Protesters in Florida are
 

...demanding that the "stand your ground" law be repealed...as if the Zimmerman trial used the "stand your ground" law in his defense. The Governor has said the law has been reviewed and the law will stand.

So, essentially... the Governor "stood his ground".

People have become unbelievably stupid.




.:disgust

Pretty much. Blame something that has no bearing on anything that has to do with anything. Like that stove cover Stevie Wonder - said he'll boycott alll "stand your ground" states.

Little does he know - who gives a fuck what Stevie Wonder has to say? I bet he didn't see that coming :1orglaugh

"no justice, no peace"......we're just gonna wait five days before we have a protest....don't ever go to Sanford FL, you lose IQ points with every second.

Must be great protesting when you don't even know what you;re protesting for.

Oh good... The governor. The guy who oversaw what I believe was the single largest case of Medicare/Medicaid fraud ever through his company. Always good to hear what he has to say about right and wrong.

The 'Stand Your Ground Law' effected the instructions to the jury ...


Zimmerman?s lawyer chose instead to go to trial, once again declining to specifically raise ?Stand Your Ground? as a defense and keeping the law out of the trial. But the principle?s irrelevance ended the moment the jury received their instructions for deciding the case. As Ta-Nehisi Coates reveals, the written instructions that sat with the jurors as they deliberated made very clear that under Florida law, a shooter has a right to stand his ground:

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Since Zimmerman?s lawyers opted not to invoke Stand Your Ground as a defense, observers have characterized this case as a regular old ?self-defense? case, rather than a ?Stand Your Ground? case. But what these jury instructions make clear is that, in Florida, there is no longer an effective distinction. Stand Your Ground is the state?s self-defense law, whether or not a defendant opts to hold a hearing specifically on the question. In fact, this section on the ?Justifiable Use of Deadly Force? is the only place in all 27 pages of jury instructions in which the phrase ?self-defense? is used.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...all/?mobile=nc

well if you're going to shoot black people stealing you're shit, I mean what the fuck...? that just ain't right... dump that fucking law asap.. :thumbsup

Just read an article where the mom and dad in an interview said one of the failures of the state was to focus on the Race issue.

I think that the GF witness kind of finished that off for them and the state did the smart thing by letting it go.

Now you think stand your ground means you can shoot people who you think are stealing from you? Perfect example of why there should be an IQ test to anyone that wants a gun.

They can spin it however they want, however he specifically waived his right to a pre-trail immunity hearing granted to him under "stand your ground", and never affirmed it. It wouldn't have applied anyway, since the defense was affirming that he was on his back with Martin on top of him when he feared for his life. There was no ability to retreat at that point, and so "stand your ground" would not apply in the first place.



:2 cents:


.

They couldn't focus on the race issue, because there wasn't one. The FBI did a thorough investigation over a period of months, interviewed something like 40 people, and could find no evidence at all of any racism by GZ. George Zimmerman was of Afro/Peruvian decent, he lived in a mixed race neighborhood, he had had relationships with black women, he worked with black kids to help them out, and he had also criticized the local police department for covering up the beating of a homeless black man by white police.

There was no race issue.

But of course that doesn't fit the popular narrative....





.

how about an IQ test for people wanting to vote? or have kids?

Nope!! case had nothing do to with Stand your ground at all.

On a side not here is a transcript of the interview with an actual juror and AC360:

COOPER: Because of the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied?

JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...efend-himself/

But what the fuck does a Juror know about the case?

Tell more about why you think SYG means shooting alleged thieves.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/18/st...admit-it-was-a

There are plenty of people that know about the case, some that are much better trained in the law then that juror, and some that were also jurors... perhaps you can spread out your sources....

"
'Stand Your Ground' Critics Admit It Was a 'Huge Red Herring' in the Zimmerman Case

Jacob Sullum|Jul. 18, 2013 12:00 pm

Video via The Orlando SentinelVideo via The Orlando SentinelOn Monday the Tampa Bay Times, no fan of Florida's self-defense law, ran a story with this headline: "Despite Backlash, 'Stand Your Ground' Laws Did Not Apply to Zimmerman Case." The article summarizes a consensus among legal experts consulted by the paper that the changes made to Florida's law in 2005, which included the elimination of the duty to retreat for people attacked outside their homes, did not figure in Zimmerman's defense or his acquittal:

Legal experts [described] the verdict on Saturday as the result of successful, garden-variety self-defense arguments that could sway a jury in any state....

Experienced prosecutors and law professors agreed that they think jurors were swayed by basic self-defense arguments made by Zimmerman's attorneys: Regardless of who initiated the encounter, at the moment the deadly shot was fired, Zimmerman feared for his life.

"I can see a similar outcome in jurisdictions without 'stand your ground' for the mere fact that the best eyewitness to counter the defense strategy was dead," said Darren Lenard Hutchinson, a professor of race and civil rights law at the University of Florida Levin College of Law. "That's the terrible reality. The jurors saw a bloodied nose and that may have been enough for them."...

Bob Dekle, a retired prosecutor who also teaches at UF Law, said, "'Stand your ground' turns out to have been a huge red herring [in the Zimmerman case]. The result very well could have been the same prior to enactment of the law."

Dekle, a critic of "stand your ground" provisions, said that even if a person initiates a fight, they always have had the right to defend themselves if they're in fear of death or great bodily harm. "You don't forfeit your right to do whatever you need to do to live simply because you've been a jerk," Dekle said.

Those comments are no surprise to Sen. Tom Lee, Republican from Brandon, who was president of the Florida Senate when stand your ground legislation was passed in 2005.

"I have yet to talk to anyone who believes the stand your ground provisions were remotely relevant to this case," said Lee, who believes the law is working the way it was intended. "For me, this case centered on your right to defend yourself."

The story is especially striking because the Tampa Bay Times for years has been running stories and editorials critical of the "stand your ground" law. Last February, for instance, the paper editorialized:

The Zimmerman case alone should have [been] enough for legislators to consider repealing the law, which allows the use of lethal force with no duty to retreat if a person reasonably believes his or her life is in danger. Zimmerman invoked the "stand your ground" law even though he pursued Martin, and he wasn't arrested because the law prevents police from taking a suspect into custody without probable cause that the force used was unlawful. Only after a special prosecutor was appointed was Zimmerman charged with second-degree murder. Now Zimmerman's new lawyer claims his client acted in self-defense and is not relying on "stand your ground'' to defend him.

I'm not sure in what sense Zimmerman ever "invoked" the "stand your ground" law, since he has consistently said that Trayvon Martin attacked him, knocked him to the ground, and was on top of him, hitting him and knocking his head against a concrete sidewalk, when Zimmerman shot him in self-defense. But at least the Times is now admitting this was not a "stand your ground" case after all. Except that...it still includes the shooting of Trayvon Martin in its "list of 'stand your ground' cases," which would more accurately be described as a list of cases since 2005 where people claimed their use of lethal force was justified by self-defense. Their defenses did not necessarily rely on the absence of a duty to retreat. In another case on the list, for example, Trevor Dooley claimed he shot his neighbor, David James, during an argument at a park in Valrico because James was strangling him. A judge rejected that self-defense claim at a pretrial hearing, and a jury convicted Dooley of manslaughter.

The Times not only inaccurately calls the Martin shooting a "stand your ground" case (an error it has now implicitly admitted but not corrected); it also describes crucial aspects of the case in a misleading way. It says Martin did not "initiate the confrontation," which is true only if you focus on Zimmerman's decision to follow someone he deemed suspicious, as opposed to the initiation of violence. Zimmerman said Martin started the fight, and the jury believed him, based on physical evidence and eyewitness testimony that Martin was the one on top. The Times also says Zimmerman "pursue[d] the victim," which again relates to his unwise but legal tailing of Martin. The prosecution argued that Zimmerman pursued Martin "with hate in his heart," intent on violence, but the jury rejected that theory. And the prosecution conceded that Zimmerman did nothing illegal before the fight started. Similarly, the Times says Zimmerman "could...have retreated to avoid the conflict," which is true in the sense that the shooting would not have happened if Zimmerman had stayed in his car. But according to Zimmerman's account, the gist of which the jury accepted, it is not true that he had a chance to retreat after Martin attacked him, which is the relevant question if we are trying to assess whether the right to stand your ground played a role in the case.

The jurors, judging from Anderson Cooper's interview with one of them, felt a similar impulse to transform Zimmerman's moral responsibility for starting the chain of events that ended with Martin's death into criminal culpability. But they correctly concluded the law did not allow them to do that?and for a good reason: Based on the account of the fight that they accepted, Martin played a crucial role in his own death. While it is true that Martin would still be alive if Zimmerman had simply continued on his shopping trip to Target, it is also true, based on the story told by the defense, that Martin would still be alive if he had simply gone home instead of confronting and assaulting Zimmerman. Juror B37 told Cooper she believed Zimmerman and Martin both bore responsibility for the latter's death but that Zimmerman's actions were not criminal and "his heart was in the right place."

In a statement released yesterday, Juror B37 said "my prayers are with all those who have the influence and power to modify the laws that left me with no verdict option other than 'not guilty' in order to remain within the instructions." But the only way to change the law so that someone in Zimmerman's situation could be punished would be to criminalize imprudent yet currently legal actions when they prompt a violent response. As Bob Dekle observes, "You don't forfeit your right to do whatever you need to do to live simply because you've been a jerk." It is hard to believe that justice and public safety would be served by a rule that says you have no right to defend yourself if you make someone angry enough to hit you"




.:2 cents:

The Distinction is, that Zimmerman didn't have a Choice. Once TM was on Top and smashing his head into the concrete, He Could NOT retreat, thus being self defense.

Unfortunately there is No IQ test to be a Juror.
Just replace the wrong words with Self Defense, Problem solved.
Trying to Hang on someones wrong words when the outcome is correct with the correct words is Fishing or Trolling

read this: I am sofa king we todd did

never said SYG said means shooting thieves, try and follow this:

-black kids stealing shit from houses in the neighborhood
-neighborhood watch needed
-kid killed
-blacks protest stand your ground

conclusion

-let blacks steal shit from your house (suggesting blacks not steal shit from your house is WAY THE FUCK non pc)

LOL haha that was a good one. I like how your style has changed some, You are like the new franck but better and that joke was great hHahahaha

One small problem with that is that if Trayvon's body lay just about where he was shot (as has been reported), it is possible that GZ was not getting his head pounded into the pavement at the time he killed Martin (honestly, the marks on the back of GZ's head look like they could have been caused from when his head hit the ground after getting punched in the nose).

http://oi45.tinypic.com/1z6w7z9.jpg

:stoned

ADG

As a hunter, even lung and heart shots on medium/large game, I have seen the animal move up to 10 feet before it finally comes to a rest. Some funny things happen to the body when it dies. People just don't fall over and lay still. Almost everything pisses and shits itself to.

If that side walk were another 10 feet away, I would agree. But something tells me....

I wouldn't hesitate to shoot someone in my house stealing my shit. Florida is a 3 strike state, what if the criminal stealing my shit is facing life in prison if identified? Who's to say once discovered the criminal isn't planning to kill you to stay out of prison?


And yes, stealing will get you killed in Florida ?

"Jack Davis, the teen who fatally shot an unarmed WaveRunner thief in the waters next to his Miami Shores home, won?t face criminal charges under Florida?s self-defense law."

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/1...for-miami.html


.

The first white tail deer I shot was at 75 yards with a .300 mag. I squeezed the trigger and it bolted and ran. I watched dumbfounded as it took off, ran at a full sprint for about 100 feet and the gracefully lept over a huge downed tree... Dying in mid air. Curious about this exact thing, I cut it open and saw the round went through the heart it was completely disintegrated.

:2 cents::thumbsup:2 cents:

so y'all pretty much agree this is good law and should stay in place? regardless of its relevance in the zimzamflimflam, the case did bring awareness to the law.

Yep...

Why should we have to Retreat from a Criminal?

Take this country back!

I understand that people often move (or are moved) from where they were shot as a result of the gunshot, however nowhere does GZ say that after being shot, Trayvon Martin gets to his feet and then falls several feet away from the sidewalk, or that TM crawled several feet away from the sidewalk after being shot, or anything like that, just that he sat up, supposedly uttered something, then keeled over and died minutes later.

And here around 6:08:



GZ is lucky that the Prosecutors were not able to question him on the stand, because I am pretty sure they would have destroyed his credibility (more than it already was), and it was GZ's self-serving description of events that was the main narrative that shaped this trial the most.

:stoned

ADG

hope and pray I never have to find out... there is a reason I live where I live....

I'll tell you what, you remember every single detail of such an event and then get back to me...

You motherfuckers act like he's required by law to have an eidetic memory or some shit... The reality is though, until you people end up in a similar situation, you won't come to truly recognize that your own mind can play tricks on you in order to fill in the details and gaps...

Here is a simple test... get 20 people, line the up in a single line. Instruct the first person to tell the second person a story, then have the second person tell the 3rd, so on and so forth down the line. By the time the story reaches the 20th person, it has changed, nearly completely. Now imagine trying to retell a story that happened when you were scared shitless and had more adrenaline pumping through your system than brain power...


Then again, what does it fucking matter... You douchebags are still trying to make this case out to be some white vs black bullshit, and how the black man never gets justice and all that completely retarded absolute horse shit; while completely, utterly and blatantly ignoring all that actual evidence, and instead, choosing to believe whatever the fuck your mentally retarded asses want to believe; so long as said beliefs have something to do with the big bad white man keeping the helpless black man down...

And whats more, George Zimmerman isn't even fucking white...

And whats more than that, Trayvon Martin was nothing more than just another wannabe street 'gangsta', with too much retarded ass rap music in his life and thinking he's gonna 'earn his street credit' by beating up some 'creepy ass cracka'... and yet you guys make him out to be a fucking hero, or black jesus, or whatever the fuck it is you guys convince yourselves to believe... once again, regardless of the facts...


And what's even more than that too is if GZ hadn't killed him while defending himself, it was only a matter of time before he got got by one of his own... yet none of you asshats give a shit about that though... where's your ourtcray and rage for all the senseless black on black killing? Where your outcry and rage for the fact the black people have killed 13 some odd times more of their own in the past 10 years than any white man ever did throughout the entire course of slavery? Oh, right... no opportunity to play the race card when you guys kill each other so no one cares, right? Bunch of fucking hypocrites...

http://www.arktimes.com/binary/cb96/...n_world1-1.jpg

Not everyone unhappy with the verdict or SYG thinks that it is all about race. :2 cents:

Although I believe that race probably was a factor, I don't think it was the most important factor, and certainly not as important as the fact that an unarmed person was shot by an armed person (I think George Zimmerman would have killed any unarmed person in the same situation).

This is in part why I think the Manslaughter charge should have been brought instead of 2nd degree murder.

The rest of your post exposing your bias is such nonsense that I won't bother commenting any further about it.

:stoned

ADG

Yes. This is exactly right and it's all right there in the jury instructions too. Despite whatever else you feel about the case as far as Zimmerman's guilt this is factual and the people who refuse to believe it or call it spin are only showing themselves to be very single-minded. We've become a nation where everything is Grey and the truth can be skewed to be the exact opposite of reality even when it's plain as day. People are so brainwashed and stuck in the partisanship that they may as well just be partsan puppets dancing around fully controlled with strings by their party masters.

And yet, had GZ been found guilty of anything, I can guarantee you that not a single damn one of those who thought he was innocent would be out in the streets causing mayhem and acting like retarded jackasses... even though almost anyone with a brain inside that head on their shoulders can clearly see that this has been race baited by the media from the get go, and that a conviction of GZ would have been because the jury made up their mind before the trial even began...

There isn't a single shred of bias in my previous post, only cold, hard, undeniable fucking truth. Sorry if you can't handle it...

That would make for a very timely bumper sticker.


or t shirt.

People get murdered every day in the USA. White on black, black on white, Hispanic on whatever, man on woman, and so on. I don't understand why this case turned into such a media circus.

I was referring to how you over-generalize/stereotype, and even more about your tenor...quoting You:

There you go, bringing up race again. You do know George's Dad and wife are white, right (not that there is anything wrong with that)? :upsidedow

http://femour.com/wp-content/uploads...13923895_n.jpg

You sound like a very well balanced person worthy of having a respectful conversation with. What are your positive ideas for improving race relations?

:stoned

ADG

Since we are splitting hairs --

Someone please inform the Peruvian population they are white and not indigenous peoples.
George's father is Semitic. Both people are white looking, sort of, perhaps.

Why do these arguments go on endlessly over assertions made by ignorant people? Martin's parents want it to be a black-white race issue. So do the people coaching them.

i blame it on thesquealer. got everybody all riled up.

no celebrity ATM is why..

What if Trayvon punched him in self-defense? You're just repeating Zimmermans defense as fact.

The law has been reviewed and the law will stand.
Done.

Could have happened... BUT, no evidence..

The legal system would rather let 99% Criminals go, than convict one innocent person..

Not saying it has worked that way, just how it works...

I think the media jumped on the fact the Sanford PD had a checkered past going into the case.

The "experts" who testified confirmed GZ's version of the incident.

... but you come across as an angry person, and this not only in this thread....
... a bit like if you were going to lose it ...

:2 cents: