Serious Defect In Stand Your Ground Laws

There is no evidence to indicate that TM thought he was a "Kiddie diddler" or anything of the sort.

There is no evidence to show that GZ assaulted - or attempted to assault - detained, or heckled TM.

There is, however, evidence that TM was bashing Zimmerman's head on the concrete. Paraphrasing what the defense said: If you think concrete isn't a deadly weapon, you've never hit your head on it.

Regardless, SYG wasn't even used in the defense's argument, SINCE TM HAD HIM ON THE GROUND AND GZ COULDN'T HAVE RUN IF HE TRIED!

And the "little owies" may have included a concussion - many concussions and other brain injuries go unreported due to the lack of external signs.

By the way: You don't have to wait until you're dead to defend yourself. That sort of defeats the purpose.

 

Yes, you can shoot anyone you choose, but getting away with it is a different story. The witnesses would have to be on your side and the mere fact that you started a fight armed will make you look very scummy for the jury. Good luck is all I have to say. If its so flawed I suggest a few people here go test out their theory and report back with the findings. I'm betting no one here will take me up on the ofer

 

I did say "....unless you went to school 30 years ago...." didn't I? I think "more than 30" years ago fits my point even better.

The point being that our educational institutions don't act even close to that way any more. I graduated high school just before Our Benevolent Leader BHO was elected.

Rather, they punish the victim as well as the assailant - regardless of witnesses! - even if all the victim did was push the assailant away, or less, during the beating.

The lesson these punishments intend to teach is this: You are never justified in defending yourself from imminent bodily harm, and if you do anything but cower you are complicit in the crime.

The educational system truly is (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up now. Most people don't realize that because they haven't been in it lately.

 

REASONABLE fear of death or great bodily harm.

Please. At least know the law you're arguing against at the behest of Our Benevolent Leader and Al Sharpton.

- - - Updated - - -

Pray tell, HOW does it do that?

 

Eliminate Z's own self serving statements and what do you have? Not one witness testified to seeing Zimm "sucker punched" or his head slammed into the concrete.

All you got is a guy with a bloody nose and two small lacerations on his head. We don't know if TM had any epidermal bruising because he was killed and bruising needs a pumping heart and up to a couple hours to manifest. We don't know if there was any evidence of subdermal bruising to TM because those tests weren't done...Z had already been cleared by the inept Sanford Police Dept.

 

Sounds good Guru, but if I met you I could make you slug me without threatening you. I guarantee It and their are thousands of people just looking for a fight and a reason to kill someone and get away with it .Fortunately most of them volunteer for the armed forces.

 

Finally someone who gets it!!!!!

 

There is zero collaborating evidence that TM was bouncing Z's head on the sidewalk.

 

So if someone is dumb enough to fall for being provoked into attacking someone they are eliminated? Where's the flaw?

 

Explain to us then what caused the bruises, the blood, the swollen back of the head injuries sustained by GZ?

I'd say TM was bashing GZ's head into the concrete, that is what he told the cops and the cops believed him.

 

Maybe they hit me ,maybe they didn't. Maybe I self-inflicted my minor scratches and head wound, after I blew you away. All anyone is going to know is what I tell them because I'll make sure there are no witnesses.

 

Mature people are polite. Those who choose to remain infantile may be polite on occasion and lack the fortitude and courage to always be so. The few times I've run into boy bumpers (and I ran into a man bumper during a trip back east a few weeks ago, eww), I ran away. They aren't rapists, just sad older men looking for a good time and usually in a really stupid way.

 

You'd have to hurt someone, or create an imminent threat of doing so, in order to get me to respond with physical violence. I've learned not to take things personally.

 

Who says you'd have to respond. Remember it's just you and me and going to be the one left telling the story. GET IT YET !

 

Exactly. And this is why it's probably hazardous to interfere with the common law concepts of self-defence built up over hundreds of years. The possibility of aggression being masked as defence was always known at common law so the law surrounding defence was always hedged a bit to allow a jury to find that a defendant pleading self-defence or defence of another was in fact using that plea to hide the aggression.

 

Standard only in the sense that the requirement not to give ground (outside of the portal defence) is a part of US law and has been for some years. Even so there are a few states that don't allow this defence and rely on the portal defence or castle doctrine which is embedded in common law. The point I was making is that this form of defence allows someone not to retreat if they possibly can. I realise it's a fine point but getting away from an attacker, if possible, is always to be encouraged. The reason is that someone who is being attacked or threatened may feel belligerent enough to strike back but to use excessive force which results in killing the attacker. Now that's quite okay if the attacker was threatening the life of the person being attacked, no problems, straightforward self-defence. But if the person being attacked could have gotten away from the attacker and chose not to but decided to use force amounting to lethal force where the attacker may not have been intended to inflict lethal force then they put themselves in the position of using unreasonable force to repel an attack. The stand your ground law actually encourages someone to strike back rather than retreat where they can. It can also be used to cover aggression not defence and that isn't the intent of the concept of self-defence.

 

The jury is probably required to find on "reasonable" because the law can't deal with every single possible situation.

 

Just a quick note. Read what Don is telling you. He is right on the money.

 

You could never provoke me into hitting you, unless you hit me first. If there are witnesses that you are provoking the fight verbally, you probably would be unsuccessful invoking "Stand your Ground."

Here is the text of the relevant part of FL's Stand your Ground law

 

You need to read the actual statute.

http://floridastandyourground.org/

 

It's case by case, and system by system. In the school system my boys are in, I've know of kids who weren't punished for fighting back (also have know of ones that were, because they goaded the person who punched first, per the OP). Their system isn't a zero tolerance system, so for the most part, the principals can use intelligent decisions in punishment.

 

It does no such thing. If it was all a mistake the SYG defense won't work.

 

Of course it does, it violates a persons right to due process.

 

Nobody should be "required" to retreat in the face of an attack. NOBODY! Why should the attacker get the benefit of the doubt? WHY? Saying what you said sounds like you think it's ok to attack people and the attacker doesn't deserve to have anything done to them in defense. That is SILLY and WIMPY. Laws like that only get the wrong people killed.

- - - Updated - - -

No it doesn't. If you claim SYG and the evidence shows it doesn't apply because it was a mistake and not a real SYG situation, SYG won't apply! Where is the denial of due process? You are making (*)(*)(*)(*) up.

 

If it's just you and me and no witnesses.I'm the one that's going to be telling the story after I inflict a few self wounds and get your DNA on me