The "stand your ground" laws

leroyjenkens

They were both standing their ground and were both defending themselves from a threat. Just call it a wash.

Ryan_m_b

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.

leroyjenkens

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

And there's only one living soul left who knows which scenario is closer to the truth.

TheStatutoryApe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doesn't change the fact that he shot and killed someone. That's manslaughter, IMO.

turbo

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

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

Why is that manslaughter? Shooting and killing someone isn't always a crime.
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

That's why it is going to trial.

nitsuj

And is probably never inevitable, which is why to assume manslaughter/murder makes sense.

To Evo's point, the trial.