Jump to content


SYG - Let's clear up this nonsense once and for all


  • Please log in to reply
303 replies to this topic

#1 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,671 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 17 July 2013 - 09:37 AM

It seems there is not only overactive IMAGINATIONS going on around here, but there appears to be a shocking amount of ignorance being displayed about what SYG is and is NOT.  Let's clear this up once and for all.

 

The easiest way for those of you mentally challenged about this topic is to consider SYG simply nothing more than the "castle doctrine" applied to you in public.  The castle doctrine simply is the right to defend yourself and your family from those who you reasonably think will cause death or bodily harm.  Its says that when using deadly force, I do not have the obligation to retreat first and then use deadly force in self defense

 

SYG is the simply castle doctrine in public places where you are legally allowed to be.  It essentially says that if I am somewhere where I am legally allowed to be, like a public sidewalk, a drive-thru ATM, a grocery story, a  gas-station, etc. AND I am faced with a threat that I believe will reasonably cause me bodily injury or death, I can use deadly force in SELF-DEFENSE without the prior obligation of having to retreat first.

 

In BOTH cases - I must meet the basic SELF-DEFENSE requirement.  SYG is nothing more than self-defense without the need to run away first.  The thought process behind it is that obligation to run away might (and has) exposed you to more potential danger than just initiating the self-defense when first confronted with the threat. 

 

Castle doctrine DOES NOT:

-Allow me to shoot my neighbor inside my house if we get into an argument his over loud music

-Allow me to shoot my wife's lover when I catch them shagging in my bed

-Allow me to shoot a retreating burgler who has already made it outside the house and is running away

-Allow me to shoot or shoot at my spouse in the middle of an argument

 

SYG DOES NOT:

-Allow me to walk up to my neighbor's driveway and shoot him when we get into a shouting match over the loud music

-Allow me to shoot a mentally ill guy through my car window just because he is screaming at me from outside

-Allow me to stalk a stranger in the neighborhood and execute him for holding skittles

-Allow me to shoot a guy sitting in his car because the music is too loud

 

In BOTH cases - the basic self-defense precepts MUST apply.  i.e. you must be reasonably in fear for your life or in fear of serious injury to you or someone else.  If that basic self defense threshold is NOT met first, neither castle doctrine or SYG laws should or will save your stupid ass. 

 

Just because some idiots misuse or msunderstand the SYG law and apply it incorrectly doesn't mean the law is flawed.  To get a CCW, you are supposed to be clearly trained in when Self-Defense and SYG does and does not apply.  The reason GZ vs TM wasn't SYG is because GZ was pinned to the ground fighting for his life - there was nowhere to run, therefore SYG didn't apply.  If GZ had pulled out the gun and killed TM while they were simply arguing or having a shoving-match, then SYG wouldn't apply either because there was no need for Self-defense and GZ would have been a murderer.

 

JFC, this shit is not rocket surgery!



#2 Publius

Publius

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Location:Geneva

Posted 17 July 2013 - 10:10 AM

I think the problem some have with stand your ground is the potential to encourage belligerents to remain toe to toe and continue escalating the confrontation. As with dogs, capitulation, submission and withdrawal is sufficient in most cases to calm an Alpha male.



#3 LenP

LenP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,501 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:sailing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and various other outdoor activities.

Posted 17 July 2013 - 10:21 AM

I think the problem some have with stand your ground is the potential to encourage belligerents to remain toe to toe and continue escalating the confrontation. As with dogs, capitulation, submission and withdrawal is sufficient in most cases to calm an Alpha male.


There may be a few cases like that, but I think it in most cases that the alpha male was going to fight anyway, the law just provides an ill fighting defense of convenience which rarely works. I may think differently if I see large numbers of cases where the alpha males in question are given a pass for their behavior.

#4 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,445 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 17 July 2013 - 10:21 AM

SYG is nothing more than self-defense without the need to run away first.  The thought process behind it is that obligation to run away might (and has) exposed you to more potential danger than just initiating the self-defense when first confronted with the threat.

 


The previous law also resulted in after-the-fact speculation about whether retreat was possible. None of that speculation takes place in the middle of a potentially deadly confrontation, but whether retreat was possible used to be a critical legal question. It invited a difficult kind of armchair quarterbacking.

 

Now, that question is legally irrelevant in SYG states and the legal question is whether a defender had a reasonable fear of serious injury or death to himself or another.

 

The more I think about our SYG law, the less I like it. My objection stems from the idea that lethal force should be the last option. If retreat is possible, that means lethal force is not the last option.



#5 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,445 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 17 July 2013 - 10:23 AM

I think the problem some have with stand your ground is the potential to encourage belligerents to remain toe to toe and continue escalating the confrontation. As with dogs, capitulation, submission and withdrawal is sufficient in most cases to calm an Alpha male.

 


Didn't I already ask you nicely to fuck off, show us your wife or girlfriend's tits, and change your screen name?

 

Search the forums for the word publius and you'll see why.



#6 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,671 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 17 July 2013 - 10:31 AM


I think the problem some have with stand your ground is the potential to encourage belligerents to remain toe to toe and continue escalating the confrontation. As with dogs, capitulation, submission and withdrawal is sufficient in most cases to calm an Alpha male.

 

Didn't I already ask you nicely to fuck off, show us your wife or girlfriend's tits, and change your screen name?
 
Search the forums for the word publius and you'll see why.

Just because someone beat you to the sockpuppet doesn't mean you should be so pissy. :)

#7 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,671 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 17 July 2013 - 10:41 AM


The more I think about our SYG law, the less I like it. My objection stems from the idea that lethal force should be the last option. If retreat is possible, that means lethal force is not the last option.


Why wouldn't that same concept also apply inside the home?

#8 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,445 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 17 July 2013 - 10:49 AM


The more I think about our SYG law, the less I like it. My objection stems from the idea that lethal force should be the last option. If retreat is possible, that means lethal force is not the last option.


Why wouldn't that same concept also apply inside the home?

 

 

Two reasons I can think of:

 

If you're in your home, you have already retreated to your sanctuary and can not retreat any further.

 

If someone hostile is in your home, there is a greater presumption they mean you harm than in a public place.
 



#9 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,445 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 17 July 2013 - 10:50 AM

 


I think the problem some have with stand your ground is the potential to encourage belligerents to remain toe to toe and continue escalating the confrontation. As with dogs, capitulation, submission and withdrawal is sufficient in most cases to calm an Alpha male.

 

Didn't I already ask you nicely to fuck off, show us your wife or girlfriend's tits, and change your screen name?
 
Search the forums for the word publius and you'll see why.

Just because someone beat you to the sockpuppet doesn't mean you should be so pissy. :)

 


Pissy? That's why I was so nice and welcoming in my request!



#10 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,394 posts

Posted 17 July 2013 - 11:13 AM

Well, that didn't take long. Tom Ray nailed it. 

 

SYG is nothing more than self-defense without the need to run away first.  The thought process behind it is that obligation to run away might (and has) exposed you to more potential danger than just initiating the self-defense when first confronted with the threat.

 


The previous law also resulted in after-the-fact speculation about whether retreat was possible. None of that speculation takes place in the middle of a potentially deadly confrontation, but whether retreat was possible used to be a critical legal question. It invited a difficult kind of armchair quarterbacking.

 

Now, that question is legally irrelevant in SYG states and the legal question is whether a defender had a reasonable fear of serious injury or death to himself or another.

 

The more I think about our SYG law, the less I like it. My objection stems from the idea that lethal force should be the last option. If retreat is possible, that means lethal force is not the last option.



#11 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,671 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 17 July 2013 - 12:39 PM

Well, that didn't take long. Tom Ray nailed it. 

 

 

SYG is nothing more than self-defense without the need to run away first.  The thought process behind it is that obligation to run away might (and has) exposed you to more potential danger than just initiating the self-defense when first confronted with the threat.

 


The previous law also resulted in after-the-fact speculation about whether retreat was possible. None of that speculation takes place in the middle of a potentially deadly confrontation, but whether retreat was possible used to be a critical legal question. It invited a difficult kind of armchair quarterbacking.

 

Now, that question is legally irrelevant in SYG states and the legal question is whether a defender had a reasonable fear of serious injury or death to himself or another.

 

The more I think about our SYG law, the less I like it. My objection stems from the idea that lethal force should be the last option. If retreat is possible, that means lethal force is not the last option.

 

Well, at least we're FINALLY discussing the REAL points about SYG rather than the BS ones about stalking someone and executing them.  Did you see how I did that?  :D



#12 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,442 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Voltramax

Posted 17 July 2013 - 12:59 PM

From Jeff's definition of SYG, TM was justified in using it. Was that wrong?

#13 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,671 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 17 July 2013 - 01:03 PM

From Jeff's definition of SYG, TM was justified in using it. Was that wrong?

 

Troll alert!



#14 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,671 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 17 July 2013 - 01:04 PM

From Jeff's definition of SYG, TM was justified in using it. Was that wrong?

Really?  Explain what GZ did specifically to cause TM to defend himself?



#15 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,442 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Voltramax

Posted 17 July 2013 - 01:22 PM

From Jeff's definition of SYG, TM was justified in using it. Was that wrong?

Really?  Explain what GZ did specifically to cause TM to defend himself?

Trayvons statements to his gal pal.  Some creepy assed cracker is following me.



#16 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,946 posts

Posted 17 July 2013 - 01:33 PM

Blacks benefit from Florida ‘Stand Your Ground’ law at disproportionate rate

 

African Americans benefit from Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” self-defense law at a rate far out of proportion to their presence in the state’s population, despite an assertion by Attorney General Eric Holder that repealing “Stand Your Ground” would help African Americans.

 

Black Floridians have made about a third of the state’s total “Stand Your Ground” claims in homicide cases, a rate nearly double the black percentage of Florida’s population. The majority of those claims have been successful, a success rate that exceeds that for Florida whites. (Link)

 

 


 


#17 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,442 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Voltramax

Posted 17 July 2013 - 01:42 PM

Why do you feel the need to make this about race?



#18 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,946 posts

Posted 17 July 2013 - 01:46 PM

Why do you feel the need to make this about race?

 

:lol:  :lol: 



#19 Sol No-Ebola Rosenberg

Sol No-Ebola Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,306 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 17 July 2013 - 02:16 PM

I agree with Tom.

That said, I wear a fancy two-gun rig.

#20 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,445 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 17 July 2013 - 03:24 PM

SYG/Castle doctrine doesn't mean the same thing everywhere.

 

This would be illegal in Florida

 

Guy wakes up to find some asshole punk burglarizing his car. I'd be pissed too, but I would not start shooting. Apparently it's OK to start shooting in Mississippi.

 

A Jackson homeowner won’t face any charges for the early morning shooting and killing of a suspect burglarizing his vehicle.

 

Jackson Police Department spokeswoman Colendula Green said the unidentified homeowner was protected by the state’s castle doctrine law.

 

“It’s your property and you have the right to protect your property,” Green said.

 

The castle doctrine allow a person to use deadly force to protect their home, business and vehicle if they are perceived to be in imminent danger.

 

 

That's not the castle doctrine we have in Florida.



#21 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,946 posts

Posted 17 July 2013 - 04:49 PM

The NRA checks in on Holder's comments yesterday --

 

The National Rifle Association blasted Eric Holder for using the George Zimmerman case to attack "stand-your-ground" laws, accusing the attorney general of exploiting Trayvon Martin's shooting death for political gain. 

 

Holder weighed in on the controversial self-defense laws for the first time on Tuesday during a speech to the annual NAACP convention, calling for a national review of the statutes. 

 

"Separate and apart from the case that has drawn the nation's attention, it's time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods," Holder said. 

 

Holder has already confirmed that his Justice Department continues to investigate Zimmerman, in the wake of his acquittal, for possible federal civil rights crimes. But Chris W. Cox, executive director NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, claimed Holder went too far in extending the debate to "stand-your-ground" laws. 

 

"The attorney general fails to understand that self-defense is not a concept, it's a fundamental human right," he said in a statement. "To send a message that legitimate self-defense is to blame is unconscionable, and demonstrates once again that this administration will exploit tragedies to push their political agenda."  (link)


 


#22 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 17 July 2013 - 05:16 PM

Well Tom, looks like I agree with your approach. I suppose it's time to change your view?



#23 elle

elle

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,360 posts
  • Location:new orleans, louisiana

Posted 17 July 2013 - 05:16 PM

It seems there is not only overactive IMAGINATIONS going on around here, but there appears to be a shocking amount of ignorance being displayed about what SYG is and is NOT.  Let's clear this up once and for all.

 

The easiest way for those of you mentally challenged about this topic is to consider SYG simply nothing more than the "castle doctrine" applied to you in public.  The castle doctrine simply is the right to defend yourself and your family from those who you reasonably think will cause death or bodily harm.  Its says that when using deadly force, I do not have the obligation to retreat first and then use deadly force in self defense

 

SYG is the simply castle doctrine in public places where you are legally allowed to be.  It essentially says that if I am somewhere where I am legally allowed to be, like a public sidewalk, a drive-thru ATM, a grocery story, a  gas-station, etc. AND I am faced with a threat that I believe will reasonably cause me bodily injury or death, I can use deadly force in SELF-DEFENSE without the prior obligation of having to retreat first.

 

In BOTH cases - I must meet the basic SELF-DEFENSE requirement.  SYG is nothing more than self-defense without the need to run away first.  The thought process behind it is that obligation to run away might (and has) exposed you to more potential danger than just initiating the self-defense when first confronted with the threat. 

 

Castle doctrine DOES NOT:

-Allow me to shoot my neighbor inside my house if we get into an argument his over loud music

-Allow me to shoot my wife's lover when I catch them shagging in my bed

-Allow me to shoot a retreating burgler who has already made it outside the house and is running away

-Allow me to shoot or shoot at my spouse in the middle of an argument

 

SYG DOES NOT:

-Allow me to walk up to my neighbor's driveway and shoot him when we get into a shouting match over the loud music

-Allow me to shoot a mentally ill guy through my car window just because he is screaming at me from outside

-Allow me to stalk a stranger in the neighborhood and execute him for holding skittles

-Allow me to shoot a guy sitting in his car because the music is too loud

 

In BOTH cases - the basic self-defense precepts MUST apply.  i.e. you must be reasonably in fear for your life or in fear of serious injury to you or someone else.  If that basic self defense threshold is NOT met first, neither castle doctrine or SYG laws should or will save your stupid ass. 

 

Just because some idiots misuse or msunderstand the SYG law and apply it incorrectly doesn't mean the law is flawed.  To get a CCW, you are supposed to be clearly trained in when Self-Defense and SYG does and does not apply.  The reason GZ vs TM wasn't SYG is because GZ was pinned to the ground fighting for his life - there was nowhere to run, therefore SYG didn't apply.  If GZ had pulled out the gun and killed TM while they were simply arguing or having a shoving-match, then SYG wouldn't apply either because there was no need for Self-defense and GZ would have been a murderer.

 

JFC, this shit is not rocket surgery!

jeff, you have no idea whether or not zimmerman had his gun out and pointed at martin at the time they came face to face.  none, zero, except the word of zimmerman.  you have no idea if zimmerman caught up to martin or whether martin stopped, turned back or was still on his way home when they came face to face.  you have no idea if martin struck, pushed or grabbed zimmerman anymore than you know if zimmerman grabbed, pushed or struck martin first.  you choose to believe zimmerman.  that's is your choice, but stating it as fact isn't gonna cut it.  the jurors do not even know those facts.  2 people did/do, one is dead and one chose not to testify on his own behalf, doing so would not have guaranteed he would tell the truth anyway.



#24 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,545 posts

Posted 17 July 2013 - 05:18 PM

It seems there is not only overactive IMAGINATIONS going on around here, but there appears to be a shocking amount of ignorance being displayed about what SYG is and is NOT.  Let's clear this up once and for all.

 

The easiest way for those of you mentally challenged about this topic is to consider SYG simply nothing more than the "castle doctrine" applied to you in public.  The castle doctrine simply is the right to defend yourself and your family from those who you reasonably think will cause death or bodily harm.  Its says that when using deadly force, I do not have the obligation to retreat first and then use deadly force in self defense

 

SYG is the simply castle doctrine in public places where you are legally allowed to be.  It essentially says that if I am somewhere where I am legally allowed to be, like a public sidewalk, a drive-thru ATM, a grocery story, a  gas-station, etc. AND I am faced with a threat that I believe will reasonably cause me bodily injury or death, I can use deadly force in SELF-DEFENSE without the prior obligation of having to retreat first.

 

In BOTH cases - I must meet the basic SELF-DEFENSE requirement.  SYG is nothing more than self-defense without the need to run away first.  The thought process behind it is that obligation to run away might (and has) exposed you to more potential danger than just initiating the self-defense when first confronted with the threat. 

 

Castle doctrine DOES NOT:

-Allow me to shoot my neighbor inside my house if we get into an argument his over loud music

-Allow me to shoot my wife's lover when I catch them shagging in my bed

-Allow me to shoot a retreating burgler who has already made it outside the house and is running away

-Allow me to shoot or shoot at my spouse in the middle of an argument

 

SYG DOES NOT:

-Allow me to walk up to my neighbor's driveway and shoot him when we get into a shouting match over the loud music

-Allow me to shoot a mentally ill guy through my car window just because he is screaming at me from outside

-Allow me to stalk a stranger in the neighborhood and execute him for holding skittles

-Allow me to shoot a guy sitting in his car because the music is too loud

 

In BOTH cases - the basic self-defense precepts MUST apply.  i.e. you must be reasonably in fear for your life or in fear of serious injury to you or someone else.  If that basic self defense threshold is NOT met first, neither castle doctrine or SYG laws should or will save your stupid ass. 

 

Just because some idiots misuse or msunderstand the SYG law and apply it incorrectly doesn't mean the law is flawed.  To get a CCW, you are supposed to be clearly trained in when Self-Defense and SYG does and does not apply.  The reason GZ vs TM wasn't SYG is because GZ was pinned to the ground fighting for his life - there was nowhere to run, therefore SYG didn't apply.  If GZ had pulled out the gun and killed TM while they were simply arguing or having a shoving-match, then SYG wouldn't apply either because there was no need for Self-defense and GZ would have been a murderer.

 

JFC, this shit is not rocket surgery!

jeff, you have no idea whether or not zimmerman had his gun out and pointed at martin at the time they came face to face.  none, zero, except the word of zimmerman.  you have no idea if zimmerman caught up to martin or whether martin stopped, turned back or was still on his way home when they came face to face.  you have no idea if martin struck, pushed or grabbed zimmerman anymore than you know if zimmerman grabbed, pushed or struck martin first.  you choose to believe zimmerman.  that's is your choice, but stating it as fact isn't gonna cut it.  the jurors do not even know those facts.  2 people did/do, one is dead and one chose not to testify on his own behalf, doing so would not have guaranteed he would tell the truth anyway.

 

Maybe you could tell us what YOU are certain of then?



#25 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 17 July 2013 - 05:18 PM

Well, Jeffie, you certainly have it right.....

 

Just that I don't believe in the The castle doctrine applying in public places.

 

That's pretty simple.

 

As to whether in SOME cases, self defense applies...that's a positive, but just like with the hiding of the cancer causing chemicals in fracking fluid, there is some deep shit when you feel you have to pass a law so it almost always applies.

 

So that's the issue - whether we want circumstances, LE and juries to sort it out or whether we want new laws???

 

RD, you are starting to obsess on this holder stuff. C'mon, let's discuss SYG more basically. 



#26 Point Break

Point Break

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,154 posts
  • Location:Long Beach, California

Posted 17 July 2013 - 05:35 PM

Holder is using a classic diversionary tactic. There is not enough to initiate a violation of civil rights prosecution. We can infer that because the case was already investigated relative to that and they chose to pass. Nonetheless those who will only satisfied with the jury verdict they want based on their personal bias or news accounts (that's what they mean by "justice") will continue to clamor/lobby for the federal prosecution to occur. Holders focus on the SYG is a classic "hey look at that.......I'm mad on your behalf" to distract from the civil rights issue. "See we did something".



#27 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 17 July 2013 - 05:37 PM

 

It seems there is not only overactive IMAGINATIONS going on around here, but there appears to be a shocking amount of ignorance being displayed about what SYG is and is NOT.  Let's clear this up once and for all.

 

The easiest way for those of you mentally challenged about this topic is to consider SYG simply nothing more than the "castle doctrine" applied to you in public.  The castle doctrine simply is the right to defend yourself and your family from those who you reasonably think will cause death or bodily harm.  Its says that when using deadly force, I do not have the obligation to retreat first and then use deadly force in self defense

 

SYG is the simply castle doctrine in public places where you are legally allowed to be.  It essentially says that if I am somewhere where I am legally allowed to be, like a public sidewalk, a drive-thru ATM, a grocery story, a  gas-station, etc. AND I am faced with a threat that I believe will reasonably cause me bodily injury or death, I can use deadly force in SELF-DEFENSE without the prior obligation of having to retreat first.

 

In BOTH cases - I must meet the basic SELF-DEFENSE requirement.  SYG is nothing more than self-defense without the need to run away first.  The thought process behind it is that obligation to run away might (and has) exposed you to more potential danger than just initiating the self-defense when first confronted with the threat. 

 

Castle doctrine DOES NOT:

-Allow me to shoot my neighbor inside my house if we get into an argument his over loud music

-Allow me to shoot my wife's lover when I catch them shagging in my bed

-Allow me to shoot a retreating burgler who has already made it outside the house and is running away

-Allow me to shoot or shoot at my spouse in the middle of an argument

 

SYG DOES NOT:

-Allow me to walk up to my neighbor's driveway and shoot him when we get into a shouting match over the loud music

-Allow me to shoot a mentally ill guy through my car window just because he is screaming at me from outside

-Allow me to stalk a stranger in the neighborhood and execute him for holding skittles

-Allow me to shoot a guy sitting in his car because the music is too loud

 

In BOTH cases - the basic self-defense precepts MUST apply.  i.e. you must be reasonably in fear for your life or in fear of serious injury to you or someone else.  If that basic self defense threshold is NOT met first, neither castle doctrine or SYG laws should or will save your stupid ass. 

 

Just because some idiots misuse or msunderstand the SYG law and apply it incorrectly doesn't mean the law is flawed.  To get a CCW, you are supposed to be clearly trained in when Self-Defense and SYG does and does not apply.  The reason GZ vs TM wasn't SYG is because GZ was pinned to the ground fighting for his life - there was nowhere to run, therefore SYG didn't apply.  If GZ had pulled out the gun and killed TM while they were simply arguing or having a shoving-match, then SYG wouldn't apply either because there was no need for Self-defense and GZ would have been a murderer.

 

JFC, this shit is not rocket surgery!

jeff, you have no idea whether or not zimmerman had his gun out and pointed at martin at the time they came face to face.  none, zero, except the word of zimmerman.  you have no idea if zimmerman caught up to martin or whether martin stopped, turned back or was still on his way home when they came face to face.  you have no idea if martin struck, pushed or grabbed zimmerman anymore than you know if zimmerman grabbed, pushed or struck martin first.  you choose to believe zimmerman.  that's is your choice, but stating it as fact isn't gonna cut it.  the jurors do not even know those facts.  2 people did/do, one is dead and one chose not to testify on his own behalf, doing so would not have guaranteed he would tell the truth anyway.

 

Maybe you could tell us what YOU are certain of then?

I'm certain that if Z had stayed in his vehicle, T would be alive

I'm certain that if Z hadn't been packing heat, T would be alive (Zimm likely would've stayed in the car and avoided the smack down as well)

 

 

Z having easy access to a handgun enabled the legal killing of another man



#28 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,946 posts

Posted 17 July 2013 - 05:48 PM

RD, you are starting to obsess on this holder stuff. C'mon, let's discuss SYG more basically. 

 

I'm not obsessing, I'm just a little more receptive to the 3 card monte game he's playing right now.

 

SYG?  I don't have a problem with it the way it is written in FL.  Not sure of the details in other states.  I would think that a combination of concealed carry and SYG laws would serve as a major deterrent to crime.  Muggers and rapists are among the types of individuals who might think twice before acting.  Taking it away would shift the odds of success in favor of those with criminal intent.



#29 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,545 posts

Posted 17 July 2013 - 05:51 PM

 

 

It seems there is not only overactive IMAGINATIONS going on around here, but there appears to be a shocking amount of ignorance being displayed about what SYG is and is NOT.  Let's clear this up once and for all.

 

The easiest way for those of you mentally challenged about this topic is to consider SYG simply nothing more than the "castle doctrine" applied to you in public.  The castle doctrine simply is the right to defend yourself and your family from those who you reasonably think will cause death or bodily harm.  Its says that when using deadly force, I do not have the obligation to retreat first and then use deadly force in self defense

 

SYG is the simply castle doctrine in public places where you are legally allowed to be.  It essentially says that if I am somewhere where I am legally allowed to be, like a public sidewalk, a drive-thru ATM, a grocery story, a  gas-station, etc. AND I am faced with a threat that I believe will reasonably cause me bodily injury or death, I can use deadly force in SELF-DEFENSE without the prior obligation of having to retreat first.

 

In BOTH cases - I must meet the basic SELF-DEFENSE requirement.  SYG is nothing more than self-defense without the need to run away first.  The thought process behind it is that obligation to run away might (and has) exposed you to more potential danger than just initiating the self-defense when first confronted with the threat. 

 

Castle doctrine DOES NOT:

-Allow me to shoot my neighbor inside my house if we get into an argument his over loud music

-Allow me to shoot my wife's lover when I catch them shagging in my bed

-Allow me to shoot a retreating burgler who has already made it outside the house and is running away

-Allow me to shoot or shoot at my spouse in the middle of an argument

 

SYG DOES NOT:

-Allow me to walk up to my neighbor's driveway and shoot him when we get into a shouting match over the loud music

-Allow me to shoot a mentally ill guy through my car window just because he is screaming at me from outside

-Allow me to stalk a stranger in the neighborhood and execute him for holding skittles

-Allow me to shoot a guy sitting in his car because the music is too loud

 

In BOTH cases - the basic self-defense precepts MUST apply.  i.e. you must be reasonably in fear for your life or in fear of serious injury to you or someone else.  If that basic self defense threshold is NOT met first, neither castle doctrine or SYG laws should or will save your stupid ass. 

 

Just because some idiots misuse or msunderstand the SYG law and apply it incorrectly doesn't mean the law is flawed.  To get a CCW, you are supposed to be clearly trained in when Self-Defense and SYG does and does not apply.  The reason GZ vs TM wasn't SYG is because GZ was pinned to the ground fighting for his life - there was nowhere to run, therefore SYG didn't apply.  If GZ had pulled out the gun and killed TM while they were simply arguing or having a shoving-match, then SYG wouldn't apply either because there was no need for Self-defense and GZ would have been a murderer.

 

JFC, this shit is not rocket surgery!

jeff, you have no idea whether or not zimmerman had his gun out and pointed at martin at the time they came face to face.  none, zero, except the word of zimmerman.  you have no idea if zimmerman caught up to martin or whether martin stopped, turned back or was still on his way home when they came face to face.  you have no idea if martin struck, pushed or grabbed zimmerman anymore than you know if zimmerman grabbed, pushed or struck martin first.  you choose to believe zimmerman.  that's is your choice, but stating it as fact isn't gonna cut it.  the jurors do not even know those facts.  2 people did/do, one is dead and one chose not to testify on his own behalf, doing so would not have guaranteed he would tell the truth anyway.

 

Maybe you could tell us what YOU are certain of then?

I'm certain that if Z had stayed in his vehicle, T would be alive

I'm certain that if Z hadn't been packing heat, T would be alive (Zimm likely would've stayed in the car and avoided the smack down as well)

 

 

Z having easy access to a handgun enabled the legal killing of another man

 

Why, yes it did.

 

What did it avoid?



#30 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,946 posts

Posted 17 July 2013 - 05:54 PM

 

 

It seems there is not only overactive IMAGINATIONS going on around here, but there appears to be a shocking amount of ignorance being displayed about what SYG is and is NOT.  Let's clear this up once and for all.

 

The easiest way for those of you mentally challenged about this topic is to consider SYG simply nothing more than the "castle doctrine" applied to you in public.  The castle doctrine simply is the right to defend yourself and your family from those who you reasonably think will cause death or bodily harm.  Its says that when using deadly force, I do not have the obligation to retreat first and then use deadly force in self defense

 

SYG is the simply castle doctrine in public places where you are legally allowed to be.  It essentially says that if I am somewhere where I am legally allowed to be, like a public sidewalk, a drive-thru ATM, a grocery story, a  gas-station, etc. AND I am faced with a threat that I believe will reasonably cause me bodily injury or death, I can use deadly force in SELF-DEFENSE without the prior obligation of having to retreat first.

 

In BOTH cases - I must meet the basic SELF-DEFENSE requirement.  SYG is nothing more than self-defense without the need to run away first.  The thought process behind it is that obligation to run away might (and has) exposed you to more potential danger than just initiating the self-defense when first confronted with the threat. 

 

Castle doctrine DOES NOT:

-Allow me to shoot my neighbor inside my house if we get into an argument his over loud music

-Allow me to shoot my wife's lover when I catch them shagging in my bed

-Allow me to shoot a retreating burgler who has already made it outside the house and is running away

-Allow me to shoot or shoot at my spouse in the middle of an argument

 

SYG DOES NOT:

-Allow me to walk up to my neighbor's driveway and shoot him when we get into a shouting match over the loud music

-Allow me to shoot a mentally ill guy through my car window just because he is screaming at me from outside

-Allow me to stalk a stranger in the neighborhood and execute him for holding skittles

-Allow me to shoot a guy sitting in his car because the music is too loud

 

In BOTH cases - the basic self-defense precepts MUST apply.  i.e. you must be reasonably in fear for your life or in fear of serious injury to you or someone else.  If that basic self defense threshold is NOT met first, neither castle doctrine or SYG laws should or will save your stupid ass. 

 

Just because some idiots misuse or msunderstand the SYG law and apply it incorrectly doesn't mean the law is flawed.  To get a CCW, you are supposed to be clearly trained in when Self-Defense and SYG does and does not apply.  The reason GZ vs TM wasn't SYG is because GZ was pinned to the ground fighting for his life - there was nowhere to run, therefore SYG didn't apply.  If GZ had pulled out the gun and killed TM while they were simply arguing or having a shoving-match, then SYG wouldn't apply either because there was no need for Self-defense and GZ would have been a murderer.

 

JFC, this shit is not rocket surgery!

jeff, you have no idea whether or not zimmerman had his gun out and pointed at martin at the time they came face to face.  none, zero, except the word of zimmerman.  you have no idea if zimmerman caught up to martin or whether martin stopped, turned back or was still on his way home when they came face to face.  you have no idea if martin struck, pushed or grabbed zimmerman anymore than you know if zimmerman grabbed, pushed or struck martin first.  you choose to believe zimmerman.  that's is your choice, but stating it as fact isn't gonna cut it.  the jurors do not even know those facts.  2 people did/do, one is dead and one chose not to testify on his own behalf, doing so would not have guaranteed he would tell the truth anyway.

 

Maybe you could tell us what YOU are certain of then?

I'm certain that if Z had stayed in his vehicle, T would be alive

I'm certain that if Z hadn't been packing heat, T would be alive (Zimm likely would've stayed in the car and avoided the smack down as well)

 

 

Z having easy access to a handgun enabled the legal killing of another man

 

I'm having a tough time keeping up.  Is it Zimmerman's fault, the gun's fault, or the laws'?

 

T would be alive if he hadn't gone to 7-11.  T would be alive if Zimmerman had left his house 5 minutes later.  T would be alive if he had run straight home.  T would be alive if the cops had shown up a few minutes earlier. 

 

There are thousands of other factors that would have led to T being alive.  Maybe if Z wasn't packing heat, Z would be in a coma right now and T would be in jail.



#31 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 17 July 2013 - 06:05 PM

Nah, if Z hadn't been packing, he would've waited for the cops.  

 

For Saorsa, if Z had exhibited better judgement, T would be alive. Having a handgun helped him have bad judgement. It was the interpretation of the jury that said this bad judgement wasn't illegal - so there it is.



#32 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,394 posts

Posted 17 July 2013 - 06:07 PM

The key is make sure the guy is dead.  Things get a lot messier when a story has two sides.  Probably a good idea to double tap if there is any doubt.



#33 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,233 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 17 July 2013 - 07:48 PM

The key is make sure the guy is dead.  Things get a lot messier when a story has two sides.  Probably a good idea to double tap if there is any doubt.

 

Good observation d'ranger

 

Shows lack of malice and no fear that the Trayvon's side would not agree with his story I guess, 



#34 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 17 July 2013 - 07:50 PM

Who is on "trayvon's side?"

 

I'm not on any side, but some asshole offed another, with no penalty. Something seems wrong about that.



#35 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,671 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 17 July 2013 - 07:56 PM


From Jeff's definition of SYG, TM was justified in using it. Was that wrong?

Really?  Explain what GZ did specifically to cause TM to defend himself?
Trayvons statements to his gal pal.  Some creepy assed cracker is following me.

So. Is that illegal? Did TM have to defend himself from being followed?

#36 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 17 July 2013 - 07:59 PM

If he was standing his ground, he doesn't have to justify that he was in danger, no?


"Mr Policeman, this cracker was following me and flashed his piece, I had no option but to pummel him."

 

edit: Might as well bring back Duel rules, as that's what SYG seems to justify. My bitch is that SYG seems to make things more dangerous, not less.



#37 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 17 July 2013 - 09:15 PM

edit: Might as well bring back Duel rules, as that's what SYG seems to justify. My bitch is that SYG seems to make things more dangerous, not less.

 

For some reason, Jeffie doesn't seem to be addressing that issue - which is the ACTUAL issue he started the thread about.

 

Facts don't matter to gun nuts - this has been proven time and time again. Once in a while they throw a fake pass which makes it seem as if they care about statistics, reality, safety, reason and logic....but it's just that - fake!

 

The very idea that such a law - in it's real meaning - could be a horrible idea (making the world your castle) just does not compute in the gun riddled mind. 



#38 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,545 posts

Posted 17 July 2013 - 09:17 PM

edit: Might as well bring back Duel rules, as that's what SYG seems to justify. My bitch is that SYG seems to make things more dangerous, not less.

 

For some reason, Jeffie doesn't seem to be addressing that issue - which is the ACTUAL issue he started the thread about.

 

Facts don't matter to gun nuts - this has been proven time and time again. Once in a while they throw a fake pass which makes it seem as if they care about statistics, reality, safety, reason and logic....but it's just that - fake!

 

The very idea that such a law - in it's real meaning - could be a horrible idea (making the world your castle) just does not compute in the gun riddled mind. 

 

Gun nuts are the ones who go nuts when they see or hear about a gun.

 

Folks like your for example.



#39 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,652 posts

Posted 17 July 2013 - 10:02 PM

Holder is using a classic diversionary tactic. There is not enough to initiate a violation of civil rights prosecution. We can infer that because the case was already investigated relative to that and they chose to pass. Nonetheless those who will only satisfied with the jury verdict they want based on their personal bias or news accounts (that's what they mean by "justice") will continue to clamor/lobby for the federal prosecution to occur. Holders focus on the SYG is a classic "hey look at that.......I'm mad on your behalf" to distract from the civil rights issue. "See we did something".

He's giving them what he can do for their concerns. It's only been a few days, and if he announced now that a civil rights case is inappropriate, it would appear he has not carefully studied the case.

I think he believes SYG laws are a bad idea too.

#40 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,946 posts

Posted 17 July 2013 - 10:20 PM

edit: Might as well bring back Duel rules, as that's what SYG seems to justify. My bitch is that SYG seems to make things more dangerous, not less.

 

For some reason, Jeffie doesn't seem to be addressing that issue - which is the ACTUAL issue he started the thread about.

 

Facts don't matter to gun nuts - this has been proven time and time again. Once in a while they throw a fake pass which makes it seem as if they care about statistics, reality, safety, reason and logic....but it's just that - fake!

 

The very idea that such a law - in it's real meaning - could be a horrible idea (making the world your castle) just does not compute in the gun riddled mind. 

 

Where are the facts that SYG is a bad law?  Have any statistics?  Take a look at the individual cases where SYG has been used in FL http://www.tampabay....law/fatal-cases.  Curser over the picture and a summary appears to the left.

 

What I learned from skimming through the summaries is that even though some people claimed SYG, I seriously doubt that any of them had that in the back of their minds.  They simply reacted without considering SYG or any other statute.

 

There are obvious cases where the SYG claim didn't hold water and the results were guilty verdicts.  There were others where it seemed to work very well protecting peoples lives from violent aggressors.

 

Just because someone claims SYG and is convicted of murder anyway, doesn't make it a bad law - just a misapplied law in someone's defense. 

 

EDIT - Read post 16 again.  It appears as though black people benefit from SYG more than whites do, at least in FL.  Good on the Trayvon movement for taking a trip down yet another road that doesn't lead to Racist City.

 

Edit 2 -- Obviously a municipality without a SYG law ---

 



#41 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,946 posts

Posted 17 July 2013 - 10:49 PM

Holder is using a classic diversionary tactic. There is not enough to initiate a violation of civil rights prosecution. We can infer that because the case was already investigated relative to that and they chose to pass. Nonetheless those who will only satisfied with the jury verdict they want based on their personal bias or news accounts (that's what they mean by "justice") will continue to clamor/lobby for the federal prosecution to occur. Holders focus on the SYG is a classic "hey look at that.......I'm mad on your behalf" to distract from the civil rights issue. "See we did something".

He's giving them what he can do for their concerns. It's only been a few days, and if he announced now that a civil rights case is inappropriate, it would appear he has not carefully studied the case.

I think he believes SYG laws are a bad idea too.

 

That is almost what he is doing.  He has all the evidence available from both the FBI and the trial.  The only thing new is the lack of a conviction and that, in itself, cannot be a consideration. 

 

If he was totally honest, he would have said - "The FBI conducted a comprehensive investigation and found no federal laws were violated.  Unless new and compelling evidence comes to our attention, we will not move forward with this investigation."

 

Do I condemn Holder for not saying something like that?  Of course not (yet).  He is an adept politician.  As long as he can keep the heat off himself and his boss, he's happy to wait until the next crisis bumps Zimmerman to page D4 of the NYT.

 

If there were a Republican in the White House, and his/her Attorney General responded to the NAACP by saying DOJ will look into SYG laws, Washington DC would be shut down for a week.



#42 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 17 July 2013 - 10:53 PM

Statistics?

Wouldn't the burden be on YOU and the Kochs to say why they needed to pay off so many legislators and virtually put this in their mouths to make it happen???

 

So, in your opinion, we should just pass and enforce a bunch of laws because someone pays to draft them up and they sound good to paranoid people?

 

That's the very opposite of "conservative", my friend. It's activist and idiotic. 

 

If you don't know already, I'll have to "school" you. It takes MANY years after such laws are put on the book to come up with statistics. These are obviously bad laws because - we are talking about them! That is, until now this stuff was handled by juries, lawyers, etc.

 

There is evidence that SYG has increased deaths in Florida and elsewhere. It is also having many unintended consequences. Read it and weep:

http://www.tampabay....ding-on/1233133

 

"Seven years since it was passed, Florida's "stand your ground" law is being invoked with unexpected frequency, in ways no one imagined, to free killers and violent attackers whose self-defense claims seem questionable at best.

Cases with similar facts show surprising — sometimes shocking — differences in outcomes. If you claim "stand your ground" as the reason you shot someone, what happens to you can depend less on the merits of the case than on who you are, whom you kill and where your case is decided."

This should trouble even you...



#43 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,652 posts

Posted 17 July 2013 - 11:07 PM

It seems there is not only overactive IMAGINATIONS going on around here, but there appears to be a shocking amount of ignorance being displayed about what SYG is and is NOT.  Let's clear this up once and for all.
 
The easiest way for those of you mentally challenged about this topic is to consider SYG simply nothing more than the "castle doctrine" applied to you in public.  The castle doctrine simply is the right to defend yourself and your family from those who you reasonably think will cause death or bodily harm.  Its says that when using deadly force, I do not have the obligation to retreat first and then use deadly force in self defense
 
SYG is the simply castle doctrine in public places where you are legally allowed to be.  It essentially says that if I am somewhere where I am legally allowed to be, like a public sidewalk, a drive-thru ATM, a grocery story, a  gas-station, etc. AND I am faced with a threat that I believe will reasonably cause me bodily injury or death, I can use deadly force in SELF-DEFENSE without the prior obligation of having to retreat first.
 
In BOTH cases - I must meet the basic SELF-DEFENSE requirement.  SYG is nothing more than self-defense without the need to run away first.  The thought process behind it is that obligation to run away might (and has) exposed you to more potential danger than just initiating the self-defense when first confronted with the threat. 
 
Castle doctrine DOES NOT:
-Allow me to shoot my neighbor inside my house if we get into an argument his over loud music
-Allow me to shoot my wife's lover when I catch them shagging in my bed
-Allow me to shoot a retreating burgler who has already made it outside the house and is running away
-Allow me to shoot or shoot at my spouse in the middle of an argument
 
SYG DOES NOT:
-Allow me to walk up to my neighbor's driveway and shoot him when we get into a shouting match over the loud music
-Allow me to shoot a mentally ill guy through my car window just because he is screaming at me from outside
-Allow me to stalk a stranger in the neighborhood and execute him for holding skittles
-Allow me to shoot a guy sitting in his car because the music is too loud
 
In BOTH cases - the basic self-defense precepts MUST apply.  i.e. you must be reasonably in fear for your life or in fear of serious injury to you or someone else.  If that basic self defense threshold is NOT met first, neither castle doctrine or SYG laws should or will save your stupid ass. 
 
Just because some idiots misuse or msunderstand the SYG law and apply it incorrectly doesn't mean the law is flawed.  To get a CCW, you are supposed to be clearly trained in when Self-Defense and SYG does and does not apply.  The reason GZ vs TM wasn't SYG is because GZ was pinned to the ground fighting for his life - there was nowhere to run, therefore SYG didn't apply.  If GZ had pulled out the gun and killed TM while they were simply arguing or having a shoving-match, then SYG wouldn't apply either because there was no need for Self-defense and GZ would have been a murderer.
 
JFC, this shit is not rocket surgery!

A good defense for SYG must include the devastating financial effects on the average schlub who must go to trial. O'Mara mentioned early in the GZ defense that it would cost about a million bucks.

This is not something one can buy insurance for.

#44 elle

elle

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,360 posts
  • Location:new orleans, louisiana

Posted 17 July 2013 - 11:54 PM

It seems there is not only overactive IMAGINATIONS going on around here, but there appears to be a shocking amount of ignorance being displayed about what SYG is and is NOT.  Let's clear this up once and for all.
 
The easiest way for those of you mentally challenged about this topic is to consider SYG simply nothing more than the "castle doctrine" applied to you in public.  The castle doctrine simply is the right to defend yourself and your family from those who you reasonably think will cause death or bodily harm.  Its says that when using deadly force, I do not have the obligation to retreat first and then use deadly force in self defense
 
SYG is the simply castle doctrine in public places where you are legally allowed to be.  It essentially says that if I am somewhere where I am legally allowed to be, like a public sidewalk, a drive-thru ATM, a grocery story, a  gas-station, etc. AND I am faced with a threat that I believe will reasonably cause me bodily injury or death, I can use deadly force in SELF-DEFENSE without the prior obligation of having to retreat first.
 
In BOTH cases - I must meet the basic SELF-DEFENSE requirement.  SYG is nothing more than self-defense without the need to run away first.  The thought process behind it is that obligation to run away might (and has) exposed you to more potential danger than just initiating the self-defense when first confronted with the threat. 
 
Castle doctrine DOES NOT:
-Allow me to shoot my neighbor inside my house if we get into an argument his over loud music
-Allow me to shoot my wife's lover when I catch them shagging in my bed
-Allow me to shoot a retreating burgler who has already made it outside the house and is running away
-Allow me to shoot or shoot at my spouse in the middle of an argument
 
SYG DOES NOT:
-Allow me to walk up to my neighbor's driveway and shoot him when we get into a shouting match over the loud music
-Allow me to shoot a mentally ill guy through my car window just because he is screaming at me from outside
-Allow me to stalk a stranger in the neighborhood and execute him for holding skittles
-Allow me to shoot a guy sitting in his car because the music is too loud
 
In BOTH cases - the basic self-defense precepts MUST apply.  i.e. you must be reasonably in fear for your life or in fear of serious injury to you or someone else.  If that basic self defense threshold is NOT met first, neither castle doctrine or SYG laws should or will save your stupid ass. 
 
Just because some idiots misuse or msunderstand the SYG law and apply it incorrectly doesn't mean the law is flawed.  To get a CCW, you are supposed to be clearly trained in when Self-Defense and SYG does and does not apply.  The reason GZ vs TM wasn't SYG is because GZ was pinned to the ground fighting for his life - there was nowhere to run, therefore SYG didn't apply.  If GZ had pulled out the gun and killed TM while they were simply arguing or having a shoving-match, then SYG wouldn't apply either because there was no need for Self-defense and GZ would have been a murderer.
 
JFC, this shit is not rocket surgery!

A good defense for SYG must include the devastating financial effects on the average schlub who must go to trial. O'Mara mentioned early in the GZ defense that it would cost about a million bucks.

This is not something one can buy insurance for.

perhaps not yet but like i said a year or so back...pretty soon, if people keep acting like zimmerman, gun owners will have to buy insurance.



#45 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,946 posts

Posted 17 July 2013 - 11:56 PM

Statistics?

Wouldn't the burden be on YOU and the Kochs to say why they needed to pay off so many legislators and virtually put this in their mouths to make it happen???  "Facts don't matter to gun nuts - this has been proven time and time again. Once in a while they throw a fake pass which makes it seem as if they care about statistics, reality, safety, reason and logic....but it's just that - fake!"  You wrote that.  Own it or please shut up.  Also, unless one of the Koch brothers shoots someone, please leave that out of the discussion. 

 

So, in your opinion, we should just pass and enforce a bunch of laws because someone pays to draft them up and they sound good to paranoid people? Happens all the time.  Look at Obamacare.

 

That's the very opposite of "conservative", my friend. It's activist and idiotic.  I said from day one of this thing that Zimmerman should not be the target.  Don't like the law that allows something like this tragedy to happen?  Change the law. 

 

If you don't know already, I'll have to "school" you. It takes MANY years after such laws are put on the book to come up with statistics. These are obviously bad laws because - we are talking about them!  Contradiction noted.  Short term statistics good, but bad law until we can reassess in how many years?  Also, I guess Roe v Wade was a bad law because it generated discussion.  That is, until now this stuff was handled by juries, lawyers, etc.  And existing laws should still be handled by juries and lawyers.

 

There is evidence that SYG has increased deaths in Florida and elsewhere. It is also having many unintended consequences. Read it and weep:

http://www.tampabay....ding-on/1233133

 

The "evidence" in your link is from over a year ago.  Remember way back...oh... it must have been just now that you stated - "It takes MANY years after such laws are put on the book to come up with statistics."  The stats have matured and the trend is that they are not racially biased.

"Seven years since it was passed, Florida's "stand your ground" law is being invoked with unexpected frequency, in ways no one imagined, to free killers and violent attackers whose self-defense claims seem questionable at best.

Cases with similar facts show surprising — sometimes shocking — differences in outcomes. If you claim "stand your ground" as the reason you shot someone, what happens to you can depend less on the merits of the case than on who you are, whom you kill and where your case is decided."

This should trouble even you...

 

What you bolded there is nothing more than opinions. 

 

So - Stats, or are you going to blame Dick Cheney for Trayvon's death?

 

You are an insufferable partisan, and I appreciate your commitment to the cause and talking points you are handed, but I'm concerned that I'm spending more time pithing myself by responding to you than is necessary.  Nothing personal, but you seem to favor idiocy over substance. 



#46 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 18 July 2013 - 12:21 AM

Again, RD, simply state why the laws came into being? You can't do it because law enforcement didn't ask for them. Lawyers didn't ask for them. District Attorneys and judges didn't ask for them.

 

Please carefully and slowly explain why the gun manufacturers lobby and the Kochs felt it was important to force feed this to us. As I said before, if you are a "conservative' you should not believe in just doing things in an "activist" fashion because they sound good. 

 

I'll await your explanation as to why this needed to be a prime piece of NRA and ALEC financed legislation...

 

"In a 2007 National District Attorneys Association symposium, numerous concerns were voiced that the law could increase crime. This included criminals using the law as a defense for their crimes, more people carrying guns, and that people would not feel safe if they felt that anyone could use deadly force in a conflict"

"In Florida, a task force examining the law has concluded that the law is "confusing." Those testifying to the task force include Buddy Jacobs, a lawyer representing the Florida Prosecuting Attorney's Association. Jacobs recommended the law's repeal, feeling that modifying the law would not fix its problems. Florida governor Rick Scott plans his own investigation into the law"

 

“Since becoming an ALEC model, sixteen states have passed laws that contain provisions identical or similar to the ALEC ‘Castle Doctrine Act.’ In 2007 it was passed in four states and highlighted by ALEC on their ‘legislative scorecard.’ ”

In those states, as in Florida, the number of so-called “justifiable homicides” is on the rise. Florida Department of Law Enforcement suggests that the number of justifiable homicides in the state have tripled since Jeb Bush signed the “Stand Your Ground” law.



#47 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,946 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 12:38 AM

 

It seems there is not only overactive IMAGINATIONS going on around here, but there appears to be a shocking amount of ignorance being displayed about what SYG is and is NOT.  Let's clear this up once and for all.
 
The easiest way for those of you mentally challenged about this topic is to consider SYG simply nothing more than the "castle doctrine" applied to you in public.  The castle doctrine simply is the right to defend yourself and your family from those who you reasonably think will cause death or bodily harm.  Its says that when using deadly force, I do not have the obligation to retreat first and then use deadly force in self defense
 
SYG is the simply castle doctrine in public places where you are legally allowed to be.  It essentially says that if I am somewhere where I am legally allowed to be, like a public sidewalk, a drive-thru ATM, a grocery story, a  gas-station, etc. AND I am faced with a threat that I believe will reasonably cause me bodily injury or death, I can use deadly force in SELF-DEFENSE without the prior obligation of having to retreat first.
 
In BOTH cases - I must meet the basic SELF-DEFENSE requirement.  SYG is nothing more than self-defense without the need to run away first.  The thought process behind it is that obligation to run away might (and has) exposed you to more potential danger than just initiating the self-defense when first confronted with the threat. 
 
Castle doctrine DOES NOT:
-Allow me to shoot my neighbor inside my house if we get into an argument his over loud music
-Allow me to shoot my wife's lover when I catch them shagging in my bed
-Allow me to shoot a retreating burgler who has already made it outside the house and is running away
-Allow me to shoot or shoot at my spouse in the middle of an argument
 
SYG DOES NOT:
-Allow me to walk up to my neighbor's driveway and shoot him when we get into a shouting match over the loud music
-Allow me to shoot a mentally ill guy through my car window just because he is screaming at me from outside
-Allow me to stalk a stranger in the neighborhood and execute him for holding skittles
-Allow me to shoot a guy sitting in his car because the music is too loud
 
In BOTH cases - the basic self-defense precepts MUST apply.  i.e. you must be reasonably in fear for your life or in fear of serious injury to you or someone else.  If that basic self defense threshold is NOT met first, neither castle doctrine or SYG laws should or will save your stupid ass. 
 
Just because some idiots misuse or msunderstand the SYG law and apply it incorrectly doesn't mean the law is flawed.  To get a CCW, you are supposed to be clearly trained in when Self-Defense and SYG does and does not apply.  The reason GZ vs TM wasn't SYG is because GZ was pinned to the ground fighting for his life - there was nowhere to run, therefore SYG didn't apply.  If GZ had pulled out the gun and killed TM while they were simply arguing or having a shoving-match, then SYG wouldn't apply either because there was no need for Self-defense and GZ would have been a murderer.
 
JFC, this shit is not rocket surgery!

A good defense for SYG must include the devastating financial effects on the average schlub who must go to trial. O'Mara mentioned early in the GZ defense that it would cost about a million bucks.

This is not something one can buy insurance for.

perhaps not yet but like i said a year or so back...pretty soon, if people keep acting like zimmerman, gun owners will have to buy insurance.

 

As soon as gun insurance is the law, mothers in Chicago will not have to pay for burying their babies, because all the criminals will have gun insurance.

 

A black kid is shot by a "white" hispanic, and the jury finds him not guilty.  The NAACP, Sharpton and so many idiot sychophants are ever so willing to put the spotlight on the dark skinned hispanic white guy. 

 

Really?

 

 

Here's a primer --

 

image640x480.jpg

 

 

A Chicago man was charged today in the drive-by shooting death of a 6-month-old baby who was sprayed with bullets as she sat with her father in a parked car almost three months ago.



#48 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 18 July 2013 - 12:38 AM

Looks like even the jurors are against the law, RD.

You are really going to have to reach to defend this law - now and in the future.

 

I'm glad you are having the "automatic right wing" outlook on this so we can point back to your stupidity later.....

 

As far as my partisanship, I have to assume this gun carrying juror from a military family just may not be a Dem. Also, having voted against two Dems (Gore and Clinton) in relatively recent elections, I think I probably beat you in the nonpartisan regard....unless you want to come clean as to who you voted for in the last elections? C'mon, prove me wrong.

 

" A member of the jury that found George Zimmerman not guilty in the shooting death of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin called for changes in Florida's self-defense law, which she said gave jurors no option but to acquit the defendant."



#49 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,946 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 12:45 AM

Again, RD, simply state why the laws came into being? You can't do it because law enforcement didn't ask for them. Lawyers didn't ask for them. District Attorneys and judges didn't ask for them.

 

Please carefully and slowly explain why the gun manufacturers lobby and the Kochs felt it was important to force feed this to us. As I said before, if you are a "conservative' you should not believe in just doing things in an "activist" fashion because they sound good. 

 

I'll await your explanation as to why this needed to be a prime piece of NRA and ALEC financed legislation...

 

"In a 2007 National District Attorneys Association symposium, numerous concerns were voiced that the law could increase crime. This included criminals using the law as a defense for their crimes, more people carrying guns, and that people would not feel safe if they felt that anyone could use deadly force in a conflict"

"In Florida, a task force examining the law has concluded that the law is "confusing." Those testifying to the task force include Buddy Jacobs, a lawyer representing the Florida Prosecuting Attorney's Association. Jacobs recommended the law's repeal, feeling that modifying the law would not fix its problems. Florida governor Rick Scott plans his own investigation into the law"

 

“Since becoming an ALEC model, sixteen states have passed laws that contain provisions identical or similar to the ALEC ‘Castle Doctrine Act.’ In 2007 it was passed in four states and highlighted by ALEC on their ‘legislative scorecard.’ ”

In those states, as in Florida, the number of so-called “justifiable homicides” is on the rise. Florida Department of Law Enforcement suggests that the number of justifiable homicides in the state have tripled since Jeb Bush signed the “Stand Your Ground” law.

 

The laws are the laws, however they came into being. 

 

If you don't like the laws - change them.  That is a very simple concept for most people.

 

I guess I can wait for a few years to see how SYG laws are bad - statistically.  Until then, white people are bad.



#50 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 18 July 2013 - 12:45 AM

The fact that "CONservatives" are reaching into the "chicago gang murders" and "blacks kill whites" archives in relation to this case in, frankly, very troubling.

 

I wish I could give them the hint that they look like fools - blindly copying and pasting messages from their own echo chambers and thinking they are relevant. But they are not. Most sane folks really don't think Trayvon has anything to do with Chicago gangland murders nor with black on white crime.

 

But they continue with this pediatric BS. Why?

 

RD, if you want to have even a semblance of cred on this issue, please don't "grace" us with copy and paste - instead, try thinking deeply for yourself. I won't compare Z to hispanic or white criminals if you don't compare T to black ones....deal?

 

Also, your "well, where is Sharpton in THIS case here" defense is quite sloppy also. Does this mean every police apprehension is not valid because, after all, MANY crimes are being committed which the police are not catching?

 

Please - stop being silly like the rest of your rightie heroes - start thinking for yourself. 



#51 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,442 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Voltramax

Posted 18 July 2013 - 12:47 AM

Looks like SYG was the standard for the jury.

http://thinkprogress...irst-interview/

 

4. Verdict hinged on “Stand Your Ground” law, even though Zimmerman did not use it in his defense.

COOPER: Because of the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied?

JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.



#52 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 18 July 2013 - 12:50 AM

The laws are the laws, however they came into being. 

 

If you don't like the laws - change them.  That is a very simple concept for most people.

 

I guess I can wait for a few years to see how SYG laws are bad - statistically.  Until then, white people are bad.

 

Well, yeah, that's what we are talking about - changing those laws which were slipped in by the Gun Makers lobby. Yet, when I express an opinion on that - WHICH IS THE SAME AS THE JUROR(S) AND MANY OTHERS - you tell me I am a partisan and ask me to prove things to you.....

 

Let me simplify this for you, RD - read carefully.

 

I expressed my distrust of these "bought and paid for" laws. That's an opinion shared by many - probably even a majority of Americans (if and when they were educated in them).

 

But YOU refuse to state your opinion - standing behind the fact that they exist as some kind of proof of their integrity. One could only imagine you doing the same for the drug laws which put millions of non-violent Americans behind bars. 

 

Think, Man.......

Are you for or against making all public areas into a castle for each and every member of the public? Easy question.



#53 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 18 July 2013 - 12:51 AM

Looks like SYG was the standard for the jury.

http://thinkprogress...irst-interview/

 

4. Verdict hinged on “Stand Your Ground” law, even though Zimmerman did not use it in his defense.

 

COOPER: Because of the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied?

JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.

 

Basically, the right of the NRA to sell one bullet trumped the right of Trayvon to live. 



#54 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,563 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 18 July 2013 - 01:17 AM

Who is on "trayvon's side?"

 

I'm not on any side, but some asshole offed another, with no penalty. Something seems wrong about that.

 

In some cases, yes - in some cases, no.  Think about your family - if someone was attacking you, your wife, your kid, would you feel that the use of deadly force was justified to protect them? 



#55 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,946 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 01:22 AM

The fact that "CONservatives" are reaching into the "chicago gang murders" and "blacks kill whites" archives in relation to this case in, frankly, very troubling.

 

I wish I could give them the hint that they look like fools - blindly copying and pasting messages from their own echo chambers and thinking they are relevant. But they are not. Most sane folks really don't think Trayvon has anything to do with Chicago gangland murders nor with black on white crime.

 

But they continue with this pediatric BS. Why?

 

RD, if you want to have even a semblance of cred on this issue, please don't "grace" us with copy and paste - instead, try thinking deeply for yourself. I won't compare Z to hispanic or white criminals if you don't compare T to black ones....deal?

 

Also, your "well, where is Sharpton in THIS case here" defense is quite sloppy also. Does this mean every police apprehension is not valid because, after all, MANY crimes are being committed which the police are not catching?

 

Please - stop being silly like the rest of your rightie heroes - start thinking for yourself. 

 

I'm not using the ignore feature, but please don't think I have been convinced that the Koch brothers are responsible for Trayvon's death because I don't respond to your posts.

 

There are some very intelligent people here on PA from whom I've learned a great deal.  People who have forced me to think outside the box.  You are not one of them.

 

If I do respond to any of your posts in future, I'm just fucking with you.



#56 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,652 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 01:52 AM

schnip...
 
Just because some idiots misuse or msunderstand the SYG law and apply it incorrectly doesn't mean the law is flawed.  To get a CCW, you are supposed to be clearly trained in when Self-Defense and SYG does and does not apply.  The reason GZ vs TM wasn't SYG is because GZ was pinned to the ground fighting for his life - there was nowhere to run, therefore SYG didn't apply.  If GZ had pulled out the gun and killed TM while they were simply arguing or having a shoving-match, then SYG wouldn't apply either because there was no need for Self-defense and GZ would have been a murderer.
 
JFC, this shit is not rocket surgery!

It's mentioned in the jury instructions, page 12

 

 http://www.scribd.co...ry-Instructions

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.



#57 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,946 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 01:54 AM

Who is on "trayvon's side?"

 

I'm not on any side, but some asshole offed another, with no penalty. Something seems wrong about that.

 

In some cases, yes - in some cases, no.  Think about your family - if someone was attacking you, your wife, your kid, would you feel that the use of deadly force was justified to protect them? 

 

Depends.  Are you in your house or in a dog park?



#58 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,442 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Voltramax

Posted 18 July 2013 - 02:05 AM

schnip...
 
Just because some idiots misuse or msunderstand the SYG law and apply it incorrectly doesn't mean the law is flawed.  To get a CCW, you are supposed to be clearly trained in when Self-Defense and SYG does and does not apply.  The reason GZ vs TM wasn't SYG is because GZ was pinned to the ground fighting for his life - there was nowhere to run, therefore SYG didn't apply.  If GZ had pulled out the gun and killed TM while they were simply arguing or having a shoving-match, then SYG wouldn't apply either because there was no need for Self-defense and GZ would have been a murderer.
 
JFC, this shit is not rocket surgery!

It's mentioned in the jury instructions, page 12

 

 http://www.scribd.co...ry-Instructions

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

This.  SYG allowed Z-boy to kill with impunity.  Just like we always said.  The jury used it as justification to let the killer walk.  They had no choice.

If you are gonna carry, be ready to kill.  If you don't kill, it will be very difficult to claim SYG.  SYG works best if you kill.



#59 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,946 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 03:02 AM

 

schnip...
 
Just because some idiots misuse or msunderstand the SYG law and apply it incorrectly doesn't mean the law is flawed.  To get a CCW, you are supposed to be clearly trained in when Self-Defense and SYG does and does not apply.  The reason GZ vs TM wasn't SYG is because GZ was pinned to the ground fighting for his life - there was nowhere to run, therefore SYG didn't apply.  If GZ had pulled out the gun and killed TM while they were simply arguing or having a shoving-match, then SYG wouldn't apply either because there was no need for Self-defense and GZ would have been a murderer.
 
JFC, this shit is not rocket surgery!

It's mentioned in the jury instructions, page 12

 

 http://www.scribd.co...ry-Instructions

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

This.  SYG allowed Z-boy to kill with impunity.  Just like we always said.  The jury used it as justification to let the killer walk.  They had no choice.

If you are gonna carry, be ready to kill.  If you don't kill, it will be very difficult to claim SYG.  SYG works best if you kill.

 

Can you explain to the rest of us where SYG had something to do with Zimmerman's trial?  I must have missed it.



#60 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,442 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Voltramax

Posted 18 July 2013 - 03:13 AM


 


schnip...
 
Just because some idiots misuse or msunderstand the SYG law and apply it incorrectly doesn't mean the law is flawed.  To get a CCW, you are supposed to be clearly trained in when Self-Defense and SYG does and does not apply.  The reason GZ vs TM wasn't SYG is because GZ was pinned to the ground fighting for his life - there was nowhere to run, therefore SYG didn't apply.  If GZ had pulled out the gun and killed TM while they were simply arguing or having a shoving-match, then SYG wouldn't apply either because there was no need for Self-defense and GZ would have been a murderer.
 
JFC, this shit is not rocket surgery!

It's mentioned in the jury instructions, page 12
 
 http://www.scribd.co...ry-InstructionsIf George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
This.  SYG allowed Z-boy to kill with impunity.  Just like we always said.  The jury used it as justification to let the killer walk.  They had no choice.
If you are gonna carry, be ready to kill.  If you don't kill, it will be very difficult to claim SYG.  SYG works best if you kill.
 
Can you explain to the rest of us where SYG had something to do with Zimmerman's trial?  I must have missed it.
The juror said so. On CNN.

#61 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,545 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 03:26 AM

schnip...
 
Just because some idiots misuse or msunderstand the SYG law and apply it incorrectly doesn't mean the law is flawed.  To get a CCW, you are supposed to be clearly trained in when Self-Defense and SYG does and does not apply.  The reason GZ vs TM wasn't SYG is because GZ was pinned to the ground fighting for his life - there was nowhere to run, therefore SYG didn't apply.  If GZ had pulled out the gun and killed TM while they were simply arguing or having a shoving-match, then SYG wouldn't apply either because there was no need for Self-defense and GZ would have been a murderer.
 
JFC, this shit is not rocket surgery!

It's mentioned in the jury instructions, page 12

 

 http://www.scribd.co...ry-Instructions

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

 

Standing your ground is not the same as the Stand Your Ground Law.  When the SYG law is invoked, you may have a hearing which completely avoids any prosecution whatsoever.



#62 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,442 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Voltramax

Posted 18 July 2013 - 03:37 AM


schnip...
 
Just because some idiots misuse or msunderstand the SYG law and apply it incorrectly doesn't mean the law is flawed.  To get a CCW, you are supposed to be clearly trained in when Self-Defense and SYG does and does not apply.  The reason GZ vs TM wasn't SYG is because GZ was pinned to the ground fighting for his life - there was nowhere to run, therefore SYG didn't apply.  If GZ had pulled out the gun and killed TM while they were simply arguing or having a shoving-match, then SYG wouldn't apply either because there was no need for Self-defense and GZ would have been a murderer.
 
JFC, this shit is not rocket surgery!

It's mentioned in the jury instructions, page 12
 
 http://www.scribd.co...ry-InstructionsIf George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
 
Standing your ground is not the same as the Stand Your Ground Law.  When the SYG law is invoked, you may have a hearing which completely avoids any prosecution whatsoever.
Someone should have informed the jury of that.

#63 Clove Hitch

Clove Hitch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,999 posts
  • Location:around and about
  • Interests:Garnacha. Gunk-holing.

Posted 18 July 2013 - 03:46 AM

 

schnip...
 
Just because some idiots misuse or msunderstand the SYG law and apply it incorrectly doesn't mean the law is flawed.  To get a CCW, you are supposed to be clearly trained in when Self-Defense and SYG does and does not apply.  The reason GZ vs TM wasn't SYG is because GZ was pinned to the ground fighting for his life - there was nowhere to run, therefore SYG didn't apply.  If GZ had pulled out the gun and killed TM while they were simply arguing or having a shoving-match, then SYG wouldn't apply either because there was no need for Self-defense and GZ would have been a murderer.
 
JFC, this shit is not rocket surgery!

It's mentioned in the jury instructions, page 12

 

 http://www.scribd.co...ry-Instructions

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

This.  SYG allowed Z-boy to kill with impunity.  Just like we always said.  The jury used it as justification to let the killer walk.  They had no choice.

If you are gonna carry, be ready to kill.  If you don't kill, it will be very difficult to claim SYG.  SYG works best if you kill.

 

Exactly.  The key is to kill who ever makes you feel threatened.  Then it's your word vs. a dead guy. 



#64 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 18 July 2013 - 03:52 AM

Who is on "trayvon's side?"

 

I'm not on any side, but some asshole offed another, with no penalty. Something seems wrong about that.

 

In some cases, yes - in some cases, no.  Think about your family - if someone was attacking you, your wife, your kid, would you feel that the use of deadly force was justified to protect them? 

 

 

Of course, and if I found myself confronted the same. But I'd also expect to be held accountable if my actions led to the confrontation.



#65 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,652 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 03:53 AM

 I probably should have bolded all the parts about no duty to retreat for the Minister.

 

  Apparently, in Florida, you get a couple bites of the SYG apple. One going in and one at the tail end. 



#66 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,545 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 04:21 AM

 I probably should have bolded all the parts about no duty to retreat for the Minister.

 

  Apparently, in Florida, you get a couple bites of the SYG apple. One going in and one at the tail end. 

 

One is a descriptive and says that you are not required to retreat.  The words can be used in any self defense case that comes to court.  That is fundamental to the Self Defense laws.  The other is a specific law which defines a process by which a self defense case doesn't even come to court.

 

Maybe you could find a sooperchenious lawyer in Florida to explain it to you.



#67 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,671 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 18 July 2013 - 04:39 AM

If he was standing his ground, he doesn't have to justify that he was in danger, no?


"Mr Policeman, this cracker was following me and flashed his piece, I had no option but to pummel him."

 

edit: Might as well bring back Duel rules, as that's what SYG seems to justify. My bitch is that SYG seems to make things more dangerous, not less.

 

JFC dude.  I would have expected that to be written by titki or gaytor, not you.  Did you bother to read ANYTHING that I said SYG was and was not???  What you wrote clearly is NOT covered by SYG.  FFS, does anyone around here have the capacity for rational thought anymore???



#68 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,671 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 18 July 2013 - 04:48 AM

Again, RD, simply state why the laws came into being? You can't do it because law enforcement didn't ask for them. Lawyers didn't ask for them. District Attorneys and judges didn't ask for them.

 

 

I see you read about as well as Occam.  See post #4 for your answer, had you bothered - you simple dolt.....

 

 

SYG is nothing more than self-defense without the need to run away first.  The thought process behind it is that obligation to run away might (and has) exposed you to more potential danger than just initiating the self-defense when first confronted with the threat.

 


The previous law also resulted in after-the-fact speculation about whether retreat was possible. None of that speculation takes place in the middle of a potentially deadly confrontation, but whether retreat was possible used to be a critical legal question. It invited a difficult kind of armchair quarterbacking.

 

Now, that question is legally irrelevant in SYG states and the legal question is whether a defender had a reasonable fear of serious injury or death to himself or another.



#69 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,946 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 04:58 AM

 

 


 


schnip...
 
Just because some idiots misuse or msunderstand the SYG law and apply it incorrectly doesn't mean the law is flawed.  To get a CCW, you are supposed to be clearly trained in when Self-Defense and SYG does and does not apply.  The reason GZ vs TM wasn't SYG is because GZ was pinned to the ground fighting for his life - there was nowhere to run, therefore SYG didn't apply.  If GZ had pulled out the gun and killed TM while they were simply arguing or having a shoving-match, then SYG wouldn't apply either because there was no need for Self-defense and GZ would have been a murderer.
 
JFC, this shit is not rocket surgery!

It's mentioned in the jury instructions, page 12
 
 http://www.scribd.co...ry-InstructionsIf George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
This.  SYG allowed Z-boy to kill with impunity.  Just like we always said.  The jury used it as justification to let the killer walk.  They had no choice.
If you are gonna carry, be ready to kill.  If you don't kill, it will be very difficult to claim SYG.  SYG works best if you kill.
 
Can you explain to the rest of us where SYG had something to do with Zimmerman's trial?  I must have missed it.
The juror said so. On CNN.

 

 

Great.  Maybe we should convict based on polls. 



#70 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,671 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 18 July 2013 - 06:18 AM

.....pretty soon, if people keep acting like zimmerman, gun owners will have to buy insurance.

 

What part of "acting like Z" are you refering to?  The part where he calls 911?  The part where he gets out of his truck to keep an eye on a stranger until the police arrive in a few minutes?  Or the part where he defends himself from being killed or ending up a vegitable as he's getting his head bashed into the concrete sidewalk?  Which one of those met the SYG definition that he would need insurance for?  And the REAL SYG definition, not spatial troll's definition.



#71 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,671 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 18 July 2013 - 06:28 AM

Looks like SYG was the standard for the jury.
http://thinkprogress...irst-interview/
 
4. Verdict hinged on “Stand Your Ground” law, even though Zimmerman did not use it in his defense.


 
COOPER: Because of the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied?

JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.

 
Hey dumbshit - The bolded part is why they had to acquit GZ.  That has absolutely nothing to do with SYG.  That right already exists in every state.  His right to defend himself from death or serious bodily harm exists whether SYG was the law or not.  And since TM had GZ pinned to the ground, he certainly wasn't "standing" or had an option to retreat.  Maybe it should be "Lay Your Ground".

#72 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,671 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 18 July 2013 - 06:59 AM

After reading some of the responses here, I can see there are only 3 reasons why there is still so much ignorance about SYG.

 

A.  My OP was too long and the short attention span folks here didn't get past the 1st sentence.

B.  You're being deliberately obtuse because the actual tennents of the SYG don't fit your narrative

C.  You're dumber than a bag of hammers

 

So lets try again..... this time using the ACTUAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS from the Zimmerman trial:

 

(Self Defense Aspect)

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.  In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

 

(SYG Aspect) 

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

 

Bold is mine for emphasis.  It is VERY clear cut that for SYG to be valid - the person MUST have been attacked and in the process of defending themself from death or great bodily harm.  AGAIN, SYG is not justification for just deciding to be a vigilante and executing a kid walking on a sidewalk with skittles.  I'm going to go with B above.........



#73 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,445 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 18 July 2013 - 10:53 AM

This seems to be needed.

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

© 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.

© “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).



#74 atoyot

atoyot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,928 posts
  • Location:Dela-where?

Posted 18 July 2013 - 11:25 AM

Looks like SYG was the standard for the jury.

http://thinkprogress...irst-interview/

 

4. Verdict hinged on “Stand Your Ground” law, even though Zimmerman did not use it in his defense.

 

 

COOPER: Because of the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied?

JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.

 

 

WRT the struck-out phrase, I don't get how anyone there or here is still arguing Stand Your Ground within this case. SYG "might" have been argued one way or the other if Zimmerman were standing on his own two feet when the defensive action, that was fatal to the said attacker, took place.  He was not, and it did not.  The difference between an SYG jurisdiction (such as FL) and a Run-Like-A-Frightened-School-Girl jurisdiction is whether escape by the defender is reasonably possible. SYG or it's much-hated principles don't APPLY in this case, in a highly practical sense.  Zimmerman could not have made a safe escape from a guy on top of him.  So, forget SYG here. 

 

To review SYG and RLAFSG jurisdictions - in the latter, one may use lethal force if it is (1) necessary to stop the threat, and (2) there is no safe escape.  In the former, the person getting attacked need not triage all the variables to decide if it's safer for him or for the people he's with, to try and run/hide, or, to defend himself without trying to get away first.  In the case of someone being pinned down, head being beaten against concrete, it's irrelevant what the run-and-hide requirements might or might not, or should, be at the time. 

 

If there is a need to change the laws in FL that are actually pertinent to this case it's not necessarily "SYG" laws; it's the laws' inclusions of the  responsibilities immediately prior to the "necessity", to be in that particular place under those conditions.  Both had a right to be there. Both did something or a series of things that were justifiable if one does not or cannot include the entire narrativeAs long as the law denies the jury the opportunity to weigh the practicality and advisability of the defending person to engage in his overall activities in a reckless manner, said jury cannot make a judgement based on all the factors that rightfully apply.  

 

To my mind, THAT is what needs to change in Zimmerman's jurisdiction.  To put this another way, in my own RLAFSG state, the immediate circumstances of the shooting self-defense moment would very likely stand scrutiny if that's all that was to consider.  Yep, even in a "must retreat where possible" state, being beaten on your back to near unconsciousness is defensible - with a sharp pencil,  a brick, a knife, or {gasp!} a licensed-carried handgun.  What is not legal here, is to knowingly, without necessity, put yourself in a position of confrontation which then escalates to the death of one of the persons involved.  In a similar jurisdiction as this one, a jury would probably have found Zimmerman guilty of enough contributing circumstances (including getting out & tailing the guy, as a "town watch" person with any weapon) the avoidance of which would have - to a reasonable person - avoided the potential for violence in the first place.  Not sure how SYG is thought to be a part of any of that when, as the time came for defense, there was no retreat possible whether the law required it or not. 

 

Until the ability to include all pertinent detail becomes the law in FL, SYG makes a great whipping boy because of the difficulty of adding all those other circumstances into the jury room argument since SYG was not applicable where it is said to have been exercised in the present case. Get past the gun, folks, and deal with the inconsistency in the larger, overall picture of responsibility;  the "gun" issue will follow that discussion (along with the garrote, sharpened tree limb, iron pan, auto bumper, etc etc).  



#75 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,445 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 18 July 2013 - 11:35 AM

A good defense for SYG must include the devastating financial effects on the average schlub who must go to trial. O'Mara mentioned early in the GZ defense that it would cost about a million bucks.
...[/b]

 
This is a good point. I don't want to see people bankrupted because they had to defend themselves. There is also an important implication regarding the presumption of innocence.

The question under the previous law:

"Could you have retreated?" (Because if so, you are presumed guilty.)

The question under current law:

"Did you have a reasonable fear of serious injury or death?" (Because if so, you are presumed innocent, same as under the previous law if the answer to the retreat question was no.)
 

... Take a look at the individual cases where SYG has been used in FL http://www.tampabay....law/fatal-cases. Curser over the picture and a summary appears to the left.

What I learned from skimming through the summaries is that even though some people claimed SYG, I seriously doubt that any of them had that in the back of their minds. They simply reacted without considering SYG or any other statute.

There are obvious cases where the SYG claim didn't hold water and the results were guilty verdicts. There were others where it seemed to work very well protecting peoples lives from violent aggressors.

Just because someone claims SYG and is convicted of murder anyway, doesn't make it a bad law - just a misapplied law in someone's defense.

EDIT - Read post 16 again. It appears as though black people benefit from SYG more than whites do, at least in FL. Good on the Trayvon movement for taking a trip down yet another road that doesn't lead to Racist City.
...

 

I also believe that people are not pondering the finer points of law in life or death situations. We changed the definition of a justifiable homicide to include more and counting this different group resulted in a larger count. Truly shocking statistical results I tell ya.



#76 atoyot

atoyot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,928 posts
  • Location:Dela-where?

Posted 18 July 2013 - 11:48 AM

 

schnip...
 
Just because some idiots misuse or msunderstand the SYG law and apply it incorrectly doesn't mean the law is flawed.  To get a CCW, you are supposed to be clearly trained in when Self-Defense and SYG does and does not apply.  The reason GZ vs TM wasn't SYG is because GZ was pinned to the ground fighting for his life - there was nowhere to run, therefore SYG didn't apply.  If GZ had pulled out the gun and killed TM while they were simply arguing or having a shoving-match, then SYG wouldn't apply either because there was no need for Self-defense and GZ would have been a murderer.
 
JFC, this shit is not rocket surgery!

It's mentioned in the jury instructions, page 12

 

 http://www.scribd.co...ry-Instructions

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

This.  SYG allowed Z-boy to kill with impunity.  Just like we always said.  The jury used it as justification to let the killer walk.  They had no choice.

If you are gonna carry, be ready to kill.  If you don't kill, it will be very difficult to claim SYG.  SYG works best if you kill.

 

 

Again, bullshit.  Having a guy sitting on his chest beating his brains out allowed him LEGAL use of deadly force to end the threat.  Even in a must-retreat state, that option (to defend against a guy sitting on his chest beating his brains out) existed, since running away wasn't an option to him. 

 

If you are gonna beat someone's brains out against a sidewalk, be ready to get hurt yourself if you are unlucky enough to pick the wrong victim.  Attacking creepy crackers works best where you don't have to consider if the targeted victim might be armed. 

 

As to the jury - as I just pointed out above - it should have been allowed to consider the whole picture; that part of self-defense law is what needs to be addressed within the pertinent jurisdiction, not the right to defend your life without having first to draw up a truth table & figure out which is the safer option - runnning & defending yourself down the block or simply defending yourself.  



#77 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,442 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Voltramax

Posted 18 July 2013 - 12:12 PM

SYG only works well if you kill, like GZ did. That way you can present only your side of the story and if you do it right, never take the stand to be cross examined. The jurors had no choice but to acquit him because of SYG, they said so.

#78 Sol No-Ebola Rosenberg

Sol No-Ebola Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,306 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 18 July 2013 - 12:24 PM

Choose life.  



#79 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,159 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 12:30 PM

SYG only works well if you kill, like GZ did. That way you can present only your side of the story and if you do it right, never take the stand to be cross examined. The jurors had no choice but to acquit him because of SYG, they said so.

 

Cry baby... :lol:



#80 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,671 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 18 July 2013 - 12:33 PM

After reading some of the responses here, I can see there are only 3 reasons why there is still so much ignorance about SYG.

 

A.  My OP was too long and the short attention span folks here didn't get past the 1st sentence.

B.  You're being deliberately obtuse because the actual tennents of the SYG don't fit your narrative

C.  You're dumber than a bag of hammers

 

So lets try again..... this time using the ACTUAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS from the Zimmerman trial:

 

(Self Defense Aspect)

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.  In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

 

(SYG Aspect) 

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

 

Bold is mine for emphasis.  It is VERY clear cut that for SYG to be valid - the person MUST have been attacked and in the process of defending themself from death or great bodily harm.  AGAIN, SYG is not justification for just deciding to be a vigilante and executing a kid walking on a sidewalk with skittles.  I'm going to go with B above.........

 

I see special eddy pointedly ignores relevant posts that go against his troll narrative.



#81 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,442 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Voltramax

Posted 18 July 2013 - 12:38 PM

We only have Zimmerman's side of the story. SYG worked swimmingly.

#82 plchacker

plchacker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,852 posts
  • Location:Helwestern AL

Posted 18 July 2013 - 12:48 PM

Blacks benefit from Florida ‘Stand Your Ground’ law at disproportionate rate

 

African Americans benefit from Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” self-defense law at a rate far out of proportion to their presence in the state’s population, despite an assertion by Attorney General Eric Holder that repealing “Stand Your Ground” would help African Americans.

 

Black Floridians have made about a third of the state’s total “Stand Your Ground” claims in homicide cases, a rate nearly double the black percentage of Florida’s population. The majority of those claims have been successful, a success rate that exceeds that for Florida whites. (Link)

 

 


 

Blacks commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes.  I would not think that SYG would be needed unless there is an attack of some sort unerway.  The attacker is more likely to be who?  Posibly those who commit crimes, You think just maybe?



#83 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 18 July 2013 - 01:26 PM

 I probably should have bolded all the parts about no duty to retreat for the Minister.

 

  Apparently, in Florida, you get a couple bites of the SYG apple. One going in and one at the tail end. 

 

One is a descriptive and says that you are not required to retreat.  The words can be used in any self defense case that comes to court.  That is fundamental to the Self Defense laws.  The other is a specific law which defines a process by which a self defense case doesn't even come to court.

 

Maybe you could find a sooperchenious lawyer in Florida to explain it to you.

 

Maybe we could explain it to each and every member of the public in Florida?

Did they build the cash into the bill to educate on it? I guess not, if even this jury didn't get the message...



#84 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 18 July 2013 - 01:28 PM

Blacks commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes.  I would not think that SYG would be needed unless there is an attack of some sort unerway.  The attacker is more likely to be who?  Posibly those who commit crimes, You think just maybe?

 

 

Actually, Hispanics are pretty bad also. They account for 40% of all Federal offenders, even more than the 2nd place whites!



#85 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 18 July 2013 - 01:33 PM

.....pretty soon, if people keep acting like zimmerman, gun owners will have to buy insurance.

 

What part of "acting like Z" are you refering to?  The part where he calls 911?  The part where he gets out of his truck to keep an eye on a stranger until the police arrive in a few minutes?  Or the part where he defends himself from being killed or ending up a vegitable as he's getting his head bashed into the concrete sidewalk?  Which one of those met the SYG definition that he would need insurance for?  And the REAL SYG definition, not spatial troll's definition.

 

Either you've never seen anyone who got their head hit against a hard surface or you are outright lying. Which is it?

 

Heck, a giant egg will rise on your head if you bump into a piece of wood.

 

You shouldn't need to lie to prove your point. The jury must have believed the white guy (neighbor) and not the evidence. Fine, but don't act like everyone else is so ignorant. 



#86 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,946 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 01:44 PM

We only have Zimmerman's side of the story. SYG worked swimmingly.

 

SYG had fuck-all to do with what happened between Zimmerman and Martin.  How can you tell if a dog is retarded?  He follows the other retarded dogs in the pack and barks up the wrong tree.

 

The NAACP might as well be lobbying to reduce the speed limit back to 55 mph, in Trayvon's memory.



#87 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,545 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 01:53 PM

 

 I probably should have bolded all the parts about no duty to retreat for the Minister.

 

  Apparently, in Florida, you get a couple bites of the SYG apple. One going in and one at the tail end. 

 

One is a descriptive and says that you are not required to retreat.  The words can be used in any self defense case that comes to court.  That is fundamental to the Self Defense laws.  The other is a specific law which defines a process by which a self defense case doesn't even come to court.

 

Maybe you could find a sooperchenious lawyer in Florida to explain it to you.

 

Maybe we could explain it to each and every member of the public in Florida?

Did they build the cash into the bill to educate on it? I guess not, if even this jury didn't get the message...

 

They don't need to.  One use is the name of a law.  The other is a description of a situation and course of action. 

 

Maybe they need to spend more on fundamental reading comprehension.



#88 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,442 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Voltramax

Posted 18 July 2013 - 01:57 PM

We only have Zimmerman's side of the story. SYG worked swimmingly.

 

SYG had fuck-all to do with what happened between Zimmerman and Martin.  How can you tell if a dog is retarded?  He follows the other retarded dogs in the pack and barks up the wrong tree.

 

The NAACP might as well be lobbying to reduce the speed limit back to 55 mph, in Trayvon's memory.

Juror B37 disagrees.  Says SYG was the reason they acquitted.

Sarah will be mad at you for using the R word.



#89 elle

elle

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,360 posts
  • Location:new orleans, louisiana

Posted 18 July 2013 - 02:03 PM

schnip...
 
Just because some idiots misuse or msunderstand the SYG law and apply it incorrectly doesn't mean the law is flawed.  To get a CCW, you are supposed to be clearly trained in when Self-Defense and SYG does and does not apply.  The reason GZ vs TM wasn't SYG is because GZ was pinned to the ground fighting for his life - there was nowhere to run, therefore SYG didn't apply.  If GZ had pulled out the gun and killed TM while they were simply arguing or having a shoving-match, then SYG wouldn't apply either because there was no need for Self-defense and GZ would have been a murderer.
 
JFC, this shit is not rocket surgery!

It's mentioned in the jury instructions, page 12

 

 http://www.scribd.co...ry-Instructions

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

likewise and what some people continue to ignore:

 

If Trayvon Martin was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.



#90 elle

elle

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,360 posts
  • Location:new orleans, louisiana

Posted 18 July 2013 - 02:06 PM

.....pretty soon, if people keep acting like zimmerman, gun owners will have to buy insurance.

 

What part of "acting like Z" are you refering to?  The part where he calls 911?  The part where he gets out of his truck to keep an eye on a stranger until the police arrive in a few minutes?  Or the part where he defends himself from being killed or ending up a vegitable as he's getting his head bashed into the concrete sidewalk?  Which one of those met the SYG definition that he would need insurance for?  And the REAL SYG definition, not spatial troll's definition.

the part where he (zimmerman) creates a situation and kills a kid who was doing nothing more than walking home because he (zimmerman) was a dumb fuck.



#91 elle

elle

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,360 posts
  • Location:new orleans, louisiana

Posted 18 July 2013 - 02:08 PM

After reading some of the responses here, I can see there are only 3 reasons why there is still so much ignorance about SYG.

 

A.  My OP was too long and the short attention span folks here didn't get past the 1st sentence.

B.  You're being deliberately obtuse because the actual tennents of the SYG don't fit your narrative

C.  You're dumber than a bag of hammers

 

So lets try again..... this time using the ACTUAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS from the Zimmerman trial:

 

(Self Defense Aspect)

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.  In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

 

(SYG Aspect) 

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

 

Bold is mine for emphasis.  It is VERY clear cut that for SYG to be valid - the person MUST have been attacked and in the process of defending themself from death or great bodily harm.  AGAIN, SYG is not justification for just deciding to be a vigilante and executing a kid walking on a sidewalk with skittles.  I'm going to go with B above.........

you are the ignorant one here, jeff.  willfully apparently.



#92 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,946 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 02:35 PM

 

We only have Zimmerman's side of the story. SYG worked swimmingly.

 

SYG had fuck-all to do with what happened between Zimmerman and Martin.  How can you tell if a dog is retarded?  He follows the other retarded dogs in the pack and barks up the wrong tree.

 

The NAACP might as well be lobbying to reduce the speed limit back to 55 mph, in Trayvon's memory.

Juror B37 disagrees.  Says SYG was the reason they acquitted.

Sarah will be mad at you for using the R word.

 

That's the juror that the other jurors said did not represent their views, right?



#93 mad

mad

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,157 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 02:38 PM

 

schnip...
 
Just because some idiots misuse or msunderstand the SYG law and apply it incorrectly doesn't mean the law is flawed.  To get a CCW, you are supposed to be clearly trained in when Self-Defense and SYG does and does not apply.  The reason GZ vs TM wasn't SYG is because GZ was pinned to the ground fighting for his life - there was nowhere to run, therefore SYG didn't apply.  If GZ had pulled out the gun and killed TM while they were simply arguing or having a shoving-match, then SYG wouldn't apply either because there was no need for Self-defense and GZ would have been a murderer.
 
JFC, this shit is not rocket surgery!

It's mentioned in the jury instructions, page 12

 

 http://www.scribd.co...ry-Instructions

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

likewise and what some people continue to ignore:

 

If Trayvon Martin was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

This, end of discussion.



#94 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 18 July 2013 - 02:43 PM

Jeff, Elle states my point in an eloquent fashion.  The jurors say SYG was the concept used to acquit.  What if Zim was dead?  Trayvon could've used the SYG defense.

 

Therefore, if either party could use SYG(outside the home, inside the home is a much different concept), SYG as a concept is flawed. Might as well call it a duel.



#95 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 18 July 2013 - 03:48 PM

RD. you really have to stop obsessing and read the OP.

 

Let me summarize for you once again. Jeffie is pointing out what SYG is about. MANY of us are saying it could be a bad law, having extended your private castle into the range of your weapon in public.

 

Even Rick Scott and the Republicans in Florida are saying it needs looked at again in light of the way it is being used.

 

Law Enforcement and other folks in that line of work (justice, etc.) are ALSO saying it should be looked at....

 

BUT, you seem to be saying that - in spite of all of that - myself and other are pure radicals to disagree with it? Do I have that right?



#96 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 18 July 2013 - 03:51 PM

How can you tell if a dog is retarded?  He follows the other retarded dogs in the pack and barks up the wrong tree.

 

Dogs tend to follow the pack - just like you are doing. They may smell pooh in one tree and a coon in another (not THAT kind of coon!). They may just bark up one tree because another bigger dog is barking up that tree - you know, like you are!



#97 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,652 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 07:27 PM

Looks like SYG was the standard for the jury.

http://thinkprogress...irst-interview/

 

4. Verdict hinged on “Stand Your Ground” law, even though Zimmerman did not use it in his defense.

 

 

COOPER: Because of the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied?

JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.

 

 

WRT the struck-out phrase, I don't get how anyone there or here is still arguing Stand Your Ground within this case. SYG "might" have been argued one way or the other if Zimmerman were standing on his own two feet when the defensive action, that was fatal to the said attacker, took place.  He was not, and it did not.  The difference between an SYG jurisdiction (such as FL) and a Run-Like-A-Frightened-School-Girl jurisdiction is whether escape by the defender is reasonably possible. SYG or it's much-hated principles don't APPLY in this case, in a highly practical sense.  Zimmerman could not have made a safe escape from a guy on top of him.  So, forget SYG here. 

 

To review SYG and RLAFSG jurisdictions - in the latter, one may use lethal force if it is (1) necessary to stop the threat, and (2) there is no safe escape.  In the former, the person getting attacked need not triage all the variables to decide if it's safer for him or for the people he's with, to try and run/hide, or, to defend himself without trying to get away first.  In the case of someone being pinned down, head being beaten against concrete, it's irrelevant what the run-and-hide requirements might or might not, or should, be at the time. 

 

If there is a need to change the laws in FL that are actually pertinent to this case it's not necessarily "SYG" laws; it's the laws' inclusions of the  responsibilities immediately prior to the "necessity", to be in that particular place under those conditions.  Both had a right to be there. Both did something or a series of things that were justifiable if one does not or cannot include the entire narrativeAs long as the law denies the jury the opportunity to weigh the practicality and advisability of the defending person to engage in his overall activities in a reckless manner, said jury cannot make a judgement based on all the factors that rightfully apply.  

 

To my mind, THAT is what needs to change in Zimmerman's jurisdiction.  To put this another way, in my own RLAFSG state, the immediate circumstances of the shooting self-defense moment would very likely stand scrutiny if that's all that was to consider.  Yep, even in a "must retreat where possible" state, being beaten on your back to near unconsciousness is defensible - with a sharp pencil,  a brick, a knife, or {gasp!} a licensed-carried handgun.  What is not legal here, is to knowingly, without necessity, put yourself in a position of confrontation which then escalates to the death of one of the persons involved.  In a similar jurisdiction as this one, a jury would probably have found Zimmerman guilty of enough contributing circumstances (including getting out & tailing the guy, as a "town watch" person with any weapon) the avoidance of which would have - to a reasonable person - avoided the potential for violence in the first place.  Not sure how SYG is thought to be a part of any of that when, as the time came for defense, there was no retreat possible whether the law required it or not. 

 

Until the ability to include all pertinent detail becomes the law in FL, SYG makes a great whipping boy because of the difficulty of adding all those other circumstances into the jury room argument since SYG was not applicable where it is said to have been exercised in the present case. Get past the gun, folks, and deal with the inconsistency in the larger, overall picture of responsibility;  the "gun" issue will follow that discussion (along with the garrote, sharpened tree limb, iron pan, auto bumper, etc etc).  

 

 

 Yup. 

 

 I recall two guys in Oklahoma who went on a killing rampage to revenge a relative who was killed because the killer got off the same kinda BS way. 

 

 The SYG laws might need a tweek. 



#98 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,946 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 07:58 PM

RD. you really have to stop obsessing and read the OP.

 

Let me summarize for you once again. Jeffie is pointing out what SYG is about. MANY of us are saying it could be a bad law, having extended your private castle into the range of your weapon in public.

 

Even Rick Scott and the Republicans in Florida are saying it needs looked at again in light of the way it is being used.

 

Law Enforcement and other folks in that line of work (justice, etc.) are ALSO saying it should be looked at....

 

BUT, you seem to be saying that - in spite of all of that - myself and other are pure radicals to disagree with it? Do I have that right?

 

No, you don't.  I don't think there is anything radical about opposing SYG laws.  I also don't have a problem looking into it.



#99 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 18 July 2013 - 09:45 PM

Combining this with the Drone thread, I've got a fine challenge to SYG.....

 

If I put some sperm or some eggs on my quadcopter and some rightie gun nut threatens to shoot it down, can my Drone then SYG and off the "patriots" who are threatening life?

 

Also, since some think guns are OK for use protecting property, can I arm a drone to protect itself from those who would shoot it down? Why not? It's expensive - a decent drone with nice cam, even a hobby grade, can easily be $2K. 



#100 plchacker

plchacker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,852 posts
  • Location:Helwestern AL

Posted 18 July 2013 - 09:56 PM

 

Blacks commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes.  I would not think that SYG would be needed unless there is an attack of some sort unerway.  The attacker is more likely to be who?  Posibly those who commit crimes, You think just maybe?

 

 

Actually, Hispanics are pretty bad also. They account for 40% of all Federal offenders, even more than the 2nd place whites!

Could that be because of immigration laws? 

 

Also, how is the 40% counted? 40% of Hispanics commit a federal crime? or 40% of federal crimes are committed by Hispanics?  Note that Federal crimes do not account for most murders, rapes and other violent crimes.  Your numbers may be correct but they used in a misleading way and frankly are not even on point.  Here are some FBI numbers for murder: http://www.fbi.gov/a.../10shrtbl03.xls

 

They show a different story.  You should really dig a bit deeper than Wikipedia...






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users