Don't think this is how the "stand your ground law" works

[DaveTN]

Well, at the least, I finally got a -1 for a comment. I can only guess who

Are you implying it was me?

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Cracked my axe-handle from beating this dead horse so much. Gotta rest up. We'll see how it goes. My crystal ball ain't very good. Still think Z's share of the blame can be as easily attributed to stupidity as to malice. There is such a thing as criminal stupidity but dunno if Z qualifies. We'll find out eventually.

At least Z didn't hand over thousands of weapons to drug cartels and enable hundreds of murders.

Edited March 31, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Whatever the Feds do, I can only imagine it will be wrong if it's anything other than offering

forensics or some similar assistance. If you're suggesting "Hate Crime" stuff, you're barking

up the wrong tree.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

No, does the shoe fit?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Cracked my axe-handle from beating this dead horse so much. Gotta rest up. We'll see how it goes. My crystal ball ain't very good. Still think Z's share of the blame can be as easily attributed to stupidity as to malice. There is such a thing as criminal stupidity but dunno if Z qualifies. We'll find out eventually.

At least Z didn't hand over thousands of weapons to drug cartels and enable hundreds of murders.

I think we all have, Lester. Sometimes it's fun and sometimes not.

[Mark@Sea]

6.8, those facts are not in dispute.

They aren't even facts.

Treyvon Martin was walking down the street between townhouses in a gated community in which he was a visitor, not a permanent resident

Zimmerman started the fight with a swift nose to Martins' knuckles.

Treyvon Martin had no duty to retreat either. He had a right to “stand his ground†and fight his attacker continue beating the guy he attacked

Unfortunately for Treyvon he brought a set of fists to a gun fight attacked a legally armed private citizen

And because he didn’t have the physical ability to take care of business he (and many others) feel that when he figured out he bit off more than he could chew; it’s okay to take out a gun and kill the kid. He’s wrong, and he’s going to find out just how wrong he is. Blah blah blah, a real man doesn't need to carry a gun, he settles everything with his fists.

These are pretty much the same 'facts', arguments and attitudes you can get at, say, huffpost or the various Brady orgs. Only cops need to carry guns.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I believe you're on to something, Mark.

[mikegideon]

Well, at the least, I finally got a -1 for a comment. I can only guess who

I fixed it

[mikegideon]

I believe you're on to something, Mark.

He usually is.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Cracked my axe-handle from beating this dead horse so much. Gotta rest up. We'll see how it goes.

I think we all have, Lester. Sometimes it's fun and sometimes not.

Hi 6.8

I don't feel bad about it, 'cept it was my favorite genuine 1966 Lester Maddox autographed axe handle! [just joking]

Edited March 31, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[CQB Elite]

My opinions about his guilt or innocence mean nothing. You are the one that said you are an expert on Florida law and that what he did was okay. Why did the investigating Police Officers ask for an arrest warrant; did they not know the law?

I didn’t sentence him to the death penalty; I’m not a “New Black Pantherâ€. I still want to know why the person that offered that reward hasn’t been charged… is that legal in Florida also?

This is all happening because the States Attorney’s Office failed to do their job and the citizens are not going to stand for it. Sure, now they have decided to take it to a Grand Jury, but I’m not sure any justice will come from that. Only one side of the story will be told there.

It may take the Feds steping in.

I never said it was "okay" and I doubt the Feds get anywhere either.

Also, the Black Panther Party is a non-issue ever since Forrest Gump infiltrated them.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Lester, that's quite an investment you made 'cause they still made things right

back then. And it's a collectable, to boot!

[Guest RevScottie]

Now that this thread has descended into the abys let's talk about the things that might actually be of interest to gun owners instead of this continuing soap opera.

Everyone keeps talking about "Stand Your Ground" but Zimmerman's lawyer early on alluded that the defense would be "Self Defense" not "Stand Your Ground"

My understanding is that "Stand Your Ground" is used when you are threatened such as with a pointed gun, etc. "Self Defense" would be when that threat has become active against you?

[RobertNashville]

Robert, the facts I’m basing my opinions on are not in dispute.

Yeah, and d-nile isn't just a river in Egypt.

Treyvon Martin was walking down the street minding his own business, drinking tea and having some skittles; minutes later he was dead.-

We know Martin is dead and that's the only part of that sentence that is an actual "fact".

Some azzhat neighborhood watch guy decided he looked suspicious so he stalked him, got out of his truck and chased him, called him a “f*@#ing coonâ€, got in a fight with him (according to you) and shot him to death.

Wow..."fact" hugh? Really? Please cite your references for these facts; especially your wild-sassed assertion that I ever said anything like the above garbage you attributed to me.

Treyvon Martin had no duty to retreat either. He had a right to “stand his ground†and fight his attacker. Unfortunately for Treyvon he brought a set of fists to a gun fight.

Yes, Martin had no duty to retreat. beyond that, other than your opinion, there is no basis to assume that Martin is the victim and Zimmerman the aggressor even though that's how you want to present it.

This dirtbag couldn’t handle a 17 year old kid; he had no business out messing with people. And because he didn’t have the physical ability to take care of business he (and many others) feel that when he figured out he bit off more than he could chew; it’s okay to take out a gun and kill the kid. He’s wrong, and he’s going to find out just how wrong he is.

Wow...not only do you know everything that happened you even know what Zimmerman was even thinking...amazing.

As I said before, It must be a real comfort to be so damn certain of something that you weren't there to observe. It must also have been a real time-saver, you know, when you were a cop...you probably never had to actually go the scene of a crime 'cause you probably just already "knew" all that needed to be known.

Maybe you can identify with this guy because he’s a gun owner; I can’t. You can put any spin on it that you want, but if what you claim happened; I hope he is convicted and sent to prison.

I haven't spun anything. Where in this thread have I claimed to know what happened? If you want to see someone who claims to know what happened (even though he wasn't there) look in a mirror.

The only thing I try to identify with are facts or in the case of this incident, quite a lack of them (your assertions to the contrary notwithstanding).

I don’t know, maybe I shouldn’t be so concerned with a trial. Even if this guy doesn’t go to trial, his life as he knows it is over. He’ll live in fear the rest of his life.

Yep...thanks to two groups that are equally deserving of scorn and dismissal; the racists who want the "White Hispanic" dead regardless of ANY facts, and the closed minded who has convicted Zimmerman based on assumptions and assertions they try to pass off as "fact". Edited March 31, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Mark@Sea]

Stand Your Ground removes the imbecilic "duty to retreat" used by so many prosecutors to convict honest people for defending themselves.

For example, the elderly guy who shot an intruder rather than jump out of a second story window in his own home (that being an "escape route") who was convicted of murder.

Castle doctrine removed the duty to retreat from your own home. Stand your ground extended that to pretty much anyplace you are legally allowed (public streets, for example).

This case has NOTHING to do with Stand Your Ground, as Martin was on the offensive, and Zimmerman didn't have the ability to retreat.

Edited March 31, 2012 by Mark@Sea

[RobertNashville]

My opinions about his guilt or innocence mean nothing.

How can you have an "opinion" about Zimmerman's guild or innocence when just a few posts ago, you were presenting "the facts" about it??? ROTFLMAO

[QuietDan]

6.8, those facts are not in dispute.

They aren't even facts.

Treyvon Martin was walking down the street between townhouses in a gated community in which he was a visitor, not a permanent resident

Zimmerman started the fight with a swift nose to Martins' knuckles.

Treyvon Martin had no duty to retreat either. He had a right to “stand his ground†and fight his attacker continue beating the guy he attacked

Unfortunately for Treyvon he brought a set of fists to a gun fight attacked a legally armed private citizen

And because he didn’t have the physical ability to take care of business he (and many others) feel that when he figured out he bit off more than he could chew; it’s okay to take out a gun and kill the kid. He’s wrong, and he’s going to find out just how wrong he is. Blah blah blah, a real man doesn't need to carry a gun, he settles everything with his fists.

These are pretty much the same 'facts', arguments and attitudes you can get at, say, huffpost or the various Brady orgs. Only cops need to carry guns.

Very nice indeed.

[QuietDan]

If I'm reading the new reports properly, it seems that Zimmerman was flat on his back receiving a beating and calling out for help. What did he need to call out for help for if he had a holstered weapon? Sounds like some pretty serious restraint on the part of Zimmerman, getting your face pounded when you could have been shooting.

The reports suggest that while lying flat on his back getting his face and the back of his head pounded, his shirt rode up and his holstered gun become visible, and that there was at least a short struggle between Zimmerman and Martin for the weapon, a struggle that apparently Zimmerman won as Martin is dead from a gunshot.

I imagine, then, that quite possibly fingerprints from both of them are on the weapon, which has been in police evidence since the initial police response.

Just like everyone else on this board, I don't know what happened. I'm asking questions. I'm also waiting for a Grand Jury determination. If the Grand Jury develops a . . . true bill ?? . . . then it goes to trial. If the Grand Jury develops . . . no bill ?? . . . then it doesn't go to trial.

If I was a District Attorney working with a Grand Jury, and I had a mob outside my courthouse braying to lynch my suspect, I would tell the mob that I WILL NOT BOW TO THE MOB in any way shape or form. In fact, I would be tempted to encourage the Grand Jury to NO BILL the case as a response to the undue mob pressure. I'd make the announcement from the courthouse steps, with Sheriff's Deputies armed with riot shotguns at my flanks.

Edited March 31, 2012 by QuietDan

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm wondering why that hasn't already happened. That's the way I understood the process, also.

[DaveTN]

Now that this thread has descended into the abys let's talk about the things that might actually be of interest to gun owners instead of this continuing soap opera.

Everyone keeps talking about "Stand Your Ground" but Zimmerman's lawyer early on alluded that the defense would be "Self Defense" not "Stand Your Ground"

My understanding is that "Stand Your Ground" is used when you are threatened such as with a pointed gun, etc. "Self Defense" would be when that threat has become active against you?

“Stand your ground†was Florida’s buzz word for not having to retreat. Tennessee doesn’t need to pass stand your ground legislation because we don’t have a duty to retreat.

No duty to retreat means that when Treyvon was walking down the street and was accosted by a stranger, he didn’t have to run or try to get away (although he did, according to Zimmerman); he could retaliate and try to protect himself. Unfortunately for Treyvon the perp had a gun. No one knows for sure how or why they got in a fight, but they did. Some want us to believe that because the perp approached Treyvon, Treyvon attacked him and brutally beat him, causing Treyvon to now become the aggressor, which justified Zimmerman killing him. That is the self-defense claim.

Common sense tells me that is non-sense. Zimmerman got out of his vehicle after being told by the dispatcher that he did not need to follow Treyvon. You can hear him make a racial slur in disgust as he exits the truck. Did Treyvon hear it? I don’t know. But now Treyvon is approached by a guy that has been following him in a truck, got out, and Treyvon may have heard the racial slur and got scared. I don’t know. That may have caused him to fight for his life. Zimmerman claims Treyvon knocked him down and was beating his head into the pavement; so he pulled his gun out and killed him. Zimmerman’s friend (who is all over the press talking about what Zimmerman told him happened, but saying he can’t really say anything) is alluding to the fact that the gun may have went off accidently.

So the question becomes, can you be the aggressor in what the victim may have perceived was going to turn into an attack, an unprovoked attack on someone walking down the street, and when they protect themselves you kill them? I say no, you can try all you want to claim self-defense when you have killed someone in a situation you started; but give a jury any reason to throw out the self-defense and you are gone to prison.

I want to see a trial. We don’t get to see all the evidence and neither does the press. Treyvon’s autopsy results are sealed. Was he hit in the face? Was he grabbed by the arm when Zimmerman approached him? Did his hands show any indications of the terrible beating Zimmerman claimed? Were his hands covered in Zimmerman’s blood from beating his head into the pavement? We don’t know.

[DaveTN]

If I was a District Attorney working with a Grand Jury, and I had a mob outside my courthouse braying to lynch my suspect, I would tell the mob that I WILL NOT BOW TO THE MOB in any way shape or form. In fact, I would be tempted to encourage the Grand Jury to NO BILL the case as a response to the undue mob pressure. I'd make the announcement from the courthouse steps, with Sheriff's Deputies armed with riot shotguns at my flanks.

Well of course you would, because you are well protected and it’s not your neighborhood that will get burned, or your neighbors that will get injured. Flexing your muscles to a crowd that is looking for any reason to start a riot will sure show them how tough you are.

[BigK]

“Stand your ground†was Florida’s buzz word for not having to retreat. Tennessee doesn’t need to pass stand your ground legislation because we don’t have a duty to retreat.

No duty to retreat means that when Treyvon was walking down the street and was accosted by a stranger, he didn’t have to run or try to get away (although he did, according to Zimmerman); he could retaliate and try to protect himself. Unfortunately for Treyvon the perp had a gun. No one knows for sure how or why they got in a fight, but they did. Some want us to believe that because the perp approached Treyvon, Treyvon attacked him and brutally beat him, causing Treyvon to now become the aggressor, which justified Zimmerman killing him. That is the self-defense claim.

Common sense tells me that is non-sense. Zimmerman got out of his vehicle after being told by the dispatcher that he did not need to follow Treyvon. You can hear him make a racial slur in disgust as he exits the truck. Did Treyvon hear it? I don’t know. But now Treyvon is approached by a guy that has been following him in a truck, got out, and Treyvon may have heard the racial slur and got scared. I don’t know. That may have caused him to fight for his life. Zimmerman claims Treyvon knocked him down and was beating his head into the pavement; so he pulled his gun out and killed him. Zimmerman’s friend (who is all over the press talking about what Zimmerman told him happened, but saying he can’t really say anything) is alluding to the fact that the gun may have went off accidently.

So the question becomes, can you be the aggressor in what the victim may have perceived was going to turn into an attack, an unprovoked attack on someone walking down the street, and when they protect themselves you kill them? I say no, you can try all you want to claim self-defense when you have killed someone in a situation you started; but give a jury any reason to throw out the self-defense and you are gone to prison.

I want to see a trial. We don’t get to see all the evidence and neither does the press. Treyvon’s autopsy results are sealed. Was he hit in the face? Was he grabbed by the arm when Zimmerman approached him? Did his hands show any indications of the terrible beating Zimmerman claimed? Were his hands covered in Zimmerman’s blood from beating his head into the pavement? We don’t know.

Evel Knievel couldn't even jump this far!

[QuietDan]

Well of course you would, because you are well protected and it’s not your neighborhood that will get burned, or your neighbors that will get injured. Flexing your muscles to a crowd that is looking for any reason to start a riot will sure show them how tough you are.

Good answer.

Note, however, the " . . . I would be tempted to . . . " segment of the statement. . . .

It seems that something in your background has tended to make this issue personal for you, for whatever reason. . . .

[QuietDan]

Well of course you would, because you are well protected and it’s not your neighborhood that will get burned, or your neighbors that will get injured. Flexing your muscles to a crowd that is looking for any reason to start a riot will sure show them how tough you are.

It's entirely possible that riots are coming; there certainly seem to be forces that are working on making that a reality. There can be a lot of coddling and accommodating and sweet talking to avoid the potential for a riot, but that does not address the root causes driving society in the directions of riot. Ultimately, if pressed, there will be a confrontation between the forces of law & order and the forces of the mob and of chaos.

In general, bowing to the demands of the mob does not make the mob disperse. It makes the mob demand more, until, one day, there is nothing more that can be given to the mob.

It is possible that, sometimes, the only way to remove the pressure for a riot is to have one, and then have the rioters and society deal with the aftermath thereof. I'm reminded of the armed Korean shopkeepers on the roofs of their stores in Los Angeles.

I imagine there is high police art that can defuse a potential riot through proper street-level intelligence and the timely arrest and detention of fomentors, activists and ringleaders. And yet, this does not seem to have occurred. Perhaps it is being planned for quietly and all elements are already in place waiting for the right circumstance.

Is it not possible that the "community activist" squatting in the White House and his corrupt Attorney General are hoping that their followers will turn to the street? That they are actively fomenting and subtly encouraging such an outcome? A phone call from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and Revrum Sharpton and grievance-whore Jesse Jackson would stand down and go home. That has not occurred, and therefore it is condoned behavior.

The current state of affairs in some sense is a continuation of the Occupy movement from earlier in the year. There is fake-outrage being generated in the Martin versus Zimmerman case; if not that case, then another case would be the triggering excuse. It is all part of a bigger plan. The activists learned a lot in the initial Occupy practice mobilization, and yet our various state and local police forces learned a lot as well. There was a lot of fumbling around looking for the right type of police response, but once a successful formula was executed in a couple of cities, then other state and local police in other locales adopted the techniques to local needs and were also successful. How many Occupy encampments are still active at this time?

We need Statesmen in society in circumstances such as these, and I will not hold my breath and expect a Stateman to emerge. I, rather, expect the demagogues, and the opportunists, and the race-baiters, and the slimy politicians, and the "community activists" -- perhaps led by the Community Activist in Chief - to encourage the whole situation to devolve until there are people beaten and cars overturned, or people stabbed and police cars burned, or people shot to death and city blocks burned.

I'm still holding out for the Grand Jury's decision in the Martin v. Zimmerman case, and I will abide by it. I doubt that the aggrieved will be satisfied in this case nor in general. Get ready for a long, hot summer. It's all part of the plan.

And then again, I might be full of ####. But I doubt it. Have a nice day.

[Erik88]

Robert, the facts I’m basing my opinions on are not in dispute.

Treyvon Martin was walking down the street minding his own business, drinking tea and having some skittles; minutes later he was dead.

Some azzhat neighborhood watch guy decided he looked suspicious so he stalked him, got out of his truck and chased him, called him a “f*@#ing coonâ€, got in a fight with him (according to you) and shot him to death.

Treyvon Martin had no duty to retreat either. He had a right to “stand his ground†and fight his attacker. Unfortunately for Treyvon he brought a set of fists to a gun fight. This dirtbag couldn’t handle a 17 year old kid; he had no business out messing with people. And because he didn’t have the physical ability to take care of business he (and many others) feel that when he figured out he bit off more than he could chew; it’s okay to take out a gun and kill the kid. He’s wrong, and he’s going to find out just how wrong he is..

damn Dave. I never liked your posts but up until now you've always been semi rational. Where the heck did you come up with the parts in bold? Have you not bothered to read any of the news articles that actually have witness testimony? You are convinced Zimmerman is a murderer despite the facts that have been released.

I said it earlier on, maybe Zimmerman is guilty, maybe he isn't. Can't we at least lets the courts decide before foregoing all the facts and deciding he's a murderer.

Man, I hope you never get accused of a crime.......(again).