Ann Coulter States SYG Laws Have Nothing To Do With Zimmerman Situation

[fightthegoodfightnow]

THIS POST IS BEING MADE ON THIS BOARD BECAUSE IT'S A SAFE HAVEN TO 'Discuss gun control laws, the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense, and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence.'

The Zimmerman case involves an alledged crime (commited by Martin), violence (alledged by some against Zimmerman and against Martin by Zimmerman), gun use (by Zimmerman), the use of fire arms for self-defense (according to Zimmerman) and potentially threatens those who oppose gun control laws (with the prospects of legislative reform as reported by many in the media).

Ann Coulter states the Zimmerman situation has nothing to do with SYG laws.

ABC’s Terry Moran states “Florida, unlike any other state that has a ‘Stand Your Ground’ law, makes it very difficult to trust out system, trust the jury, let them find the facts and do justice,” Moran said.

“That is completely wrong,” Coulter replied. “This had nothing to do do with the ‘Stand Your Ground’ law...."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/01/coulter-martins-killing-does-not-implicate-stand-your-ground-law/

Are you a DU member who agrees with Ann Coulter and if so why? Respectful dialogue is encouraged.

[Voice for Peace]

1. on this point,

I want to emphasize only on this point

I do agree -- except that afterwards somebody in authority
claimed it was covered under the SYG law, yes?

Otherwise, as she stated, it really wasn't a case of stand your
ground, no matter which version of events you believe. I am not
defending the law, I only think it's a separate issue.

The connection is that Trayvon's killing has brought attention to
what is probably a really vague but deadly law. That's a good
thing.

[russspeakeasy]

2. I don't think SYG has anything to do with this particular case.

It's a stupid law, but this was MURDER and we already have a law for that.

[rrneck]

3. No.

The circus geek of American politics agrees with me. The SYG statute cannot be used as a defense. Thus, it has no more to do with this shooting than laws against jaywalking.

[tularetom]

4. The only way the SYG law would have applied

was if Trayvon Martin had a gun and shot the guy who stalked him, attacked him and ultimately shot him. Zimmerman was not "standing his ground" he was in all ways the aggressor and instigator of this incident.

So as much as it pains me to say it Coulter is correct. It had nothing to do with any Stand Your Ground law.

[aquart]

5. SYG only applies to Trayvon Martin.

He was the one being stalked by an armed stranger.

[HockeyMom]

6. Problem is that Zimmerman is using SYG laws as his defense

for following somebody he had no right to, against 911 operator instructions, getting out of his car to confront somebody, and according to 911 tapes, HE was the aggressor (on top at first).

Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense, or SYG.

[shadowrider]

17. How do you know, for a fact, he's using SYG as a defense? Are you inside his

attorneys head or is this something you're assuming or "someone told me?". Just curious.

The 911 operator didn't instruct him NOT to follow, only said, "We don't need you to do that". The 911 operator is not a sworn police officer.

[Hoyt]

27. He's using "self-defense" and so far it has worked. Further, most folks like Zimmerman only

understand one thing -- "if I have a gun in my waistband, I don't have to take crap off anyone." Even if he is not convicted, it is still part of the reason Trayvon Martin is dead.

[shadowrider]

63. "Self-defense" is a far cry from SYG.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

33. "Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense..."

That is the key. In pursuing Martin, Zimmerman lost any claim to self-defense. This would include any claim regarding the SYG law. While LEOs are charged with the pursuit and apprehension of criminal suspects, townwatch and private citizens are not.

The Sanford DA and PD are clearly wrong here. Zimmerman needs to go to trial.

The 1st Amendment is clearly irrelevant as a defense to someone being charged for yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and there is no problem with the 1st Amendment.

[HockeyMom]

40. +1000

Standing your ground doesn't mean pursuing. It is the same as a burglar fleeing your home with your property and shooting them in the back. Once they are fleeing, your life in no longer in danger. Even SYG goes out the window then.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

46. Sanford, FL

...is a city which places its trust certain officials. The city manager appoints a Chief of Police. It is his job to see to it that criminal evidence is provided to the prosecutors at the Felony Intake Division of Florida's 18th Judicial Circuit.

Somewhere here someone is not doing his job or is not sufficiently competent at it. Period!

The SYG law is not, in my opinion, a problem.

[AtheistCrusader]

82. You didn't answer the question.

"How do you know, for a fact, he's using SYG as a defense?"

You've made a claim, please support it.

[Straw Man]

47. I'm not sure the law sees it that way.

In pursuing Martin, Zimmerman lost any claim to self-defense.

Not irrevocably. The law makes allowances for the dynamics of the situation.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.
The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

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

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

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

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

The law recognizes a situation in which the initial aggressor may not have employed deadly force at first but may have been met with deadly force. For example, someone may throw a punch in a bar and then be confronted by a knife: disparity of force, etc. My reading of the above is that there is a duty to retreat if one was the initial aggressor.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

50. That may be but...

...IMHO, if:

You participate in a neighborhood watch independently or as part of a group and in connection with that watch you...
- identify a suspect and report the incident and
- follow the suspect and
- disregard advice (later proven sound) to not pursue and
- pursue the suspect anyway and
- confront the suspect and
- at some point injure or kill the suspect

then I think you have a moral burden to show evidence of your withdrawal/retreat along with reasonable efforts to de-escalate the situation in order to not be charged.

Zimmerman, in all of those ways, contributed to, IMO, a preponderance of evidence against himself. His careless conduct and his indifference to foreseeable consequences, stacked the deck against himself.

Had Zimmerman been arrested and the Judicial process not proceeded against him, I think the world would have a bit more trust in this deal. Now it just looks like cops covering for a renegade racist.

[Straw Man]

58. I mostly agree.

If my reading of the law and your synopsis of the incident are correct, then Zimmerman, as the initial aggressor, did have a duty to retreat. The SYG law does not apply.

[X_Digger]

76. And other criminals *attempt* to use the fourth, fifth, or first amendment as their defense.

Most will cause a judge to fall off his/her chair laughing.

Yet we don't hear calls to repeal those protections.

[div class='excerpt']Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense, or SYG.

You said it. So if it doesn't apply, what's the rationale for repeal, again?

[gejohnston]

7. I'll skate around this

and simply say that I agree with what the NAACP CEO told Amy Goodman on Democracy Now that the problem is Sanford PD, not SYG. According to MSNBC (linked elsewhere) the cops on the scene wanted to charge him but the police chief over ruled them.

Oh yeah, conservativeunderground can kiss my ass.

[teach1st]

8. From the St. Pete Times today

I posted here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/101622209

The link to the article: http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/stand-your-ground-law-protects-those-who-go-far-beyond-that-point/1222930

'Stand your ground' law protects those who go far beyond that point

'Stand your ground' law protects those who go far beyond that point

Said Durell Peaden, the former Republican senator from Crestview who sponsored the bill: "The guy lost his defense right then. When he said, 'I'm following him,' he lost his defense."

Said Jeb Bush, the governor who signed the bill into law: "Stand your ground means stand your ground. It doesn't mean chase after somebody who's turned their back."

But they are wrong.

Since its passage in 2005, the "stand your ground'' law has protected people who have pursued another, initiated a confrontation and then used deadly force to defend themselves. Citing the law, judges have granted immunity to killers who put themselves in danger, so long as their pursuit was not criminal, so long as the person using force had a right to be there, and so long as he could convince the judge he was in fear of great danger or death.

[gejohnston]

10. it sounds like

one or two judges took it farther than intended.
Bush and the (can't remember his name) who wrote the law said basically the same thing. But I don't think either is the issue in this case, although it could be at trial. In this case, it seems to be more about Daddy being a campaign contributor to the DA's re election campaigns, and the police chief ordering the homicide investigator not to press the issue.

[teach1st]

14. More than one or two

The St. Pete times lists eleven similar cases:

http://tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/main

The law:

Florida statute 776.013(3) says: (a) person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

If I read the article linked to in the OP correctly, Coulter seems to think that if you can't retreat, the law doesn't apply. In my opinion, once the meeting force with force stage is reached, retreat is often not an option. It was the old law that required one to use every reasonable means available to retreat before using deadly force.

Regardless of Zimmerman's connections, if he is tried he most certainly could try to use the Stand Your Ground law.

[gejohnston]

18. the old law

also put the burden of proof on you, not the State. "Use reasonable means" is an arbitrary term being defined by people who were not there and did not experience the stress or the fear. It also put the burden on the shooter (or stabber) to prove a murder did not happen instead of on the State to prove one did.
Under the old law, even if you proved your justifiable homicide case (proving yourself innocent of murder) you could still face a civil trial from the criminal's next of kin. (Wyoming is one of the few duty to retreat state that does not allow this, but most do.)

[OrwellwasRight]

9. She's wrong.

Zimmerman would have been arrested in the absence of such a law. So it DOES have to do with this case.

[gejohnston]

11. I don't think so

If this is correct, it seems have more to do with good ol boy/campaign finance.


http://video.msnbc.msn.com/newsnation/46883285
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/28/453675/sanford-police-recommended-charging-zimmerman-with-martins-death/

[OrwellwasRight]

13. Yes, I have heard this meme.

And how exactly would the Chief of Police have overruled the police on the scene in the absence of this law?

[gejohnston]

15. the same way

Daddy bought his way out of assaulting cops and domestic violence raps. The latter is a big deal. Being convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence makes you a prohibited person under federal law, making him good for five to ten years for gun possession.
Under the old law, the (bought and paid for DA) would simply say "looks like justifiable homicide to me" and not press charges.

[OrwellwasRight]

16. Not true.

"Justifiable homicide" has to be proved in court. It is a defense to a homicide charge--which means the charge has to be made. Also, a "prohibited person"? There is no federal law that prohibits people. You should really explain yourself better.

[gejohnston]

19. not always

In some places, the DA can determine if it is self defense, and choose not to press charges. It does happen. It is up to the DA to press the issue.

Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, a "prohibited person" is someone who is prohibited from possessing any firearm for any reason anywhere in the US. A domestic violence conviction would make it a federal crime for Zimmerman to possess a firearm.

I think we agree that DV victims should always press charges, always help the DA get a conviction. Even if the asshole spends a couple of months in the county jail.

[OrwellwasRight]

25. So they are prohibited from owning guns not from being a person.

Interesting how the two are conflated.

[gejohnston]

29. I didn't create the term

It is the term the law uses. I was in second grade when the law was passed. Have a seance and ask Thomas "hippies scare me, so it's OK for me to carry in DC" Dodd WTF. It was his idea.

[eqfan592]

20. Yes, but that was actually the main problem with the old law.

The old law put the burden of proof on the person claiming self defense, not the state, which is ass backwards. If the state is going to charge somebody for murder or homicide, the burden of proof should rest with them from the beginning.

Even if you were correct that the law is what gave the Chief of Police the ability to release Zimmerman, laws, even good ones, are sometimes abused by those in power. We have to be vigilant for this sort of abuse, but the throwing the baby out with the bathwater approach many have taken on this forum in regards to the SYG law is just a tad ridiculous to say the least.

[OrwellwasRight]

24. "The baby out with the bathwater" assumes the law is good.

It is not. And it is not a gun issue either. Owning 50,000 guns doesn't give you the right to kill people with them. That is not what the 2nd Amendment says.

And to clarify your legal discussion: The burden of proof IS with the state -- to prove that a homicide occurred and who perpetrated it. The state has to prove all elements of the crime in a court of law. Self-defense is a "defense" that, if proved, makes the person not legally responsible for the homicide they committed. Of course it is up to the defense to prove -- that is why it is called an "affirmative" defense. Don't want to have to prove an affirmative defense? Then just plead not guilty and hope the state can't prove that you actually committed the crime. Sorry, but that is the way the law works. HOMICIDE is a crime. Don't do the crime if you are not willing and able to prove it was justified.

[gejohnston]

26. you don't get it

homicide does not mean murder. Not all homicides are murders.
homicide: The killing of one human being by another human being.
murder: The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/homicide
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/murder

And to clarify your legal discussion: The burden of proof IS with the state -- to prove that a homicide occurred and who perpetrated it.

If you call the cops and say "I just shot someone" that is already done for the State. Homicide and who done it is proven. It is now up to you not the state to prove you are innocent of murder.

The state has to prove all elements of the crime in a court of law. Self-defense is a "defense" that, if proved, makes the person not legally responsible for the homicide they committed. Of course it is up to the defense to prove -- that is why it is called an "affirmative" defense.

As stated above, you called the cops and said you did it, the State has to prove nothing. The burden is now on you to prove it was not murder.

Then just plead not guilty and hope the state can't prove that you actually committed the crime.

You call the cops and said "I shot someone", you give your gun to the cops who match the ballistics, and now you say "plead not guilty?"

Sorry, but that is the way the law works. HOMICIDE is a crime.

Something tells me you are not a lawyer. Neither am I, but I try to do research.

Don't do the crime if you are not willing and able to prove it was justified.

and just let yourself be murdered or raped.

[OrwellwasRight]

31. People like you should not make assumptions about people like me.

Try taking a law course and then talk to me about how you don't think the burden should be on a defendant to prove an "affirmative defense." THAT IS WHAT THE LAW IS. Sorry if you don't like it. I also didn't say all homicides were murders. There's also, for example, manslaughter, negligent homicide, and justifiable homicide--all homicides. Sorry, but the perpetrator has to prove the "justifiable" in justifiable homicide because the law does presume that taking the life of another person is a crime. I don't know what country you want to live in, but I think god I live in one where we presume that it is against the law to take someone's life.

PS -- Just calling the cops and saying "I killed someone" does not mean the state has nothing to prove. The police are going to investigate to make sure the physical evidence backs up the statement, and there may be a trial anyway -- or I guess you have never heard of there being a trial even when there has been a confession? Happens quite frequently.

But I guess you "don't get it".

[gejohnston]

34. people like me?

what people like me? People of Gaelic heritage? Rural people? Working class people? Do you roll up your windows and lock your doors when going through areas that have a lot of pick up trucks and older sedans? Do you let your kids hang out with "those kids" from trailer parks, or just those approved by your HOA?

Try taking a law course and then talk to me about how you don't think the burden should be on a defendant to prove an "affirmative defense." THAT IS WHAT THE LAW IS.

I thought the law was about order justice. That is not the law in some places.

Sorry, but the perpetrator has to prove the "justifiable" in justifiable homicide because the law does presume that taking the life of another person is a crime. I don't know what country you want to live in, but I think god I live in one where we presume that it is against the law to take someone's life.

but justifiable homicide is not a crime. Therefore, you have to prove your innocence instead of the State having to prove your guilt.

per·pe·tra·tor? [pur-pi-trey-ter] Show IPA
noun
a person who perpetrates, or commits, an illegal, criminal, or evil act: The perpetrators of this heinous crime must be found and punished to the fullest extent of the law.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perpetrator
You are saying that someone who is doing nothing wrong, minding their own business, becomes a "perpetrator" for defending themselves? In other words, you are saying it is better to be raped or murdered than to defend yourself. Your connotation is very clear.

PS -- Just calling the cops and saying "I killed someone" does not mean the state has nothing to prove. The police are going to investigate to make sure the physical evidence backs up the statement, and there may be a trial anyway -- or I guess you have never heard of there being a trial even when there has been a confession? Happens quite frequently.

I have only heard of plea deals after confessions, unless there is an affirmative defense.

[OrwellwasRight]

39. Yes, people "like you"

Who make assumptions about what I do or do not do for a living. Don't make assumptions unless you want to be called out on them. And you are wrong about "affirmative defenses" in "some places" not being the responsibility of the defendant asserting them. That is the definition of an "affirmative defense" the defendant has the "affirmative" responsibility to prove it since he or she is asserting it. Otherwise, the defendant need not present any defense at all. I don't know how to explain it to you any better. You do seem to finally get the point youself in your third paragraph where you say "Therefore, you have to prove your innocence instead of the State having to prove your guilt." So I'll just take that as you understanding and not get in the way of you arguing with yourself.

All kinds of trials happen after someone confesses: the Menendez Brothers (http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/21/us/sons-killed-parents-why-is-only-issue.html) Betty Broderick (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-6124643-504083.html). They happen because the person admits to a killing (a HOMICIDE) and then wants to argue they are not legally responsible (whether through self-defense, insanity, "battered wife syndrome," "twinkie defense," whatever). Because killing someone is not "minding your own business." It is taking an action which in most cases will be considered a crime. If you kill someone and do not want it to be, that law says it is up to you to demonstrate that in an affirmative defense.

And no, I never said it is better to be raped or murdered than to defend yourself. Again, assumptions. 1) You can't just "say" someone was going to rape or murder you. There has to be some kind evidence of that fact (e.g., it helps if the person you kill has a weapon, not just a pack of gum and hoodie). 2) There are many ways to defend yourself against an attack other than killing someone. The law generally prefers non-lethal methods of self-defense, and will generally investigate deeper when lethal defense is used. None of this is to say that people cannot legally kill in self-defense when necessary. It is to say that the law generally deems it the responsibility of the killer to prove it necessary. I can't explain it any clearer. Other than to recommend a treatise or two on criminal law.

[COLGATE4]

30. The old law isn't "ass backward" as you suggest

Under the old (read since the beginning of this country) law, self defense is what's known as an affirmative defense i.e. you don't challenge the fact that you did commit the act in question, but instead you plead justification which excuses your being punished for having done it.

The best example of this is the insanity defense in murder trials. The Defendant agrees that s/he committed the murder, but pleads insanity which, if proven, excuses the Defendant from punishment. Because of the nature of the affirmative defense, the burden of proof falls on the Defendant, not the State.

The law of self defense before SYG was the same. The person agrees that s/he shot a person, but pleas that s/he should be excused from being punished for it. The burden of proof in that case falls on the Defendant.

That's the way our legal system has handled this type of situation for over two hundred years now and I've seen nothing that convinces me that it needed changing.

[eqfan592]

38. Insanity and self defense are two extremely different situations.

To compare them as you have here is equal to comparing apples and oranges. The burden of proof that a crime was a committed and charges should be filed against someone rests with the state. Given that justifiable homicide is not a crime, unless the state has sufficient evidence to show a homicide was NOT justified, they should not be able to file charges against somebody.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this particular issue.

[OrwellwasRight]

42. The homicide is not "justifiable" until it has been proved so.

Insanity and self-defense are entirely related -- in each, the burden is on the defendant to prove it. The law does not just allow people to go around killing other people and saying it was self defense and have it be done with. There are standards. And there are elements that have to be proved -- like whether the killer was actually in fear for his own safety; like whether that fear was reasonable under the circumstances (e.g., can't just say, I'm afraid of black people, so I kill them when I see them); etc. Because there are standards and it is not always clear, killers are usually arrested, the homicide investigated, evidence submitted to the DA, and the DA often charges the killer with a homicide of some form (e.g., manslaughter). At that point, the defendant, if he or she wants to, can plead not guilty OR can assert an affirmative defense. If they assert the affirmative defense, it it their legal responsibility to prove the elements of whichever affirmative defense they choose under the law of their particular state.

If you don't like the law that is your option. But that IS the law. And if you think about it, you probably wouldn't want it to be any other way. If all you had to do was kill anyone you wanted and say "self-defense," with no standards whatsoever, we'd have a whole lot more dead people on our hands.

[eqfan592]

48. Are you saying this is how the law is under the SYG laws?

Because I thought that was what we were talking about, and what you are saying here doesn't jive with what I understand of SYG laws.

[OrwellwasRight]

74. No, you were responding to Colgate4's post on the "old laws"

and I was supporting Colgate4's position (I think he/she is/was quite right). SYG laws apparently turn that old standard (that defendants must prove affirmative defenses) on its head, which is quite frightening and contrary to hundreds of years of common law that worked just fine and let those who genuinely killed in self-defense go on their merry way--AFTER meeting the law's standard they actually show some evidence that their claim as to the reason for the killing is true.

[COLGATE4]

65. I really should have known better

than to try and discuss legal concepts with a non-lawyer. There's no "agree" or "disagree" regarding the concept of an affirmative defense. It is what it is and it's an integral part of our legal system.

[PavePusher]

68. Trying to pull elitism, here?

If you can't discuss the law with laymen.... something may be wrong with the lawyer or the law. Explain the concepts for the average person and don't just say "You couldn't possibly understand".

[COLGATE4]

69. I explained the law to the layman. He wasn't happy with the

explanation, not because he didn't understand but because he didn't agree with the law. Not my fault, certainly not elitism.

[eqfan592]

70. There is an "agree" or "disagree" on how just the law is.

And that was what I was referring to when I said we would have to agree to disagree. You believe the law as you explained it was just. I do not. No need for any snark, I was just attempting to bring our discussion to a close without being insulting.

[COLGATE4]

71. There's really no 'agree' or disagree' here. We're not voting

Let's look at your statements:

"To compare them as you have here is equal to comparing apples and oranges.".

I am not 'comparing them'. I was simply trying to illustrate that both are instances of an affirmative defense. In any case of affirmative defense the burden of proof is always on the Defendant, not the State for the reasons I've already explained.

"The burden of proof that a crime was a committed and charges should be filed against someone rests with the state."

It generally does but there is an exception when the Defendant pleads an affirmative defense.

"Given that justifiable homicide is not a crime, unless the state has sufficient evidence to show a homicide was NOT justified, they should not be able to file charges against somebody".

There is no thing as 'justifiable homicide'. There may be a homicide where the person who committed a homicide can allege a legal excuse for having done so but it is still a crime of homicide.

You can disagree with whether you believe the law should be the way it is, but your belief doesn't change what the law is or how it is applied.

[eqfan592]

75. lol, peace out man.

I'm officially done with you.

[AtheistCrusader]

52. No, you're wrong.

The law was mis-applied, given the public information we have at this stage. If it was properly applied, there must be additional evidence or testimony we do not yet have access to. Everything in this statute applies to Trayvon, as far as I can see, NOT Zimmerman.


Florida

2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[18]

776.012?Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1)?He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or (2)?Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
776.013?Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

(1)?A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a)?The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and (b)?The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2)?The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a)?The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or (b)?The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or (c)?The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or (d)?The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3)?A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4)?A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5)?As used in this section, the term:
(a)?“Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night. (b)?“Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest. (c)?“Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
776.032?Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1)?A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2)?A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3)?The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

776.041?Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

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

(2)?Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a)?Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or (b)?In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.


Everything we have seen publicly suggests they had probable cause to arrest him. The responding officer even said exactly that, and was overruled by the DA, likely as a favor to Zimmerman's grandfather, the judge. This whole thing stinks, and more than Zimmerman are going to suffer for it, when this issue goes to trial, and it WILL go to trial.

[OrwellwasRight]

72. Um, no. She is wrong.

You prove to me that the law isn't relevant by quoting the law? Hilarious. That proves it IS relevant. Whether or not you think the law is properly applied, the fact is, the law was used as an excuse not to arrest Zimmerman. That one sentence makes it relevant. If it didn't exist, it couldn't be used as an excuse. The two are clearly related. This may not prove whether other things were or were not also relevant or whether the Chief of Police, DA, Grand Jury, or any other party has or in the future will apply this law correctly or a myriad of other things. However, the basic proposition that the Stand Your Ground law has nothing to do with this case is ABSURD.

I also love that you are concerned about Zimmerman's suffering. For real?

And your confidence that it WILL go to trial. Can you also tell me what my mother will get me for Christmas? I love to meet fortune tellers.

[AtheistCrusader]

81. Reading is fundamental.

"The whole thing stinks, and more than Zimmerman are going to suffer for it, when this issue goes to trial, and it WILL go to trial."


Read it, read it again, and think about it, and maybe read it one more time, because this is complete fucking nonsense:

"I also love that you are concerned about Zimmerman's suffering. For real?"


Yes, I will bet it is going to trial, and I bet the FBI finds some 'issues' with the handling of the case by the DA as well. We will also probably see some interesting phone records from the DA, when they are done with it. But you don't have to take my word for it, all in due time. Perhaps you have heard, the wheels of justice turn slow.


You have a funny usage of 'relevance', even if you can define it correctly. I quoted the law to demonstrate there is nothing in it that should have protected Zimmerman. Again, given the known facts, it did not apply to Zimmerman's situation. As is quoted quite clearly in the article. (I did not watch the video because I cannot stand her) She is correct, SYG had nothing to do with it, as either Zimmerman was on the ground unable to escape, as one of his narratives claims, meaning this is simple self-defense, and not a 'stand your ground' issue since retreat is impossible, OR Zimmerman hunted him down and killed him, again SYG does not apply.

SYG is 'relevant' to the case in only that it has been leveraged as a thin excuse. Nothing more.

[OrwellwasRight]

83. The fact that it has been "leveraged" makes it relevant.

Relevant means: Having a bearing on or connection with the matter at hand. The SYG law certainly DOES have a bearing on the matter at hand. It was used as an excuse/reason not to arrest or charge him, and IF he goes to trail, it will be the basis of his defense. His attorney is already quoting it. If you don't understand that someone's use of a law as a defense to an allegation that they committed a crime is RELEVANT to situation, perhaps it is YOU who doesn't understand the meaning of the term relevant. To me, this reveals that you're so tied to your support for this law that you're not willing to simply say, "Obviously it is relevant because it is being used as the excuse not to arrest him, but in my opinion, it doesn't apply to him." Because saying that might what? Imply that there are problems with the law?

#2) Yes I read what you said. You didn't say Zimmerman was going to be punished. You said he was going to suffer. That implies empathy. You chose the word. I have a right to respond to your word choice. You can say that's not what you meant, and I can say I think the word choice reveals as much as your position that the Stand Your Ground law is nt relevant to a case in which it has already been cited by the police and attorneys involved.

[AtheistCrusader]

88. That doesn't imply empathy at all.

You continue to misconstrue what I said. It's a cheap personal attack, and I'll thank you to stop that bullshit.

I feel ZERO empathy for Zimmerman. I offered no opinion on his current status.

And again, reading comprehension is FUNdamental:


Main Entry:
punishment ?[puhn-ish-muhnt] Show IPA
Part of Speech:
noun
Definition:
penalty

Synonyms:

abuse, amercement, beating, castigation, chastening, chastisement, comeuppance, confiscation, correction, deprivation, disciplinary action, discipline, forfeit, forfeiture, gallows, hard work, infliction, just desserts, lumps, maltreatment, mortification, mulct, ostracism, pain, penance, proof, punitive measures, purgatory, reparation, retribution, rod, rough treatment, sanction, sequestration, short shrift, slave labor, suffering, torture, trial, unhappiness, victimization, what for

Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition

You may have the right to respond to my word choice, but you don't get to make up my intent, based on your error.

The police did not cite SYG, the police recommended he be charged. You are not entitled to your own facts.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-investigator-wanted-charge-george-zimmerman-manslaughter/story?id=16011674#.T3siftbn_cs

"IF he goes to trail, it will be the basis of his defense. His attorney is already quoting it."
http://wtvr.com/2012/03/24/zimmermans-lawyer-stand-your-ground-doesnt-apply-in-trayvon-martin-case/

Zero for three. Want to make up any more facts?

[OrwellwasRight]

89. What you cite as facts are merely your version:

"At the time, Police Chief Bill Lee cited the state’s “Stand Your Ground” law and stated publicly there was no probable cause to arrest Zimmerman based on the statute. This sparked outrage and cries for justice across the nation."

Read more here: http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/03/28/sanford-police-originally-wanted-to-charge-zimmerman/

Therefore: The POLICE cited SYG as relevant. In a world in which you are entitled to your own facts, I guess the police did not.

"— Paragraph 3 of the stand your ground law will be relevant to Zimmerman's defense if this case goes to trial, said Sonner. Paragraph 3 of the statute states that a person has a right to stand his ground and "meet force with force.""

Read more: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/04/02/149866754/zimmermans-attorney-this-is-not-a-race-issue

Therefore: Zimmerman's attorney cited SYG as relevant. In a world in which you are entitled to your own facts, I guess he did not.

And as to "proving" that punishment = suffering, the fact that it is listed as one of 20+ potential synonyms is not "proof" of anything. As you know, as a speaker of the English language, some words can be synonyms for others depending on the use. Box may sometimes be a synonym for container but not when it is being used to mean "fisticuffs." When judges hand down sentences, they hand down punishments, they don't hand down "sufferings." But whatever.

I'd like to take you at your word that you didn't mean suffer in the way that I read it, but your harsh "bullshit" directed at me, simply because I read different news sources than you, and because you'd rather make enemies on DU than admit the possibility that SYG is "related" to this case (which is a very low standard, and which is proved by the two links above -- cited by police and cited by his own attorney) leads me to conclude otherwise.

The more interesting question is why spew so much hate in defense of Ann Coulter? Saying that this case and the SYG law are related is not the same as saying that he will go free, if tried, becasue a jury will believe his SYG defense. You do realize that, don't you? So what's the source of all the anger? Why argue so vehemently against something that is so obviously true?

[AtheistCrusader]

92. You made no allowance for a misunderstanding.

You took your interpretation of what I said (which does not say what you claim it said, whether punishment or suffering are synonyms or not) and ran with it. I take that as a deliberate smear. You cast aspersions upon me.

I called that attack bullshit. I did not call YOU bullshit.


Ok, so Zimmerman's attorney is as committed to any one given position as Mitt Romney. Ok, I'll accept that. Doesn't mean the 'claimed' defense is going to fly, or is truly 'related'. Again, Zimmerman's account CLAIMS he was on the ground, and Trayvon was on top of him. One cannot retreat when pinned to the ground, so again, (as Coulter correctly pointed out) this becomes a straight-up case of self defense, IF that claim is true.

The police chief did cite it when talking to the public, but again, the investigating officer filed a recommendation that charges be filed against Zimmerman (which would be accompanied by arrest). We do not yet know what the DA did with that filing (but the FBI is probably going to tell us soon). Claiming something doesn't make it relevant. What the DA responded with would be relevant. IF the DA specified that SYG covered it, then you could claim it is relevant, HOWEVER, this sort of case is the sort of thing that results in new case law, meaning, the court will clarify whether it ACTUALLY applies under these circumstances. (My money is on 'no, it does not apply at all')

"The more interesting question is why spew so much hate in defense of Ann Coulter"
Again, a personal smear. It is quite clear what you are alluding to. This opinion was offered by a whole lot more people than Ann freakin' Coulter. She just happens to have landed on the correct side of this issue. Based on the relevant evidence that has been made available to the public, her conclusion appears accurate to me.

Maybe if you'd stop with alluding to 'you're defending Zimmerman, why is that?' 'you're defending coulter, why is that?', conversations will get a whole lot more peaceful and productive here.

[OrwellwasRight]

95. 1) I did not say

you called ME "bullshit," I said your post was full of "harsh 'bulshit' directed at me."

2) You admit it has been cited as demonstrated in my links. Therefore, it is relevant to the case. If it is being used as an "excuse" not to arrest him, then it is "relevant," whehter you beleive that excuse is bullshit or not. if it will be used as part of his defense if he is ever charged, then it is "relevant" whether or not a jury believes it provides a defense for him or not.

I think a lot of people around here, including you, are pretending "relevant" means something it does not in order to avoid a discussion of the merits of SYG.

a) I never said I wanted to discuss the merits of SYG.

b) I think those who argue vehemently that the law is not "relevant" to the case believe that if they somehow prove it isn't relevant, others won't look any deeper into the law. But people already are.

c) Relvance is a very low standard. I think Ann Coulter is truly a moron for saying that a law that has been cited by the police and by a man's own attorney as a defense for his actions is not "relevant" to the situation. Of course it is "relevant" -- it is related, it is connected, it has a bearing: it will be and already has been used as a defense. Whether it will ultimately be used successfully is a different question. Whether he is using it as a smokescreen to hide something else is a different question. Whether the law CAUSED him to do what he did is a different question. Whether the law sucks or not is a different question. Relevance does not mean causation. It does not mean any of these things.

So again I will ask, why all the effort to defend a basically indefensible statement instead of saying "of course it is related, but he won't be able so successfully use it to defend his actions"???

[AtheistCrusader]

99. No.

"Therefore, it is relevant to the case. If it is being used as an "excuse" not to arrest him, then it is "relevant," whehter you beleive that excuse is bullshit or not."

Someone may CLAIM any damn thing they want, 'I shot him because the sky was purple', this would not make the sky being purple relevant, beyond the 'relevance' that the accused CLAIMED it. We'll probably have to bookmark and revisit this argument after the trial, but I am confident it will not be used successfully as a defense.

" if it will be used as part of his defense if he is ever charged"

Oh my, you finally used 'if'. I now agree. IF it is used as a defense. We both have his Attorney on record saying it will NOT, and it WILL. If/when the trial occurs, we will discover if 'SYG' is 'relevant' in this capacity at all. Not until then.

"a law that has been cited by the police"

invalid use of a plural. It was cited by the Chief of police in a press conference. It was not cited by any of the other responding officers or investigators. (of whom, recommended and filed a formal recommendation of a manslaughter charge) You may ultimately be right, but so far, you have a political creature citing the law, in a press feeding frenzy while trying to protect his department's credibility/reputation. He would have been better off simply stating the investigating officer recommended a manslaughter charge to the DA, and that further questions should be directed to the DA's office. Why he didn't do that, we can only guess.

You are using an EXTREMELY low bar of 'relevance'. Coulter, distasteful as she may be, clearly specified the TECHNICAL nature of it's irrelevance to this issue, as have other posters. You continue to ignore this. Why?

[OrwellwasRight]

100. I ignore an incorrect definition of "relevant"

because it is wrong. There is no "technical" nature to the statute's irrelevance--if there is a colorable argument (e.g., can it be made with a straight face -- without having to assume the sky is pink--or purple) that the statute applies to this set of facts, then the statute is relevant and can and most likely will be made in court. There is an argument to be made here -- in fact it is BEING made, by both his own lawyer and by the police, who arguably know much more about the case than you, I, or Ann Coulter.

My bar for relevance is the same as the dictionary's bar, no more, no less. And I have posted that definition already multiple times and will not do so again.

Moreover, it is the same as what would be used in a court. There is no judge on the planet who would not let Zimmerman argue SYG in his own defense. The statute is clearly relevant. Whether it will apply on the facts of the case is for a jury (if there ever is one) to decide. That is what a jury is for. They take a presentation of evidence, determine which of those pieces of evidecen to believe (this is called "finding facts&quot , then apply the law to the facts as they have determined them to arrive at a verdict. Just becasue a jury reaches one verdict or another doesn't mean this or that stature wasn't RELEVANT. It meant the jury determined that the statute DID or DID NOT apply to the facts as they found them. E.g., just because a jury found that defendant X committed a robbery but did not conspire to commit roberry, it does not mean the conspiracy charge was IRRELEVANT. This isn't rocket science. Interesting how you seem to want to make it so.

Zimmerman's lawyer has already explained how he will use SYG paragrpah 3 in Zimmerman's defense IF he has to present a defense -- that is, if it goes to trial (it may not). That means it is RELEVANT. Frankly, he should be fired for ineffective assistance of counsel if he doesn't use it as part of his defense. It's the best he's got -- provides the most legal cover -- and will be most likely to give him the lowest threshhold for a jury to acquit Zimmerman from what I understnad of FL law.

It's not very convincing how you compare the statements of a lawyer, who must have sme expertise in the law, with the rantings of someone who claims they shot someone because the sky is purple. It's not what a defendant says applies that makes a difference, but what someone who has some expertise in the law says (e.g., the police, a DA, a private attorney).

Here's the issue: If there were a law that you could shoot someone because the sky was purple, and if it is a question of fact as to whether the sky was in fact purple at the moment of the shooting, the question of whether the sky wa purple would be damn well relevant. And you better believe an attorney worth his salt would raise it in defense of the shooter, even if Ann Coulter was out there saying everyone knows the sky was blue that day. There is no difference here. At all. The attorney is saying it is relevant to his defense and he will raise it if it goes to trial. Just because you , not a participant in the trial I am presuming, don't think he will WIN on that claim has nothing to do with its RELEVANCE.

As to invalid use of plural: police is both singular and plural (no such noun as "polices&quot . There was no use of plural at all -- not even misuse. What I think you are referring to is a term of reference (I think I used a synecdoche, in which a part is used to represent the whole or a whole is used to represent a part). So here, the Chief of Police, when he speaks, speaks for the whole police department, even for those who disagree with him. Just like when Obama speaks, he speaks for the whole government, even the federal employees who happen to be Tea Partiers. So when I said "police" I was referring to the whole police department, as exemplified by the statements made by its head. Likewise, I might write "the government thinks it is OK to kill an American without a trial." In that case, I am ascribing Obama's thoughts as President, to the "US government" as a whole.

This has gone, however, far beyond what is interesting. I have to keep explaining the same thing, and you have to keep arguing that relevant doesn't mean what it means. Not fun. Feel free to have the last word.

[AtheistCrusader]

103. And.

"Zimmerman's lawyer has already explained how he will use SYG paragrpah 3 in Zimmerman's defense IF he has to present a defense -- that is, if it goes to trial (it may not). That means it is RELEVANT. Frankly, he should be fired for ineffective assistance of counsel if he doesn't use it as part of his defense. It's the best he's got -- provides the most legal cover -- and will be most likely to give him the lowest threshhold for a jury to acquit Zimmerman from what I understnad of FL law. "

He has also said, as I linked earlier, the law does not apply.

How to resolve this conundrum?

We both stop armchair quarterbacking, and wait for the final results of a trial, if any.

[X_Digger]

78. No, Zimmerman would have just changed his story..

You can see the seeds of it already.

He (at one point, can't keep up with their spin) claimed he was going back towards his truck.

He would have claimed that he was trying to retreat and couldn't safely do so.

The state would be in the same position it's in now-- checking physical evidence and comparing it to the claims.

[OrwellwasRight]

84. Of course the state would still be checking evidence.

However, without this law, there would have been no excuse not to arrest him. That's why it exists. To make is easier to kill people and claim self-defense. That is, objectively, what the law does.

[X_Digger]

85. Does a racist / corrupt PD need an excuse to not do their jobs?

This is the third case (that I'm aware of) where this PD didn't charge a suspect when the victim was black.

No, sounds like he would have been detained, but charges never actually filed when the same SA stepped in.

We'd be in the same place.

[OrwellwasRight]

86. That does not prove non-relevance.

I assume you understand the term, but refuse to admit that the law is "relevant" (pertaining to) the situation because you don't want to have a discussion about how the law might be faulty or unecessary or too easily subject to abuse or any other discussion about the law, so you will go on pretending that it is "not relevant" to a situation in which the culprit's own attorney is already citing it. Enjoy!

[X_Digger]

87. If we'd likely be in the same place, it's irrelevant. n/t

[OrwellwasRight]

90. No, that is not the test for relevance.

It was cited by the Chief of Police as a reason for his decision. Therefore, it is relevant. He brought it up and made it relevant.

Relevant does not mean "the same thing would have happened in the absence of X;" that is a test for "but-for causation," not for "relevance." So you have your tests confused.

I never argued SYG CAUSED the situation. I said it was "relevant" to the situation. You know what isn't relevant to the situation? Penguins. You know what is? Florida law.

Or ask Zimmerman's lawyer, who cites to paragraph 3 of the law as relevant to his defense 9if he has to argue a defense):

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/04/02/149866754/zimmermans-attorney-this-is-not-a-race-issue

[X_Digger]

91. We're not in court, counselor.

'Relevance' carries its everyday meaning here.

If the situation would likely be the same, absent X, then X is irrelevant.

[OrwellwasRight]

93. Nope.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/relevant :

Having a bearing on or connection with the matter at hand.


Even in everyday usage, relevant does not mean causal. You can say it does, but then your fight is with the dictionary, not me.

[X_Digger]

94. 'connection with the matter at hand' - if absent, we'd be in the same place -- no connection. n/t

[OrwellwasRight]

97. That is not what "connection" means.

Connection:

1.
a. The act of connecting.
b. The state of being connected.
2. One that connects; a link: made a connection between the two pipes.
3. An association or relationship: There appeared to be no connection between the two crimes.
4. The logical or intelligible ordering of words or ideas; coherence.
5. Reference or relation to something else; context: In this connection, the agreement can be seen as a step toward peace.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/connection

None of these state or imply CAUSATION -- or anything to do with "in the absence of X, Y would be the same." You simply need to start arguing with the dictionary, not me.

Neither relevant nor connected mean "but-for causation" (the definition you keep giving). They both merely mean "some kind of relationship." Here, there already IS a relationship: 1) The Chief of Police cited the law as a reason not to arrest. 2) Zimmerman's attorney cited it as a possible line of defense if he is charged. There IS a relationship between the situation AND the law--what that relationship IS is what is open for debate. Any argument that the law is not related to the situation is sadly impossible unless you refuse to acknowledge even the most basic understanding of the term "relevant." Enjoy continuing to argue with the dictionary. This is way past the point of productive discussion.

[X_Digger]

98. I'm not arguing with the dictionary, counselor.

If the police chief had made mention that Zimmerman was wearing a dress, would that be relevant, too??

*snort*

Backpedal all you like.

[OrwellwasRight]

101. Yes, if there were a law that allowed you to shoot others while wearing a dress.

As is the case here. There is a law that allows you to shoot others in certain circumstances. The Chief of Police said that law applied in this case. The Chief of Police is tasked with knowing and enforcing the law, so when he cites a law as a reason for an action that he took (here, not arresting Zimmerman), that means it is relevant to the circumstances at hand. E.G., connected, having a bearing on, related to the circumstances at issue (Zimmerman's shooting of Martin).

Keep snorting.

[X_Digger]

102. There's no lack of amusement to laugh at.

The gymnastics of first trying to contextualize 'relevant' in a legal sense into a conversation clearly not related to the legal term, then trying to twist a dictionary definition of the everyday usage to fit a situation it doesn't- is always amusing.

The (temporarily-former) police chief could have cited the 18th amendment. Would that be relevant, too?

[OrwellwasRight]

104. Wow. Just Sad.

Can't take it that:

It fits the dictionary definition of relevant?

It fits the legal definition of relevant?

That I made mincemeat of your hypothetical?

You are the only one doing gymnastics (and not very good ones) trying to prove a law that has already been used as a reason not to arrest a killer is not "relevant" to the situation.

Keep on having fun refusing to see what is right in front of your face. I'm over it.

[X_Digger]

105. Oh I plan to.

And when Zimmerman is charged, regardless of whatever tissue paper he (or the racist PD/SA) tried to hide behind, I'll be sure to remind you how relevant it really is.

[lastlib]

12. If Annthrax told me the sun rose in the east,.....

... I would look for it to rise in the west.

If Annthrax told me the sky was blue, I would look for it to be red.

IOW--I don't trust a d#$% thing that POS says!

[gejohnston]

22. you would actually pay attention

to anything she says? I don't.

[ileus]

21. Only the antis are hooked into believing this shooting was SYG related.

[Starboard Tack]

23. Anyone who doesn't see SYG as the issue is in denial

Zimmerman is hiding behind it, as is the Sanford PD and the DA.
If Martin used SYG, it obviously didn't work for him either.
Both sides are making the same claim, with no winners as usual.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

32. Zimmerman is hiding behind SYG.

While you may be claiming that, whether that is the reality once this sees some judicial action remains to be seen.

Is there some portion of the SYG law which you find in particular, problematic?

[Starboard Tack]

35. Yes, the fact that it leads to more people suffering a violent death.

It's a classic knee jerk reactionary piece of right wing libertarian legislation rammed through by the NRA. There is nothing progressive about it. Any law that presumes a homicide is justified, based solely on the claims of the killer, is seriously flawed IMO. Presumption of innocence should only go so far. Once there is no doubt as to who the killer is, the onus should be on the killer to show justification.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

36. I ask gently and with respect...

...for you to please quote the portion of the Florida law which "...presumes a homicide is justified, based solely on the claims of the killer...".

[Starboard Tack]

37. Sure

(3)?A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

The bold part says it all.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

44. However...

"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force..."

...does rather place the burden of proof that he is the victim of the initial attack upon the claimed victim. The boldface does not say it all. If you claim you are attacked and there is clear evidence that your pursuit of another resulted in his attacking you, you are the aggressor and should not be held blameless.

[rrneck]

45. Soooooo,

Someone walks through your unlocked front door and tries to beat you to a pulp. There is no physical evidence to support your claim of self defense in your own home. According to your reasoning, you should go to jail if you defend yourself.

[Starboard Tack]

55. Not in your home, necessarily

If retreat is easy and their are no family members or other innocents in the home, then the prudent thing to do is retreat and be prepared to defend oneself from the new position of retreat. It is most likely that any intruder would depart as soon as your presence became known. Obviously, a home invasion can be something quite different and you should make as accurate assessment as possible and act accordingly. If the intruder is armed and in your home, the deck is heavily stacked in your favor regarding justifiable homicide.

[rrneck]

56. You failed to address the issue at hand.

Care to try again or just admit where this is going?

[AtheistCrusader]

53. See post 52. Read the statute. Read the responding officer's statement.

The law wasn't the problem. The DA was/is. As we will all see very soon, in court.

[Starboard Tack]

54. We shall see

I think the problem is this

(3)?A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Otherwise, what possible legal basis could there be for Zimmerman not being charged. The problem with this part of the law is that, barring good third party testimony, it's the shooters word against the deceased. Very bad law. Sorry.

[AtheistCrusader]

61. Not true.

There is plenty of physical evidence that can corroborate or torpedo a 'story' told by a person claiming self defense. (as we have seen with Mr. Z, or at least, what we have seen of the publicly acknowledged evidence)

In Zimmerman's case, the responding officers felt he should be charged. DA talked to daddy or grandpa, and came up with a different plan instead. THAT is the problem.

[Starboard Tack]

66. What physical evidence?

Are you suggesting that the DA is in collusion with Zimmerman and his family to suppress evidence?
He claims he was attacked by Martin, grass stains on his back contusions to back of head etc.. All things he could have done to himself.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. All things not apparently in evidence.

The video isn't super great, but it's pretty telling, as it it's timestamp.

Yes, I believe the family and the DA are involved. I cannot prove it yet, but that is my strongest suspicion.

Everything clicked when I heard the responding officer's opinion.

Edit:
It begins. http://www.democraticunderground.com/101487941

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

28. Are you a DU member who agrees with Ann Coulter and if so why?

I do, occasionally, agree with Ann Coulter. This is one of those times.

I do definitely have an issue with elements of the law or how it is interpreted and applied. I have not read all of the Florida SYG law but IMHO:

The purposes of such a law should be:
- to hold innocent anyone who resorts to aggression as a means of defense against initial aggression
- exclude from civil prosecution anyone who resorts to aggression as a means of defense against initial aggression.

The scope of this law should be:
- those who by incident of continuous contact are the initial victims of aggression or physical pursuit followed by aggression
- those whose home, vehicle, vessel, apartment or other established area of business or residence is invaded by or trespassed upon by an individual or group attacking, threatening, menacing or otherwise intimidating by means of physical advantage, weapons or accompanied by one or more others acting in this manner.

Just an opinion.

[krispos42]

41. If Zimmerman was the aggressor, the instigator, then he cannot claim self-defense, period, unless...

...Martin's retaliatory force was so disproportionate as to be unreasonable.

If Zimmerman was talking to Martin (perhaps pestering him with questions or whatever) and reached out to grab Martin's shoulder, and Martin whipped around, clocked Zimmerman with the can of iced tea, and began beating the shit out of him, then MAYBE Zimmerman can claim legitimate self-defense.

Unopened cans of drink are hard.

However, given the complete lack of injury to Zimmerman AND the complete lack of deadly weapons in Martin's possession, then I don't see how it can be self-defense under the claim of disproportionate force.

THEREFORE, Zimmerman, as the instigator, did not act in self-defense and can't claim so.

[OrwellwasRight]

43. The fact is he IS claiming so.

And unless he is arrested and charged, he'll get away with it, your disbelief of his claim notwithstanding.

[krispos42]

51. And I'm a 6'2" bodybuilder/former Navy SEAL who stole three bars of gold from Osama's hideout...

...and now live in a Malibu beachhouse, where I care for abandoned puppies and kittens and paint seascapes in my spare time.


It's easy to make a claim. But hard reality intrudes when you find out that I'm actually a 5' 11" overweight quality-control manager living in Mom and Dad's basement after my ex-wife dumped the kid on me and moved to Canada, forcing me to move back to the overpriced hell that is Connecticut so I could get my kid in a quality school system for kindergarten before the school year started.



There's no statute of limitations on murder. And the simple fact is that the problem isn't the law, it's the law-enforcement system. You can't beat the refs, and if the refs don't want to prosecute white people that gun down black teenagers because, hell, what's one more dead hoodie-wearing darkie, then the rulebook doesn't mean squat.

You've got to bring in the people that police the referees if the referees are corrupt. And now that the Florida staties and the Federal DoJ are looking into things, I imagine that a lot of referees are going to be red-carded and kicked off the field of play by people with "Federal Agent" printed on the backs of their windbreakers.

[OrwellwasRight]

73. All your posturing aside,

the simple point is the law is relevant because the Chief of Police, and the DA, and Zimmerman have made it so. The Chief of Police used it as a screen to hide behind and justify his failure to arrest. And if you think he did so wrongly, that is fine. That is your interpretation of proper application of the law --- but it is not proof that the law has nothing to do with the situation.

If a law exists that I can use as my defense, that law has something to do with my situation. You can then argue that law doesn't apply to me (it may not), but you can't argue with a straight face that law "has nothing to do with" my situation. Just like you could argue that the allowing the insanity defense didn't apply to the guy who shot Harvey Milk. Of course, it did have a lot to do with his trial, given his use of the twinkie defense (the sugar rush made me crazy).

That is why Ann Coulter is simply obtuse. She says outlandish things that have no basis in fact and people reward her by saying how smart she is. If she had said, the SYG doesn't apply to Zimmerman, because he was following the victim, I would have no quibble with her statement. Here, however, I have many quibbles. And I will continue to quantify them as necessary. Using equanimity if possible.

[AtheistCrusader]

106. "That is your interpretation of proper application of the law"

Your statement is untested by the courts.

One could make the same claim about the seizure of firearms in LA during Katrina, but a federal judge ruled that it was NOT a proper application of the law, and issued two separate injunctions halting it.

Just because it hasn't been successfully challenged yet, doesn't mean the application of the law was proper at all.

Coulter, as distasteful as it is to try and defend her, even when right, clearly QUALIFIED her use of the term 'relevant'. Throughout this discussion thread, you have studiously ignored that.

[OrwellwasRight]

107. not qualified:

From the OP:

“That is completely wrong,” Coulter replied. “This had nothing to do do with the ‘Stand Your Ground’ law...."

There is nothing "qualified" in that statement. "Had nothing to do with" is pretty all encompassing. "Had little to do with" "Did not cause" "Is only partially related" These are all qualified statements that I would not quibble with.

"Had NOTHING to do with the Stand Your Ground Law" is too broad, all encompassing, and just plain wrong.

My statement of your opinion will never be tested by the courts. I don't think you understnad the post you are replying to. When I say "That is your interpretation of proper application of the law" I am saying that your statement that Zimmerman won't be able to effectively use SYG as a defense is YOUR OPINION. It's YOUR INTERPRETATION of YOU THINK the law should or will be applied by the courts -- which opinion does not prove that the law is not relevant to the situation. A law can be relevant and still be deemed by a judge or jury not to apply once the facts have been adduced at trial.

I really don't know how much clearer I can be: the law has "something" to do with the Zimmerman case. How it will play out is yet to be determined. That it already had "something" to do with Zimmerman not being arrested and with his lawyer's thinking about his legal strategy is already established by statements to the press. Ergo, Ann Coulter is WRONG. The correct answer is not that there is NO relationship, but that there is SOME relationship, whose full effect on the case is yet to be known. That is all I have ever said. It is relevant. End. Fini. Not a high bar to jump over.

Please, can't we end this? I said it was pointless about 3 posts ago and you keep on keeping on.

[GreenStormCloud]

49. NAACP makes the same claim.

Are you now going to suggest that the NAACP is RW because in this one case they agree with Coulter?

Zimmerman was the agressor and as such is not covered by SYG.

[pipoman]

57. No witnesses has everything to do with this, SYG has nothing to do with it..

Without SYG there would still be no witnesses to dispute any story zim wants to tell, with SYG if even one person was present, or if a nearby camera caught what happened zim could be charged..

[spin]

59. Without witnesses under the old law it would be hard to prove that Zimmerman acted incorrectly ...

He could just claim that he attempted to retreat and since Martin was dead, nobody could dispute his statement.

However in this situation I feel enough evidence will be uncovered to justify the arrest and prosecution of Zimmerman. The "Stand Your Ground" law does not allow you to confront another individual, escalate the situation, shoot the individual and claim self defense.

I refuse to accept that the media should be the judge and jury in any case. The media's job is to publish the facts that they uncover in order to assure that our justice system is fair and impartial. Past that point a judge, jury and attorneys can determine the actual guilt or innocence of the defendant. If no arrest and prosecution of Zimmerman occurs the results of the investigation should be published and be damn convincing.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

60. Just wondering...

...if you plan to weigh-in on this question?

Any dialogue is encouraged.

[The Straight Story]

62. I am not sure what coulter has to do with anything? If it is 1pm and she says it is, and I agree,

does that mean anything? And if you disagree because of who she is, what does it say about your ability to discuss things in an intelligent way?

[GreydeeThos]

64. The right-wing just loves to inject the SYG into the debate because it deflects away from Zimmerman

In order to get justice for Trayvon, we need to stay on topic and not let the discussion get diluted by discussing an irrelevant law.

[BiggJawn]

77. Zimmerman wasn't standing his ground.

He was actively pursuing Martin, possibly with intent to do bodily harm.

Hey, you can rub the infamous "DU TRU-BLU Litmus Paper" in my face till I choke on it, but for once the skanky blond is right.

Ewwww! (shudder)

[Tuesday Afternoon]

80. nice dialogue you got going here

[AlinPA]

96. I thought that Z. or some law enforcement officials claimed SYG and left him go. Looks like he

if free because of that.