Is the "Stand Your Ground Law" becoming a license to kill?

I would have fully agreed with you if the Zimmerman case had not been concluded as it was.

Unfortunately, one one person is dead, and the other is the ONLY REAL testimony to determine innocence or guilt, and we still have to deal with "reasonable doubt" clause. . .Justice is not done.

 

It is what it is. A defendant isn't penalized if no one is around to corroborate his story. That's where juries come in, do you believe his story? This jury obviously did.Or at a minimum they WANTED to believe him, so they ruled in his favor. Which again, our system allows a jury to do exactly that. In point of fact, a jury could be shown a video of the guy attacking Trayvon out of the blue for no reason and choose to find him not guilty. That is the system. If you don't like it I suggest moving to a country where they practice guilty until proven innocent.

 

No, I do not believe that a majority "BELIEVED" his story, but only that a majority had been told to consider that ANY doubt (rather than any REASONABLE doubt) they might have had. And I believe that prosecution intentionally threw the case.

 

You believe that because you want to. No other reason.

 

If that is what you want to think. . .that is up to you.

It may be that that is what you believe because you want to. . .no other reason!

 

No see, once again I base my OPINION of facts

Fact: You have made it ABUNDANTLY clear that you believe George is guilty of murder regardless of any known facts

Fact: You can not present one single shred of evidence that suggests the prosecution threw that case.

 

Self-defense? maybe but it was definitely manslaughter. Of course Judge Nelson made a conviction on manslaughter more difficult when she refused to include 'initial aggressor' in the jury instructions.

How did Trayvon play a part in it?

There's no proof that anyone touched George.

Trayvon didn't have any of George's DNA under his fingernails or on his hands and George lied about his injuries and the events that night.

The State didn't present half of the evidence it had and it didn't connect the dots with the evidence it had.

Also listening to the potential jurors it's obvious that the many of the jurors were racially biased as Juror B37 made plain during her interview with Anderson Cooper when she referred to Trayvon as 'that black boy'.

But I have no doubt that George will act out again and I hope the entire racist craphole of a city known as Sanford, FL suffers.

 

Fact: there are plenty of evidence that was not cultivated by the prosecution and thus didn't get the proper examination by the jury (including trajectory of the bullet and the way Zimmerman would have had to be a contortionist to get that gun out of the back of his hip, underneath his belt, his shirt, and his jacket. The defense got on the floor and "demonstrated" the MMA style "pinning," why didn't the prosecution get on the floor and ask someone to pull a gun from the exact place where Zimmerman indicated in the reenactment the day after the shooting where he kept the gun?)

Fact: It is many of that evidence and FACTS that make me think, still today, that George was guilty of "manslaughter 2, with use of unnecessary deadly force."

So. . .why don't we put this behind us, and let George hang himself with the future acts of aggression and assaults he will no doubt commit?

You expressed your opinion, and you did it in a logical, respectful manner. I appreciate that.

I expressed my opinion, and I hope I did it in a respectful manner as well. .I know I did it in a logical manner, but I also known that no Zimmerman supporter will ever recognize that. . .so, let's leave it at that, shall we?

 

The Castle law covers people when they are in their homes and someone comes in to threaten them. The SYG laws may have started out with good intentions, however it's being used for cases where one party who is in a fist fight with another party can just pull out their gun and shoot an unarmed person if they are losing that fight. The law itself it too fugue and it basically says if a person feels threatened, they can shoot and ask questions later.

 

I completely agree you were respectful in your postings to me. No ill will from me on that front.

I just don't believe you know what you're talking about when you claim the prosecutor threw that case.

 

There is no doubt a difference in cultures, which IMHO is the biggest difference. For instance, the black culture accounts for almost 50% of gun homicides. There are probably a myriad of reasons for this but that is a culture issue. Where cultures break down is where you see the most violence, whether is is inner city decay or drugs, etc.. As for the UK culture, the UK has a history of low gun violence and it has not changed much but guns are used in more crimes now than used to be in the UK even if there is still a low homicide rate by gun.

 

Don't like Stand Your Ground? Don't practice it. No one is forcing you to own a gun or to shoot anybody. But you shouldn't deny other people that freedom of choice.

.......isn't that what they always tell us about abortion?

 

LOL now that's a stretch of an argument.

 

Not really, it is a matter of freedom of choice as the libs like to apply to abortion.

 

I'm thinkng that unless you have your attacker inside your body, the comparison falls short.

 

So freedom of choice only matters if it concerns your innerds? LOL

 

Your comparison is stupid and I won't entertain it any longer. Good evening.

 

Well, I guess freedom of choice is only applicable in very narrow circumstances for some.

 

Sooo, somebody attacks you with their fists would mean you got yourself into that situation? And, of course, nobody has ever been killed by somebody who is unarmed.

Translation: you did not make a single valid point. Get back to us when you do.

- - - Updated - - -

Blathering nonsense

 

Good points. It's amazing how many haters of SYG have never, ever been in any dangerous situation in their life and yet are going to function as judges and authorities in regards to people who find themselves in potentially life or death situations. It's sort of like the blind being art critics or the deaf reviewing a Mozart symphony.

 

I've been in SEVERAL potentially life and death situations and the guy in the OP needs to fry for murder. THE END

 

I support the use of deadly force in defense, but the guy in the OP was wrong. Second degree murder if the facts support it, or manslaughter at the least.

 

I understand what you are saying, but it needs to be remembered that the UK is not an exclusively Anglo-Saxon nation either. We have a considerable population of West Indian, Pakistani, Indian, Arabic, and Eastern European origins, and we have our own criminal element. And sensationalist rags like the Daily Fail apart, nothing I have read indicates that gun crimes are on the increase. It also needs to be remembered that in a society where hand guns are illegal, the possession of even an unregistered long gun is recorded as a gun crime.

 

And I do not pretend to be a legal expert.

There are, however, a lot of information and "display" of evidence that was NOT used by the prosecution. . .while the same kind of "display" (including O'Mara laying on the floor with the MMA "expert" on top of him) that were very effective to influence the jury, and could have been used by the prosecution to show the almost impossibility of Zimmerman reaching for his gun in the place where it was concealed, in the position that O'Mara and the MMA "expert" demonstrated.

This was only ONE (although an important one) of several opportunities missed by the prosecution.
There is also the statement made by the coroner AFTER the trial. Although I am certain that that statement can be construed as "sour grape" by many. . .it certainly FITS within my own (layman only) observations.

 

I am from the UK, and I am studying law. Can you substantiate any of those far-fetched claims by means of documentation? Or is that just something you read or heard on Fox News? Please be sure of your facts before your write defamatory nonsense about another society.

The laws governing self defence and the defence of property, are (Castle Doctrine and SYG apart) essentially the same in the UK as in most developed societies including the various states of the USA.

We do not use such hysterical terms in British Law as 'home invasion', but provide that, in the event of attack, a householder may use such force as is necessary to protect himself, or someone in his care. If you shoot and kill an unarmed burglar who has done no more than enter your property illegally, you will go to prison for a very long time. If however, you shoot and kill an attacker who is lunging at you with a knife, the matter of whether your response was proportionate will be considered by a court of law, and the likelihood is that your actions would be considered reasonable self defence. What we do not allow is the taking of a life in the defence only of property.

Read the case of Tony Martin (a mentally unstable Norfolk Farmer) to see the implications of British Law with regard to burglars and householders.