Family says fatal shooting case shows ‘stand your ground’ defense doesn’t work for Black men

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Space_Time, Sep 20, 2022.

  1. Darthcervantes

    Darthcervantes Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    16,906
    Likes Received:
    17,149
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I’m guessing 12 percent of the population committing 50 percent of the homicides doesn’t factor in at all?
     
    Buri likes this.
  2. Pred

    Pred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    24,358
    Likes Received:
    17,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It’s not that simple. There has to be evidence to substantiate the belief. If it actually worked like your mostly uninformed dreamworld, anyone wouod be able to walk up to anyone just shoot them dead, then claim, “I believed they were going to kill me…”. Doesn’t work that way.

    There was substantial evidence with Zimmerman and Rittenhouse for example that their lives werein danger so self defense stood. You do understand that right? Probably not. Same thing if someone breaks into your home. The basic act of intrusion is enough to feel endangered. Shooting into a car blindly doesn’t pose an eminent threat unless you were on the edge of a cliff and that car was pushing you off that cliff. You need some real evidence.
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2022
    Right is the way and Ddyad like this.
  3. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,520
    Likes Received:
    18,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes! Which is one more instance in which stand your ground laws don't work for black people as well as they work for white people. I don't know the details of the case, but my comments are about the title of the thread and the study that proves the statement made there to be correct.
     
  4. Buri

    Buri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,723
    Likes Received:
    6,426
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    that’s race baiting. Your only evidence of your claim that stand your ground is racist is that nonsense. You could very well claim my breakfast taco is racist with that obvious fabrication.

    why do you water down the idea of racism with false claims on a regular basis?
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  5. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,520
    Likes Received:
    18,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's not what the law says. Not here in Florida, at least.

    Florida Statutes 776.012
    ...
    (2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use 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. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

    You just have to convince the jury that you "believe". What "evidence" can there be of what somebody believes or doesn't believe when they quarrel with somebody else other than their word? So it works great for white people. Jurors are open to believing that a white person "believes" the black guy is a threat. Not so much the other way around.

    It IS that simple.

    So NOW do you understand how idiotic these laws are?
     
  6. Pred

    Pred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    24,358
    Likes Received:
    17,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know the law. I live here. You have to PROVE IT though. You can’t shoot someone then claim self defense without any tangible evidence of you being in real danger. You must understand this? There would be people shooting their wives and husbands every week and walking. There would be neighbors shooting each other over property disputes, then claiming Castle Doctrine.

    Did you NOT read the law? This isn’t self identifying as a dude by cutting your hair and not wearing makeup and people saying sure, you’re now a dude. You have to prove imminent death. That’s HARD!! Castle doctrine makes it easier since if a stranger is in your home you shouldn’t have to prove much. It’s your home. It’s also why you can’t invite your neighbor over for dinner, shoot him then claim self defense….not that easy.

    You can’t be this simple minded? Or maybe you are and you’re screwing with me:)
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2022
    DentalFloss, Reality and Ddyad like this.
  7. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He fired and hit a passenger not the person who was assaulting him with a deadly weapon.
    You're 100% responsible for your backstop. Killing someone on accident when you miss your target in an otherwise justified shooting is a felony.
     
  8. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You don't have to prove that someone believed. Crazy people believe things all the time, it doesn't make their belief REASONABLE.
    REASONABLY BELIEVES. That's what you have to prove. Additionally: He missed his justified target and hit a bystander. Passengers don't control vehicles.
    When you MISS, you don't have a reasonable belief you needed to shoot the person you actually hit. Per se, you missed so you didn't hit what you were aiming at.
     
    Pred likes this.
  9. FAW

    FAW Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,010
    Likes Received:
    3,850
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You left out the word "reasonably".

    Stand your ground laws require that the shooter "reasonably" believes that their life was in danger. The same principle applies to self-defense laws. If somebody makes a claim that they felt their life was in danger, and a jury does not feel this belief is reasonable given the circumstances, then their assertion of stand your ground or self-defense will not be accepted.
     
    Pred likes this.
  10. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,520
    Likes Received:
    18,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So the accused has the burden of proof? That may be true if you're white. Less so if you're black.

    And, in any case, how do you PROVE what you believe?

    Exactly my point! You can PROVE that you're in real danger. You can't PROVE that you BELIEVED that you were in danger. See the difference? You don't actually have to BE in danger to believe that you are. Or even to CLAIM that you believed it.

    THAT is how idiotic this law is.
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2022
  11. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,520
    Likes Received:
    18,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How? They were there.... they were quarreling. When is it reasonable or not reasonable to BELIEVE you are in danger of physical harm?

    "Stand your ground" law is idiotic. There is no way you can defend it.

    Then it would have been an "Act of God" while lawfully discharging a firearm. But that would have been more likely to stick if the accused had been white, as the study shows.
     
  12. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    27,000
    Likes Received:
    11,049
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The key is that he did not shoot and kill the person who was trying to run him off the road. He shot and killed an innocent bystander.
     
    Reality likes this.
  13. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,520
    Likes Received:
    18,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What is unreasonable about believing you might suffer physical harm during a quarrel?
     
  14. Bullseye

    Bullseye Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2021
    Messages:
    11,869
    Likes Received:
    10,278
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How does "stand you ground" even apply in two vehicles traveling on a road. The guy fired aimlessly, not at an agressor.
    So, you are just firing verbal bullets aimlessly. Yep, I thought so.
     
  15. FAW

    FAW Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,010
    Likes Received:
    3,850
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In the context of this thread, if you have to ask, it is safe to say that you do not pass the reasonable person standard.

    It is little wonder that you find this all so confusing.
     
    Reality likes this.
  16. Darthcervantes

    Darthcervantes Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    16,906
    Likes Received:
    17,149
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I could say the same for the store owner in NYC that DEFENDED himself against an assailant but ended up going to jail for it. This only occurred because the assailant was black and the person defending themselves was not. This is the ugly mess the left created by making everything race based instead of logic based. Expect much more of this.
     
  17. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A PASSENGER does not control the vehicle. He could not reasonably have believed the passengers words could cause physical harm. If he'd struck the driver only, he'd have been justified because the driver controlled the vehicle and was the one committing the sort of aggression it is reasonably to defend oneself with deadly force over.

    Sure I can, your strawman doesn't apply like most arguments you seem to make. Odd that you, the cunning linguist, would miss the whole "reasonably" part in "reasonably believes".

    Its not an act of God: He missed. You're 100% responsible for what you hit when you shoot. If what you hit was justified, you're good. If it wasn't, you just committed a felony even if you were aiming at something justified.
    Hell: If you over-penetrate your justified target and tag a person behind them that's a felony.
     
  18. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He didn't strike his aggressor, he struck a passenger. Harsh language is not sufficient threat and that's all the passenger was guilty or capable of.
     
  19. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,520
    Likes Received:
    18,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One of them already being shown to have been driving drunk, lying, hiding evidence and believed to have been trying to run the other off the road.
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2022
  20. Bullseye

    Bullseye Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2021
    Messages:
    11,869
    Likes Received:
    10,278
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And . . .?
     
  21. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,520
    Likes Received:
    18,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
  22. Pred

    Pred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    24,358
    Likes Received:
    17,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You still don’t get it at all. If the jury doesn’t believe it YOU are screwed. Doesn’t matter what you believe in your own head. You have to convince others what you believed is actually believable. Get it yet? Do you honestly think you can get away with murder in FL by simply stating I “believed” I was in real danger of being killed without any reasonable explanation or evidence? That’s why trials exist. To separate the BS from the lies. YOU really think it’s that easy:)

    It’s not idiotic at all. It protects people from defending their own life. It prevents a woman from being raped. It prevents a home owner from being murdered in their own home. It protects someone minding their own business in their car, when a mob of crazy people surround you and start bashing in your windows for just driving to work or dropping their kids off at soccer practice. It PROTECTS people. It allows people to protect themselves and their loved ones instead of becoming a statistic.

    But I won’t assume any Leftist understands any of that. They want victims to be victims. They want that woman to be raped and lay there and take it. Odds are she’s not fending him off with language or dialing 911. And if a dude with a bat busts in your door and wants to murder everyone in the house, I’m sure you’ll feel sorry for the “poor guy” who broke in because he probably mistook the home for his own then got shot. That defense has been tried.
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2022
    Buri and AmericanNationalist like this.
  23. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,520
    Likes Received:
    18,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't know what the Georgia "stand your ground" law says. But if it's similar to the one in Florida, that could be enough to acquit. But less likely if you are black.

    NOW do you understand how idiotic these laws are?
     
  24. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,520
    Likes Received:
    18,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bingo!!!!!

    Now... go back and read my point. See if you can spot why you just made my case.
     
  25. Buri

    Buri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,723
    Likes Received:
    6,426
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's a fabrication and you still have no evidence to prove that.
     

Share This Page