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

No they're not. You only have the right to stand your ground and use lethal Force and doing so if you're at risk of loss of life or limb or that of a third party.

You can't just run around blowing people's heads off and say you're standing your ground.

 

If you shoot someone and refuse to explain yourself, letting the prosecutor make the arguments essentially unopposed? You're getting the needle dude.

I don't know if you realize how again and again you don't have a case to make. The jury hears and weighs the evidence. If they find the defendant acted reasonably, he walks. If not, he doesn't.

 

Stand your ground still refers to self defense.

 

Continued deflection noted.

 

Not in Florida
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/family-says-fatal-shooting-case-shows-‘stand-your-ground’-defense-doesn’t-work-for-black-men.603973/page-2#post-1073739479

A side note: notice in the above link how people who know what they're talking about make their case. With quotes and all! And without even having to ask. People who don't know what they're talking about just.... say... stuff. No quotes or references. You have to badger them to producing some quote.... and THAT'S when they start doing their research.

 

Yep! Testifying makes no difference when the prosecutor is forced to prove a negative in "stand your ground" cases.. But you could end up implicating yourself. So why would you?

This leave the jury making a decision with NO objective facts to base it on. So too often they base it on the color of the skin

NOW do you see how stupid "stand your ground" is?

 

In the case we're talking about in the OP? You're ****ed, you shot the wrong person. Talk or don't, you're not walking.
In a generalized analysis? If its a justified shoot and you refuse to testify for yourself, your chances aren't great. Because a jury wants to hear it from you, and if you refuse they're going to naturally form some assumptions.

There are plenty of objective facts here: 1) Passenger got shot, not driver 2) Passengers don't operate motor vehicles 3) that means the passenger presented no threat which means 4) this shooting was not justified regardless of any belief the defendant held or fact pattern showing that he might have been entitled to shoot someone he didn't actually hit.

Wow, that was so difficult and unfair. Not.

 

So in Florida I can run around and just kill anyone I want and say I'm standing my ground? My life doesn't have to be threatened I can just be anybody I want whenever for any reason?

 

so it's about defending yourself against a deadly threat so self defense.

Thanks for confirming what I already knew and making yourself look ridiculous arguing against something you posted.
​

 

Does it? Or is it a statistical byproduct of the fact that, on a per capita basis, black men between 16 and 45 commit violent crimes at a rate several times that of other races? Tsk, tsk, however... Before you break out the "you're a racist" card, realize I'm just the messenger, and this messenger is reporting facts, and whilst you are certainly entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts.

In any event, removing any "duty to retreat" can, and likely has, prevented people who used lethal force in a manner that circumstances dictate is legal. Without it, as an example, someone who shot an assailant who had a gun pointed at their face might end up catching a charge if they run into the wrong prosecutor, Judge, and Jury, simply because they shot rather than attempting to turn and run, which would entail a grave risk of being shot in the back during the attempt.

Typical race baiting debate tactics by the left, especially when the debate swirls around firearms, and using them legally for self-defense. Yous guys don't likey that.

There is an old expression that goes, "He who turns and runs away, lives to fight another day." It's more of words of wisdom I was taught by the US Army to suggest that, at times anyway, it might be better to order the men under my command to retreat, rather than forge on into a suicide mission. And while civilians are not typically in a "fight another day" sort of scenario, I do not at all endorse exposing one's self to unnecessary risk if a good option exists to Gee Tea Eff Oh of a situation. Nor is it generally a good idea to insert yourself into someone else's situation, even if you're in the right, legally, ethically, and morally. You could end up dead or catching a bogus charge. Now, if it's family, or friends so close you call them family, that may be different, but for a stranger... Well, that's a tricky thing.

But retreat is not always an option, and it is certainly not always a good option.

And I, for one, do not want to see people imprisoned for using deadly force when appropriate and otherwise legal, regardless of what retreat options may or may not have been available to them, or even realized of them at the time.

 

Its actually quite possible to prove a negative. Especially in this case. All that you have to do is show that SYG laws are not fielded under self defense law. And no, SYG laws do not shift the burden to the prosecutor. In fact that is why Marc was not able to assert SYG. He had a 3 day trial before the main trial in March of this year to see if he could be granted immunity under SYG. It was denied.

LINK: Judge finds Marc Wilson not eligible for immunity in Hutcheson homicide - Statesboro Herald

If you actually read the link you will read exactly why Marc was denied immunity. Also, as you can see, Marc had to prove (IE: the burden of proof was on him, just like in any other self defense case) that he was in a SYG situation. Like it or not, SYG is a self defense law. After reading the evidence that I have provided (and note, you couldn't prove your statement, but I can...further showing your sig as false), you can no longer truthfully or validly claim that SYG is not a self defense law.

 

You forgot to highlight the "reasonably" part of the statute you quoted. Its very important. Reasonable people don't "believe" anything for absolutely no reason. There is always a reason. And that reasoning can be referenced to. In law that is called "evidence".

For instance I can reasonably believe that your sig, that you always reference, is not actually followed near as much as you claim (if at all) simply due to the fact that you have claimed that SYG law is not a self defense law. Despite the evidence that shows that it is.

 

I don't think it has anything to do with his race, because in that situation use of lethal force was probably not needed. He could have ignored the idiots in the other car. Having said that Pro-SYG people typically argue that there is no need to ignore anyone because you have the right to stand your ground, but argument fails in this kind of situation. You can use lethal force only when to prevent death or great bodily harm, not to stand up to people screaming nonsense on the highway.

 

Well that and the fact that 62% of all murders and robberies are committed by black felons. When a demographic is more than 10 times more likely to engage in behavior that will harm you, a person with proper functioning pattern recognition hardware is going to react accordingly. That pattern recognition hardware evolved for a reason..... those with it were more likely to pass on their genes.

Asians are a different race than me and I find them less threatening to me than white people. That is because I am aware that their crime stats are nearly zero. Pattern recognition saves lives.

If you believed your own rhetoric, you would have no problems taking a stroll through an inner city neighborhood. You would be as completely relaxed in that atmosphere as you would be walking down the street in your lily white middle class neighborhood. You would of course also be as crazy as a mad hatter and your chances of being harmed would increase 1000%.

 

If the other driver was trying to run them off the road?

 

See first sentence: EVEN TAKING HIS STORY AT FACE VALUE, HE MISSED.
He was not authorized to shoot the passenger, only the driver if the driver was attacking him with the vehicle.

 

Exactly! So NOW do you understand how idiotic this law is? I mean, it even promotes the proliferation of bullets flying around that can hit.... just about anybody...

 

Not if you're black! But, in Florida, if somebody kills another in any sort of quarrel, the probability of them going free by claiming they were standing their ground is high if they are white.

 

so if I'm Asian and I want to shoot my neighbor I can just go blow his brings out while he's sitting on his couch watching TV and I'm fine?

Based on what?

 

Yep! There is a link on the OP that demonstrates it.

You seem to be wanting to attribute it to "coincidence". Something like throwing a penny up in the air 100 and it coming heads every time? Nobody can say it's "impossible", but the study shows how unlikely it is (the disparity among the two ethnic groups, I mean).

AND, the fact that opponents alerted that THIS would happen makes it even less likely. If that's even possible.

VERY wise. And it's exactly the opposite of "stand your ground" laws. Therefore, we are in agreement that "stand your ground" is the OPPOSITE of "wise" (whatever that is)

When it's not an option, it's self defense.

But here we see what EVERYBODY who defends "stand your ground" ends up doing when they realize how foolish these laws are. Which is to use the inevitability of self-defense to try to justify the stupidity of "stand your ground"

 

I didn't say it's not possible. But it's ridiculous to DEMAND it to keep somebody out of prison.... This is a matter of jurisprudence.

 

I'm glad YOU did. Guess WHO determines what is "reasonably". The assailant! It was not "reasonable" for Zimmerman to believe that he was in danger just because Trevor Martin was wearing a hoodie. And yet "stand your ground" says that it makes no difference what was objectively reasonable. Just what the white guy THOUGHT was reasonable. This doesn't work too well if the assailant is black, though. But it does work much better if the victim is.

NOW do you realize how absolutely idiotic "stand your ground" is? It's not idiotic for white supremacists, though. They love it! Care to venture a guess as to why that might be?

 

And its not being demanded. As the rest of my post to you, that you cut out, showed.

See, I knew you were going to do this. Cut out most of my post to try and keep the claim going. You can't stand to admit when you're wrong. So you latch onto a tiny portion of a post and comment on that in a way which keeps your claim going, while ignoring the evidence presented. Why do you think I put that part in my post? Right at the top? Because I knew you couldn't resist and that you would do exactly what you just did. You. Are. Predictable. And you don't do any research.

 

Ol' boy is goijng to prison. He killed somebody. Somebody not trying to kill him.

 

False. There is a standard, in law, that is followed to determine what "reasonable people" would determine. And its not the individual. Indeed it is often a jury that decides such. LINK: reasonable person | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu) Which is why self defense law requires the burden of proof come from the defendant. And that is what happened with the case in the OP. As I already showed you.

It is people like you, that are against SYG laws, that give out false information that leads to people falsely believing that SYG laws protect them in situations like described in the OP's law case.

And for the millionth time...Zimmerman did not plead SYG as a defense. So stop bringing him up.