

Murder is the most serious of crimes, and murderers should stand to answer for their conduct.

[PavePusher]

11. It should never be the duty of a defendant to prove innocence.

It must always be the duty of the state to prove guilt. "Presumption of innocence" is one of the cornorstones of our legal system. Let's keep it that way.

[orpupilofnature57]

13. Fuck that,, when you assume the role of the " State "

[PavePusher]

19. Huh? I've assumed nothing.

By the way, all powers of the state are delegated to it, but are, in fact, inherent to the Citizens. That's another cornorstone of our Democratic Republic. The state has only the powers the people give it, and we may take them back at any time.

[orpupilofnature57]

48. Not you, the person who has assumed role of Judge, Jury and Executioner.

[NewMoonTherian]

56. Or the person...

who chose the only available option for the preservation of his or her life. How is that person supposed to prove a legitimate threat? How can you throw out presumption of innocence and still expect anyone to have any faith in the justice system? How many people are you willing to have wrongly imprisoned?

[orpupilofnature57]

74. I don't mean to mix SYG, protecting your-self, with the Zimmerman's with a

gun .

[glacierbay]

61. In a sense you're right

but who forces one to make that decision? The perp who would put the law abiding citizen in that situation, and it's not assumed role, that would be a vigilante, which SYG has nothing to do with vigilantism.

[PavePusher]

67. Oh, you mean criminals who attack or threaten to attack people? n/t

[orpupilofnature57]

73. I mean anyone who takes the law in to their own hands, Criminals included.

[PavePusher]

78. Self-defense is not "taking the law into their own hands".....

it is, in fact, very much within the law.

I know that vexes you.

[Starboard Tack]

14. It never was about "proving" innocence

You kill somebody, you need to justify it, not prove it. Big difference.

[gejohnston]

58. prove innocence of a crime

murder and homicide are not the same thing. While all murders are homicides (not counting ancient Greece who viewed killing a dolphin as murder, but I digress), not all homicides are murders.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

86. SYG did not change the legal standard about necessity

Only the duty to retreat

[Starboard Tack]

92. And apparently, to some at least, the illusion of a free pass.

It took it to "any place one has a right to be" and relies on a subjective claim of reasonable fear for one's life.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

98. I agree that some people have illusions about the law

There was the perp convicted of murder when he claimed SYG while shooting a neighbor.

There are those who claim that SYG is legalized murder.

Both of them are under false illusions.

[Starboard Tack]

102. In the Nussbaumer case it definitely looked like legalized murder.

I really have a problem accepting her claim of fear for her life from a naked guy whom she has already calmly removed from her house by having him follow her. Once in the street, she had access to her gun, which she could have used to hold him at bay until LE backup could arrive. I don't buy that her only option was to shoot the guy. But the police, prosecutors and people are buying it and I think that is truly fucked up.

[GreenStormCloud]

123. As usual you attempt to minimize what the criminal was doing.

Your posts are always against anyone who uses a gun in self-defense. Here is a link to details of the Nussbaumer shooting: http://www.northescambia.com/2012/01/state-attorney-reserve-trooper-justified-in-shooting-naked-armed-invader

Bold font is from the article:

The State Attorney says a reserve Florida Highway Patrol trooper was justified when she shot and killed her neighbor, who was naked and armed with a bow and arrow, after a home invasion in Escambia County.

So he was armed. Single you will likely try to minimize his armament, remember Agincourt. Since you are a Brit you should be well familiar with the English armament of that battle and what it did to the French knights.

A Medical Examiner’s report said the deceased man, Sean Thomas Harris had cocaine, cannabis, opiates, methadone and amphetamines in his blood at the time of the shooting.

Doesn't sound like he is going to be rational, does it?

Reserve Trooper Tabbatha Nussbaumer was in the shower in her upstairs bedroom in the Scenic Heights neighborhood area when her 9-year-old son ran in and told her a man he didn’t recognize was in the house. Nussbaumer exited her room and was confronted by Harris, who was at the bottom of the stairs holding a bow and arrow.

He was an armed home invader.

Nussbaumer told Pensacola Police that Harris asked her where the money was located. In an effort to get the suspect out of her house and away from her son, she told him it was in her truck parked on the street. As she exited the front door, Harris followed, removed his clothes and approached her as she was at her vehicle, which was parked in the street.

She managed to trick him exiting the house to follow her. But he is between her and the house, naked but still armed, and advancing toward her. He has the opportunity to gravely harm her, has the ability to gavely harm her, and is demonstrating the intent to rape her. Opportunity, ability, and an overt demonstration of intent meet the classic, legal definition of the requirement for self-defense.

Police said Nussbaumer removed a handgun from the truck, turned around and faced Harris, who was standing a few feet from her. She said that she ordered him to the ground, but Harris instead advanced toward her, and she fired one shot.

She tried to hold him at gunpoint but he wasn't having any of it. With his mind blown my a drug cocktail, that isn't surprising. She tried your suggested non-violent solution but it didn't work. Only then did she shoot.

Naturally you side with a drug addled, armed home invading, would be rapist.

[Starboard Tack]

125. "Naturally you side with a drug addled, armed home invading, would be rapist. "

I don't know where you get that idea. I have never "sided" with any rapist, would be rapist or other violent criminal. Because I do not consider the shooting SD based on the news reports has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the dead guy.
It does say that he was armed with a bow inside the house and asked for money. How did you come up with the rape theory? Top of your head, or was it because while following her outside he removed all his clothes? Think about that. He removed his clothes. Naked guy. Where's the bow and arrow now? He moved toward her. No mention of pointing a bow at her. Maybe you are not familiar with bows, but when only a few feet from your target, they tend to get in the way.
And how do you interpret "he advanced toward her"? How far? An inch? A step? Or maybe he just didn't get the message to lie down. Anyway, she killed him. No tears being shed by me. Maybe the next guy she shoots will be deaf.

Point is, he was not home invading when she shot him. And I see nothing that says he was still armed.

[GreenStormCloud]

126. Arrows make rather good short spears. You can stab with them.

Why do you think he got naked and came at her? Why didn't he stop when she pointed the gun at him and told him to? Do you really think he left the bow and arrows in the house when he followed her to the truck?

In all of these type threads you always side with the criminal and minimize the crime. Just as in this thread you are accusing the woman of murder.

[Starboard Tack]

127. Not murder necessarily. But not justifiable homicide either.

As neither of us were there, I have no idea if he managed to remove all his clothes while still pointing a bow and arrow at her. What we do know is she was several feet away and had reached her vehicle, where she told him she was going to get money for him. Remember he was a neighbor from across the street. He had walked in and spoken to the son who then went to mom who was in the shower. So, the "drug addled rapist" politely waited for her to finish showering, dress, come down and talk. He asked for money, not her body. She shot him. Not very professional IMO.

[Starboard Tack]

128. I don't side with the criminal. I concentrate on options to killing.

If she felt her only option was to kill the guy, then her LE training was seriously lacking.

[GreenStormCloud]

129. Fresh out of the shower, I rather doubt that she had her equipment belt.

She was in the shower when this all started. At most she likely had on a bathrobe - and nothing else under it. He is still armed with an arrow, and being a guy is likly going to be stronger anyway. He has taken his clothes off, because he can tell that she is wearing only the bathrobe, he gets excited and is advancing towards her. You can't even see the obvious, that he had rape on his drug-addled mind. She told him at gun point to stop and he didn't.

Yet you insist on faulting the woman.

You even tried to make his demand for money sound like a polite request.

You are solidly siding with an armed criminal.

[Starboard Tack]

130. I think you need to do some reality testing here.

Think about it. Your imagination is running away with you. There is no mention anywhere of an arrow, or that he threatened anyone, or that he still had his bow after exiting the house. The only thing we know is he told the boy he wanted to talk to his mother, then waited downstairs while she finished showering and came to talk to him. He was a neighbor, remember. He asked, maybe "demanded" money. Nowhere is there a mention of him wanting to rape her, nor is his behavior that of a rapist. You are making the whole rape thing up, to justify her shooting him. We have no idea if he regularly came to her house, nor how friendly or even intimate they were.

She says she told him to stop. That's the entire problem with SYG in Florida. She says she was so scared she had to shoot him. Sorry, I'm not buying it and that has nothing, ZERO to do with siding with the "criminal", but rather calling a bullshit law what it is.

I fault the woman for her poor choice and the law for giving her the freedom to kill with impunity.

[GreenStormCloud]

131. Do you have reading problems?

From you: There is no mention anywhere of an arrow,
From the same article I referenced above: Nussbaumer exited her room and was confronted by Harris, who was at the bottom of the stairs holding a bow and arrow.

If he wasn't about to try to rape her, why did he take his clothes off, outside?

Nothing in the article says that he left his bow and arrow inside the house so it is reasonable to conclude that he still had it. You are making stuff in an attempt to paint a criminal in the most positive light possible.

BTW, "neighbor" does not mean "friend". I simply means, "person who lives closeby". She likely did know him and knew the kind of person that he was and feared him.

Further, if a person enters your residence, armed and uninvited, and demands money, that makes them an ARMED ROBBER. She would have been fully justified in blowing him away right then, but she didn't have a gun.

Nothing in the article says that he waited patiently for her to get fully dressed. You desire to cover up for the armed robber is causing you to make stuff up. The article says: Reserve Trooper Tabbatha Nussbaumer was in the shower in her upstairs bedroom in the Scenic Heights neighborhood area when her 9-year-old son ran in and told her a man he didn’t recognize was in the house. Nussbaumer exited her room and was confronted by Harris, who was at the bottom of the stairs holding a bow and arrow. Greatest probability is that she was greatly alarmed by her son's report and grabbed a bathrobe. Likely she didn't even towel off first. Her first concern would have been the safety of her son and finding out what was happening. That requires speed, which means grabbing a bathrobe.

You have absolutely no information that they had a relationship, yet you attempt to imply that they were even intimate. If he came regularly to her house, wouldn't her son at least recognize him? He was a stranger to her son, thereby stongly suggesting that he was NOT a regular at her house.

Advancing towards her? Where did he leave his clothes, where was the bow and arrow, and where was the body?

When an armed man strips naked and advances on a woman, do you really think he just wants to chat?

[Starboard Tack]

133. As you said, he was drug addled.

Holding a bow and arrow is not necessarily a threatening act. There is no mention of pointing it. A rapist does not usually wait for his victim at the bottom of the stairs while hie victim gets out of the shower and dresses. Nor does he walk into the street and undress on the way, while somehow still clutching his bow and arrow. The arrow, which according to you, has now become a weapon he is going to stab her with. If he were still armed, why don't we know this?
"Likely she didn't even towel off first" - Why? The body was in the street? Away from her house and property. Clothes, bow and arrow? You tell me where they were. And btw, he lived directly across the street.
Advancing toward her is not attacking. Remember she was leading him to give him money from her purse which was in the vehicle. The absurdity of a would-be rapist following his victim into the street in order to rape her is beyond ridiculous. She never claimed fear of rape. You made it up.

[gejohnston]

134. you don't know she didn't claim it

just because the media doesn't mention it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[Starboard Tack]

144. There's lot we don't know.

I base my case on what we do know, while GSC makes up a whole scenario about intended rape and robbery and using an arrow as a stabbing tool. All are possibilities, but I've seen no evidence in the reports to back any of that up.
What we do know is he lived across the street (houses facing each other) with his mother. We know he asked, maybe demanded money. We know he waited at the bottom of the stairs while the kid went to tell Nussbaumer there was a guy downstairs. We know he was high as a kite and was holding a bow (no mention of threatening or pointing, or even any arrows). We know she got out of the shower, dressed, came downstairs, spoke with him and led him out to her vehicle. We know that when he arrived in the street he had removed his clothes and approached her. We know that she claims to have ordered him to stop and we know that she says he continued toward her (no mention of weapon or threats, just nakedness). We know she shot and killed him in the street.
I would be happy to consider any other facts.

[gejohnston]

145. news reports rarely if ever give such details,

but police reports do. Since the cops and the DA seem not to have a problem with it, That said, cops are held to a lower standard than the average CCW type person.

[Starboard Tack]

146. In this case, I agree she was held to a lower standard.

Depending on the situation, cops may be held to a higher standard, which should have applied here IMO, but the buddy network appears to have trumped it. Otherwise we would have more info on public record.

[gejohnston]

147. I doubt there would be more in the media

papers have to have a enough space to report on Paris Hilton's latest pair of shoes.

[JDPriestly]

20. In the law, self-defense is one of a number of defenses to murder.

All of those defenses have to be proved by the defense.

A defendant has to assert and prove its defense.

If a person is accused of burglary and evidence is found that they actually committed the burglary, the defendant must assert and prove any defense it has against being found guilty.

How else could it work?

The prosecution first proves that the defendant committed the act. Then once that evidence has been produced and presented, the defendant presents the evidence showing that he or she has a valid defense. It's simply logical. SYG makes no sense.

[gejohnston]

30. no not quite

but self defense, justifiable homicide, is not a crime. Murder is a crime. In these cases, the shooter usually calls the cops and stipulates that he killed someone, the prosecution doesn't have to prove anything at that point. Your analogy only works if the shooter runs.

So, while you did kill someone, it is up to the State to prove it was murder. While your history is correct about English common law, but SYG began to appear in US common law during the Progressive era.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

87. You are misunderstanding key details

SYG did not change the requirements on the shooter to show that the use of deadly force was legal. All it did was remove the duty to retreat. Nothing more.

[JDPriestly]

89. SYG seems to change the order in which the evidence regarding

self-defense is presented. That changes the requirement with regard to who asserts what and who brings the evidence. It changes a lot when it comes to proving a charge.

As I understand it, the the Defendant asks for a hearing on self-defense before the prosecutor has fully presented the theory of his case and the evidence backing the prosecution case to the court.

Seems to me that the Defendant moves to have the SYG hearing. The party who moves for the hearing will bear the burden seems to me.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

90. The early hearing is unique to FL

It is a hearing focused solely on justify the use of deadly force (reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death).

Self defense is by definition is an affirmative defense with the burden falling on the defendant. To the best of my knowledge, FL did not change that.

[JDPriestly]

95. That is what I am talking about.

Self-defense should remain an affirmative defense with the burden falling on the defendant. I don't see the need for the special hearing focused on the justification for the use of deadly force taking place at the beginning of the disposition of the case.

Is the hearing on the justification of the use of deadly force before a jury or heard by a judge in Florida?

[gejohnston]

96. a judge, it is a pre trial motion

I read someplace that in Texas, all use of force goes to a grand jury.

[JDPriestly]

118. The grand jury is a good idea in my opinion.

That would make the SYG laws superfluous since the grand jury would not bring charges if self-defense or defense of others was a workable defense.

Killing someone is a serious offense. I do not agree with those who are so worried about people who are defending themselves when shooting someone having to stand trial.

[gejohnston]

119. one correction

Killing someone is not always an offense, justifiable homicide is not a crime. Murder is a serious offense. That is the problem, it forces a defendant to prove that he is innocent of murder or manslaughter. The burden of proof should always be on the State, no exceptions. Having to prove your innocence is incompatible with a liberal democracy.

[JDPriestly]

120. The burden of proof is traditionally on the state to first prove that

there was a killing and that the defendant did it. When the reason for the killing is obviously self-defense, the prosecutor has the discretion to not bring charges.

Having to prove self-defense is different from having to prove innocence. The defense of self-defense should only be plead if the defendant admits to having done the killing or if the fact that the defendant did the killing is not in question. The prosecution is responsible for proving that the defendant did the killing. The prosecutor bears the burden for proving the killing and brings and presents the evidence to prove that charge.

To make the prosecutor then bear the burden for proving that the defendant has a defense against the killing would be absurd.]

You can't place the prosecutor in the position of arguing to judge and/or jury: your honor, the defendant killed, second degree homicide and then have to turn around and argue against himself and say, "But I take that back, sort of. It wasn't really homicide in the second degree. It was merely manslaughter or it wasn't really homicide at all but rather self-defense."

Sorry, but the prosecutor has to be somewhat consistent in what he is arguing. If the prosecutor believes the evidence is strong for self-defense then he should not bring the charges.

Indeed, in the Zimmerman case, for example, (and many other cases) there was a controversy because the prosecutor or police first decided not to bring charges at all on the ground that Zimmerman acted in self-defense.

The charges were brought, according to the prosecutor, because of contradictions in Zimmerman's testimony. The prosecutor would not have brought the charges had the case been clearly one of self-defense.

Believe it or not, the fact that someone is killed does not always mean that charges will be brought. If they are brought, it is because the prosecutor and/or grand jury believe that the evidence warrants it.

[gejohnston]

121. you don't understand how it works

there was a killing and that the defendant did it. When the reason for the killing is obviously self-defense, the prosecutor has the discretion to not bring charges.

The shooter called the cops and said he or she did it, there is nothing for the prosecutor to prove.

Having to prove self-defense is different from having to prove innocence.

It is having to prove innocence of a crime. Justifiable homicide is not a crime. If you kill someone in self defense, you have not committed a crime.

The defense of self-defense should only be plead if the defendant admits to having done the killing or if the fact that the defendant did the killing is not in question. The prosecution is responsible for proving that the defendant did the killing. The prosecutor bears the burden for proving the killing and brings and presents the evidence to prove that charge.

That is how it works, but if you run then your self defense claim goes down hill very fast, regardless.

[JDPriestly]

138. If the defendant admits having killed the victim,

then he can, of course, bring his defense. The SYG law is not needed in that case. My understanding is the SYG law in Florida changes the order of the presentation of evidence -- that the evidence of self-defense is presented before the trial on the killing.

The trial should be immediately heard before a jury on the self-defense issue if the defendant admits to the killing, seems to me. No prior hearing by the judge is needed.

The prosecutor has the authority not to bring charges if self-defense is an obvious defense. No SYG hearing before a judge is needed, seems to me. It is a waste of the public dollar.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

99. As another posted, its a pretrial motion and hearing

Very common in just about any legal proceedings and they can be over any relevant matter. At such hearings, a judge will make rulings binding on the case. It happens all the time.

If its a SYG hearing, and if the judge finds that the shooting was justified, its case over. The DA can appeal that finding.

I like the early hearing since it save the defendant the cost and stress of a trial if the shooting was justified.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

124. Watch How the ProGun Group Twists This Around

As if innocence and self defense are the antithesis to justice.

[Eleanors38]

46. I see you point, though I can't see how much would

change with the laws. I don't foresee too many conflicts with what is essentially a self-defense "update." If hearings on SYG result in a judge not buying a defender's story (as with Zimmerman and apparently others), then there is more than just the shooter's "word" at play, and forensics are still in play.

On balance, I don't want to revert to a "duty to retreat" status. I am open to improvements to SYG, or a new law, however.

[Atypical Liberal]

77. That's not how I see it at all.

These laws mean that the life of a person carrying a gun is more highly valued than the lives of those who do not carry a gun. Before long we will have gun fights in the street. I do not believe that to be an exaggeration.

Another "the sky is falling" argument.

Many states have had SYG laws for years. Violent crime declined for decades with a small uptick last year.

But that is beside the point.

The burden of proof with regard to self-defense should be on the killer. It is not enough that a person honestly believed he was in dire danger. That belief must be reasonable, and the person claiming to have believed that a situation was extreme enough to warrant killing another person should be responsible for proving that his or her belief was warranted.

The purpose of SYG laws is that people who lawfully defend themselves with deadly force should not be forced into tens of thousands of dollars of legal fees while they defend themselves from criminal charges. And then possibly have to spend tens of thousands more to defend themselves from follow-on civil cases with lower standards of proof.

Also be aware that these kinds of laws don't say that all you have to do is claim you believed you were in dire danger and you are off Scott free. The police and possibly the DA have to make a determination as to whether the self defense claim was reasonable or not.

If you want to repeal SYG laws then you should favor some kind of legal compensation for people who lawfully defend themselves and rack up legal fees accordingly.

[JDPriestly]

81. I know what you are talking about when it comes to legal fees

and the stress of defending yourself in court. Maybe some of the laws compensating victims could be broadened to include compensation for people who kill in self-defense.

The prosecutor in a normal trial has to prove intent already. I don't think it is practical to expect the prosecutor to contradict the evidence he presents supporting the claim of intent to introduce evidence that their was no intent to kill but merely an intent to defend oneself.

Prosecutors have the discretion to bring or not bring charges. If the evidence suggests self-defense strongly enough, charges should not be brought in the first place -- or they should be brought at say the manslaughter level. And then, the prosecutor can suggest a plea bargain in any event.

Used to be conservatives were so keen on victims' rights. They hammered Democratic candidates like Dukakis on this issue. Then victims' compensation funds were created.

Now, the gun lobby has bamboozled Republicans into thinking that they need SYG laws. That is the latest Republican fad. It is mostly about selling guns. People may have the right to possess and buy guns, but the gun lobby is all too keen on getting guns into the hands of people who really don't have the judgment to handle them wisely. It isn't about protecting human lives or self-defense. It is just about making lots of money selling lots of guns.

Thus, a lot of people own guns as a symbol of something, a lot of people who are not responsible gun-owners. Sorry. That is no insult to people like some of my relatives who are responsible in that respect, who use their guns for shooting or like a person I used to know who really needed a gun for self-protection. It's a sorry shame.

[GreenStormCloud]

122. You are completely wrong.

ALL of the elements of self-defense still have to be proven. That has not changed. The only thing that has changed is the duty to retreat. I don't have to run away if I have a legal right to be where I am.

[orpupilofnature57]

10. Not big enough to withstand bullets, or the attention of a true

neighborhood threat .

[Eleanors38]

47. "Child" is used to gain some emotional high ground...

It's not as if that factor is irrelevant, but someone who is large, strong and bent on mayhem loses any advantage he/she might gain with age when another is in extremis.

I would prefer to let this trial play out.

[orpupilofnature57]

51. Your right as far as the misuse of the word " Child " but he was neither bent on mayhem,

and if someone was in " Extremis " it was the self ordained profiling, pursuing Shooter in this case .

[Eleanors38]

75. We'll have to see. Zimmerman was an ass to strut around

like a cop wanabe. He deserves the shit he's gone through, whatever the legal outcome.

[Eleanors38]

2. "Researchers were unable to draw strong conclusions..."

There's a reason for that. In the final analysis, SYG is a measure for self-defense, not social policy.

Good to see acknowledgment that those commiting homicides are most often felons, something not conceded by some.

[SecularMotion]

4. Here's the full quote

"Not surprisingly the researchers were unable to draw strong conclusions given the data and the short time frame they were allowed."

[Eleanors38]

9. Yes. "Given the data." Time's a bitch.nt

[orpupilofnature57]

12. " SYG is a measure for self - defense, NOT SOCIAL POLICY " What's the diff ????????

[Eleanors38]

40. Social policy is a set of laws and programs designed

to address the general welfare. Self-defense is an eminently indivual action. That legislation may or may not affect an individual in taking action doesn't make something like SYG any more a social policy. The same can be said of the right to bear arms (either concealed or openly). IOW, don't expect a positive or negative outcome to result from laws to recognize concealed arms, or from SYG. That is why it is difficult to say whether or not a SYG law is bad for Florida or any other society.

BTW, I don't see that many controversies arising from SYG laws, hence the problem with measuring any cause & effect.

[orpupilofnature57]

45. Thanks for the clear description .

[Eleanors38]

49. Thanks. Whether or not you agree, too often social policy is

bandied about, when what is really at issue is ones individual rights. The government should be in the business of protecting individual rights and promoting the general welfare with policies clearly aimed at welfare.

[orpupilofnature57]

50. Agreed, General well being should be our goal .

[Straw Man]

97. To a point.

Agreed, General well being should be our goal .

But not at the expense of individual well-being. No one should be expected to "take one for the team."

[orpupilofnature57]

100. As far as being Prosecuted or Shot ?

[Straw Man]

132. Both.

[ileus]

5. Bad for the state, good for the citizens...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

7. Just because Zimmerman alledgely broke this law does not mean it is a bad law. -- If that is the

case then it could be argued that Any Law that is broken is a Bad Law.

oh wait ....


All those Marijuana Laws need looking into . . .

[Starboard Tack]

16. He only broke the law when the DA started worrying about the public outcry.

Until then he claimed SYG and was getting away with it. That is the problem with the SYG law. Legit self defense was always in the law. You kill someone, you should have to justify it adequately in order to avoid prosecution. Florida is out of control on this IMO.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

17. Out of Control? Is there blood running in the streets down there? do tell --

How many cases like this are out there? Data and links, please.

[Starboard Tack]

21. Yes, actually, there is blood running in the street.

Trayvon Martin's blood and the poor bugger who Nussbaum shot and got a free pass. How many do we need to show "blood in the street" from so-called legitimate SYG killings?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

24. oh please. you are sounding hysterical and may I just say it is NOT the Law that failed but,

the investigation of it that failed.

[Starboard Tack]

25. A difference of opinion is not hysteria. Believe me, hysterical is the last thing I am.

The system failed. The public outcry rectified it. The DA was buying Zimmerman's SYG defense, because he knew it would be a tough case to win. Which it will still be, but SYG gives guys like this and Nussbaumer a potential free pass.
The absurdity, in her case, was that she dealt with the intruder perfectly until she got him in the street. Talked him out of her house, away from her kid, then gunned him down in cold blood. She is now the poster girl for SYG in Florida.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

27. some sunuvabitch comes into My House and gets next to My Kid

good gawdamn what a dumbass.

sorry -- that is not Cold Blood.

My fucking blood would be boiling red hot and flames would be shooting outta my mouth.

I can tell you are Not A Mother.

you do understand the difference legally, right.

I don't know the particulars of that case but, from what you have said here, I -as a woman on a jury - would be inclined to give her a pass...no way it would be first degree. This is just my gut reaction. I would have to study the case more to make an informed comment.

[Starboard Tack]

33. There was no jury. No charge

My blood would boil equally, but you miss my point.
She was a trained police officer. Her kid was never threatened, though I understand her concern for the child and for herself. Her gun was outside in her truck. She accomplished the main task of getting the delusional, drugged up neighbor out of the house and into the street, where she proceeded to kill him. I'm not suggesting first degree murder, but IMO, it was at the very least a homicide deserving a trial. But again, popular opinion was on her side and she is pretty well connected.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

42. you named -two- cases. both with mitigating circumstances. I don't know. I need more evidence

before I blame the Law itself. The Law can be broken. All laws have that potential.

[Starboard Tack]

55. SYG isn't the kind of law one can break.

It is a law that, at the very least, creates the illusion of getting a free pass to kill others. I'm not suggesting that it is intended to do that, but there are some crazie assholes out there who have tried to use the SYG law as a pre-emptive defense. Sometimes it works, many times it doesn't.
So, the question arises, would these killers have murdered had they realized their circumstances didn't meet the requirement for SYG, except in their own minds?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2012%2F06%2F14%2Fraul-rodriguez-guilty-stand-your-ground-trial-texas-_n_1596134.html&ei=Wl-pUIWPAZCUigK_3IHADA&usg=AFQjCNHD14O5QeNvpoM7tsfOuPqrHXfVJg

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.tbo.com%2Fnews%2Fbreaking-news%2F2012%2Fnov%2F13%2F5%2Ftrial-begins-for-man-charged-in-valrico-playground-ar-563202%2F&ei=Wl-pUIWPAZCUigK_3IHADA&usg=AFQjCNHNDfoMmUNKC7frNv8BnRAr5jP4QQ

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CD0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.khou.com%2Fnews%2FStand-your-ground-ex-firefighter-case-heads-to-jury-158608805.html&ei=Wl-pUIWPAZCUigK_3IHADA&usg=AFQjCNHGlQahLJw7lsPPCQjlOmJUMZRzaw

[Tuesday Afternoon]

60. your own words trip you up ---

tried to use the SYG law as a pre-emptive defense. Sometimes it works, many times it doesn't.

--- except in their own minds ---

that is what trials are for.

[Starboard Tack]

83. Exactly, that's what trials are for.

The SYG law is a way to avoid a jury trial. That is my point.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

91. no. If I am understanding this correctly, the person can claim SYG but, if the investigation

does not hold up then it Will Go To Trial.

[Starboard Tack]

93. Correct, then they can try SYG again, only this time before a jury.

The bar for charging is real low, gets higher for prosecuting and real high for convicting.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

94. ok then. I rest my case.

[Jenoch]

103. Are you sure

that Zimmerman is going to use SYG as part of his defense? The last I heard SYG was not going to be used.

[Starboard Tack]

104. How can I be sure? I'm not his lawyer.

Seems like he keeps changing his mind.

[gejohnston]

31. when did he claim SYG?

It wasn't the DA worrying about public outcry. It was Rick Scott more concerned about it. That is why he chose the DA that he did, someone who has a history and reputation for over charging.

Since he is not using SYG, he is using traditional self defense in a murder trial. Why? Because the evidence points to his version vs conventional wisdom. The evidence shows Martin was pounding his head in the concrete in a rage.

[Starboard Tack]

34. His attorney.

"In the Zimmerman case, defense attorney Mark O'Mara has said he expects to ask for a "stand your ground" hearing after the first of the year, once he finishes deposing witnesses and evaluating evidence."
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-09-05/news/os-george-zimmerman-judge-nelson-stand-your-ground-20120904_1_kishawn-jones-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman

[slackmaster]

43. The pre-trial SYG motion is basically a freebie. Burden of proof is only preponderance of evidence.

The attorney would be incompetent if he didn't make the motion even if the probability of success is negligible.

[slackmaster]

8. Invoking Trayvon Martin proves that the author doesn't have a clue about the subject

George Zimmerman's defense will NOT be based on SYG. It will be a traditional self-defense claim supported by common law and by long-standing statute.

[Starboard Tack]

15. Nonsense. Zimmerman was not arrested until the community cried foul.

The DA and cops had already given him a SYG pass

[slackmaster]

18. I'm going to state my prediction here once again for the record

Zimmerman's attorneys are going to attempt to get the case dismissed without trial. Their motion will be based on a claim of conventional self-defense that would have been available to them in absence of Florida's Stand Your Ground law.

If that motion fails and the case goes to trial, the defense will NOT be based on SYG. Zimmerman's story is that Trayvon Martin physically attacked him without provocation after an initial verbal confrontation ended without violence.

The DA and cops had already given him a SYG pass

That is not accurate. They let him go because they felt at the time there was insufficient evidence to disprove Zimmerman's version of the events. SYG had nothing to do with the decision.

Mark O'Mara stated in August that the defense would not be based on SYG, and he hasn't said anything since then to contradict it. If future events prove me wrong, feel free to ridicule this post.

[Starboard Tack]

22. Right. That's why they had a hearing seeking a SYG free pass.

Judge threw it out.

[slackmaster]

28. It didn't cost them anything, nor did it prevent them from using other defenses

Judge threw it out.

Yes, because it isn't an SYG case. Zimmerman's story does not support a claim that he was standing his ground. But because it was free, it was worth a shot. Any decent defense attorney avails himself or herself of every possible avenue of getting the case dismissed before trial.

[Starboard Tack]

36. Apparently Zim's attorney disagrees with you.

He will be using SYG law as a defense. Regardless, he will probably walk, as it will be tough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The first SYG hearing was a pelim to get case dismissed before trial. Judge disagreed, because he only needs enough evidence for a trial, not a conviction.

[slackmaster]

41. Let's see a cite to support that

Something more recent than mid-August.

(AP) ORLANDO, Florida - The attorney for the man who shot and killed unarmed Florida teenager Trayvon Martin said Monday he'll seek to get the case dismissed using a traditional self-defense argument and not the state's "stand your ground" statute.

Mark O'Mara, who is defending George Zimmerman against a second-degree murder charge in the fatal February shooting, said the traditional self-defense approach is appropriate because the facts suggest his client couldn't retreat from a beating Martin was giving him.

Zimmerman's attorneys had said last week that they would use Florida's controverial "stand your ground" law, which allows people to use deadly force - rather than retreat - if they believe their lives are in danger.

"The facts don't seem to support a 'stand your ground' defense," O'Mara said....

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57492488/george-zimmermans-attorneys-wont-use-stand-your-ground-defense/

[Starboard Tack]

52. I posted several but here we go. Down at the end of link page.

"From the Orlando Sentinel Sept 5, 2012
In the Zimmerman case, defense attorney Mark O'Mara has said he expects to ask for a "stand your ground" hearing after the first of the year, once he finishes deposing witnesses and evaluating evidence."
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-09-05/news/os-george-zimmerman-judge-nelson-stand-your-ground-20120904_1_kishawn-jones-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman

[slackmaster]

62. As I have posted repeatedly, asking for a hearing is a gimme, a freebie

I doubt that O'Mara expects it to succeed. He's not preparing to present a SYG defense at trial. That's my point.

[gejohnston]

44. depends on the jury instructions

if the evidence shows that he is guilty of manslaughter, but not murder, the jury could give that verdict if the judge says they may. If the instructions are murder or not at all, then he would walk.
Given the trial by media/electronic lynching (in addition to Spike Lee and Roseanne Barr trying to instigate a literal lynching) I have my doubts that he will actually have a fair trial.

[Starboard Tack]

53. He is charged with 2nd degree murder.

Sure, he could be found guilty of a lesser crime, like voluntary manslaughter. Hopefully, he will get a fair trial. It will certainly be highly scrutinized. I doubt there will be a unanimous verdict. We'll see.

[gejohnston]

54. In the US,

it has to be a unanimous verdict either way, unless we are talking about a military court martial. Anything else is a mistrial. If that happens, the State may file for a new trial with a new jury, or just let him walk. With Florida's sunshine laws, it will be scrutinized. It will be very public.
One thing about Florida's sunshine laws, even if Casey Anthony would have been convicted, the judge would be forced to declare a mistrial and let her walk. Why? The DA was caught hiding exculpatory evidence from the defense. I don't know about California or UK, but in Florida, that is a BFD.

[Starboard Tack]

57. Same everywhere in criminal cases.

I was living in Tampa at the time Ted Bundy went to trial. What a TV show that was. I watched the entire OJ trial in L.A..
Saw some of Anthony trial, whenever I got chance. No cable on the water.

[gejohnston]

35. no they didn't

according to the article you linked, that won't happen until next year.

[Starboard Tack]

37. One was a preliminary hearing to convince the judge.

Next one will be for the trial.

[gejohnston]

39. there always is a preliminalry hearing

in the military it is called a Article 32 hearing, because it is outlined in Article 32 of the UCMJ. In federal law, there is a grand jury. That hearing is simply to see if there is enough evidence to have a trial. As I understand the Florida law, the immunity hearing is specific to SYG claims and is a separate hearing. AFAIK, no immunity hearing has taken place.

[JDPriestly]

23. SYG should not work considering the evidence in the Zimmerman case.

Zimmerman was not attacked. He will have a hard time proving that he did not follow Martin and thus picked a fight.

Trayvon Martin was defending HIMSELF, not the other way around. Zimmerman admitted that Martin was running away from Zimmerman not toward him. Wouldn't you be terrified if you were 17 and some crazy guy like Zimmerman followed you when you were walking home at night.

Zimmerman should plea-bargain. And if his lawyer is worth his reputation, he just may.

[gejohnston]

32. that is not what the evidence shows

the evidence shows Martin attacked Zimmerman. Following someone is not the same as picking a fight.
The theory is that Martin ambushed Zimmerman while walking back to his car.

I don't see a plea bargain.

[JDPriestly]

63. while walking back to his car -- from where?

From following Martin who had good reason to be frightened of Zimmerman as Martin's murder proves.

[glacierbay]

64. So, if the evidence shows,

that Zimmerman was walking back to his car, that gives Martin the right to attack him? I'm not saying that's what happened, but is that justified for Martin to attack Zimmerman?

[JDPriestly]

71. What sort of evidence would show that Zimmerman was

walking back to his car? That, I think, would be nearly impossible to prove. I just can't think of any evidence other than Zimmerman's own self-serving testimony that could "prove" or even support that claim.

I believe that a young woman with whom Martin was talking will be testifying.

But then, I'm guessing, and you never know what might come out at a trial. But I just have not been able to figure out how Zimmerman could prove what his intentions were about where he was going when the killing occurred.

[gejohnston]

65. the point is

contact was broken off. I thought we agreed that counter attacks are not and should not be allowed as a legitimate defense claim.

[JDPriestly]

69. If I were Zimmerman, I would seek a plea on a manslaughter

charge and serve a few years. That is based on what little I know about the case. There could be some evidence of which I am unaware that Zimmerman really was in imminent danger before he did what he did to frighten Martin so much and get into a fight with Martin.

[gejohnston]

80. that is not how it works in Florida

manslaughter with a gun would be 25 years. Of course, the DA can wave the mandatory min, but Corey isn't going to do that. She wouldn't do that for a woman who fired a warning shot in her own house, she won't do that Zimmerman. Corey also has a reputation of over charging, which is why Rick Scott picked her to take over the case, to make it go away. That is based on Allen Dersherwitz's analysis.
There are eye witnesses of Martin on top of Zimmerman pounding his head in the concrete, wounds on Zimmerman's head. This happened after Zimmerman told 911 that Martin lost him and disappeared among the houses. Based on the maps, Martin would be only a few houses away from his house at that point.

What little you know about the case is based on:
press releases from Martin's family
speculation and laziness from Orlando area TV news, the leaders in trial by media/electronic lynching. This was right after the Casey Anthony electronic lynching.
speculation and false accusations by ideologues to paint SYG as racist heaven, which much of the progressive media jumped on, much of it untrue. That includes inaccurately describing the law.

[dumbledork]

66. So, SYG is a horrible concept...except that Martin should have had the option?

??????????

[JDPriestly]

68. Martin should have had the option as should anyone who is

obviously in imminent danger. But, had Martin killed Zimmerman, then in my opinion, Martin would have had the burden of proving that it was self-defense.

There are situations in which no trial is necessary because it is evident to any reasonable prosecutor or police officer from the evidence that the killing was self-defense.

I thought there was to be a hearing in the Zimmerman case in October? Does anyone know what the status of that case is?

[JDPriestly]

70. I remember reading that O'Mara stated that Zimmerman would

not rely on SYG defense. I think he should plea to a manslaughter charge and serve a few years. He would be out before long. I don't know whether he could get a suspended sentence.

For Martin's family, a trial might be cathartic. So that would be good. Whatever the outcome, the Martins would, after a trial, feel that their son had received the respect that our society owes him. He was 17 and his life was ended for no good reason. What a tragic situation.

Then, of course, Zimmerman could try to plead some sort of insanity defense or something -- and Zimmerman might get a racist jury on his side. You never know. It's a gamble for him.

I would not be surprised if he pleads right as they are calling the jury. That happens.

[gejohnston]

82. you don't actually know anything about Florida do you?

not rely on SYG defense. I think he should plea to a manslaughter charge and serve a few years. He would be out before long. I don't know whether he could get a suspended sentence.

mandatory min of 20 years. Besides, the evidence points to a justifiable homicide that would have passed under duty to retreat. Pleading guilty based on TV propaganda vs the evidence, that would be dumb.

For Martin's family, a trial might be cathartic. So that would be good. Whatever the outcome, the Martins would, after a trial, feel that their son had received the respect that our society owes him. He was 17 and his life was ended for no good reason. What a tragic situation.

That is assuming conventional wisdom, and the propaganda of miss aged photos are accurate.

Then, of course, Zimmerman could try to plead some sort of insanity defense or something -- and Zimmerman might get a racist jury on his side. You never know. It's a gamble for him.

A Hispanic with a racist jury, how does that work? The average Florida resident is a first generation transplant from New York or Illinois, most people here are not southerners. Not that racism is unique to the south, but it is not Alabama or Maryland in 1956. Besides, the odds of getting an all white or all Hispanic jury are slim.

[Starboard Tack]

26. You don't appear to understand SYG either.

SYG is a law which eliminates any reason for a defense. It is not a defense, but a justification for killing based solely on the word of the killer. There would have been no arrest or trial without the public and media response to what the DA had already considered legit under SYG.

[slackmaster]

29. Claiming that the defendant's actions were justifiable or excusable is a form of legal defense

[Starboard Tack]

38. Of course.

That's why Zimmerman's SYG hearing is going to happen next year. I thought he'd already had one, but I must be mistaken.
Under the SYG law his actions were justifiable and he should be acquitted.
Under any sensible law, including common law, his actions were questionable, at least, and he should be tried before a jury.

[tortoise1956]

59. According to lexisnexis, his use of deadly force can be easily justified under common law

§ 8.02 Use of Deadly force

A Common Law – Deadly force is only justified in self-protection if the defendant reasonably believes that its use is necessary to prevent imminent and unlawful use of deadly force by the aggressor. Deadly force may not be used to combat an imminent deadly assault if a non-deadly response will apparently suffice.

B Model Penal Code – The Code specifically sets forth the situations in which deadly force is justifiable: when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary to protect himself on the present occasion against:

1.) death;
2.) serious bodily injury;
3.) forcible rape; or
4.) kidnapping.

The Code prohibits the use of deadly force by a deadly aggressor, i.e., one who, "with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter." [MPC § 3.04(2)(b)(i)]

§ 8.04 "Reasonable Belief"

The privilege of self-defense is based on reasonable appearances, rather than on objective reality. Thus, a person is justified in using force to protect himself if he subjectively believes that such force is necessary to repel an imminent unlawful attack, even if appearances prove to be false.

Courts are increasingly applying a standard of the "reasonable person in the defendant’s situation" in lieu of the "reasonable person" standard. Factors that may be relevant to the defendant’s situation or circumstances include:

1.) the physical movements of the potential assailant;
2.) any relevant knowledge the defendant has about that person;
3.) the physical attributes of all persons involved, including the defendant;
4.) any prior experiences which could provide a reasonable basis for the belief that the use of deadly force was necessary under the circumstances.

http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crim/crim08.htm

Zimmerman's argument is that he stopped chasing Martin after the 911 dispatcher told him to, and that Martin came up and started hitting him. The first part of that is supported by the fact that the 911 audio you can hear his breathing return to a normal level after being obviously breathless at the start of the call. The second section appears to be borne out by evidence that shows that the shooting was at close range, as well as the injuries suffered by Zimmerman.

I'm not saying that Zimmerman is innocent, but so far the facts released to the public don't support a 2nd degree murder conviction. Even manslaughter is questionable, since Martin would have obviously had to turn and confront Zimmerman for him to be shot at close range in the chest.

This will be an interesting trial. I predict that it will be televised on Court TV...

[JDPriestly]

72. The location of the shooting will be important.

I have read that, in fact, they were quite some distance from Zimmerman's car. That suggests that Zimmerman followed Martin. That is evidence that, if true, would contradict the idea that Martin turned back to attack Zimmerman. It would, rather, support the conclusion that Zimmerman followed Martin and thus, provoked Martin. We shall see what happens if there is a trial.

I don't think the prosecutor would have bothered to bring the charge as 2nd degree homicide if there was evidence that Martin provoked Zimmerman. I think the police officers and prosecutor who failed to charge Zimmerman had taken Zimmerman's statement and re-enactment at face value and had not checked with other witnesses or listened to Zimmerman's call to the dispatcher. The case looked like justifiable homicide, but with all the evidence reviewed, it will probably take a trial to determine all the facts -- such as who was following whom, where the killing occurred and why.

[gejohnston]

79. that specific prosecutor has a reputation of over charging

regardless of the evidence, that is how she gets re elected.

[darkangel218]

76. I love that i have the option to stand my ground and defend myself. nt

[LP2K12]

84. I agree...

If someone breaks into my secured home which has enough "Protected by" signs all over, including NRA signs, I wont think twice.

I am trained and proficient with my firearm and I will stand my ground if threatened.

That being said, I'm not going to shoot the random drunk who is unarmed and stumbling my way to ask to use my phone or to "borrow" some cash.

It's a fine line and that's why there is such disagreement on it.

[darkangel218]

85. There shouldnt be any disagreement.

Firearms protect and save lives. As a female, I would feel even more vulnerble than a man, as I wouldnt be able to fight off an intruder without a firearm.
It pisses me off when ppl don't see the facts and try to distort the reality. I wouldn't want to be a sitting duck waiting to possibly be raped and killed, and have no means to defend myself. This is a silly argument.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

88. The academic research is mixed...the task force found that there was no compelling need to change

law as it now stands.

[graham4anything]

101. ZIMMERSHIT SHOT DEAD COWARD STYLE AN UNARMED KID who might have grown up to cure cancer

I hope one day Karma gets him the same because he is a clear and present danger to society. Zimmerman is a malcontent judge jury executioner vigillante as are the people who think what Zimmy or this law is good.

I do hope Zimmy is tried, and that the old adage, the pen is mightier than the sword prevails when the Judge signs the execution order and this piece of trash is removed from society.

How possibly was Zimmy protecting his home when he stalked a black man and lynched him with a gun, then whined and all. What a lowlife coward.

(like those that feel they are doing good when they kill a deer or an antelope or bear.
Next time try going mano to mano with the bear and then see how much of a man you are.

And if you believe Gov. Scott's committee to be accurate, well, there is a bridge in Brooklyn for you.

[oneshooter]

105. Since you have found him guilty of the crime without trial.

Would you be willing to pull the lever that drops him through the trapdoor?

[graham4anything]

106. There are cops that we pay stinking good taxpayer money to, who have that job

I am not a judge, jury or executioner
I said IF I were on the jury (#8 of course)

A jurist does NOT pull the plug. Just looks at evidence and sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.

And common sense shows even 9-11 said BACK OFF AND LET THE COPS DO IT.
He throttled in his paranoia ahead and innocent kid died.

one without a gun.

Without the gun, mano v. mano would have been different.

but as usual, the gun killed.
people get stoned on the effects of a gun, the power they have
the obsession to use it for what it was made for
the itch, the twitch

(much like a bowler uses a bowling ball to hit the pins on an alley, not stroke it in a bar or restaurant)

the point being- Zim had the gun. The gun had Zim. The two combined to kill an innocent man
(who history points to as being the #1 object of racists desires for centuries). And kablooey, the innocent man is dead, and Zim has the gall to whine.

the judge says
has the jury ruled
and the jury says...

[gejohnston]

107. in the US, about 800 murders are committed with bare hands

one third of Canadian murders are with bare hands, I don't call a football player unarmed.

[oneshooter]

108. Another no answer line of crap from you. Easy answer yes, or no.

[graham4anything]

109. Are you human? Or are you dancer? I can't tell, but you are a control freak, aren't you?Demanding

nothing is easy except for Zimmy, who easily in coward cold blood eliminated a kid who just maybe would have cured Cancer or Ebola or some other deadly illness

in a fit of rage, Zimmy, itchy, twitchy, shattered the hopes and dreams of the world.

as Paul Simon sang "nothing but the dead and dying back in my little town&quot Paul Simon(c) 1975 my little town.)

the town in this case was the gun.
without a gun, Mr. Martin would be alive
and Zim the coward would not be sweating bullets that he will spend the rest of his life in jail.
(where they have their own set of rules)

[oneshooter]

110. Still no answer. yes or no

[graham4anything]

111. yes or no. Why do you five NRA groupies all write the exact same phrases?

the million dollar suits tell you that is a good technique of hoping to rid the world of anti-gun
anti-NRA posts?

Maybe My Meek Mayor Mike May Message Me My Million $$ Megalines, (MMMMMMMMMM)
being that he is the great Equalizer.

speaking of MMMMMMMMM
[img]

[/img]

[oneshooter]

112. Are you afraid of answering a simple question.

Replying with insults does nothing to help your cause. I have asked a simple question, it requires only a simple yes. no answer.

Which is it?

[graham4anything]

113. Without a gun, Mr. Martin would be alive. It really is a simple answer. No gun, no dead Mr. Martin

same with bears and hunters
Without guns, bears would be alive.
Fighting fairly mano/mano bear and hunter with no gun, I place my money on the bear.

[oneshooter]

114. Still no answer, I guess you really are afraid to answer. Like many other anti's that refuse.

[graham4anything]

115. Just like a gun bully to attempt to bully an answer. I don't even remember which question I didn't

I don't understand the gun person's obsession.

they can collect, they can sport and they have no need to carry a gun outside their own home they protect

but yet they bully their way to wanting a gun in the bar, so that if someone argues who is the greatest, Mickey Mantle or Willie Mays, they can decide the argument with their gun(drunk or not).
(Willie Mays was the greatest baseball player btw. Mantle was a lazy good for nothing whiner who thought he was privledged(sound familiar?) who made alot of money to be coddled.)IMHO

yet when they did card shows, Mays was never paid what he was worth, because of the sheer utter racism of some people not wanting to frame a Mays picture on their wall because he was black(like Mr. Martin was.)

[oneshooter]

117. To refresh your memory, it was post #105. You seem scared to answer a simple yes, no question.

[oneshooter]

135. RUN AWAY!!! RUN AWAY!!!!! He is asking simple questions!!!! RUN AWAY!!!!

[graham4anything]

136. Yes

if the verdict said so.

(don't want you to think I myself would apply vigillante justice). Only if the court ruled so.

(and typically a jurist would not be the one to do that anyhow though.)

And someone is paid a salary and it is their job. Emotion not part of that equation.

[gejohnston]

137. Do you denounce Spike Lee and Roseanne Barr

for their attempt at vigilantism?
Another question, what if everything you think happened turns out to be false? Like the Casey Anthony case, where the media cried that she got away with murder, and people where sending death threats to the jurors. But, in spite of the DA's claims of "solid proof" he could not prove, cause of death, time of death, nothing. Even if she were convicted, she would have walked because the Florida Sunshine Law would force the judge to declare a mistrial because the DA hid exculpatory evidence from the defense.


Kind of reminds me of what one of the Chicago Seven jurors told me, he learned how full of shit the media really is. What the media said had little resemblance to what he learned in the court room.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Seven

[graham4anything]

140. NO. Spike didn't kill anyone. I don't follow Roseanne so don't know what she is about.

[gejohnston]

141. so you are OK with the two of them

tweeting Zimmerman's address to incite violence. Sorry, even he tweeted the correct address, Barr did, and the mob killed Zimmerman, he would be equally guilty.
You just said you are OK with vigilantism and inciting violence but you are against people defending themselves and due process of law.
http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2012/03/30/456066/spike-lee-roseanne-barr-and-the-vigilante-response-to-trayvon-martins-death/?mobile=nc

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/roseanne-barr-zimmerman-tweets-893416
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gossip/2012/03/spike-lee-trayvon-martin-wrong-george-zimmerman-address.html
Notice he apologized for tweeting the wrong address, not for the attempted vigilantism.

[oneshooter]

139. So you are willing to kill a man you have never known? To pull the lever and drop a person,

who has done you no harm, to his death.

Seems like the very essence of the right wing.

[graham4anything]

142. If that was my job. Just like Walmart pharmacists must but don't by law dispense birthcontrol

If I were paid to do such, one would have to do such to keep the job
personal opinion is not in any other 9 to 5 job.
I would NOT be a vigilante though, if that is what you are implying. only if it were my job.
I like the states that have three or more people pulling a switch or dropping the drugs, and only one is the real one, but none know which one.

Do you beget the person doing that to have a paycheck?

I would ban the death penalty, but Florida has it, might as well use it for someone who deserves it. He wantonly took another man's life and knew the penalty going in.


Do the crime, do the time. Use a gun, zero tolerance once new laws are in place.

and gotcha questions are irritating

Because its like a vet needing to put down a very sick dog or cat.

and I don't follow Roseanne nor know her opinions so I have no opinion of her. I couldn't tell you which political side she is on, and I only watched her show in reruns, not while it was on
(the one with John Goodman).So I missed her first wave.

[oneshooter]

143. But it is NOT your job. Yet you are still willing to do it.

Says a lot about you.

[krispos42]

116. He's guilty.

At least, as far as I'm concerned. This was discussed extensively when the incident occurred back in February. As far as I can tell, Martin was, in fact, operating under the Stand Your Ground law when he defended himself against Zimmerman.