rehmwa 2 #876 April 3, 2012 QuoteIt's back to the problem where even if you firmly suspect he did bad, the evidence isn't there to support a criminal conviction. This sentence seems to be out of balance - what kind of person "firmly believes" without evidence that's called faith . . . . AH HA!! (thus the foundation for religion and politics is again shown to be motivated by the same mindset) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #877 April 3, 2012 QuoteQuoteIt's back to the problem where even if you firmly suspect he did bad, the evidence isn't there to support a criminal conviction. This sentence seems to be out of balance - what kind of person "firmly believes" without evidence Maybe the kind of person who BELIEVES they are in imminent danger with no evidence besides words?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #878 April 3, 2012 QuoteQuote>No, the words alone do not. "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." If the person BELIEVES that deadly force is necessary to prevent great bodily harm, they can use it. They don't need to be attacked. Wrong. Words alone are not 'imminent death or great bodily harm'. "He or she reasonably believes..." Reasonable belief can be due to words alone.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #879 April 3, 2012 QuoteReasonable belief can be due to words alone. that's subjective - personally, I don't feel that way. Especially if we're talking about an immediate threat rather than implication of a future attack. They'd have to be very convincing to make me cross that line to defend with deadly force rather than restraint, or any action at all if nothing physical is initiated. If it's possible at all. Seems that anyone that's trying to instigate with verbal abuse will either give up, or take the next step and initiate physical gestures or confrontation. Then the line is more definitively crossed. Of course, the "sticks and stones" defense does allow any asshole to just verbally abuse anyone around them. But that doesn't warrant deadly force. Short of it - there's a plethora of people that talk big and threaten big. Rarely do they act. But responses should be calibrated on actions, not words. Edit: I have one exception you have stirring in my mind though. If the threats and talk are coming from a large group, and the only perceived way out of it is to attack first before they act, rather than wait until it's too late. But even then, there is still body language, positioning, and other physical cues in addition to the speech that can be assessed. (Once that's allowed, then the logic is easier to move towards your contention, but still it's hard to see it) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #880 April 3, 2012 QuoteQuoteReasonable belief can be due to words alone. that's subjective - Yes, it is, isn't it. And that seems to be a big part of the problem with the law.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #881 April 3, 2012 Quotewhich contention is being proposed anyway? that Travis attacked Zimmerman based on verbal abuse alone? or that Zimmerman attacked Travis based on verbal abuse alone? I don't much care, but I'm just wondering the context of the posters relative to their displayed biases.... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #882 April 3, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt's back to the problem where even if you firmly suspect he did bad, the evidence isn't there to support a criminal conviction. This sentence seems to be out of balance - what kind of person "firmly believes" without evidence Maybe the kind of person who BELIEVES they are in imminent danger with no evidence besides words? are you making more conclusions not based on factual evidence again? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mirage62 0 #883 April 3, 2012 Last night I did hear one thing that was somewhat upsetting….and it was from the much hated Bill O’Reily. Basically he thought that Zimmerman now needed to stand trial to just have the question answered in basically a public forum. (Court). Unless more credible evidence comes forward I’m not sure if that is correct. AGAIN understand I believe that if they can prove more he should be. Think about if he is innocent though. He’s watching the news, he’s seeing people talk about killing him. Think about if the FBI, a special prosecutor, ect had been brought in to look at it all. All that pressure to arrest him. Will these people have the balls to look at the evidence and say “No”? To say we need to have a trial just so the people who don’t want to trust the system, or feel because it was a white on black crime, or the fact that the leaders of the black community demand it strikes me as a scary thing. What if it was you. OTOH, what if it was your 17 yr old?Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #884 April 3, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote>No, the words alone do not. "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." If the person BELIEVES that deadly force is necessary to prevent great bodily harm, they can use it. They don't need to be attacked. Wrong. Words alone are not 'imminent death or great bodily harm'. "He or she reasonably believes..." Reasonable belief can be due to words alone. Nope, sorry. Words alone are insufficient. From the Florida statutes: "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." And from the Florida handgun licensing website: "Q. What if someone uses threatening language to me so that I am afraid for my life or safety? A. Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary. "Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #885 April 3, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote It's back to the problem where even if you firmly suspect he did bad, the evidence isn't there to support a criminal conviction. This sentence seems to be out of balance - what kind of person "firmly believes" without evidence Maybe the kind of person who BELIEVES they are in imminent danger with no evidence besides words? are you making more conclusions not based on factual evidence again? Just answering the question posed, in the abstract... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #886 April 3, 2012 QuoteLast night I did hear one thing that was somewhat upsetting….and it was from the much hated Bill O’Reily. Basically he thought that Zimmerman now needed to stand trial to just have the question answered in basically a public forum. (Court). OJ was acquitted in his trial. Same with the Rodney King beatings trial. I doubt that verdict changed the minds of more than 5% of Americans. People who believe the system is letting Zimmerman get away with it are going to continue to believe that if he is not found guilty in a trial. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AndyBoyd 0 #887 April 3, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteReasonable belief can be due to words alone. that's subjective - Yes, it is, isn't it. And that seems to be a big part of the problem with the law. In legal terms, a subjective belief is the actual belief held by the individual in question. In the case we are talking about, the subjective belief would be what Zimmerman actually believed at the time. The reasonable belief is judged on an objective standard. What would a clear-thinking, rational person in Zimmerman's place believe? In order to assert "stand your ground," one's belief that one is in danger has to be reasonable. So here, Zimmerman's subjective belief doesn't matter. The question is, what would a rational person in his situation believe? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #888 April 4, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteReasonable belief can be due to words alone. that's subjective - Yes, it is, isn't it. And that seems to be a big part of the problem with the law. In legal terms, a subjective belief is the actual belief held by the individual in question. In the case we are talking about, the subjective belief would be what Zimmerman actually believed at the time. The reasonable belief is judged on an objective standard. What would a clear-thinking, rational person in Zimmerman's place believe? In order to assert "stand your ground," one's belief that one is in danger has to be reasonable. So here, Zimmerman's subjective belief doesn't matter. The question is, what would a rational person in his situation believe? You mention Zimmerman in this case. I thought the current tangent was trying to justify Travis' attack - i.e., the kid was justified in attacking based just on Zimmerman taunting him. That's why I asked upthread which of the two were being discussed in this tangent about sticks and stones. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GeorgiaDon 380 #889 April 4, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteReasonable belief can be due to words alone. that's subjective - Yes, it is, isn't it. And that seems to be a big part of the problem with the law. In legal terms, a subjective belief is the actual belief held by the individual in question. In the case we are talking about, the subjective belief would be what Zimmerman actually believed at the time. The reasonable belief is judged on an objective standard. What would a clear-thinking, rational person in Zimmerman's place believe? In order to assert "stand your ground," one's belief that one is in danger has to be reasonable. So here, Zimmerman's subjective belief doesn't matter. The question is, what would a rational person in his situation believe?It seems, though, that in practice the issue of "reasonableness" is in the hands of one judge, and there is a lot of latitude given by some judges. Here are some recent controversial cases (source here): "Last week, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Beth Bloom used the law to dismiss a murder charge against a man who chased down a thief and stabbed him to death. Greyston Garcia had pursued Pedro Roteta for more than a block before stabbing him on January 25. When Garcia caught up with him, Roteta swung the bag and as Garcia blocked the bag with his arm, he stabbed Roteta with a single, fatal knife thrust to the chest. Garcia had claimed that Roteta had a screwdriver in his hand. Garcia’s defense attorney also said Roteta had an open pocket knife in his hand during the chase. However, police found a folded-up knife in the dead man’s pocket. Bloom wrote that a “medical examiner conceded that a 4-6 pound bag of metal being swung at one’s head would lead to serious bodily injury or death.” She said that although the confrontation was captured on video surveillance, the images were too grainy to clearly tell what happened. Garcia did not call police or 911, but went home and fell asleep. He later sold two of the car radios and hid the knife. He initially denied involvement to police until the video surveillance was shown to him. Prosecutors were stunned by the judge’s ruling. So was Miami police Sgt. Ervens Ford, who headed up the homicide investigation. He told The Herald’s David Ovalle that Judge Bloom’s decision was a “travesty of justice.” Miami-Dade Chief Assistant State Attorney Kathleen Hoague said her office would appeal the decision because “we feel the judge abused her discretion.” “The law does not allow for you to use deadly force to retrieve your property. She, in effect, is saying that it’s appropriate to chase someone down with a knife to get property back,” said Hoague, who stressed that a jury should weigh the merits of the case. Despite this judge’s decision, Rep. Dennis Baxley, who sponsored ‘Stand Your Ground’ in 2005, claims that “there’s nothing in the statute that provides for any kind of aggressive action, in terms of pursuit and confront.” Another one: "In 2009, a drug deal gone wrong led to a dangerous car chase through Miami streets. Anthony Gonzalez Jr., aka “White Boy,” shot the driver of the car he was pursuing but the case never went to trial. Gonzalez was deemed acting under the permissive parameters of the ‘Stand Your Ground’ doctrine." How about being shot at for just doing your job: "Two workers wearing blue shirts and pith helmets were shot at as they went to switch off a mobile home owner’s electricity. The Judge “following the dictates of Stand Your Ground,” decided that the shooter’s claim that he feared for his life was not unreasonable. Two counts of armed assault and one count of improper exhibition of a firearm were dismissed." A bit on the history of the law: "The Stand Your Ground law was passed in 2005 based on just one case, that of 77-year-old James Workman who shot and killed an intruder in his hurricane-ravaged home. He was never charged because of the existing legal concept known as the “Castle Doctrine.” However, the NRA used the case to push for a new law which dramatically expanded the right to use deadly force almost anywhere a person feels ‘reasonably threatened.’ So in the above cases, we see that it is not necessary for there to be a confrontation involving physical contact for "stand your ground" to be applied. Drug dealers can pursue, shoot, and kill their clients. You can stop paying your electricity/water, then shoot the service guys when they come to disconnect your service. It is clear that you can pursue someone, instigate a confrontation, and then kill them. Maybe this wasn't the intent of the law, but it seems to be how it is playing out. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #890 April 4, 2012 QuoteMaybe this wasn't the intent of the law, but it seems to be how it is playing out. Don And in how many cases has SYG been justified, so we can see what the proportions are, pray tell?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AndyBoyd 0 #891 April 4, 2012 Well, yeah, someone has to decide what's reasonable. That's the judge. Not everyone will agree with a given judge's rulings. That's what appeal courts are for. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AndyBoyd 0 #892 April 4, 2012 I'm not trying to justify anyone doing anything. Just trying to help people out with the law. Zimmerman was just an example. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #893 April 4, 2012 QuoteYou mention Zimmerman in this case. I thought the current tangent was trying to justify Travis' attack - i.e., the kid was justified in attacking based just on Zimmerman taunting him. I was trying to figure out how the stand your ground law deals with somebody being taunted into a fight. Actually quite seperate from this particular incident, though that did give rise to the question. If I taunt somebody into a fight by telling him how good his sisters pussy was and then kill him since I feared for my life, would this law protect that type of behaviour? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites muff528 3 #894 April 4, 2012 QuoteQuoteYou mention Zimmerman in this case. I thought the current tangent was trying to justify Travis' attack - i.e., the kid was justified in attacking based just on Zimmerman taunting him. I was trying to figure out how the stand your ground law deals with somebody being taunted into a fight. Actually quite seperate from this particular incident, though that did give rise to the question. If I taunt somebody into a fight by telling him how good his sisters pussy was and then kill him since I feared for my life, would this law protect that type of behaviour? It would be illegal for him to a physically attack you no matter how much you verbally taunt him. But still, it probably would be advisable to recant your claim and tell him that it really wasn't that good at all. If that still doesn't calm him down you would likely need to just tell him that it was the worst you ever had ...even if it wasn't. Try to be sincere. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #895 April 4, 2012 QuoteIf I taunt somebody into a fight by telling him how good his sisters pussy was and then kill him since I feared for my life, would this law protect that type of behaviour? It would be a great way to thin out the hotheads from the population....... sticks and stones and all that. seems you should be able to protect yourself as necessary regardless, as long as you weren't escalating physically, only verbally however, I could see a lot more meat added to existing laws to address slander just to address this issue - then cowardly assholes that taunt would have to be responsible for their actions financially or with a bit of time too ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mirage62 0 #896 April 4, 2012 Hummmm still pretty quite on the news front. I wounder if this will become "weekend news" - only getting press if they keep marching. It seems everybody that can investigate is investigating. The family has called on every source that I think is avaliable. I believe that it will take a real "bomb" from Zimmermans side to not get charged. T.M side will need a "bomb" to get this back as big news. Could it be that calm head OUTSIDE of both camps are slowly getting a handle on this an defusing the bomb? Sad to think how short the attention span is over something like this.Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #897 April 4, 2012 QuoteSad to think how short the attention span is over something like this. something like what? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mirage62 0 #898 April 4, 2012 A 17 yr old getting shot dead. And for god sake I understand it happens all the time. But this one - for whatever reason - has been brought to the forefront.Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #899 April 4, 2012 Quote"He or she reasonably believes..." Reasonable belief can be due to words alone. Not according to Florida law, and not according to any State law in any place I have ever lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #900 April 4, 2012 QuoteI was trying to figure out how the stand your ground law deals with somebody being taunted into a fight. Actually quite seperate from this particular incident, though that did give rise to the question. If I taunt somebody into a fight by telling him how good his sisters pussy was and then kill him since I feared for my life, would this law protect that type of behaviour? Name calling is not legal grounds to attack someone.... Period. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Next Page 36 of 132 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kelpdiver 2 #882 April 3, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt's back to the problem where even if you firmly suspect he did bad, the evidence isn't there to support a criminal conviction. This sentence seems to be out of balance - what kind of person "firmly believes" without evidence Maybe the kind of person who BELIEVES they are in imminent danger with no evidence besides words? are you making more conclusions not based on factual evidence again? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #883 April 3, 2012 Last night I did hear one thing that was somewhat upsetting….and it was from the much hated Bill O’Reily. Basically he thought that Zimmerman now needed to stand trial to just have the question answered in basically a public forum. (Court). Unless more credible evidence comes forward I’m not sure if that is correct. AGAIN understand I believe that if they can prove more he should be. Think about if he is innocent though. He’s watching the news, he’s seeing people talk about killing him. Think about if the FBI, a special prosecutor, ect had been brought in to look at it all. All that pressure to arrest him. Will these people have the balls to look at the evidence and say “No”? To say we need to have a trial just so the people who don’t want to trust the system, or feel because it was a white on black crime, or the fact that the leaders of the black community demand it strikes me as a scary thing. What if it was you. OTOH, what if it was your 17 yr old?Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #884 April 3, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote>No, the words alone do not. "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." If the person BELIEVES that deadly force is necessary to prevent great bodily harm, they can use it. They don't need to be attacked. Wrong. Words alone are not 'imminent death or great bodily harm'. "He or she reasonably believes..." Reasonable belief can be due to words alone. Nope, sorry. Words alone are insufficient. From the Florida statutes: "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." And from the Florida handgun licensing website: "Q. What if someone uses threatening language to me so that I am afraid for my life or safety? A. Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary. "Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #885 April 3, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote It's back to the problem where even if you firmly suspect he did bad, the evidence isn't there to support a criminal conviction. This sentence seems to be out of balance - what kind of person "firmly believes" without evidence Maybe the kind of person who BELIEVES they are in imminent danger with no evidence besides words? are you making more conclusions not based on factual evidence again? Just answering the question posed, in the abstract... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #886 April 3, 2012 QuoteLast night I did hear one thing that was somewhat upsetting….and it was from the much hated Bill O’Reily. Basically he thought that Zimmerman now needed to stand trial to just have the question answered in basically a public forum. (Court). OJ was acquitted in his trial. Same with the Rodney King beatings trial. I doubt that verdict changed the minds of more than 5% of Americans. People who believe the system is letting Zimmerman get away with it are going to continue to believe that if he is not found guilty in a trial. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #887 April 3, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteReasonable belief can be due to words alone. that's subjective - Yes, it is, isn't it. And that seems to be a big part of the problem with the law. In legal terms, a subjective belief is the actual belief held by the individual in question. In the case we are talking about, the subjective belief would be what Zimmerman actually believed at the time. The reasonable belief is judged on an objective standard. What would a clear-thinking, rational person in Zimmerman's place believe? In order to assert "stand your ground," one's belief that one is in danger has to be reasonable. So here, Zimmerman's subjective belief doesn't matter. The question is, what would a rational person in his situation believe? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #888 April 4, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteReasonable belief can be due to words alone. that's subjective - Yes, it is, isn't it. And that seems to be a big part of the problem with the law. In legal terms, a subjective belief is the actual belief held by the individual in question. In the case we are talking about, the subjective belief would be what Zimmerman actually believed at the time. The reasonable belief is judged on an objective standard. What would a clear-thinking, rational person in Zimmerman's place believe? In order to assert "stand your ground," one's belief that one is in danger has to be reasonable. So here, Zimmerman's subjective belief doesn't matter. The question is, what would a rational person in his situation believe? You mention Zimmerman in this case. I thought the current tangent was trying to justify Travis' attack - i.e., the kid was justified in attacking based just on Zimmerman taunting him. That's why I asked upthread which of the two were being discussed in this tangent about sticks and stones. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 380 #889 April 4, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteReasonable belief can be due to words alone. that's subjective - Yes, it is, isn't it. And that seems to be a big part of the problem with the law. In legal terms, a subjective belief is the actual belief held by the individual in question. In the case we are talking about, the subjective belief would be what Zimmerman actually believed at the time. The reasonable belief is judged on an objective standard. What would a clear-thinking, rational person in Zimmerman's place believe? In order to assert "stand your ground," one's belief that one is in danger has to be reasonable. So here, Zimmerman's subjective belief doesn't matter. The question is, what would a rational person in his situation believe?It seems, though, that in practice the issue of "reasonableness" is in the hands of one judge, and there is a lot of latitude given by some judges. Here are some recent controversial cases (source here): "Last week, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Beth Bloom used the law to dismiss a murder charge against a man who chased down a thief and stabbed him to death. Greyston Garcia had pursued Pedro Roteta for more than a block before stabbing him on January 25. When Garcia caught up with him, Roteta swung the bag and as Garcia blocked the bag with his arm, he stabbed Roteta with a single, fatal knife thrust to the chest. Garcia had claimed that Roteta had a screwdriver in his hand. Garcia’s defense attorney also said Roteta had an open pocket knife in his hand during the chase. However, police found a folded-up knife in the dead man’s pocket. Bloom wrote that a “medical examiner conceded that a 4-6 pound bag of metal being swung at one’s head would lead to serious bodily injury or death.” She said that although the confrontation was captured on video surveillance, the images were too grainy to clearly tell what happened. Garcia did not call police or 911, but went home and fell asleep. He later sold two of the car radios and hid the knife. He initially denied involvement to police until the video surveillance was shown to him. Prosecutors were stunned by the judge’s ruling. So was Miami police Sgt. Ervens Ford, who headed up the homicide investigation. He told The Herald’s David Ovalle that Judge Bloom’s decision was a “travesty of justice.” Miami-Dade Chief Assistant State Attorney Kathleen Hoague said her office would appeal the decision because “we feel the judge abused her discretion.” “The law does not allow for you to use deadly force to retrieve your property. She, in effect, is saying that it’s appropriate to chase someone down with a knife to get property back,” said Hoague, who stressed that a jury should weigh the merits of the case. Despite this judge’s decision, Rep. Dennis Baxley, who sponsored ‘Stand Your Ground’ in 2005, claims that “there’s nothing in the statute that provides for any kind of aggressive action, in terms of pursuit and confront.” Another one: "In 2009, a drug deal gone wrong led to a dangerous car chase through Miami streets. Anthony Gonzalez Jr., aka “White Boy,” shot the driver of the car he was pursuing but the case never went to trial. Gonzalez was deemed acting under the permissive parameters of the ‘Stand Your Ground’ doctrine." How about being shot at for just doing your job: "Two workers wearing blue shirts and pith helmets were shot at as they went to switch off a mobile home owner’s electricity. The Judge “following the dictates of Stand Your Ground,” decided that the shooter’s claim that he feared for his life was not unreasonable. Two counts of armed assault and one count of improper exhibition of a firearm were dismissed." A bit on the history of the law: "The Stand Your Ground law was passed in 2005 based on just one case, that of 77-year-old James Workman who shot and killed an intruder in his hurricane-ravaged home. He was never charged because of the existing legal concept known as the “Castle Doctrine.” However, the NRA used the case to push for a new law which dramatically expanded the right to use deadly force almost anywhere a person feels ‘reasonably threatened.’ So in the above cases, we see that it is not necessary for there to be a confrontation involving physical contact for "stand your ground" to be applied. Drug dealers can pursue, shoot, and kill their clients. You can stop paying your electricity/water, then shoot the service guys when they come to disconnect your service. It is clear that you can pursue someone, instigate a confrontation, and then kill them. Maybe this wasn't the intent of the law, but it seems to be how it is playing out. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #890 April 4, 2012 QuoteMaybe this wasn't the intent of the law, but it seems to be how it is playing out. Don And in how many cases has SYG been justified, so we can see what the proportions are, pray tell?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #891 April 4, 2012 Well, yeah, someone has to decide what's reasonable. That's the judge. Not everyone will agree with a given judge's rulings. That's what appeal courts are for. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #892 April 4, 2012 I'm not trying to justify anyone doing anything. Just trying to help people out with the law. Zimmerman was just an example. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #893 April 4, 2012 QuoteYou mention Zimmerman in this case. I thought the current tangent was trying to justify Travis' attack - i.e., the kid was justified in attacking based just on Zimmerman taunting him. I was trying to figure out how the stand your ground law deals with somebody being taunted into a fight. Actually quite seperate from this particular incident, though that did give rise to the question. If I taunt somebody into a fight by telling him how good his sisters pussy was and then kill him since I feared for my life, would this law protect that type of behaviour? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #894 April 4, 2012 QuoteQuoteYou mention Zimmerman in this case. I thought the current tangent was trying to justify Travis' attack - i.e., the kid was justified in attacking based just on Zimmerman taunting him. I was trying to figure out how the stand your ground law deals with somebody being taunted into a fight. Actually quite seperate from this particular incident, though that did give rise to the question. If I taunt somebody into a fight by telling him how good his sisters pussy was and then kill him since I feared for my life, would this law protect that type of behaviour? It would be illegal for him to a physically attack you no matter how much you verbally taunt him. But still, it probably would be advisable to recant your claim and tell him that it really wasn't that good at all. If that still doesn't calm him down you would likely need to just tell him that it was the worst you ever had ...even if it wasn't. Try to be sincere. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #895 April 4, 2012 QuoteIf I taunt somebody into a fight by telling him how good his sisters pussy was and then kill him since I feared for my life, would this law protect that type of behaviour? It would be a great way to thin out the hotheads from the population....... sticks and stones and all that. seems you should be able to protect yourself as necessary regardless, as long as you weren't escalating physically, only verbally however, I could see a lot more meat added to existing laws to address slander just to address this issue - then cowardly assholes that taunt would have to be responsible for their actions financially or with a bit of time too ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #896 April 4, 2012 Hummmm still pretty quite on the news front. I wounder if this will become "weekend news" - only getting press if they keep marching. It seems everybody that can investigate is investigating. The family has called on every source that I think is avaliable. I believe that it will take a real "bomb" from Zimmermans side to not get charged. T.M side will need a "bomb" to get this back as big news. Could it be that calm head OUTSIDE of both camps are slowly getting a handle on this an defusing the bomb? Sad to think how short the attention span is over something like this.Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #897 April 4, 2012 QuoteSad to think how short the attention span is over something like this. something like what? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #898 April 4, 2012 A 17 yr old getting shot dead. And for god sake I understand it happens all the time. But this one - for whatever reason - has been brought to the forefront.Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #899 April 4, 2012 Quote"He or she reasonably believes..." Reasonable belief can be due to words alone. Not according to Florida law, and not according to any State law in any place I have ever lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #900 April 4, 2012 QuoteI was trying to figure out how the stand your ground law deals with somebody being taunted into a fight. Actually quite seperate from this particular incident, though that did give rise to the question. If I taunt somebody into a fight by telling him how good his sisters pussy was and then kill him since I feared for my life, would this law protect that type of behaviour? Name calling is not legal grounds to attack someone.... Period. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
