I LIKE Stand Your Ground.

FALSE! And I have refuted this false notion (where does it come from ?) at least 100 times. The law specifically mentions "preventing" an attack. There is no such thing as preventing an attack that does not exist (but something someone imagines). People are trying to say that the SYG law changes the basic law of self-defense. Not hardly. The law of self-defense is 100% intact. SYG simply means you don't have to be running away from an attacker.

And I challenge your use of the word "again". Can you show one single instance where SYG has caused someone needlessly being killed ? If so, let's hear it.​

 

Prevent means to keep something from happening. The only thing you can prevent from happening, is something that does not yet exist.

If you "succeed," whether the threat you imagine might have ever become a real attack becomes unknowable. Which is the biggest problem with these laws. It issues a license to murder based on what someone thinks might happen.


​

 

The "something" is an attack. The imagining you mention isn't something. It is nothing. SYG does nothing more than very slightly modify the law of self-defense. You are talking as if the self-defense law didn't exist, and people could just go around shooting people, whether in self-defense or not. The self-defense law exists, and if you shoot someone, you must have been defending yourself from them attacking you, SYG or no SYG.​

 

It is amazing that someone would ask for anecdotal cases that has no value as evidence over statistical studies that establish empirical evidence.

The statistical (empirical) evidence is clear when we look at white on black shootings. In states with SYG in 17%of the cases the shooting determined to be justified while in states that don't have SYG laws and "self-defense" is claimed only 9% of the shooting are found to be justified. That indicates that 8% of the white on black shootings in SYG states cannot be justified as pure self defense and they were unnecessary shootings.

Additionally, when we look at the huge disparity between SYG defenses where white on black shootings are justified 17% of the time while black on white shootings are only justified 1% of the time it indicates race play an important factor in how the law is enforced. It's basically a license to kill for whites in shooting black while blacks are almost never protected by the law.

SYG laws allow people to commit murder that can not be justified under self-defense law and overwhelmingly these laws only allow whites to commit murder where self-defense laws wouldn't justify the shooting.

 

All this post does is repeat what you said before, which I answered by saying exactly what I say to it again now >>> "If you have any specific evidence about any of the SYG shootings, let's hear it. Show me some evidence that a single one of those killings was not justified. And name names."

And don't give me that "anecdotal cases" crap. I didn't say anything about anecdotal cases, YOU made that up. I asked for EVIDENCE. Specifically with names, and at this point it's beginning to look clear that you don't have any. Your numbers game where you take a giant leap from numbers to a conclusion means nothing. What are the reasons why there is a numbers disparity. You don't know. You're just JUMPING to a wild conclusion. So you've shown us that you can jump. OK, we got that.

 

You made a point of saying the stand your ground laws are about preventing an attack. If you prevent something from happening, it never happens. You can't defend against something that never happens, therefore it's not defense.





​

 

FALSE! It is happening (someone coming at you with an axe) when you prevent it (being chopped by an axe) by shooting them. So there, I spelled it out. Got it ?​

 

Coming at me with a weapon... Like Zimmerman went after Trayvon with a gun?


​

 

Two things here:

1) White people are statistically far more likely to be victims of violent crime from a black perp than the other way around. So it stands to reason that a lot of those cases are probably justified.

2) I think you'll find that the application of hate crimes laws is virtually a direct inversion of your assessment of stand your ground. Black attackers who openly use racial slurs against whites still don't get charged with hate crimes. Conversely, men like George Zimmerman who are not even fully white have hate crimes investigations launched against them merely for shooting a black attacker in self-defense. A black attacker, mind you, that was quoted in court as using a racist slur to describe Zimmerman. Rather thick irony there, don't you think?

And this is just typical left wing race-baiting. As is evident from the fact, first of all, that you're still calling Zimmerman white when I'm pretty sure you don't consider Barack Obama just another white president. Which points to selective recognition of minority status based on whether you perceive the person as good or bad. Which is actually pretty flagrant anti-white racism.

Additionally, this isn't even accurate. If a guy that looked like Bryant Gumbel had shot a guy that looked like Eminem, does he go to jail? If a woman that looked like Oprah Winfrey shot a guy that looked like Charles Manson, does she go to jail? If a kid that looked like Steve Urkel shot a guy that looked like Brock Lesnar, does he go to jail?

You know the answer to all of these questions. And they're all a resounding "no." Because when put into the proper context, you recognize there is more at play here than just race. There are a myriad of other traits that are always conveniently neglected when people want to play the race card in this case. Here's the truth. Trayvon Martin fit the profile of a demographic that is one of the highest statistical criminal probabilities; young, black males who are dressed a certain way.

Do me a favor. Take a look at this. Have you seen it? This is Trayvon Martin on the security camera at the Seven Eleven buying his Arizona watermelon juice cocktail (not iced tea, you can see it in the video) and Skittles right before the incident. Now clearly nothing nefarious is happening here, but if I didn't tell you who that was, what would you think you were watching here if you just randomly found this clip on youtube? Would it look like something you might see on the news of a convenience store looking for a suspect? Look at the way he's dressed. He's still got his hood up inside the store. He doesn't take it off the whole time. And he's got the sagging pants going as well. He even stops at one point to pull them up.

[video=youtube;3WScO9r5INU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WScO9r5INU[/video]

You know what you see when you look at that. You know that image is synonymous with a high crime demographic. He looks shady. If he was in there wearing a suit and tie or, hell, even just a collared shirt tucked in with a belt, would he look as suspicious? If he was wearing a high school letterman jacket, would he look as suspicious? What if he just pulled his damn hood down?

This image is all that George Zimmerman knew about Trayvon Martin on the night in question. This is all he had to go on in conjunction with the actions he was observing and the context of his environment.

 

You might want to look up "imminent threat"...

 

Not at all.

 

Allow me to assist... Legislation clearly states that force can be used to respond to "imminent danger".
In states without SYG, you have an obligation to make reasonable attempts to evade the threat.
In states with SYG, you have no legal obligation to evade the threat - even if you could easily do so.

imminent [ˈɪmɪnənt]adj
1. liable to happen soon; impending
2. Obsolete jutting out or overhanging
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/imminent

In other words, in states with SYG, if you believe that someone might be a threat (ie: that they are liable to be a danger "soon"), you can use force against them.
Of course, they will then be justified in believing you are a threat, and will be able to legally retaliate with force.
As nobody has the legal requirement to back down, and you are now in a violent confrontation, this continues to escalate until someone is "no longer a threat"...

Pretty stupid law.

 

How about C-

You are minding your own business and someone with a gun finds you "suspicious", but unfortunately you don't have one.

- - - Updated - - -

Well why is it we keep hearing that Trayvon should have ran home. Didn't he have a right to Stand his Ground.

 

I like stand your ground, but I don't like the Zimmerman verdict... I don't think its fair to judge a law by the verdict of a racist judge and jury.

 

It's funny. None of you have a damn about this law until a black kid got shot by a mixed guy that looked kind of white.

 

That's exactly the point I have made many times.

- - - Updated - - -

Were most people aware of this law until there was a clear and well publicised example of how broken it is?

 

Your point is moot. Stand your ground applies to someone who is being attacked. There is no evidence anywhere to even remotely suggest Zimmerman attacked Martin. In fact, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests the opposite.

Oh that's strange, I didn't know stand your ground was claimed as a defense by the Zimmerman defense team. Oh that's even stranger, it wasn't. In otherwords, the stand your ground law didn't even really factor into the case, the defense was claiming pure and simple self-defense. Stand your ground implies that the person claiming it at least has the ability to retreat but is not required to utilize it. The evidence shows that Zimmerman was pinned down and being battered--no real opportunity or ability to retreat there, no real way to even consider it. Therefore it was self-defense. This is just another example of leftists targeting self-defense statutes and principles that they've always wanted done away with when they haven't nearly enough of a supportable connection to a particular case to justify such action.

 

As previously pointed out, this is incorrect. SYG is a modification of the existing self-defense laws that removes the obligation to avoid conflict outside your own property. With or without SYG, self defense laws indicate that force can be used in relation to an imminent threat, not only one that has already occurred.

Several problems with this (somewhat snarky) statement:
1) The whole alleged reason Zimmerman was following Trayvon is that he believed Trayvon was a potential threat to the community. When approached by Trayvon and asked what his problem was, he had the opportunity (but not obligation, thanks to SYG) to break contact.
2) The jury was specifically given instructions relating to SYG.
3) Given that Trayvon was followed around at night by a stranger who refused to identify himself, he had every reason to believe that stranger (Zimmerman) was an imminent threat; but no obligation (thanks to SYG) to avoid contact.

 

But the perception of an imminent threat must be reasonable for stand your ground to apply. A sincere belief and a "reasonable" belief are two different things. You can "sincerely" believe that someone who is following you is a threat to you, that doesn't inherently make your belief "reasonable." Being followed by a stranger refusing to identify himself doesn't mean you are in imminent threat of danger. By the same logic, consider the following hypothetical based partially on a true story:

I'm at a grocery store and checking out late at night. I happened to park in one of the stalls farthest away from the store. I'm walking out with my groceries, someone is quickstepping a ways behind me, it seems evident to me they are trying to catch up with me, I glance over my shoulder and see someone with something in their hand, I look forward and continue walking to the car. It's late at night, there is no surveillance this far away from the store, the person behind me says with a raised voice "hey!" and picks up to a jog. I turn around, look at them and tense up, ready to defend myself. They get a bit closer and raise what they were holding--my wallet which I had left on the grocery check out counter. The good Samaritan who was a stranger following me and didn't identify himself chuckled and said "thought you might want that." I don't think he could tell that I had perceived a potential or imminent threat, because I just said "thank you very much" and he said "no problem" and turned and walked back toward where some other cars were parked closer to the store.

Based on what you are claiming is a "reasonable belief of imminent threat," stand your ground would have applied to me at that point in time before I saw the wallet and I could have done what evidence suggests Martin did to the guy I perceived as an "imminent threat." I could have beaten the hell out of the guy trying to return my wallet due to a skewed perception that was not actually "reasonable." If I had done that, then I would have been arrested and charged with aggravated battery. How is it that someone can just assume someone is an "imminent threat" without the person actually verbally or physically assaulting that someone? The answer is that they cannot--at least not "reasonably."

 

I'll choose to accept this scenario at face value, rather than claim 'strawman', because it does seem vaguely relevant.
Of course, to claim that no teenager should believe they are at risk (ie: facing an imminent threat) when being followed around the neighborhood at night by a stranger seems foolhardy. This is particularly the case when the stranger does not identify himself or provide a coherent answer when asked what his problem is...

Had you spun around and asked your good samaritan what his problem was, your subvectively valid perception of imminent threat would have dissipated when he handed you your wallet.
Had Zimmerman said "I'm with neighborhood watch, there have been a few break ins lately and I've been asked to keep an eye out for strangers in the area. Can I ask where you're headed?" (or something similar) the perception of imminent threat would have been dissipated - and I'd fully support Zimmerman's actions beyond that point.

 

It wouldn't be a strawman even if it were fallacious, it would be a false analogy. However, the analogy is not "vaguely relevant," it is entirely relevant, all the conditions regarding degree of threat of the Zimmerman/Martin incident apply to the scenario, simply with a different outcome because of a difference in "reasonable" belief versus "sincere" belief and differing actions based on that.

It is not reasonable enough to attack the person, no.

Yes but that didn't happen and he still didn't identify himself and I was tasked with analyzing what I initially perceived to be an imminent threat from a more "reasonable" outlook before acting in a completely rash and foolhardy manner. It would be tenfold more foolhardy to attack someone without first verifying the legitimacy and how reasonable the belief of a perceived threat actually is, especially in a CCW state.

Well if you're going based on what Zimmerman's story is, and it seems like you are, Zimmerman claims he did respond with "I don't have a problem," which seems innocent enough of a statement to me, it's not like he made a slashing motion across his throat while remaining silent or said anything threatening. And his response of "I don't have a problem" could have then been followed up with "well if you don't have a problem, why are you following me?" instead of responding with "well you do now" and proceeding to batter him.

 

Hardly. I believe there are several key differences:
1) you are not a teenager who was being followed.
2) as soon as he had your attention, the person who followed you provided justification.

Would it be different if a teenage girl were to mace someone that was following her around at night?
Your subjective opinion while enjoying "Monday morning quarterback" status overrides what the person in the situation obviously saw as reasonable at the time?

Right, which is why it is relevant that Trayvon asked Zimmerman what his problem was...
When no answer was forthcoming, what other conclusions could he reach?

Zimmerman also claims he looked away and was therefore surprised when Trayvon was suddenly within striking distance and throwing a punch (rather than seeing him approach).
So, Zimmerman follows a teenager around at night - first in a vehicle, then on foot - then averts his gaze and provides no direct response when confronted... That's the typical behavior of someone who's been caught doing something wrong. Once again, how was Trayvon (a teenager) supposed to reach any other conclusion?

 

Actually when this particular scenario occurred, I was a teenager, hence why I was tense and quite intimidated.

They did not, actually. They got my attention when they called out "hey," I simply ignored them due to feeling threatened and trying to reach my vehicle. They continued to approach and I turned around, then after getting a bit closer--which is clearly indicated in the wording of the scenario--they show the wallet. There would still be ample time for me to have deduced--based on the logic your argument has employed--that they were an imminent threat, and based on your arguments here, I would have been within my rights to attack them and batter them.

No. Feminists and gender equality activists want women to be treated the same way as men, and--given that mace typically incapacitates someone, at least long enough for the victim to get away, I would say that a teenage girl in the same situation should have waited and validated her perception of what could be an imminent threat as "reasonable" before acting with force.

There is actually a statute within Florida law which references what a reasonable belief of imminent threat is:

it then goes on to specify for Stand your Ground:

Who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be. Zimmerman had a right to be there. Martin had a right to be there. So really, if you're looking for who Stand Your Ground applieD toward, it applied to whoever was attacked. We don't know who it was for sure, evidence suggests it was Martin, but it doesn't prove conclusively. Therefore there is no way to state as fact that Martin had a right to attack someone else who had the right to be where he was, and there is nothing to indicate that he was perceiving imminent threat of danger. The fact that he confronted the person you're arguing he was likely perceiving as a threat contradicts logic.

The answer was "I don't have a problem," the answer wasn't something menacing like "my problem is you!" or "I'm gonna hurt you, kid." If that were the case, then hell yeah, his perception of imminent threat of danger would be reasonable.

Your argument seems to assume that he perceived Zimmerman to be an imminent threat in the first place and there is no evidence of this. If there was, I think it's safe to say the prosecution would have been strongly arguing this point. And there are plenty of other conclusions a teenager could come to, I know when I was a teenager, I wouldn't have just confronted a stranger who was following me and then attacked them without them having first shown definite intention to harm me. In fact, if I had felt threatened by someone following me when I was a teenager, I would have put as much distance as possible between me and them and looked for help in any way I could, I wouldn't go after them and ask them what their problem is, and I most definitely wouldn't have attacked them without first confirming them to be an actual imminent threat, especially in a CCW state like the one in which I live.

 

So your belief, in contradiction with the statute, is that people should have to wait until they are assaulted before dealing with an imminent threat?

You, as a teenager, felt threatened and intimidated by someone who ran up to you until that person's motives became clear.
Given that you find it reasonable to site this as a reasonable parallel, we can use it to assume Trayvon Martin felt the same way - only the person who had been following him did not make his motives clear when asked... So how is it contradictory to logic to assume that he perceived Zimmerman as a threat, when you've made it clear you would/did feel the same way?

I don't recall saying this. My argument is that it would have been reasonable for Trayvon to view Zimmerman as an imminent threat in these specific circumstances.

Cool story.
I don't believe we expect teenagers to act with wisdom. It's generally enough for them to act in accordance with the law.

 

My belief is that they should not attack someone who is not breaking the law. You talk about "common morality," and "societal norms," it should be noted that just because someone is perceived as an imminent threat does not inherently make them one in terms of a "reasonable" classification and that it is not a "norm" in society to attack someone who has done nothing illegal or threatening even if someone perceives them as a threat.

I had plenty of time before they reached me to attack them if that would have been the decision I had made before their motives were made clear. I decided that I would not be the aggressor in a physical confrontation and would only react to defend myself if a threatening move was made against me, which is a more reasonable and acceptable approach. And no we can't assume Martin felt that way, there is no evidence to support such an assumption.

His motives weren't clear, which means they weren't clearly malicious either. Again, like I said, if he had responded to the question "what's your problem?" with something like "you're my problem," or "what the hell are you doing, kid, you looking to get yourself hurt?" his motives would have been clearly malicious and threatening, but he simply said "I don't have a problem," that doesn't indicate any kind of hostility or threat. Martin then proceeded to attack him--at least that's what the evidence suggests. That was unreasonable. There was less time and less options for me to make my decision regarding whether or not to use force to defend myself before finding out the guy's intentions in the scenario I mentioned, Martin could have continued with his inquiry, considering that Zimmerman at least answered his question and didn't answer it in a menacing way before deciding to attack him.

And I have shown why this is not the case.

Wisdom? Not necessarily. A general sense of logic and practicality as--hopefully--instilled in them by their parents? Yes.