Register to reply

The stand your ground laws

by Bobbywhy
Tags: laws, stand your ground
Share this thread:
leroyjenkens
#37
Apr17-12, 04:02 PM
P: 538
Quote Quote by Ryan_m_b View Post
The problem with the stand your ground laws it it provides legal immunity not just grounds for legal defence. Rather than arguing the case in court as to whether or not Zimmerman is guilty of murder these laws prevent it ever getting to fair trial, that IMO is a travesty of justice.
He won't get a fair trial, but not in his favor. He'll probably get manslaughter or something like that to prevent a riot, and then they'll get to work on that law.
jim hardy
#38
Apr17-12, 04:38 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
jim hardy's Avatar
P: 3,636
Zimmerman was carrying a gun and chasing Martin. That's a far cry from calmly asking "who are you?" ...........
And there's only one living soul left who knows which scenario is closer to the truth.
TheStatutoryApe
#39
Apr19-12, 06:09 AM
TheStatutoryApe's Avatar
P: 1,550
Quote Quote by Ryan_m_b View Post
The problem with the stand your ground laws it it provides legal immunity not just grounds for legal defence. Rather than arguing the case in court as to whether or not Zimmerman is guilty of murder these laws prevent it ever getting to fair trial, that IMO is a travesty of justice.
I see it says something about "immunity" in the wiki on "stand your ground" but I can not figure out how a person gets "immunity" this way.

Ok. A little reading seems to say that "immunity" can be granted with a successful motion to dismiss in a "stand your ground" case. If a defendant can show a judge, based on undisputed evidence of the case, that the use of force was a reasonable response the case may be dismissed with prejudice. As far as I know this can happen in any case though the law in Florida it appears may specifically prohibit civil action upon the dismissal. So if the court finds Zimmerman innocent the Martin family will not be able to sue for wrongful death.
leroyjenkens
#40
Apr20-12, 10:52 AM
P: 538
I don't understand the case against him. If it's proven that he was being attacked and shot him in self defense, what does it matter if he "shouldn't have followed him"? If you follow someone when you're not supposed to, and that person attacks you, you have to just sit there and be beaten to death because you "shouldn't have followed him", and therefore no longer have a right to defend yourself?
Evo
#41
Apr20-12, 10:56 AM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,523
Quote Quote by leroyjenkens View Post
I don't understand the case against him. If it's proven that he was being attacked and shot him in self defense, what does it matter if he "shouldn't have followed him"? If you follow someone when you're not supposed to, and that person attacks you, you have to just sit there and be beaten to death because you "shouldn't have followed him", and therefore no longer have a right to defend yourself?
He wouldn't have to "defend" himself if he hadn't chased the victim and caused the confrontation. Trayvon obvioulsy believed he was defending himself from an armed man that had for no reason come after him.
Ryan_m_b
#42
Apr20-12, 11:06 AM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,459
Quote Quote by leroyjenkens View Post
I don't understand the case against him. If it's proven that he was being attacked and shot him in self defense, what does it matter if he "shouldn't have followed him"? If you follow someone when you're not supposed to, and that person attacks you, you have to just sit there and be beaten to death because you "shouldn't have followed him", and therefore no longer have a right to defend yourself?
Because if you instigate a confrontation then you are an aggressor. What counts as self defence and reasonable force is a complicated difference but IMO its one that should be decided in court. There should not be laws preventing a case from getting to court.
jim hardy
#43
Apr20-12, 11:19 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
jim hardy's Avatar
P: 3,636
So if the court finds Zimmerman innocent the Martin family will not be able to sue for wrongful death.
i wonder if instead Zimmerman might have a suit against the Florida prosecutors and the news media.

What would you do as a cop if , upon arriving at the scene, you found this guy was co-operative and he told you it was self defense ?




gonna be interesting.
Evo
#44
Apr20-12, 11:26 AM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,523
Once the bit of blood was cleaned up, it was hardly more than a scratch. Let's see, armed man goes after teenager walking home and the teenager defends himself from what he can only guess is someone that plans to kill him.
leroyjenkens
#45
Apr20-12, 11:35 AM
P: 538
He wouldn't have to "defend" himself if he hadn't chased the victim and caused the confrontation. Trayvon obvioulsy believed he was defending himself from an armed man that had for no reason come after him.
Be that as it may, does he lose his right to defend himself just because he put himself in that situation? Does he have to allow himself to be beaten to death?
Evo
#46
Apr20-12, 11:42 AM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,523
Quote Quote by leroyjenkens View Post
Be that as it may, does he lose his right to defend himself just because he put himself in that situation? Does he have to allow himself to be beaten to death?
Doesn't change the fact that he shot and killed someone. That's manslaughter, IMO.
turbo
#47
Apr20-12, 11:55 AM
PF Gold
turbo's Avatar
P: 7,363
Scalp wounds are notoriously bloody and are generally non-threatening, as any cop can tell you. The phone calls do not support the idea that Trayvon Martin attacked this guy. It is clear that Zimmerman was not "standing his ground". He followed and chased an unarmed teenager and caused a confrontation with no provocation. I am not a lawyer, but I would welcome the chance to take this case before a jury as a prosecutor.
nitsuj
#48
Apr20-12, 12:02 PM
P: 1,098
Quote Quote by Ryan_m_b View Post
Because if you instigate a confrontation then you are an aggressor. What counts as self defense and reasonable force is a complicated difference but IMO its one that should be decided in court. There should not be laws preventing a case from getting to court.
Im no lawyer, but my understanding any laws like this it's always "what a reasonable person would do.".

A reasonable person would be aware that being in plain cloths and following somebody could easily be considered a threat by the person being followed (of course "body language" would be a deciding factor).


In turn the person following should act accordingly, presenting them self peacefully & identify them self.

Generally the person being followed would have zero obligation to comply.

The zimmer dudes mindset is not "in tune" with the reality. He is just a plain cloths person with some agenda. It can't be kept a secret from the person he is pursuing.

Seems like you are suggesting that police can be judge & jury with "self defense". They can't it still has to be "ruled on". I forget what it is called, but it is where lawyers present there case to be heard, judge can say nope, cause xyz, so we won't try the case. NEXT!

So yes such a law might prevent it from going to "court/jury" but it does not prevent very bright people looking over the case and seeing if there is something there to try, probably followed with a very detailed report why the case cannot be tried.


Last point wow, concealable guns in public hands really, really, really complicate these issues. Those darn Brits. To have such wording in the constitution seems to have a detrimental effect on the people it is meant to protect.

Doc, it hurts when I do this....

I suppose Briton gets the last laugh.
leroyjenkens
#49
Apr20-12, 12:10 PM
P: 538
Doesn't change the fact that he shot and killed someone. That's manslaughter, IMO.
Why is that manslaughter? Shooting and killing someone isn't always a crime.
Scalp wounds are notoriously bloody and are generally non-threatening, as any cop can tell you.
You're right, they can bleed like crazy from a very small wound and aren't very dangerous. But having your head slammed on the ground is dangerous. Wounds themselves might not be dangerous, but what causes the wounds can be.
Evo
#50
Apr20-12, 12:16 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,523
Quote Quote by leroyjenkens View Post
Why is that manslaughter? Shooting and killing someone isn't always a crime.
That's why it is going to trial.
nitsuj
#51
Apr20-12, 12:23 PM
P: 1,098
Quote Quote by leroyjenkens View Post
Why is that manslaughter? Shooting and killing someone isn't always a crime.
And is probably never inevitable, which is why to assume manslaughter/murder makes sense.

To Evo's point, the trial.
leroyjenkens
#52
Apr20-12, 12:41 PM
P: 538
That's why it is going to trial.
I meant why in your opinion it's manslaughter.
nitsuj
#53
Apr20-12, 01:06 PM
P: 1,098
"Shooting & killing someone isn't always manslaughter/murder."

That is why it is going to trial, to see if it is manslaughter/murder or self defense.
mheslep
#54
Apr20-12, 02:06 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,097
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
He wouldn't have to "defend" himself if he hadn't chased the victim and caused the confrontation. Trayvon obvioulsy believed he was defending himself from an armed man that had for no reason come after him.
Where is the information showing Martin knew Zimmerman was armed prior to the physical struggle? Is there a witness that has stated they saw Zimmerman walking around with his weapon drawn?


Register to reply

Related Discussions
In binary can we have a value with deci centi mili or more lower valued prefix? Computers 14
The Ground Effect , Pressure Waves and surfing pelicans Classical Physics 6
Does a falling object hit the ground with a force of its mass times a of gravity? General Physics 12
What does wt stand for in oscillation equations Introductory Physics Homework 2
Students Stand and Deliver for Teacher General Discussion 1