General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumspscot
(21,024 posts)too fucking tragic to be funny
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)By Lalo Alcaraz.
Greybnk48
(10,176 posts)1monster
(11,012 posts)However, this law has nothing to do with Zimmerman murdering Trayvon Martin. The law was never meant as cover for those aggressors like Zimmerman who commit murder.
For the Sanford police deparmtment to suggest that is does is nothing but a cover up and sophistry.
(Even the authors of the law say that the law is not applicable in this case as Zimmerman was the aggressor, not Martin.)
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)I'll never go back to any stand your ground state. What an immoral load of feces.
freefall
(662 posts)An organization I belong to is having its convention, which I had looked forward to attending, in Miami this August. Don't know what I am going to do about that.
http://www.propublica.org/article/the-23-states-that-have-sweeping-self-defense-laws-just-like-floridas
If you go to link you can click on each state to see its law.
Alabama
Arizona
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois (The law does not includes a duty to retreat, which courts have interpreted as a right to expansive self-defense.)
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Michigan
Mississippi
Montana
Nevada
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Oregon (Also does not include a duty to retreat.)
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Washington (Also does not include a duty to retreat.)
West Virginia
1monster
(11,012 posts)do their jobs. The law wasn't needed and is very bad. Using it as cover for a murder is even worse.
I don't have a very high opinion of law enforcement in this state and never have. Eight months before I moved here was a very high profile murder. Five months after I moved here was the trial for the defendant in the murder. Having read about the murder investigation and been here with daily coverage during the trial, was enough to sour me on the efficacy of the legal system from investigation to case closed in this state. And that was nearly forty years ago...
spin
(17,493 posts)and using it as an excuse not to arrest Zimmerman.
The law is named "Stand Your Ground" not "Pursue and Kill". Zimmerman was not standing his ground. He initiated the confrontation when he left his vehicle. Other individuals in Florida have claimed the Stand Your Ground defense in Florida and have been prosecuted.
I have no idea why the authorities in Sanford have not arrested Zimmerman and don't appear to wish to do so. Perhaps he knows where the bodies are buried, perhaps he has friends on the police department, perhaps the rich people in his neighborhood hope that the shooting will scare off robbers, perhaps racism. Who knows.
csziggy
(34,137 posts)And it's not just a slight bias, it is a seriously warped antagonistic hatred of minorities.
11:05 p.m. EST, March 14, 2012|By Martin E. Comas, Orlando Sentinel
In almost any community, the shooting death of a black teen by a white crime-watch volunteer would raise accusations of racism. But this one occurred in Sanford, a city that has struggled with racial tensions for a century.
Much of that tension stems from Sanford's long history as an agricultural community that attracted laborers, many of them black, to work in the fields, farms and railroads, historians say. They formed Seminole County's historic black communities of Georgetown, Goldsboro and Midway.
Founded by laborers in the late 19th century, Goldsboro was once an active center of black life and became the second town in Florida incorporated by blacks. But in 1911, Sanford stripped Goldsboro of its charter and took it over. The streets, named after its black pioneers, were quickly renamed.
"Ever since Goldsboro was taken over by Sanford, there has been tension," said Sanford Mayor Jeff Triplett.
More: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-14/news/os-trayvon-martin-shooting-sanford-20120314_1_sanford-police-lieutenant-black-pioneers-celery-avenue
Daytona Beach, Florida
When the bus finally pulled into the station, it was greeted by a racially mixed crowd. Rachel Robinson recalled, "I had never been so tired, hungry, miserable, upset in my life as when we finally reached Daytona Beach." When they got off the bus, they discovered that Branch Rickey had arranged for a welcoming committee of three African-American men. Wendell Smith, a sportswriter for the Pittsburgh Courier (the most widely circulated black newspaper of the time), and his photographer, Billy Rowe (who had covered the Japanese surrender on the USS Missouri), had been hired by Rickey to protect, chauffeur and advise Jackie. The third man at the station was black pitcher, John Richard Wright, who Rickey had also signed to the Royals. Blacks and whites alike surged forward to get a better look at Robinson, unaware that Wright was also challenging segregated baseball. Branch Rickey had arranged for Jackie and Rachel Robinson to stay the night at the home of black pharmacist Joe Davis and his wife, Dufferin. After Rachel went upstairs to settle into a small, private room, Jackie released his anger and told the threesome, "I never want another trip like that one." Jackie told Smith and Rowe he was ready to return to California. They argued with him to reconsider and sleep on it, and they were successful in convincing Robinson to stay.
The enormity of the challenge of crossing baseball's color line, accentuated by the awful trip to Florida, had become crystal clear to Jackie. His four-letter career as an athlete in college at UCLA and his World War II service as an officer in the U.S. Cavalry would carry no weight. There was no practice scheduled for Sunday, but Jackie and Rachel had to travel another 40 miles that day to Seminole County. Because there was an overabundance of postwar talent and Rickey had to work through nearly 200 prospects, he decided to keep the Dodgers in Daytona Beach and move the Royals to rural Sanford, Florida's celery capital. Rickey had arranged for them to stay with Mr. and Mrs. David Brock, a prominent black couple, at their large home, with its wide veranda. The team's lakefront hotel, the Mayfair, would not accept them.
Sanford, Florida
Anxiously, Jackie Robinson suited up in his Montreal Royals uniform for the first time on Monday, March 4, and reported to the park at 9:30 in the morning along with Johnny Wright. They were immediately stopped by reporters who largely ignored Wright but peppered Robinson with questions. When asked, "What would you do if one of these pitchers threw at your head?" Jackie replied, "I'd duck!" Dodgers scout Clyde Sukeforth then introduced Robinson to the Montreal manager, Clay Hopper. After two days of practice, Rickey and Hopper decided to switch Robinson's playing position to see if he could work out as a first or second baseman, rather than a shortstop where he was experienced.
Jackie's concern about competing with veteran players to remain on the Royals was interrupted when racism intruded. Branch Rickey had miscalculated the degree to which Jim Crow was entrenched in Sanford. As an example, an inanimate object, a second-hand piano, purchased in 1924 from the courthouse for use in a segregated school in nearby Oviedo, was filed as a "Negro Piano" in the school board's record; living human beings challenging segregation certainly would not be tolerated. A large group of white residents had met with the mayor of Sanford and demanded that Robinson and Wright be run out of town. At dinnertime on March 5, Sanford officials informed the Royals that black and white players would not be allowed on the same playing field together. Fearing that a mob might threaten them at the Brock house, Rickey sent Wright and the Robinsons immediately back to Daytona Beach. Deeply disturbed by the situation, Jackie talked about quitting and returning to the Negro Leagues, but Smith and Rowe again persuaded him to hang on.
More:http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/resources/lessonplans/hs_es_jackie_robinson.htm
TNLib
(1,819 posts)and this is what is happening here and other states with similar laws.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)and all too true.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)thank you for your efforts posting the toons regularly,
I always appreciate & forget to say thanks.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)exactly
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)demmiblue
(36,885 posts)White hood
= Open season
When I glanced at the first pic, this automatically came to mind.
alittlelark
(18,890 posts)krispos42
(49,445 posts)...as Zimmerman does.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)than YOU do
What a law says means little. How it is applied means nearly everything.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Hmmm.
Regardless, if the application is insufficient (and let's face it, during the Bush Era this was a massive, massive problem) then I would suggest that law-enforcement and the government prosecutors needs to be fixed, because if they're fucking up THIS application, they're fucking up many more applications of laws.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)But since you insist, how about a cartoonist from MIAMI???
CLOSE ENOUGH FOR YA? Ya Sure Ya Betcha!
And a cursory search shows that this isn't the first time this law has been 'misapplied'
krispos42
(49,445 posts)A cursory search will also show people (homeowners) getting arrested for murder because they shot an intruder inside their home or in a parking lot, but because they didn't turn their backs and run away first, self-defense wasn't an allowed legal defense.
handa
(7 posts)Stop it already. You just love guns, OK? It's just like any other vice.
If it makes you feel virtuous...
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)krispos42
(49,445 posts)Now that I have a job with a desk and a wall I'm starting a pretty good collection of printed-out comics. I put up the one of Rush Limbaugh screaming at a cartoonist last week, actually.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)Good editorial cartoonists put a lot of hard work into their trade, I'd wager most of them understand these laws. People don't develop opinions out of thin air.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)And can exaggerate or diminish as needed to make good comics.
If their perception is that it's a free ticket to kill, then that's what the comic is about.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)...I always do love the claim though that intelligent people don't understand something that's pretty basic and being discussed ad nauseum by legal experts by all major news organizations. Kinda up there with all those times I get told "down where the sun don't shine" that I have some problem reading.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)krispos42
(49,445 posts)..an interesting experience, trying to use google for this.
The challenge is finding the right search terms. Ones that rise up above the blog chatter and discussion boards and news reports.
I probably would have had better luck with some sort of dedicated law-case search engine.
Try this one.
[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]People v. Aiken
(3 N.Y. 3d 718, 786 N.Y.S.2d 699 - March 31, 2005)
A Person Standing In The Doorway Of His Apartment Has A Duty To Retreat Before Using Deadly Physical Force
Believing he was about to be stabbed by the victim, defendant struck him with a metal pipe as they stood arguing in the doorway of defendants apartment. Affirming defendants manslaughter conviction, the Court of Appeals held that while defendant was entitled to a justification charge (Penal Law §35.15), the trial court properly denied his request to instruct the jury that he had no duty to retreat because he was standing in the doorway, or threshold, of his apartment. The Court held that the home exception to the duty to retreat before defensively using deadly physical force against another (Penal Law §35.15[2][a]), does not apply when the defendant is standing in the doorway between his apartment and the common hallway of a multi-unit building. [R]equiring a person standing in the doorway to step inside the apartment to avoid a violent encounter is not the equivalent of mandating retreat from ones home.
http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/legalservices/case_summaries.htm#DefJus
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)"cursory search will also show people (homeowners) getting arrested for murder because they shot an intruder inside their home or in a parking lot, but because they didn't turn their backs and run away first, self-defense wasn't an allowed legal defense."
Not only did you find no such case, but the4 case you did cite explicitly states that such a thing is impossible, since there is an exception to the duty to retreat if you are inside your own home! There is no d8uty to retreat when one is inside one's home, as your link clearly states not once, but twice!
I expect you did an extensive search to prove your "cursory" search claim, and managed to only come up with this one. By the way, I agree with the court here: the defendant should have moved into his house and closed the door. The fact that he didn't means (as the jury of his peers found) that he was not, in fact, merely defending himself, but rather contributing to the conflict, in which case manslaughter does apply.
As this exchange shows, in any case, the stand your ground laws were responding to a non-existent problem: the massive numbers of people convicted a sued for valid self-self defense actions. There were no massive numbers - it is a grand mythology invented by the asinine pushers of these stupid laws. Shit, homie: you couldn't even find one.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)The defendant was trying to get the judge to tell the jury that he did NOT have a duty to retreat. In other words, Stand Your Ground.
The judge refused to tell the jury that, so that the defendant DID have a duty to retreat. Even though he was in his home.
I admit I had trouble narrowing this down; the problem is that Google searches keep coming up with cases where people weren't arrested because of Castle Doctrine. This is the stuff that blogs and news and discussion boards focus on, and it really clutters up the Google Machine.
Okay, maybe more than a cursory Google search is needed.
But I will reiterate that even if, after a trial, a person is in fact found innocent of murder charges after using lethal force in self-defense, the person still had to go through a trial. A trial that costs him hundreds of dollars per billable hour over how many months or years.
I mean, what's the point of defending yourself against a violent attacker if either way you get your life ruined? On the one hand, you're facing the possibility of being crippled for life and facing untold financial losses due to medical bills, future lack of medical coverage (now your crushed skull is a pre-existing condition), and loss of ability to work. On the other hand you're facing psychological trauma, a legal bill that could have put your kids through college, and possible jail time in prison.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)The judge decided he was not in his house. Your claim is still bunk: there is a clear exception to the duty to retreat for people inside their own homes: that's obvious from your own link, where it twice notes the exception! Indeed, the entire case that you cited turns on whether that exception applies in this particular case, since the defendant was not *in* his house but in his doorway. We're not going to be able to have much of a conversation if you don't understand the cases that you yourself are citing!
And you still can't find a single case. These laws were utterly unnecessary. Your economic argument is similar nonsense, since it is all speculation on your part anyway.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Why, because I can use the public defender? That's like saying everybody has health care because they can go to the emergency room.
However, I've been doing a little research (literally, a little, I'm popping in and out right now) and I think that what we're really trying to discuss is not "Castle Doctrine" in that you're required to retreat in your home.
I think I was mis-using the term, and I apologize for that. "Castle Doctine" specifically also seems to prevent the families of the dead intruder from suing you in civil court.
According to Wikipedia, 44 states do not have a duty-to-retreat in your home. They either have SYG, which is everyplace, or Castle Doctrine, which applies in your home. Six states and DC don't specifically say.
The issue that I'm referring to more specifically, and I admit that I don't know if it considered part of the Castle Doctrine, is the section of the law that states you can't be prosecuted if a certain set of conditions apply.
iverglas discussed this back in 2006 when the law first passed but I forget the term. Presumption? Something like that.
But if certain conditions are met during an in=home self-defense homicide, then the presumption is automatic that it was justified self-defense and the government prosecutor cannot file criminal charges against you.
There is something similar in some states for stand-your-ground as well.
My concern is that the prosecution can choose to file murder charges against you and force you to appear in a public trial to defend yourself, even if it is an pretty open-and-shut case of self-defense against an aggressive attacker in your own home.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)The great lie of all these Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground arguments is that prosecutors were running around sending people to jail for defending their homes and families. And I call a giant and full-throated BULLSHIT on that. They addressed a completely non-existent problem: justified self-defense was sufficiently well-articulated in our laws without these bullshit claims
What really happened is that a bunch of people who killed somebody under dubious circumstances (like our vigilante dickhead in Florida) had defense attorneys argue that it was %REALLY% self-defense, doncha know, and something about that appealed to the law-n-order macho mentality that we've concocted over the last 30 years. So we got these laws, but it was mostly good prosecutions of relatively shady assholes that got us here, not the supposedly thousands of prosecutions of family men merely defending their blond-haired children from home invasion. And yeah, if you kill somebody, and the circumstances are odd, you should have to make a self-defense case in court, and it is of little interest how much it costs you, relative to the cost to the other person of being, well, fucking DEAD.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)And it doesn't change the fact that prosecutors are political animals, often times elected, with political ambitions, who can and do prosecute cases that they think they can win in court, regardless of the truth. To make a "statement" or polish their anti-gun credentials or look tough on crime or some shit.
Or they threaten with trail in order to get a plea-bargin, so some poor slob who gunned down a burglar pleads out to a lesser charge in order to avoid the expense of a trial because they can't afford a good lawyer or don't want to take the risk of 20 years in prison. Maybe two years of negligent manslaughter with credit for time served is the better option than risking 20 years.
The outraged public ("my baby was gunned down by that mean old gun-nut" gets a conviction, the prosecutor gets another victory under his belt, and the homeowner gets a criminal record and a few years in jail.
No, it didn't happen all the time. But it definitely it did happen.
If it's a suspicious death, then OF COURSE it should be investigated. And the Sanford PD was negligent in investigating a suspicious "self-defense" shooting, probably for racial reasons. And because they didn't investigate it properly, Zimmerman might get off. Not because the law was good or bad, but because the police fucked up (very possibly deliberately) and failed to secure evidence and witness testimony.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)That defense attorneys will, "hundreds of times a year" try to represent such a case as "self-defense" is obvious to anybody with a cursory knowledge of NBC police procedurals. That such claims are almost always bullshit is also fairly obvious (though I will say that it is amusing to see the NRA types embracing defense attorneys for a change). I'm still waiting to see the boatload of cases where a clean self-defense shoot was aggressively prosecuted as a murder. Whenever you scratch the surface of these poor saps forced into a self-defense killing, you notice that the cousin had a grudge, and similar situations. Or, it's a pharmacist who straight up and with malice aforethought executed a defenseless and wounded robber. Big fan of that guy, too, I suppose?
It's a myth.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Your interlocutor is playing a very old and very stupid game.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)cyberswede
(26,117 posts)makes me want to - probably 'cause I have an 11 y.o. son...
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Why gun nuts are in a panic.