Sorry, the Zimmerman Case Still Has Nothing to Do With 'Stand Your Ground'

Video via The Orlando SentinelVideo via The Orlando SentinelThe story that George Zimmerman told about his fight with Trayvon Martin, the one that yesterday persuaded a jury to acquit him of second-degree murder and manslaughter, never had anything to do with the right to stand your ground when attacked in a public place. Knocked down and pinned to the ground by Martin, Zimmerman would not have had an opportunity to escape as Martin hit him and knocked his head against the concrete. The duty to retreat therefore was irrelevant. The initial decision not to arrest Zimmerman, former Sanford, Florida, Police Chief Bill Lee said last week (as paraphrased by CNN),  "had nothing to do with Florida's controversial 'Stand Your Ground' law" because "from an investigative standpoint, it was purely a matter of self-defense." And as The New York Times explained last month, "Florida's Stand Your Ground law...has not been invoked in this case." The only context in which "stand your ground" was mentioned during the trial was as part of the prosecution's attempt to undermine Zimmerman's credibility by arguing that he lied when he told Fox News host Sean Hannity that he had not heard of the law until after the shooting. During his rebuttal on Friday, prosecutor John Guy declared, "This case is not about standing your ground." 

So how did Benjamin Jealous, president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, respond to Zimmerman's acquittal last night? By announcing that "we will continue to fight for the removal of Stand Your Ground laws in every state." And how did the Times, the same paper that last month noted Zimmerman's defense did not rely on the right to stand your ground, describe Florida's self-defense law after he was acquitted? This way:

The shooting brought attention to Florida's expansive self-defense laws. The laws allow someone with a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death to use lethal force, even if retreating from danger is an option. In court, the gunman is given the benefit of the doubt.

While it's true that Florida has eliminated the duty to retreat for people attacked in public, that provision played no role in Zimmerman's defense or his acquittal. And contrary to what the Times seems to think, giving the defendant the benefit of the doubt is not unique to Florida. It is a basic principle of criminal justice in America.

NPR likewise keeps insisting that the Zimmerman case somehow casts doubt on the wisdom or fairness of "stand your ground" laws. In a story that summarized the events leading to Zimmerman's trial, correspondent Gene Demby said Florida's "stand-your-ground self-defense law...figured to be a major pillar of Zimmerman's defense." No, it didn't, given his description of the fight. And once the trial started, it was obvious that "stand your ground" had nothing to do with Zimmerman's defense. Yet Greg Allen, the NPR reporter covering the trial, said this last week: "Under Florida's Stand Your Ground law, Zimmerman need only convince the jury that he was acting in self-defense and was in fear of death or great bodily harm to win acquittal." Allen forgot to mention that the fear must be reasonable, and he implied that the jury had to be fully convinced by Zimmerman's story to acquit him, when in fact it only needed reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's version of events, in which the shooting was not justified. Most important, Allen conflated "stand your ground" with the general principle, accepted even in states that impose a duty to retreat in public places, that a reasonable fear your life is in jeopardy justifies the use of lethal force.

You might think that, given all we now know about Zimmerman's actual defense, critics of "stand your ground" laws would have to find a different, more apposite case to illustrate their concerns. Instead they just barrel along, citing the same phony example again and again, without regard to the facts. It does not inspire confidence in their argument.

Addendum: A few commenters note that the jury instructions in Zimmerman's case included "stand your ground" language:

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.

That language is part of the standard jury instruction [3.6(f)] in cases where the defendant claims his use of deadly force was justified. But it is hard to see how it applies to the facts of this case, since Zimmerman claimed he was unable to retreat and therefore did not base his defense on the right to stand your ground. The fact that a legal provision was mentioned in the instructions does not necessarily mean it was relevant in reaching a verdict. For example, the instructions also mentioned accidental killings and attacks on dwellings, neither of which applies to the circumstances of the encounter between Zimmerman and Martin.  

[Thanks to Robert Woolley for the NPR links.]

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Frank_Carbonni||

    Considering how light the Left has been on facts in this case, I don't expect them to be right on Stand Your Ground.

    Actually, they have got two things right:

    1) Trayvon was black.

    2) Trayvon bought Skittles.

  • MoishePipik||

    NPR this morning had some "Law Professor" on who talked about SYG and nothing else

  • Duke||

    I wish they’d just stick to Splendid Table, Car Talk and some classical music and leave politics to the adults.

  • some guy||

    and leave politics to the adults.

    And who, pray tell, are the adults in the media? A smattering of bloggers and small-time/ mid-level "journalists" behave like adults, but one requirement of making it to cable news or primetime is to not be an adult.

  • ||

    Stossel still does a pretty good job.

  • SOFL Hockey Fan||

    I was amazed last night when a correspondent covering the trial for The Faux News Channel, whose name escapes me mentioned that "Stand Your Ground" was at issue here.

  • ||

    See, that's why you can't trust blogs. Because they simply don't have the resources to do the hard-hitting investigative journalism required to accurately report the news. Like all those major media outlets with professional journalists that were endlessly repeating for months and months on end that "stand your ground" was involved.

  • SOFL Hockey Fan||

    Remember the "good ole days" when there were only 3 networks? Much more clear news.

  • wareagle||

    seriously? More like much better inculcated group think.

  • SOFL Hockey Fan||

    Not seriously, of course. When Reagan was assassinated in 1981 a number of networks reported that Reagan was not hit and that James Brady had died. Both were incorrect.

  • Seriously?||

    Did someone say my name?

  • Pro Libertate||

    I'm no criminal law expert, but I realized early on that it was a self-defense case, not so much an SYG case. Why that's even being mentioned after it was explicitly not part of the trial speaks volumes about the political motives here.

    Bothers me to no end that people value these politics over a man's freedom and over the protection we all have in the state having a great burden of proof to take away a person's freedom.

  • ||

    They want to make an example of someone. The useless life of anyone not part of the TEAM will do.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Until all our brains are replaced with computers run by a central network, we are individuals first, no matter what they say. A political or economic system that pretends otherwise cannot help but be morally wrong and practically ineffective.

  • ||

    Totally untrue. You see, there's this little thing called the Social Contract which says the thugs heroic champions of liberty who run the central network get to decide what's moral on a case-by-case basis.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yes, just who does agree to the social compact, anyway? And how many now accept it under duress? Or under totally misrepresented terms?

  • ||

    You don't get to agree to it. Or read it. You just have to abide by it. Not having to agree to it or read it increases your freedoms.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Screw that.

  • Number 2||

    Remember: Never let a crisis go to waste.

    Hijacking a tragedy for one's political purposes is as old as the nation, facts be damned.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    OK, my perspective is somewhat different; I read history for fun, and have read accounts of several "Trial(s) of the Century". With rare exceptions (Mencken at the Dayton "Monkey Trial" springs to mind) reporters tend to get legal details wrong. And to persist in getting such details wrong, even after they have been corrected in print by legal experts. A lot of this is simply the sloppiness that comes from writing to short deadlines. More of it is the bias that comes to any reporting done by mortal men and women. Even more stems from the belief - common to most newspaper editors in most times, that the reading public is composed of semi-literate imbeciles who need to be lead by the hand or treated to bread and circuses. (see Mencken's autobiographical works on his years as a newspaper man). This, frankly, is the contempt of the man (or woman) with a slightly elevated position to people who are not all that different.

    What I'm saying is basically that while it is important to analyze the flaws in the reporting on a story, this particular type of flaw is not new, and especially not something unique to or even disproportionately of the Establishment Left.

  • Gene||

    I just checked out Mencken's quotes. Great stuff man, thanks.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/.....oting.html

    The Bloomberg report says that Judge Nelson's instructions included information about the Stand Your Ground statute.

    But, when you click on the link that's provided, http://www.flcourts18.org/page.php?136 I don't see where it explicitly refers to Stand Your Ground, only to Zimmerman's right to self-defense (which are not necessarily the same thing).

  • SOFL Hockey Fan||

    Doesn't the defendant have to invoke "SYG"? I don't know.

  • free2booze||

    To claim stand your ground, a person has to win a seperate stand your ground hearing pre-trial. If the defendant wins this hearing, then they can't be tried criminally or civilly. Zimmerman's defense team waived the stand your ground hearing, choosing to go with self defense instead.

  • ||

    Well this isn't accurate. The pretrial hearing isn't limited to SYG, and does not preclude using it as a defense at trial. The pretrial hearing is required (but can be waived by the defendant) for any attempt to try someone for a violent death.

    "If George Zimmerman Loses a Pretrial Motion to Dismiss, He Can Still Be Acquitted":

    The law, as amended in 2005, states that someone who justifiably uses force in self-defense "is immune from criminal prosecution." Under a 2010 decision by the Florida Supreme Court, that means Zimmerman has a right to a pretrial hearing where he can get the second-degree murder charge against him dismissed if he can show, by "a preponderance of the evidence," that he reasonably believed deadly force was necessary to prevent Trayvon Martin from killing or seriously injuring him. In other words, he has to convince a judge it is more likely than not that his use of force was lawful. But if he loses that motion, he can still argue at trial that he acted in self-defense, and the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not.
  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    That's not SYG, the pre-trial self-defense hearing predates SYG in FL law.

    My guess is that SYG is not an affirmative defense, ie, it's available whether the defense argues it or not.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    "If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any
    place 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."

    This paragraph comes close, but I can't tell if it is referring to the actual Stand Your Ground statue, and even if so, whether it had any impact on the legal proceedings.

  • ||

    Yes, this would be the relevant text. SYG is explicitly about the lack of a duty to retreat.

    What people aren't mentioning, however, is that this appears to be part of the standard jury instructions for Florida:

    Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases

    Look toward the bottom for "Entire Document" and look under "3.6(f) JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE" in the file.

  • paranoid android||

    I've been seeing this stuff about Stand Your Ground being in the jury instructions thrown around a lot as some sort of proof it was at issue in the case; the paragraph you quoted is what you are referring to.

    But this is nonsense, because the judge is only doing what any sane judge would do, and is instructing the jury about the entire statute that Zimmerman may or may not have violated. She goes through all of the conditions that would make Zimmerman guilty, and then all of the exceptions that would make a killing justified. She points out at one point that the killing would be justified if Zimmerman was attempting to prevent a felony committed in his own "dwelling place" -- even though that was obviously not something that either side even suggested occurred.

    I mean, if the people criticizing this think juries shouldn't know the entire law when deciding to end a man's life over whether he broke it, they should just say so, is all I'm saying.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • General Butt Naked||

    From the comments:

    this racism is sowing a backlash that will see them destroyed. They want another civil war, we'll give it to them. We'll fight it at the ballot box and in the courtroom and in the media and the public discourse, and we will prevail. We will clean out our judiciary and our police departments, and recapture the machinery of justice. They will learn that they should not have drawn attention to themselves.

    Then, when they resort to violence as they are surely wont to do, they will be met like the terrorists they are. Those that survive will spend their final days in jail where they can do no more harm.

    We beat them once. We became complacent. We let them regroup, and fester in secret. Now they have drawn blood. We are awake now.

    They will wish they had never stepped out of the shadows.

    Jesus, these people are crazy. Good thing they hate guns.

  • John||

    So does this guy consider the women on the jury to be part of the "them"?

    If you read between the lines, the key to the entire post is this

    Then, when they resort to violence as they are surely wont to do, they will be met like the terrorists they are.

    This is why this case drives progs insane. They want a monopoly on violence. They want to be able to use government and mob violence to achieve their ends. And as long as the other side has the ability to fight back, they can't do that. This is why progs hate guns and hate self defense. If it were up to them, you would be unarmed and go to jail anytime you tried to defend yourself. In that state, you are at the mercy of the mob, which is what they want.

  • SweatingGin||

    Those that survive will spend their final days in jail where they can do no more harm.

    I'm thinking there should be a KosQuotient. Something like average number of posts in a thread before someone talks about rounding up opponents in camps, or something similar.

  • Xenocles||

    They want another civil war, we'll give it to them. We'll fight it at the ballot box and in the courtroom and in the media and the public discourse, and we will prevail.

    I don't think this person has fully thought through what a "civil war" entails. Hint: it's physical fighting.

  • Irish||

    "So what if they start a civil war with guns? I'll make a strongly worded petition and pass it around downtown Portland! That'll show them!"

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    If I'm laying odds on a civil war between people who typically despise, fear and don't own guns and those who embrace, understand, and own guns, I'm making the latter the favorite if they're even 25% of the population.

  • Xenocles||

    I'd go down to 3% of the population, and the odds don't get better for the progs if the military picks sides soldier-by-soldier.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    At some point you risk losing just by being starved out and cut off from supplies by sheer numbers. I think 3% might be too low, but it's just a gut feeling.

    In all realistic scenarios, an honest-to-Zod shooting civil war would end very, very poorly for the gun haters.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    You're forgetting the government, which embraces, understands, and owns not only guns but much more destructive weapons.

  • Xenocles||

    The people operating those more destructive weapons will not necessarily come down on government's side.

  • Agammamon||

    Your forgetting how fast those honest-to-god-government-only weapons keep ending up in civilian once the fighting starts in wars all over the globe.

  • Killazontherun||

    "What, my knitted cap isn't bullet proof? But, what about the invincible righteousness of my rhetoric?"

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    They don't know any history. The Confederacy - the people this quote means to conflate with "They" - started a war when they had no substantial number of industrial centers to supply a war. They thought they they were better suited for war because they were hot-tempered and romantic. Frankly; that sounds a lot more like an alliance of Inner City Poor and Liberal Intellectuals. The non-urban rednecks are armed, well trained, and much given to practice. They don't hold their guns sideways to look "cool". They study military history.

    If the Liberal Left wants a Civil War, I'm sadly sure they can get one. What I would be surprised if they could do is FIGHT one.

  • Irish||

    Yeah, the South of today is not exactly the same as the aristocrat led antebellum south. The antebellum south was almost entirely farm land and had virtually no industrialization. In 2013, the American south has a larger population than any other part of the country and Houston is the state with the most exports. Most American manufacturing is now done in the south.

    The truth is, the old rust belt and the various decaying left-wing states have more in common with the backwards south before the civil war. The South of today is more of an economic power than the North is.

  • Cyto||

    e country and Houston is the state with the most exports.

    "Houston is a state??"

    "Forget it... He's on a roll..."

  • Matrix||

    No, Houstin is a planet.

    /General Zod.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    They can "fight" one if they use, you know, the government. It's how they role.

    Terrible poem. Poets throughout history, then again, have tended to romanticize criminals. It's their source of 'inspiration.'

    Except Dante. Motherfucker had game and called it as he saw it.

  • Arn0||

    The federal government (especially the US military) is much more powerful today than in the pre-civil-war USA.

  • fish_remote||

    As silly and useless as "monologing!" in the charming Disney film "The Incredibles". I wonder if he/she rehearsed that in a mirror before sprinting to the keyboard while the passion was still fresh!

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Someone tweeted "A Hispanic shoots a black guy and is acquitted by an all female jury and still white men are to blame"

    Kos: If Trayvon Martin Had His Slave Pass Maybe He Would Still be Alive: Zimmerman is Found "Innocent"
    The United States government has historically worked to protect and serve White people and their interests. The jury's decision in the George Zimmerman trial is one more data point in a centuries-long trajectory of racism in this country.

    The jury looked at the narrative of a white Hispanic stalking, hunting, shooting, and killing a young black man and found it a simple one to litigate. When in doubt defend the right of white vigilantes to kill and murder black people.

    Moreover, the jury bowed down to the power of the gun. The gun protects "us" from "them". The Zimmerman "not guilty" verdict is a reinforcement of the reality of the colorline, and that the jury intimately and deeply understood from their cultural training and political socialization, that when in doubt side with the white shooter against black "criminals".

    The Zimmerman "not guilty" verdict is proof that black life is cheap again. There is a paradox proven once more about black life in the Age of Obama...

  • Rhywun||

    My god that is delightfully unhinged. And the comments... what a cesspool of ignorance - I just can't even.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Enough god dammit linking to that site. The stupidity is beyond anything I can fathom. That picture with the President in hoodies is something only a 15 year-old could think is smart and cool. If that person is older than 16, they have issues.

    "The jury looked at the narrative of a white Hispanic stalking, hunting, shooting, and killing a young black man and found it a simple one to litigate"

    Except that's not what happened.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Snowden/Greenwald Threaten The United States
    ...Liberals are supposed to believe in government. We believe that government, with proper checks and balances, can do amazing good. That doesn't excuse the abuses of the Patriot Act. It doesn't excuse spying without warrants. But, philosophically, we are not the party that wants to burn down the government to set it "Free." That's the militia movement currently stockpiling guns in rural areas. That's the GOP voting to end food stamps because government can do nothing right....

  • Caleb Turberville||

    http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/07/13.....e-on-home/

    Forget the DailyKos, MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry condescending request for Snowden to "come home" is enough to make any truth-seeking, freedom-lover apoplectic.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Dear Ed,

    It’s me, Melissa.

    Jesus, what a fucking festering bag of cunts this bitch is. Come home Eddie, because this lisping, Predator-looking waste of human space says that Uncle Barry will treat you right and we can finally talk about the evil NSA instead of you.

    Oh yeah, it's your fault that they can't talk about civil rights. Yup, your refusal to get in the rape-cage for Uncle Barry is all the population wants to hear about! The media's hands are tied!!

  • AuH20||

    Shouldn't that be:

    Dear Ed,

    Ith's me, Melistha.
  • Irish||

    Deaw Ed,

    Ith's me Melistha Hawis Pewwy. I heaw youwa looking fowa countwy...

  • ||

    I've often wondered what they were thinking by making a hotht of thomeone with a thpeach impediment.

    I'm assuming they are making a statement about inclusion or something?

  • ||

    I'm assuming they are making a statement about inclusion or something?

    They've been on the forefront of hiring the mentally handicapped from the get-go.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Is that the messed up loon who wanted people to hand over their kids to the state?

    She's mental.

    And that letter.

    Oof.

    This is a good example of how people like her are perfect tools as useful idiots for tyrannical governments.

    I'm glad the comments are letting her have it.

  • SOFL Hockey Fan||

    Interesting that she refers to the "Obama Adninistration" and not specifically to President Obama. As if some low-level clerks did all of this on their own.

  • AuH20||

    The way liberals treat this administration is much like how once upon a time rural Chinese peasants treated the emperor.

    "The emperor does not know" was a really big thing. So what if the local magistrate is being a total asshole? The emperor must not know about that, because SURELY if the emperor DID know, he would automatically and swiftly correct it.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    So come on home, Ed. So we could talk about, you know, something else.

    Sincerely,

    Melissa


    Melitha is sincere in her request for Edward Snowden to return to America. You see, because she is puppet of the corporate media, a paid shill of MSNBC, and truthfully little better than a whore, she's getting tired of the same routine and wants her employer to tell her to talk about something. Even whores get bored with the same old thing.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    From the comments:

    Would you go home if Dad was really mad? Of course you would.
  • John||

    The laws allow someone with a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death to use lethal force, even if retreating from danger is an option.

    I love how they say that like it is a bad thing. Liberals honestly seem to believe that it is your duty to die at the hands of a criminal.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    I think that they see an act of self-defense is a repudiation of their glorious collective. They don't seem to want people to do anything for themselves. If you defend yourself you're rejecting the notion that Big Nanny is going to take care of you. As Darth V. would say, they find your lack of faith disturbing.

  • John||

    If you can defend yourself, they can't terrorize you.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    That's true but I think it runs deeper than that. They want more than mere obedience: you must love Big Nanny.

  • Killazontherun||

    If I did not know better, the criminals have organized a lobbying effort and paid them off to make the acts of robbing and raping easier, but, no, I'm pretty sure its their idiotic and deeply twisted ideology at play here.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    You seem to have missed the part about "even if retreating from danger is an option".

    The duty to retreat does make sense in a lot of circumstances, because it makes it much harder for someone to get away with murder by claiming SD. I know libertarians tend not to be concerned with practicality, but pragmatism is a habit I'm having a hard time breaking.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    There's something pretty pragmatic about not attacking someone who might be able to kill you.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Of course, but that's not the time frame I'm looking at.

    SYG (and the Castle Doctrine to a lesser extent) makes the legal/justice system response to a killing much more complicated and more easily "played" by a murderer. That's the pragmatic concern I have with SYG.

    On the balance, I think that CD is worth the trouble as you shouldn't expect a person to flee from their home and the likelihood of unbiased witnesses being in the home during an invasion is low. But, that's debatable. SYG isn't worth it IMHO (also debatable of course).

  • John||

    There is nothing debatable about the castle doctrine. You honestly think there is a rational case to be made that a home owner who defends themselves when confronted with deadly force should be guilty of murder because he didn't flee his own home?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    CD doesn't just remove the duty to retreat. It also introduces a presumption that someone who enters your home unlawfully is intending violence, and bars civil suits connected with self-defense in the home.

    I'm not aware of a rational case against it but that doesn't mean there isn't one. It's certainly easy to come up with situations where a murderer could abuse CD to get away with their deed.

  • John||

    It also introduces a presumption that someone who enters your home unlawfully is intending violence, and bars civil suits connected with self-defense in the home.

    Which is of course completely just and rational. When you are in your home and someone enters it, you did nothing to create the situation. You therefore should not be expected to be a perfect judge of it and have every right to assume that person means you harm.

    And even in duty to retreat states, people do not have a duty to retreat when they are in their own homes.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    John, I support CD. So I'm not going to argue with you on it.

    But there may be a rational argument out there, so I'm not going to close the door on debatability.

  • robc||

    someone who enters your home unlawfully is intending violence

    The intention to commit violence is clear when they broke into my home.

    Theft is violence, it derives me of part of my life (the time I spent earning the money to buy the stuff stolen).

    While, hypothetically, someone could be breaking into my home for entirely non-violent reasons, its pretty rare. The presumption is fucking valid.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Theft is violence

    I love you, robc, but your tic of re-defining words to suit your arguments is fucking annoying.

  • robc||

    I love you, robc, but your tic of re-defining words to suit your arguments is fucking annoying.

    Nice misquoting there, I made it clear where the violence is. Taking part of my life away is violence, not the specific act of taking my property.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Come on robc. That's not what most people consider the word to mean, and not what it means in the law. It's referring to bodily harm.

    If you want a windmill to tilt at, go argue with the folks who divide crime into "violent" and "property" crimes.

  • robc||

    That's not what most people consider the word to mean

    Which is exactly why I added the fucking clause you didnt quote.

    I was pointing out that they are actually the same thing. People also commonly make a distinction between social issues and economic issues. The Nolan chart even makes this distinction.

    I on the other hand think economic issues are fucking social issues, they are indistinguishable when working from first principles.

    Same for property crimes and violent crimes. Two faces of the same thing.

    I know at some point you have seen my parable of micro-slavery. Some people dont define income taxation as slavery, but the difference is in degree, not in kind.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    It's a word, robc. It has no inherent meaning, it means what people think it means. This is especially true when it comes to law.

    Violence means bodily harm, rape, or kidnapping in the law. Your preferred meaning doesn't matter when we're talking about the law.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    It's a word, robc. It has no inherent meaning,

    It's a concept. Concepts have essential parts, parts which define them. You're confused by the implicit nature of the violence.

  • Boisfeuras||

    A thief hoping to avoid violence will break into an unoccupied home. If someone breaks into your home while you are present, it is entirely reasonable to assume their intent is malevolent.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Of course, but that's not the time frame I'm looking at.

    No, you're looking at the time frame in which the aggressor loses his advantage. I'm not especially sympathetic toward aggressors. If anyone has a duty to retreat, it should be the aggressor.

  • robc||

    If anyone has a duty to retreat, it should be the aggressor.

    THIS. Many times over. Cannot be repeated enough. The aggressor has 100% of the duty to retreat.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Huh? No, I'm not. I don't need you to decide what I'm talking about for me.

    I'm talking about the time frame where the court is determining guilt, which is the only time frame when the law actually matters.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I don't need you to decide what I'm talking about for me.

    Based on your theory of evidence, I wouldn't be too sure.

    If you want the supremely pragmatic answer, it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

  • John||

    The duty to retreat is absurd but I am not surprised you would endorse it. If someone attacks you, you should have the right to defend yourself. Courts should not be second guess your judgement and expecting you to stop and think "can I retreat"? All that does is put more people who try to defend themselves in jail. Think about. A duty to retreat means I can be walking down the street and have someone go after me with an axe and if I shoot them I am guilty of murder because I could have ran away. Yeah, that is real just

    You really are worse than shreek in your own way.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    If the courts were omniscient I would agree with you, but they're not. SYG means that more murderers will go free by falsely claiming SD.

    "Better a hundred guilty men go free blah blah blah" tickles the ears, but the state setting up a framework where a murderer can expect to go unpunished is tantamount to the state murdering the victim itself. The effect is the same.

    Not worth avoiding a duty to retreat in a place that's not your home, IMHO.

  • John||

    Stand your ground is not duty to retreat. They are two different concepts. Learn the terms and I will bother talking to you about this.

    IN the mean time, the fact that courts are not omniscient is precisely why we shouldn't be muddying the waters with the extra issue of could you have retreated. Answer the simple question of "did the accused have a reasonable and immediate fear of death or great bodily harm" and move on.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Stand your ground is not duty to retreat. They are two different concepts.

    No shit they're different concepts. Tell me where I said otherwise. I've been saying SYG removes the duty to retreat, which is true.

  • robc||

    Better a hundred guilty men go free blah blah blah

    You can blah blah blah it all you want. Its still true.

    You say you are "pragmatic" but I can think of nothing more pragmatic than understanding that guilty men may walk to avoid punishing the innocent.

    The system isnt perfect, of course, but that blah blah blah covers up the fucking pragmatism that you supposedly espouse.

  • Irish||

    "Better a hundred guilty men go free blah blah blah" tickles the ears, but the state setting up a framework where a murderer can expect to go unpunished is tantamount to the state murdering the victim itself.

    Tulpa, by this logic the very concept of justice is state sponsored murder. I mean hey! If we just threw everyone accused of a crime in prison, no murderer would ever go free! But the goddamn glibertarians and believers in the rule of law have this whole 'guilty until proven innocent' nonsense that allows some murderers to go free!

    What bastards.

  • Irish||

    guilty until proven innocent

    Clearly I meant innocent until proven guilty. Switching those words kind of makes my post read much differently than it should.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    1. Innocent people should not be punished.
    2. Guilty people should be punished.

    I agree that #1 should get greater emphasis than #2 in our justice system but not to the point that #2 is forgotten. #2 is important too.

    Stand Your Ground laws are likely to cause trouble for #2 without helping #1 at all. I don't see any benefit to SYG beyond ideological and emotional ones. The argument I keep hearing is that "you shouldn't have to retreat when you're doing nothing wrong" and I sympathize, but it's really not much of a sacrifice to retreat from a public place when possible to safely do so.

  • ||

    Stand Your Ground laws are likely to cause trouble for #2 without helping #1 at all.

    And I'd expect nothing less from an unprincipled pragmatist who'd kill and eat 49% of the world's children if it meant a positive outcome for the other 51%.

    Right and wrong don't matter as long as the whole is best served, right Tulpa?

  • robc||

    Fuck Utilitarianism is a shorter version.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Right and wrong are slippery things, changing from one person's opinion to the next. Trying to base a legal system on "right and wrong" gives us the "I screw you-you screw me" oscillatory politics that we suffer from today. You can't have a diverse society existing on the basis of right and wrong.

    Stability of coercion is something objective, and that's why I hang my hat on it.

    (also the 51-49 example you give once again shows you don't understand utilitarianism in the slightest)

  • ||

    Right and wrong are slippery things, changing from one person's opinion to the next.

    Right and wrong, when pertaining to a legal system, are the easiest things in the world. If what you are doing isn't hurting anybody else, it's right. If it is, it's wrong.

    Why must you make things so difficult?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    What's hilarious about this statement, Francisco, is that it leads to the complete opposite conclusion from the position you're trying to argue for. The act authorized by Stand Your Ground laws is one that hurts someone else, so by your logic, Stand Your Ground laws are wrong.

    Things get complicated real fast in the real world, don't they?

  • ||

    God you are a mendacious fuck. You know goddamn well that the NAP allows you to act in self defence. And you know goddamned well the NAP is refers to the INITIATION of force.

    You know Tulpa, you really are a cunt. You don't like libertarians...GOT IT! So why do you come here? John's right, you really are as bad as shreeeek.

  • robc||

    it's really not much of a sacrifice

    And there is the key point. You are willing to give up a bit of liberty (but not much) for security.

    Some of us arent.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    You give up liberty for security the moment you set up a justice system and a government.

    I know you're an anarchist, and I respect your choice, if vehemently disagreeing. However it should be made clear that you damn all non-anarchists when you damn me.

  • robc||

    I know you're an anarchist,

    ???

    Have you ever read my posts? I mock the anarchists regularly. I have gone so far as to disagree with the post somewhere upthread and deny than ancaps are libertarians at all.

    Im in the minarchist camp. I dont believe in things that dont exist.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I thought for some reason you were an anarchist. Apologies.

    But then how do you reconcile your claim that giving up liberty for security is verboten?

  • robc||

    But then how do you reconcile your claim that giving up liberty for security is verboten?

    I dont think minarchism gives up liberty. I think a very, very minarchist government maximizes liberty.

    If you want to criticize it, you could say its a utilitarian argument, which is a point Ive made in the past, but since it goes against what Utilitarians actually believe, it isnt.

    I want the amount of government that maximizes liberty. An argument can be made that would be zero, which would be anarchism, but since anarchy cant exist (we agree on this), therefore its some small amount of government. Basically, I stand with Thomas Paine on this issue.

    Is that a contradiction with what I said above? Maybe. In which case, I refer to Kurt Gödel and say "tough shit, deal with it".

    Rand (and Aristotle) was wrong about contradictions.

  • robc||

    I will quote Thomas Paine to show why I dont think its a contradiction at all:

    Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. Freedom and security.

    Bolding mine. The point being that government, in its minimum form provides both freedom and security, anarchy provided neither, so minarchy actually isnt trading freedom for security, but securing both.

    Once you get past some minarchical point X though, any increased security comes with a loss of freedom, but only in the short term, in the long run, I think it leads to the loss of both freedom and security.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    But that proves too much; once you admit that coercion can be pro-freedom, you can't summarily dismiss the possibility that TDTR increases freedom by making murder less likely.

  • robc||

    But that proves too much; once you admit that coercion can be pro-freedom, you can't summarily dismiss the possibility that TDTR increases freedom by making murder less likely.

    No only can I, I did.

    Also, who said anything about coercion? Government exists at the consent of the governed, no coercion necessary.

  • Boisfeuras||

    Stand your ground doctrine is entirely pragmatic. If you are attempting to retreat, you surrender your ability to effectively defend yourself, even if the means are at your disposal. In retreat, you could be chased down from behind and grievously injured or killed.

  • ||

    I would put it this way rob.

    There is an optimum size for government. That is the size required to protect the rights of its citizenry. Any smaller and those rights cannot be protected. Any larger and the government will begin oppressing the rights of its citizenry.

  • Arn0||

    Even without duty to retreat, shooting someone (and even more killing him) should be a last ressort option. You could warning him, especially if you are better armed than him and if he is not to close .

    That's not just a matter of law : Zimerman does not seem so happy of what he did (killing some kid in a stupid fight) even if he "walked free".

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Am I the only one who has noticed that Reason Orange = DailyKos Orange? Que spooky music.....

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Kos: A Cop's take on the Verdict
    ...If this scenario had played out with one of their subordinates shooting an unarmed teen after pursuing them under these circumstances they would have recommended termination at the least and gone all in on an Internal Affairs Investigation are saying the prosecution never had a case. I am sure that my old department would not have hesitated a moment to prosecute any off duty police officer if they had done the same thing that George Zimmerman did. But for some reason this case triggered some sort of collective fugue state that has clouded every bodies mind. At some point this became a basketball game for them, our team versus their team. Now we've got defense lawyers doing victory laps, cops cheering prosecutors losing a case and 60% of the country feeling like a guilty man is going free....

  • John||

    Oh yeah. Cops are taken to task for shooting people all of the time.

    I am sure that my old department would not have hesitated a moment to prosecute any off duty police officer if they had done the same thing that George Zimmerman did.

    Should I laugh or cry at that statement?

  • Xenocles||

    Maybe the guy's a hundred years old or something. Who knows?

  • Irish||

    If a police officer had murdered Trayvon Martin in cold blood there's about a 50/50 shot he wouldn't even be fired.

    The idea that a cop claiming self-defense would have been prosecuted in a court of law is laughable.

  • ||

    The idea that a cop claiming self-defense would have been prosecuted in a court of law is laughable.

    Particularly if the cop had his head gashed open and his nose broke. Stepping in your spat-out gum is enough to provoke a shooting from a cop.

  • SOFL Hockey Fan||

    Just think; next time I shoot someone, I could be arrested.

    Lt. Frank Drebin

  • AuH20||

    So, Dunphy is now writing for Daily Kos?

  • H. Protagonist||

    If a cop had done this, Trayvon would almost certainly have "reached for his waistband."

  • Mike M.||

    So, it has been over 12 hours now; have any riots taken place yet? I don't think there have been any at all. Late last night some pathetic losers were taking video footage of the "Stanley Cup riots" in Vancouver a couple of years ago and trying to pass them off as happening live in Miami, but of course that was very quickly debunked.

    Imagine how disappointed the racist quartet of Holder, Jackson, Sharpton, and Obama must be right now. And all the other scum in the media/government/democratic party complex.

    Despite all of our flaws, this is a great country, and their vile and disgusting attempt to foment a race war over this terrible incident has failed.

  • John||

    There won't be a single riot. Just a lot of progressive butthurt and tears.

  • CatoTheElder||

    You forgot about the federal civil rights case.

  • John||

    I will believe that when I see it. If Obama does that, the GOP Congressional campaign committees should send him a thank you note.

    And unless they can buy off the jury, they won't win that case either.

  • XM||

    There ain't gonna be no riot. People have real life problems (no jobs), and the internet now gives you hundreds of ways to vent your frustrations or act like a thug anonymously.

    Remember all that despair over Casey Anthony verdict? Yeah, by mid August, no one will really care.

  • Mike M.||

    ISN'T gonna be no riot.

  • Rich||

    have any riots taken place yet?

    Yes.

  • John||

    About 100 people marched late Saturday night throughout downtown Oakland, breaking windows, vandalizing cars and buildings with spray paint and starting fires in the street in protest of George Zimmerman's acquittal hours earlier in a Florida courtroom.

    That is all they got? Isn't that a pretty typical Saturday night in Oakland?

  • Rich||

    True. It wasn't a riot-riot.

  • Mickey Rat||

    A hundred people about as far from the actual community in which this happened and still be in the lower 48 states.. The media's rather disgusting expectations about how black people act are thwarted.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Move those goalposts....

    I also don't think anyone thought that all black people, or even a majority of them, would riot.

    Past performance is the best indicator of future results, however imperfect.

  • Lord Humungus||

    so who wins the riot bet - you or sloopyinca? Of course the day is still young.

  • John||

    Too early to tell. But if this is all that happens, I do.

  • ||

    It was I who bet Ken (sloopy) that there would be no riots, and if there weren't, he was specifically to grovel before me.

    I await groveling.

  • Ted S.||

    You should get to name his next kid Thomas Brady for winning the bet. :-)

  • strangerthanfiction||

    Ha!

  • Mickey Rat||

    I don't think the metro Orlando are is the type of place where riots are likely to happen.

  • AuH20||

    You don't want to know the kind of automaton horrors that Disney would release to quell any riot.

  • John||

    There is a secret army down in those tunnels made just for this kind of thing.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Let by the zombie reanimated corpse of the dead guy from Glee.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Led dammit, led.

  • AuH20||

    No, that's in News Corps. vault. Get your corporate partners right!

  • AuH20||

    And they are sing "It's a Small World After All"

  • Rich||

    Yep, those Disney folks are *masters* of crowd control.

  • Killazontherun||

    Given the first murder at Disneyland, a self contained privately owned and operated city for all intensive porpoises, in all of its fifty odd years occurred within the last few, I'd say you are correct, sir.

  • Chaucer||

    It's a city for determined, aquatic mammals?

  • Killazontherun||

    No allusive joke is wasted on you, my dear man.

  • Killazontherun||

    Ah, shit, and I just thought of a better one.

    Behold, the art of allusion!

  • Mike M.||

    This was a case of national attention; the media turned it into pretty much the most important story on the planet for the last two weeks.

  • ||

    There was a copycat version in Orlando when the 1980 Miami riots broke out.

    While the ostensible cause was the acquittal of the officers who beat Arthur McDuffie to death, the actual cause was local. Basically long term resentment over police treatment.

  • Brett L||

    Sanford is a shithole, though.

  • ||

    Imagine how disappointed the racist quartet of Holder, Jackson, Sharpton, and Obama must be right now. And all the other scum in the media/government/democratic party complex.

    They're not disappointed at all. Their whole schtick is fear-mongering and race-baiting.

  • ||

    Can we just stop talking about it? It gives it credibility.

    This case should NEVER have gone to trial. It was an issue wholly CREATED by the media to sell copy, proving once again, what unethical pigs they've become. In the process, they've set race relations back a decade. Nice job, MSM, and special thanks to the sheep that support them.

  • John||

    I wonder about the real effect of this. How much actual "black outrage" is there? Most of what I am seeing is white liberal butthurt. How many black people who don't get paid to go on TV and be aggrieved are actually that pissed about this? Maybe a lot. But my suspicion is less than people think.

  • strangerthanfiction||

    They did have help from Obama when he went on TV to comment about the case, that his son would have looked like Trayvon, consequently stoking the fires of racial injustice.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    In the process, they've set race relations back a decade. Nice job, MSM, and special thanks to the sheep that support them.

    That's the whole point. If there aren't serially muddied waters in the pool of modern race relations, Team BLUE loses a lot of its platform. Team BLUE depends on media making racism a continuing issue.

    None of this is to say that racism isn't still an issue in America, but when it's a hispanic man shooting a black guy, the stirring of said waters is transparently egregious.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    From the comments:

    This is one of those where white privilege seems to mean that I was looking at this thinking "...they won't let him off. Surely he'll at least get manslaughter." And I'm looking at the responses on Twitter and Tumblr and realizing that that was a white call....

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    More:

    I think the entire world should have "Not Proven" with a secondary proviso that double jeopardy doesn't completely apply to "not proven" verdicts (it does in Scotland which rather makes it pointless).

    Of course suspending double jeopardy is risky (though the UK did it for the Stephen Lawrence case by passing a law that allowed the court of appeal to quash not guilty verdicts) and would need to be handled carefully - cases only re-opened if there is a significant change in evidence....

  • John||

    Lets retry previously acquitted people based on popular opinion. What could possibly go wrong?

    The animals on KOS want tyranny. And juries are one of the few things standing in the way of that. It was only a matter of time before the mask slipped and they came out against the jury system.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    The last one wasn't Kos. It was from a different leftist blog.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Lets retry previously acquitted people based on popular opinion. What could possibly go wrong?

    [Leftists] want tyranny. And juries are one of the few things standing in the way of that. It was only a matter of time before the mask slipped and they came out against the jury system.

    Surely there wouldn't be an unintended consequences of blacks be retried over and over until the "right" verdict is rendered.

  • Xenocles||

    Asking for power that needs to be handled carefully is the statist equivalent of "I won't come in your mouth."

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    More:

    surely anyone on the same street as Zimmerman has reason to fear for their life. I'm not saying those people should shoot him, but it seem's like the jury is saying they should.

  • Rich||

    What *is* that site?

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    I'll give you a taste:

    Smart people saying smart things (7.9)
    July 9, 2013 By Fred Clark 141 Comments

    Lord Harries of Pentregarth (a real person and not a “Game of Thrones” character, I double-checked) on the history of marriage; Brittney Cooper on hearing the N-word on the Fourth of July; Bryan Curtis profiles Mike Cervenak, who is not a prospect; Ida B. Wells on putting the feelings of the privileged above the bodies of the oppressed; and Oklahoma state Rep. Doug Cox on his party and abortion legislation.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Smart people saying smart things
    June 28, 2013 By Fred Clark 205 Comments

    Juan Cole reminds us that “When Politicians promise ‘Lower Taxes’ they are promising Collapsed Bridges;” the Atlantic’s Abigail Rine notices the evolving critique of purity culture among grassroots evangelical leaders; Darren Sherkat shows how real scientists react when others try to pervert science in pursuit of something other than the truth; William Lloyd Garrison on willful ignorance; and Letha Dawson Scanzoni on reading the Bible “like a traffic manual.”

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Even better:

    3 years ago: Rendering unto Krugman
    But knowing their hypocrisy, he said unto them, “Why are you putting me to the test? Bring me a dime and let me see it.”

    And they brought one. Then he said to them, “Whose head is this — FDR’s or Herbert Hoover’s?”

    They answered, “Roosevelt’s.”

    And he said unto them, “Right. So shut up. Have you morons already forgotten the 20th Century? When the choice is between imitating what worked and what really, really didn’t work, why are you pretending it’s terribly complicated?”

    And after that, no one dared to ask him any question.

  • Irish||

    Once again, liberals show that they are a religious cult that bows and scrapes before the Prophet.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Sounds like a good reason not to have identifiable individuals depicted on our currency.

  • free2booze||

    I love all the comments that claim Zimmerman "stalked" and "hunted" Martin. Zimmerman followed Martin over a distance of about 200 feet, then lost sight of him. The whole time he was on the phone with 911. Four minutes went by until the two met up, and the fight started. When that happened, Zimmerman was about 150 feet from his truck, and Martin was a football fields length from home.

  • Lord Humungus||

    it's like a really lame version of "The Most Dangerous Game"

  • Rich||

    Sorry, I LOLed.

  • Dweebston||

    But Zimmerman's the hunted and the predictable race-baiters/compliant media are the hunters.

  • John||

    Zimmerman stalked Martin. But somehow didn't draw his gun until he was about to be killed.

  • free2booze||

    While talking to a 911 operator, and asking him to send an officer. When I hunt my prey, I always make sure to alert the police before making the kill.

  • Lord Humungus||

    it's the equivalent of giving him a running start. /sarc tag

  • Xenocles||

    Ha! It's all a double-cross. Zimmerman arranged for the police to not come so he could call them and establish exactly that alibi, just like he knew that gentle child couldn't really hurt him so he allowed himself to fall into an apparently dangerous situation for an extra alibi.

  • MoishePipik||

    And Zimmerman spent at least a full minute yelling for help and enduring punches to the face before he decided to shoot. I wouldn't have had that much patience. And certainly the Gangster that Trayvon wanted to be wouldn't have.

  • MJGreen||

    Haha, I remember being talked down to by some proggies years ago because I didn't know or care what "slacktivist" said. They kept posting stuff from him in a debate, and I finally checked one article and was astonished at how idiotic it was.

  • Sunken Idaho||

    Chicago shot past the 200th murder victim, most of them black, during the Fourth of July weekend and these same "outraged" Prog-fucks say nothing. Does the bullet somehow become deadlier if the person pulling the trigger is not of African decent? Someone please consult Eric Holder since I am nothing but a coward.

  • ||

    The fact that you have to ask this makes you a racist.

    Please report to the nearest reeducation facility at 8 AM Monday morning.

  • AuH20||

    "In the war, we ate dogs... but rats?"-Jimmy Darmody
    "First rule of politics kid: Never let the facts get in the way of a good story."-Nucky Thompson

    First Episode of Boardwalk Empire

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The proglodytes hatred of stand your ground laws in this episode is incredibly ironic in that their narrative is that Martin was defending himself against some creepy ass cracker that had the temerity to follow, (or profile, or stalk) him. IOW that Martin was standing his groung and justified in using violence against Zimmerman.

  • Lord Humungus||

    even this Miami Herald recap uses SYG:
    http://www.miamiherald.com/201.....legal.html

    Zimmerman’s prosecution was made tougher under Florida’s 2005 Stand Your Ground law, which eliminated a citizen’s “duty to retreat” before using lethal force in the face of a deadly threat — an instruction given to jurors on Friday.
  • John||

    Duty to retreat is not stand your ground. Lots of states have a duty to retreat but not stand your ground. One has nothing to do with the other.

    Moreover, Zimmerman would have been acquitted even in a duty to retreat state. You only have a duty to retreat if you can and retreating is a bit difficult with a large man on top of you beating your head against the sidewalk. Duty to retreat doesn't mean "you didn't start the fight".

    I am inclined to chalk this up to the usual ignorance of reporters. Reporters are as a rule not very bright and never know very much about the subjects they are reporting on.

  • Lord Humungus||

    I agree with you, but boy, that ignorance seems awfully widespread. Don't they have anyone cover the legal beat who actually knows some law - like a law student dropout or ?

  • John||

    A lot of it is willful. But of course they are willfully ignorant on every subject.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Like John said, it's mostly willful ignorance.

  • MoishePipik||

    Someone should tell the African American community that this has nothing to do with "Jews" either. Beginning with the Black Panthers calling Zimmerman a "dirty Jew" and continuing on through today (search Twitter for "Zimmerman Jew") you'll see that Black are inexplicable blaming Jews for this, even though they have NOTHING to do with it. George Zimmerman isn't the least bit Jewish.

  • free2booze||

    Yes, Zimmerman is a black-white-Hispanic Jew. Insert the word 'dirty' where ever you'd like.

  • wareagle||

    he's half jewish; that's more than the least bit.

  • Calidissident||

    Zimmerman's dad is Jewish? Where did you hear that?

  • Calidissident||

    I wouldn't conflate the Black Panthers with the black community. That's like saying the white community is rejoicing that a black kid was killed because people on Stormfront probably are. I know plenty of black people (and people of all races) angry or disappointed with the verdict, and none of them have said anything about Jews.

  • AuH20||

    First comment on Jezebel's reaction to this:

    For me, this was going to come down to whether white women saw themselves as white first or women first. I've gotten my answer.

    Minorities & women are seen as being complicit in their own injuries in ways that white men aren't. Trayvon Martin was followed at night by a stranger, ends up being killed, and debate ensues about the part he played in the situation. Much like how women are raped and debate ensues over the role she played in her own sexual assault. What did she wear? Was she drinking? You'd think that a female jury would be able to relate to the predicament Trayvon was in as well as the post-incident smearing. But alas, they sided with their fear of black males over empathy for being held to account for your own victimization. Interesting. IMO, we've found out a lot about how white women think, tonight.
  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Are we going to have a Jezebel vs. Slactivist vs. Kos contest for stupidest comment?

  • John||

    The women on that jury are just like Sarah Palin, not real women. Pathetic.

  • AuH20||

    Feminism is basically the mean girls from high school but with a fine veneer of academic bullshit.

  • Irish||

    No. Feminism is the girls who were too unpopular to be the mean girls in high school, and try to make up for lost time by writing diatribes about how evil other women are.

  • John||

    No. Palin because she was hot, was probably one of the mean girls in high school. Feminism, is the nerdy homely girls in high school exacting their revenge on all of the mean girls.

    If you look at the posts on Jezebell and such, they are mostly rooted in a bunch of homely, maladjusted women who never got over 8th grade and have thus made it their mission to ruthlessly punish the pretty girls and the various other women who got all the guys, got married and lived the happy lives that the homely neurotic girls never could.

  • Dweebston||

    Palin because she was hot

    Are you sure when you think of Palin that you're not thinking of Tina Fey portraying Palin?

    It boggles the mind.

  • Killazontherun||

    Are you sure your balls are sending your brains proper signaling? You should smack them a few times to clear that problem up if you are getting a signal that says you are living in a world where Fey is hot but Palin is not.

  • Cyto||

    I originally thought that Fey was much hotter than Palin. Then Tina played her Palin character with the actual Sarah Palin and they were side-by-side on live TV. Although in her mid forties while Fey was in her late 30's at the time, Palin was much, much hotter. Palin seems to be playing the nerded-down "I'm not the hot chick" character from teen romance movies to appear more credible as a politician.

  • Anonymous Coward||

  • Killazontherun||

    I wouldn't turn her down, but that doesn't mean she isn't mousy. She is definitional mousy, and mousy is the opposite of hot.

  • Dweebston||

    I love mousy. There's something about a nerdy, vulnerable look that shouts I'M PROBABLY GOING TO GIVE YOU A FAIR SHAKE BEFORE TURNING YOU DOWN.

    Then again, I'm so beta that fem studies hipsters look down on me.

  • Killazontherun||

    You take a ribbing very well. Hmm, strap-on withribbed condom pulled over it and attached to angry fem studies major? Maybe betas really do have more fun.

  • Dweebston||

    Nope; I'm too anti-feminist for the average embittered fem studies major, and too beta for the average club-going strangers. I have no fun.

    Also, Fey has a delightful pixie-like charm while Palin opens her mouth and sounds purposefully-tailored hick. But maybe politicians are their own form of contraception.

  • John||

    Fey is fair to midland. I wouldn't kick her out of bed. But most of the reason she looks good is hard core dieting and a lot of Hollywood professional makeup. See her back when she was a writer for SNL and she was a short fat girl with an okay face.

    Palin in contrast was good looking enough from the start to work in TV. Get past the bad 80s hair, which all women had back then, and Palin was very hot when she was young and still is, exceptionally show considering her age.

  • AuH20||

    Okay, Killaz, I'm just going to have to be a dick about this again, but must you conflate the enjoyment of a sexual practice (female-on-male strap on sex) with masculinity or lack thereof? I mean, it all basically stems from homophobia- "It's not gay if YOU'RE the one sticking it in someone else ass, but taking it in the ass? GAY!"

    Look, I know I tend to get in a snit about this shit, but its a really fucking annoying and common attitude to have to deal with, and its frankly bullshit. I could basically pull any of you or your partners kinks and say they made you a social degenerate, but I don't because I live in the modern world and don't conflate enjoyment of certain sexual practices with overall personality.

  • AuH20||

    Also, I'm just saying, wouldn't the best go to reference be those guys who have male chastity/cuckholding fetishes?

    Not to judge or anything, but I simply can't understand the appeal of being told your dick is really small and that your partner needs a REAL man to satisfy her and then watching as they fuck. I do not get what a guy would get out of that, other than... like, maybe they are bisexual, and they get to see both girl parts and man parts?

  • John||

    Goldwater,

    I think some people are just swingers and like to watch their wife do live porn for them with other men. The real hardcore cuckholds are group of their own and are in need of a lot of help. Mostly, they seem to be legitimately emotionally and negatively affected by their wife being with other men and like being that way. They are a really extreme form of masochist.

  • AuH20||

    That's been my conclusion as well. I end up watching a decent amount of BDSM porn, not because I'm into BDSM but because it a lot of 'vanilla' porn all you hear is moans, but with no dirty talk or anything, and I'm into dirty talk. Let's just say that there is a whole subset of guys who love to have their women fuck other men when they never get to even jack off. They especially have a thing for black dudes.

    My honest conclusion is that they are gay, want a black dude with a big dick to fuck them, and just don't want to admit it to themselves or their women. Then again, I suppose the arrangement works out for all parties involved, because the chick gets to fuck dudes, the dude gets to see cock, and in between, they can cuddle and shit. Its like the best gay man married to a woman in what otherwise would be a sexless relationship outcome possible

  • AuH20||

    Like there's a whole fetish about 'forced' bisexuality. Yeah, right. Your lady/domme 'forced' you to take it up the ass and suck another dude's dick. Now, I'll admit they may be legit bi... but they ain't straight, I'll tell you that.

  • Xenocles||

    You know, I've come to see that there's so little I understand about humanity that I can't help but be open to the possibility that people like that are out there. People are notorious for being able to convince themselves about anything that could benefit them, so why not this sort of thing?

  • Killazontherun||

    Ha! Ha! Look at you being all humorless and shit, GW. Good job on the false outrage. I said it sounded like he was having more fun.

  • Killazontherun||

    I could basically pull any of you or your partners kinks and say they made you a social degenerate, but I don't because I live in the modern world and don't conflate enjoyment of certain sexual practices with overall personality.

    And there is no discussion of 'tops' and 'bottoms' in this modern world to which you claim to be a citizen in good standing? Since you have an insufferable need for personal validation, and you don't have the skin thick enough to take a prime time joke straight from the Comedy Channel, you should lay off of sexual lifestyle choices that you obviously can't handle.

  • Irish||

    ^^^ I don't know how the above conversation ended up happening. It seemed like everything was going relatively smoothly, and then things kind of took a strange turn.

  • Killazontherun||

    He's pissed I came up with the condomed dildo idea first. He sees it as a lucrative business opportunity, building a factory where dildos are customizable simply by replacing the textured condom surface with another one at your whim and leisure. But first, he has to publicly shame me into renouncing the idea as my own, and once renounced he'll pounce on it and grab the patent.

  • AuH20||

    Damnit, Killaz! You have me... pegged!

  • Irish||

    But alas, they sided with their fear of black males over empathy for being held to account for your own victimization.

    FALSE CONSCIOUSNESS!

  • seguin||

    1. Followed at night by a stranger
    2. ???
    3. Ends up dead.

    I'm betting South Park is too intellectual for Jezzies.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    And SouthPark isn't hectoring and moralizing enough for them.

  • AuH20||

    Good news, everyone! One of the main actors from Glee is dead!

    Sadly, instead of resulting in them cancelling that piece of shit, it will probably instead lead to "A Very Special Episode of Glee"

  • Irish||

    Dude. This is a dark and fucked up post, even for Reason.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    So you don't want to hear about the Glee producers stuffing and animating the corpse for a Chucky Cheese like musical number before burying him?

  • Killazontherun||

    Dude. This is a dark and fucked up post, even for Reason.

    The applicable social law is reversed in the case of suicides. Guilty until proven innocent. Until extenuating circumstances explain his actions, fuck him.

  • Killazontherun||

    Especially, given his corpse is still warm.

  • SugarFree||

    The show will be fine. They still have the gay kid, the other gay kid, the teacher that's in the closet, the enormous black girl who's still in the closet, the kid in the wheelchair that's still in the closest, the lesbian with permanent bitchface, the lesbian blonde with the low IQ, and Butterface Prime.

    I've never seen an episode. This is all based on promo's on other Fox shows.

    "What the hell are regionals?"

  • AuH20||

    I'd just like to note that in the cast member death watch:

    Glee 1
    Community 0

    See, Community? This is why you don't get the big ratings!

  • Killazontherun||

    Nephew is in love with Butterface Prime. I sent him a text when I read about this about an hour ago that she just became available.

  • Bam!||

    Which one is Butterface Prime?

  • Killazontherun||

    Michelle Lea

  • seguin||

    You just made me think of Allison Brie and "Boopity Doop Boop Sex." Damn.

  • robc||

    You just made me think of Allison Brie and "Boopity Doop Boop Sex." Damn.

    That is never a bad thing to think of.

  • PH2050||

    I must know...

    Which one is Butterface Prime?

  • ||

    Anyone taking bets? OD or suicide?

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Autoerotic asphyxiation. Gone wrong.

  • ||

    Yes, Grasshopper.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Hey, I gave you what you need. It's the devil inside that made me write it. So don't lose your head, I'm just elegantly wasted.

  • Hawk Spitui||

    FREE AT LAST! FREE AT LAST! THANK GOD ALMIGHTY HE’S FREE AT LAST!

  • Killazontherun||

    NG! NG! NG! NG!

  • Killazontherun||

    Yeah, I experienced that firsthand the first go around in '95, and it was not a pretty sight then either.

  • Lord Humungus||

    My Facebook has been pretty quiet on this, but I normally block seeing the true lefties. One person has a Keanu Reeves meme photo that said: "What is the Zimmerman Trial is being used by the government and its media to promote racially-driven civil unrest as another step toward martial law America."

    A little tin-foil hat-ish but still toward the right target.

  • Irish||

    He had me until martial law. That's where the tin foil hat goes on. The rest is pretty much completely accurate.

  • John||

    Maybe I am naive. But I really think this thing is going to fizzle and fade away. Only really retarded seem to be butt hurt about this. The case was so embarrassingly bad. And moreover, it is really boring. Rodney King had a cool video tape. Other cases have hot women accused. This case has a nerdy looking guy and no good pictures. In the day and age of instant gratification, people are going to move on pretty quickly.

    No youtube, no hot chicks, no dead children, no kitties, what does this case have to stay relevant in the internet age?

  • Dweebston||

    But it whelped such memorable memes as "skittles and tea," "creepy-ass cracker," and the hoodie thing.

  • ||

    The media will hold to the formula:

    Hype it, play the race card, incite rage, talk incessantly about the possible outcomes, have talking heads make predictions, report every irrelevant detail, read racist overtones into those details, go on jury watch, make more predictions, release the verdict in an orgasmic crescendo, pray for riots to prolong the story, get the talking heads together to criticize the verdict, get the widow on the set, milk it for all it's worth, get the first cousin's brother in-law to give his opinion, never mention it again.

    Wait for the next incident.

    Wash, rinse, repeat...

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Or ignore it, if it doesn't fit the narrative.

    Police: Mableton fatal assault not racially motivated

    The deadly assault of a Mableton man has become a national story, at least online, with several web sites and blogs claiming Joshua Chellew was killed because he was white.

    Initially reported as a hit-and-run, police now say Chellew died June 30 after an attack by four black teenagers in Cobb County

    Note how they carefully leave out certain facts, like how the victim was 36, and had a criminal history consisting of a DUI and a ticket for running a stop sign. Doesn't sound much like a gang banger to me. Of course you never know, but the attempted misdirection is obvious.

  • Dweebston||

    I've been surprised by my friends' restraint, and being a college student in my mid-twenties, I do not lack for left-leaning friends. I may need to rethink just how pervasive this case was outside the usual political forums.

  • Irish||

    The internet tends to skew your view of what most people actually care about.

    The internet exploded over the Gosnell trial, but most people knew nothing about it. The same is true to a large degree of the Zimmerman trial.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The difference is that Gosnell actually murdered black children.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    666th comment = FAIL

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Which part was wrong - that Gosnell murdered children, or that they were black?

  • Damned Fool||

    ^This. Most people aren't politically aware enough to have strong opinions. It's one of the reasons opinion polling is so sensitive to small changes in wording or question order.

    Unfortunately, I was hoping to use this incident to purge my FB friends list, but not enough people are saying stupid things, and those who are also happen to be acquaintances I need to keep because I'll see them on a regular basis.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Most people aren't politically aware enough to have strong opinions.

    What?

    We have an astoundingly politically UNaware population, yet most people have astoundingly strong positions. The caveat is that they are not strong about the positions themselves (principles), but on who said/holds said positions (principals).

  • Damned Fool||

    I did some research on survey research during the last academic year and there were three main schools of thought on polling that we learned about. The first is that people have stable and clearly defined (which is what I meant by strong) opinions and we can measure them accurately. The second is that the majority of people hold no such opinions and are essentially pawns for manipulating the numbers by word choice and such. The third is that people have strong, but sometimes contradictory, impulses, and how you activate them determines the answer (e.g. "aid for the poor" is more popular than "welfare").

    Also, I think high info voters, academics, and the chattering classes have a tendency to project our focus on politics onto others who may not necessarily care.

  • Jordan||

    Judging by the links posted in this thread, Barfman is needed now more than ever. Why have you forsaken us, Barfman?

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • Irish||

    I'm going in. If I don't come back...just tell my wife I love her.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    ...They had all the conclusive evidence they needed at their fingertips, but de la Rionda (less so Guy and Mantei) acted like a rank amateur in court. Given his nearly spotless record of convictions, it couldn't have been an accident that he appeared so incompetent.

    Corey's presser clinched it. All I took away from her appearance was "we did what we said we would and gave you his day in court, now go home and shut up, after you take my picture!"

    I hadn't taken seriously the warnings that they were throwing it either, but I am now....

  • Irish||

    They had all the conclusive evidence they needed at their fingertips, but de la Rionda (less so Guy and Mantei) acted like a rank amateur in court. Given his nearly spotless record of convictions, it couldn't have been an accident that he appeared so incompetent.

    What evidence is this? Tell me what evidence they should have used that would have been admissible in court.

    Jesus, the Kos Kids are utter morons.

  • dinkster||

    The prosecution was pretty incompetent

  • mad libertarian guy||

    In the prosecution's defense, it's because they didn't have much to work with. Flimsy witnesses who changed their stories, and no evidence to to prove their case was anything other than politically motivated.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Even leftist lawyers fully concede that the state had no fucking case and are flabbergasted at how utterly stupid the vast majority of their fellow leftists are when it comes to the law.

  • Irish||

    The left is upset that the prosecution couldn't just claim Zimmerman was a vile racist and that it is the duty of all good people to see him hanged.

    They don't seem to understand that smearing Zimmerman as a racist is not something that is admissible in court unless the crime itself can be proven to have been committed as a result of racism. Since, contrary to left-wing delusion, there isn't actually any evidence that this was committed as a result of racism, the prosecution had no ability to turn this trial into the racial referendum that the left so sorely wants.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Once again, reality refuses to conform to leftist visions of how America ought to be. Clearly something needs to be done about reality.

  • ||

  • ||

  • ||

  • Virginian||

    Yeah and you gotta remember Dershowitz is a hardcore leftist. He thinks the 2nd Amendment should be repealed. He is died in the wool truly leftwing.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Also a defense attorney, but yes, good point. He also spoke against what he deemed vigilantism in some cases - but not in this case which he's clearly not putting in the vigilante category despite the narrative.

  • Irish||

    But the state could sentence (70+ / 0-)
    a black woman who shot a warning shot (and was not allowed to plead the stand your ground law) with no one hurt, let alone killed, to 20 years in prison.

    The state is not an avenger, but the state should be seeking to do justice.

    Abomination.

    They love bringing this case up, but don't seem to understand it. The woman who fired a warning shot returned to the house and fired the shot after returning to the fight. This is completely different than shooting someone who is on top of you.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Yeah, the travesty in that case is not that she was found guilty, but the mandatory sentencing that required 20 years.

    On Aug. 1, 2010, Alexander was working for a payroll software company. She was estranged from her husband, Rico Gray, and had a restraining order against him, even though they'd had a baby together just nine days before. Thinking he was gone, she went to their former home to retrieve the rest of her clothes, family members said.

    An argument ensued, and Alexander said she feared for her life when she went out to her vehicle and retrieved the gun she legally owned. She came back inside and ended up firing a shot into the wall, which ricocheted into the ceiling.

    Gray testified that he saw Alexander point the gun at him and looked away before she fired the shot. He claims she was the aggressor, and he had begged her to put away the weapon.

    A judge threw out Alexander's "stand your ground" self-defense claim, noting that she could have run out of the house to escape her husband but instead got the gun and went back inside. Alexander rejected a plea deal that would have resulted in a three-year prison sentence and chose to go to trial. A jury deliberated 12 minutes before convicting her.

    Of course the jury likely had no idea they would be putting her away for 20 years.

  • Brett L||

    Aha. That makes sense why the narratives all picked up with her telling him to leave the master bedroom. She was supposed to get a Sheriff's deputy or city cop to go with her at a notified time.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Yeah, they conveniently left out the part where she leaves the house, gets a gun, and then comes back before firing her "warning shot."

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    BOOOOSHHHHH!!!!!

    This Florida Prosecutor Angela Corey that's speaking right now on MSNBC is freaky. Why does she look like she's wearing stage makeup? She's smiling and chuckling at the cameras like she's on Letterman or something! WTF?

    It seems so inappropriate!

    Check out my progressive tshirts & gear: DemSwag.com or my hand-drawn reproduction of Rachel's Excelsior Poster from Friends available on cards, stickers, curtains etc.

    by Eileen B on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 07:27:38 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    They are all in the mold of that clown that helped elect Bush....what was her name. They all look like they just attended fright night.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    I stridently believe that in cases of self-defense and SYG, that the defended must be required to testify under oath to the jury and face cross-examination.

    I have no doubts that if Zimmerman wasn't a giant pussy and hid behind his highly paid attorneys then he'd be incarcerated tonight.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Govt attys suck, lets make everyone depend on govt:

    if the Martin family were able to hire the best attorneys available, and not have to go through the State, then there would be a different outcome.

    Instead you have a fucked-up system where the people who need justice the most get the state prosecution, and those who can most afford it get qualified attorneys.

    Perhaps if Zimmerman had to use a Public Defender, instead of having his character witnesses pay for attorney fees...

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    There's actually no evidence whatsoever (0+ / 0-)

    that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman. There is, however evidence that Zimmerman attempted to prevent Trayvon from getting to his destination.

  • Calidissident||

    The defense doesn't have to prove that Martin attacked Zimmerman. The prosecution has to prove that Zimmerman attacked Martin, and they didn't do that

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I must have missed the evidence GZ tried to stop TM...

  • Irish||

    That is awesome. I've heard similar arguments from liberals about how terrible medicare is.

    Medicare sucks because the government runs it poorly! Therefore, let's make government run all healthcare!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Dumbass teabaggers don't understand ecomonies of scale.

  • Dweebston||

    We lose money with every sale, but we'll make it up in volume.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Or more properly not just for this case.

    ALEC's behind destroying SocSec, Medicare, Medicaid, AFDC, and the thousands of US GIs we've lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention the thousands of women we're going to lose to enforced childbirth (11 year old rape victims aren't built right to survive that) and back-alley coathanger-wieldings.

    Them and the austerity wizards and Rupert Murdoch's lying "media" machine.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    I am a woman and I am feeling so threatened and dehumanized by the anti-choice legislation craze of late.
    I cannot imagine what people of color - especially women of color - are feeling at this time in our country and especially tonight.
    As I saw on Twitter, "the danger of acquittal isn't riots. It's more George Zimmermans".

  • Irish||

    the danger of acquittal isn't riots. It's more George Zimmermans

    Yes. The real threat is people making a black guy jump on top of them in order to be able to shoot him and claim self defense.

    There are hundreds of such plots currently under way.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    the danger of acquittal isn't riots. It's more George Zimmermans

    But the drug war is A-Okay because it protects those in black communities. Just ask Obama.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    ZimHole is a a hero & victim to the gun nuts & racists. I know it is complicated because z isn't white, but in some circles he'll be given points for shooting an African-American and using the gun he was carrying. He fired a shot for gun nuts all over the country.

    Stay low tonight. Could be lots of celebratory shooting.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    The Tea Party will probably try to draft him to run against Alan Grayson as part of their Hispanic outreach program.

    Seriously, at the basest level of racial fear and hatred that the modern GOP thrives on, whether they admit it or not they support Zimmerman. In their minds here was a proud supporter of the 2nd Amendment who hunted down one if those "moochers" and "takers" (in a hoodie no less) who "threatened" their community. I'm old enough to remember the support the beaters of Rodney King received on the Rush Limbaugh show more than 20 years ago. If anything the racial hostility on the Right is even more emboldened and blatant than it was back then.

    Am I correct that the way ALEC wrote the law that the Martin family cannot sue Zimmerman in civil court?

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Have you ever been on a jury...I have served on two and both the defense and the state almost always fail. You have to step up to the plate as a juror and work through the evidence to get to the truth. It is tough work but it can be done, these people did not do that. They just wanted to go home. SOMEBODY shot Trayvon in the heart and since he was armed with only skittles and an ice tea, it was Zimmerman, only a complete moron would have found differently.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    It's going to be open season on AA men and boys.

    Not that it wasn't before, but this takes it to a whole other level.

    Damn them for doing this.

    The heart just breaks for every parent of an AA child.

    And it is shattered for Trayvon's family. How does his little brother ever believe in Justice after this?

    How does anyone?

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    It's going to be open season on AA men and boys.

    Not that it wasn't before, but this takes it to a whole other level.

    If there is open season on black men and boys, who's doing 91% of the hunting?

  • Pro Libertate||

    I recall vividly Jesse Jackson, years ago, decrying the horrific statistics of black-on-black crime by noting that he was relieved when he heard footsteps in the city in the night and saw they were made by a white guy.

    A rare moment of trying to address a real problem. Plenty of white criminals, too, of course, but the statistics are distressing. At some point, black leadership needs to stop being the political tool of the left, who wants more than anything to perpetuate black dependence on them, and needs to work to actually solve these kinds of problems.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    At some point, black leadership needs to stop being the political tool of the left, who wants more than anything to perpetuate black dependence on them, and needs to work to actually solve these kinds of problems.

    It'll never happen. Here's why.

    As a woman of color, the Democratic Party is more of an inheritance than a choice. Questioning or disagreeing with the party we are born into is heresy. You are not allowed to fume at the people you elected into office to do their job to represent your interests: you can only mourn that the Republicans are mean. Affirmative action, despite statistical evidence that it does little to advance the plight of poor minorities in this country, is enshrined as a sacred cow, the hot iron one does not touch. If you are not a Democrat and live above the Mason-Dixon line, the assumption is you are against civil rights, social progress, women, people with disabilities, black people, immigrants, sunshine, happiness, and rainbows.
  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    His death brought this kind of travesty to the attention of the world. Not too long ago in the past, this kind of thing was invisible at a national level.

    It also shows us that those of us that believe that this is now a post-racial America are deluded, like Justice John Roberts.

    Maybe, his death wakes up and inspires more people to take up the cause of limiting 2nd Amendment rights to what the framers of the constitution intended and not what the NRA wants. Every person that joins the cause against ALEC and the NRA is a little victory. Sooner or later that becomes a big victory, and the George Zimmerman's of the US of A can no longer carry weapons. I just hope that Americans wake up sooner rather than later.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Personally, I think they decided to skip the SYG hearing was to avoid the possibility of an appeal that would find SYG unconstitutional. The NRA had to have been behind that decision.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Personally, I think they decided to skip the SYG hearing was to avoid the possibility of an appeal that would find SYG unconstitutional. The NRA had to have been behind that decision.

    Or, because, you know, SYG had nothing whatsoever to do with the case.

    We are getting close to my thoughts last night, and it hasn't even been 24 hours yet. Physics has no bounds in the world of liberal mental gymnastics.

  • Mike M.||

    Roger L. Simon nails it: A big loss for the race baiters.

    "Forget the over-zealous prosecutors and the repellent state attorney Angela Corey (who should be immediately disbarred or, my wife said sarcastically, elevated to director of Homeland Security) and even the unfortunate Trayvon Martin family (although it is certainly hard to forget them — they have our profound sympathies), the true loser at the Zimmerman trial was Barack Obama.
    By injecting himself in a minor Florida criminal case by implying Martin could be his son, the president of the United States — a onetime law lecturer, of all things — disgraced himself and his office, made a mockery of our legal system and exacerbated racial tensions in our country, making them worse than they have been in years. This is the work of a reactionary, someone who consciously/unconsciously wants to push our nation back to the 1950s."

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Was it really a loss, though? Headlines were made, divisions were widened, and most importantly, a president was re-elected.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    By injecting himself in a minor Florida criminal case by implying Martin could be his son, the president of the United States — a onetime law lecturer, of all things — disgraced himself and his office, made a mockery of our legal system and exacerbated racial tensions in our country, making them worse than they have been in years. This is the work of a reactionary, someone who consciously/unconsciously wants to push our nation back to the 1950s.

    This is bullshit.

    It was clearly white men even though the case consists of a hispanic man shooting a black guy who was then acquitted by 6 women.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Given his nearly spotless record of convictions, it couldn't have been an accident that he appeared so incompetent.

    Some "legal analyst" on Melissa Harris Pander went off on some weird tirade about Zimmerman's black gun in its black holster which apparently proved the prosecution willfully threw the game, for reasons which escaped me.

  • Jeff||

    Why a gun gotta be black, damn?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    if the Martin family were able to hire the best attorneys available, and not have to go through the State, then there would be a different outcome.

    Could somebody explain to me why Martin's family needed legal representation?

    Also, if you are going to hire somebody to speak for you one the teevee, try to find one who is at least marginally articulate.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I wonder what additional facts these personal prosecutors would have brought to bear.

  • Rich||

    Still hung up on that "facts" thing, eh?

  • lap83||

    At the bar last night, a young law student (who made sure we all knew her unapproachable authority on this) was complaining about their lack of legal defense in high minded tones. "I just think that everyone deserves The Best legal defense!"

    Even though, technically, if one side has The Best legal defense...that makes it impossible for the other side to have The Best. I guess they don't require logic courses in law school?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    I just think that everyone deserves The Best legal defense!"

    You should have gone all Socratic on her ass. If the best defense lawyer in America is busy defending a person in California, then how does the person in New York get the best legal defense?

  • Brett L||

    Wait, what? Just where would a fucking better lawyer have helped them? They already had the entire resources of the State of Florida at their disposal.

  • Damned Fool||

    Amanda Marcotte remains a cunt.

    "The George Zimmerman trial rocketed to the top of the headlines again with the revelation that a witness, deemed only witness #9 in the press, has accused Zimmerman not only of being a racist but also of having molested her for 10 years, from the time she was 6 until she was 16. (He is two years older than she is.) The defense repeatedly motioned to have the molestation testimony blocked, with no success. Now that the accusation is public, Zimmerman's attorneys have signaled that they intend to try to discredit the witness, which most likely means running the standard issue rape defense strategy of putting the victim on trial to convince the jury she was asking for it.

    The reaction to this news has generally been: It's irrelevant. That's what Jonathan Capehart* argues, reasoning at the same time that other accusations against Zimmerman—like his 2005 arrest for resisting an officer with violence, or the restraining order his ex filed against him for alleged domestic violence—are germane. That mentality—that sexual abuse is somehow less of a crime, or more of an anomaly than part of a pattern of violence—is totally wrong-headed. "

  • Irish||

    The reaction to this news has generally been: It's irrelevant. That's what Jonathan Capehart* argues, reasoning at the same time that other accusations against Zimmerman—like his 2005 arrest for resisting an officer with violence, or the restraining order his ex filed against him for alleged domestic violence—are germane.

    This is stupid. His use of violence against people in the past would be germane because it shows a history of the type of violence that might result in him murdering Trayvon Martin. A sexual assault 15 years ago is irrelevant because, whatever might have happened that night, we can all be pretty sure that Zimmerman didn't sexually assault Trayvon Martin.

    Amanda knows even less about the law than she does about proper use of the English language.

  • Eric Bana||

    I saw a great Facebook pic of a news anchor saying "In other news, millions of Facebook users suddenly get their law degrees."

    Perfect! Hahahaha!

  • Killazontherun||

    "Hey, I got a great speaking voice that I use to enunciate my feed like a pro and, plus, I look good on camera, so it's totally equivalent to a JD. Most bloggers would not even know what JD stands for, nor where the country of Latin is located."

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    AFAIK none of the jurors had law degrees, yet we're allowing their opinions to determine the outcome.

    Credentialism is silly and supportive of those in power.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I'm not sure what your point is. Juries are triers of fact, not law. That's an intentional division of responsibilities. Except in the relatively rare situation where nullification is in play, the jury plays no role in interpreting the law. They are, in fact, told what the law is and required to apply it in their analysis of the facts.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    My point is that complaining about people without law degrees making statements about the law smacks of credentialism and flies in the face of how our system actually works. It's even more untoward given that libertarians (rightly) chafe when a leftist asks "Do you have a degree in economics?" when we dispute something Krugabe et al. say.

    Facebook users have access to a shitload more instruction on the law than the judge gives the jurors.

  • John||

    Of course if people grossly misstate the law, as you often do, pointing out their lack of credentials is not credentialism but a statement of fact.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    If you believe I misstated the law point to the misstatement. No credentialism needed.

    Ironic, of course, that you would bring this up when you failed to note the differences between military and civilian trials re: "mendacious accused instructions" in the other thread. Unlike you I don't purport to have credentials.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Facebook users have access to a shitload more instruction on the law than the judge gives the jurors.

    That doesn't mean it's the relevant law, and that's probably part of the problem.

  • Irish||

    It's even more untoward given that libertarians (rightly) chafe when a leftist asks "Do you have a degree in economics?" when we dispute something Krugabe et al. say.

    Yes, but when I argue against something Krugman says using relevant facts, that is vastly different than some joker on Facebook getting angry that the prosecution wasn't allowed to bring inadmissible facts before the court. I've seen leftists upset that the claim that Zimmerman sexually assaulted one of his cousins wasn't admitted. It clearly had nothing to do with the case, and he also has yet to be convicted of this crime, a fact that means he is legally completely innocent of it.

    The issue isn't that leftists aren't credentialed lawyers, it's that everything they say about the law is provably wrong. Their smug self-assurance that they are correct in spite of all available facts just makes it all the more galling.

  • Chaucer||

    That wasn't just some news anchor. That was the Notorious P.A.B., Patti Ann Browne.

  • Calidissident||

    It's pretty sad when Lupe Fiasco has a far more sane and reasonable reaction to this case than the vast majority of the MSM

  • AuH20||

    I think what is really pissing me off about the reactions by liberals to this trial is it seems like they simply aren't existing in reality. I've met these types before in politics (worked a politic campaign once and had a few calls from a supporter of the other guy, who simply refused to accept a single fact I threw at her, even when I extensively sourced it, because everyone else was a liar but SHE, she knew the truth!) but it is infuriating. I'll allow for differences of opinion, and different solutions to political problems. But to simply deny reality because deep down, you know the truth and how dare anyone think you should let a little thing like objective reality intrude on it, fucking infuriates me.

  • Damned Fool||

    "That may all be true, but I have really strong feelings on the subject, OK?"

    / half the prog types I talk to using logic

  • SweatingGin||

    "That's just your privilege talking"

  • Irish||

    Everyone knows that logic is just a tool of the patriarchal white man.

  • LibertySushi||

    This would be funnier if I hadn't read so many liberal screeds that stand for EXACTLY that proposition. What a novel way to win in argument: "You're wrong according to the rules of logic", "Oh yeah? Well the rules of logic are RACIST"

  • Irish||

    This would be funnier if I hadn't read so many liberal screeds that stand for EXACTLY that proposition.

    That's why I said it. This is literally what they think.

    I remember after the Supreme Court struck down the idiotic section 4 provisions of the VRA, I read a left wing article that contained the following line:

    'While the Supreme Court can quote all the statistics it wants, many black people feel that those statistics don't represent their lived experiences.'

    In other words, we should ignore facts and evidence if someone tells us that those facts hurt their feelings and conflict with their anecdotal evidence.

    The party of science, ladies and gentlemen.

  • Damned Fool||

    "Reality has a well-known liberal bias, so we should be biased too."

  • AuH20||

    Whenever someone parrots that "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" line, I want to punch them in the face repeatedly. Because I've tried in the past to point out the contradictions (Oh, so you support greater use of nuclear power and fracked gas? And GMO for food?) but it doesn't reach their fucking brains.

  • Irish||

    Or the failure of top down economic planning. Or the denial of the existence of logic itself. Or bizarre claims about 'cultural relativism' that basically argues American culture is no better than the cultures that mutilate the genitals of women. Or the belief by the really hard left that fundamentalists in the Middle East are 'freedom fighters' and 'anti-imperialists,' despite the obvious fact that the fundamentalists' primary goal is oppression and the re-institution of an imperial caliphate.

    I could go on.

  • Hopfiend||

    It's not that top down planning isn't successful, but it has a greater level of failure than we intended.

  • LibertySushi||

    LOL I love "progressive" jargon. My personal favorites are "mansplain" and "whitesplain".

  • Damned Fool||

    You jest, but I saw some idiot on tumblr responding to a useful post on logical fallacies by saying that they were only true if you privileged Western logic over Eastern logic.

  • AuH20||

    I've seen feminists conflate "logic" with "men" as well as the "scientific method" with "men". It's why more women don't into math and science- the logic employed in both is innately patriarchal.

  • Irish||

    Someone mentioned that Atheism Plus calls it 'vulcan logic.'

    This is a group that claims to be comprised of skeptics and disparages the entire concept of logic. How can you be a skeptic if you don't believe in logic?

  • AuH20||

    They didn't come to atheism logically. They came to atheism because they view the opponents of abortion as religious fundamentalists. Therefore, all religion is evil.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    The Frankfurt School has done its work well. We now have a generation of people whose minds can actively reject facts and reasoning that do not align with "acceptable" political opinion.

  • JJK||

    When someone with the name AuH20 uses the word "pissing" it makes me chuckle.

  • LibertySushi||

    Sorry, while I'm on Zimmerman's side, Reason botched this story.

    SYG was explicitly mentioned in the jury instructions under the heading "Justifiable Use of Deadly Force"

    "If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place 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"

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2.....tructions/

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/1533.....structions

  • Pro Libertate||

    That's not SYG law; that's just part of self-defense. The special protections of SYG can prevent a murder trial from even happening.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    No, ProL, SYG is all about removing the duty to retreat.

    The prevention of a murder trial if SD cannot be disproven predates SYG in FL law.

  • Jeff||

    If he was pinned down, then he had no ability to retreat, let alone the responsibility to do so. SYG wouldn't seem to apply, anyway.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Agreed in this case. I don't know of any state in the US where his story wouldn't satisfy the SD requirements, if true.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Of course the burden of proof would be different in NYS or IL, for example, as he'd have to prove his version of events by preponderance of the evidence.

  • Pro Libertate||

    This is not a SYG case. The prosecution even said that in open trial. It's a self-defense case.

    Note that the defense likely avoided an SYG hearing because their case was based entirely on Zimmerman not having an ability to retreat when the shooting happened.

    I suppose an SYG issue could've been raised if the evidence proved that Zimmerman initiated the use of force, then claimed self-defense. I believe in Florida that he can't raise self-defense then unless he attempted to retreat. But that's not what happened here.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Yes, but the instruction LS was quoting from was about SYG.

  • robc||

    I think there is a difference between the general phrase "stand your ground" and the specific STAND YOUR GROUND law.

    And that is causing confusion here.

  • ||

    I think LibertySushi's point is that the judge referred to SYG in her instructions to the jury.

    But IIANM judges tend to include points of law that are not necessarily relevant just to make sure they've covered everything. Again, IIANM, failing to mention something can get a reversal on appeal and jugdges hate getting reversed.

  • robc||

    I dont think the judge was referring to the SYG law but using the general phrase "stand your ground".

    I could be wrong, but I think that is what is going on.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    The SYG law is all about the duty to retreat (or lack thereof). Despite what the various alleged lawyers on the thread are saying.

    There's nothing sadder than a person pulling out credentials on you when they don't know what the hell they're talking about. At least people without credentials would have an excuse for being wrong.

  • Pro Libertate||

    This is not an SYG case. There's no allegation that Zimmerman had an opportunity to retreat (the prosecution was suggesting that he basically hunted down and attacked Martin), nor that he had a duty to given the defense facts. The defense didn't raise SYG. Self-defense is the sole issue--Zimmerman admitted to shooting Martin, after all.

  • Calidissident||

    According to Zimmerman, he didn't have a chance to retreat, so the "duty to retreat" is irrelevant. In his story, Martin attacked him and was quickly on top of him beating him. There was no way he could have retreated in this scenario.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    True, but if the jury disbelieved that part of GZ's story, then SYG might come up (though it's hard to see how).

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • lap83||

    African American society is in big trouble if the members must be sheltered from any hint of criticism. Then the act of having standards becomes the only sin.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Burn the witch!

  • ||

    As I predicted: Not Guilty.

    The system (usually) works, and although Zimmerman was unjustly charged with MURDER, for political reasons (see: Diallo), the jury saw through the bullshit and did the right thing.

    Most people will never have to use deadly force and will never be placed in a situation where somebody is using such force against them. Zimmerman WAS placed in that situation and did the right thing.

    "I stridently believe that in cases of self-defense and SYG, that the defended must be required to testify under oath to the jury and face cross-examination.

    I have no doubts that if Zimmerman wasn't a giant pussy and hid behind his highly paid attorneys then he'd be incarcerated tonight."

    Zimmerman did not pussy out. He spoke to the cops on the scene, and that gives him huge credibility imo, and they made the right decision , along with the prosecutor. NO CHARGES. Then, the political juggernaut kicked in. He didn't need to testify at trial. The facct pattern was laid out well, and the prosecution FAILED to make their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

    This trial shouldn't have even happened, and Zimmerman has been put through the ringer, called a racist, a murderer etc.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I have the impression that criminal defendants don't usually testify. I don't know that for a fact, though.

    Bet they rarely do when the prosecution has such an obvious loser of a case. Some risk, no return.

  • ||

    Exactly. It's basic game theory. The defense CLEARLY established reasonable doubt (and then some). It wasn't necessary for him to testify.

    I'm not sure the %age of defendants that do testify vs. those that do. In *my* court experience only, I'd say it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 50%, but that's just my case experience (maybe n= about 150 trials (obviously not including grand jury))

    Your point is valid.

  • Pro Libertate||

    The best and most credible witnesses for Zimmerman, were, in fact, the prosecution's witnesses. As the shooter, Zimmerman couldn't hope to approach their credibility. So why try when all they said was good.

    The prosecution pretty much lost when the MMA-style beating was testified to.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Still trying to identify Zimmerman with the cops who shot Diallo? Have you no shame?

  • ||

    No, I'm identifying the CHARGING decision with the Diallo case. There is no way the fact pattern there supported a MURDER charge, just like in this case, and the SOLE reason a murder charge was brought was because of political pressure, and that's pressure of the race card variety.

    That is the analogy to Diallo. Diallo was dissimilar in the fact pattern, but similar in the politics.

    For a cop case that is similar in fact pattern, the case of the cop who shot the guy after he swung the bag of beers and struck the cop in the head, is a good analogy. There, of course the reasonoids figger'd it unjustified, but they don't extend the same benefit of the doubt to cops that they do to Zimmerman.

    The Diallo case is also similar because the jury saw through the political bullshit and acquitted. Fwiw, I predicted an acquittal there, as I did here, and it happened.

    Diallo himself is unlike Martin in that he was truly an innocent and did not use force whatsoever against the cops. Again, the fact pattern is very different. THe political underpinnings are very similar.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    So let me get this straight: Diallo didn't use force against the cops, the cops shot him to death anyway, and the jury's acquittal was "seeing through the political bullshit".

  • shamalam||

    I remember the "bag O beer" assault. I agree with you, quite similar. The cop did nothing wrong.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    IIRC the bag of beer guy didn't succeed in hitting the cop's head, it was just an attempt.

    Still justifiable since that is a deadly weapon.

  • robc||

    Wasnt the argument in the bag o beer case that the swinging of the bag was in self defense to begin with?

    The argument was the cop was the cop committed assault and the guy swung the bag in self defense, and then the cop escalated.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Apparently he was fleeing from police when he was struck. You don't have a right to SD in that situation.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    For a cop case that is similar in fact pattern, the case of the cop who shot the guy after he swung the bag of beers and struck the cop in the head, is a good analogy. There, of course the reasonoids figger'd it unjustified, but they don't extend the same benefit of the doubt to cops that they do to Zimmerman.

    Oh, right, you mean where the guy was attacked from behind by a cop with a baton, and then supposedly fought back by swinging a bag (which the cops absolutely knew only contained a couple of beer cans, because he had already been searched and frisked.) Oh, and there just happened to be this really wierd glitch in the surveillance tape right before the moment the cop swung his baton until after the shooting. Sure, that's exactly like the Zimmerman case.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    No, you must be talking about a different case.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    No, I'm not. It was former NFL player Deacon Turner. Look it up.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I remember a case involving a former NFL player in a parking lot with his son swinging a bag of beer cans around at cops.

    But in that case the cop didn't "attack him from behind with a baton", the cop stopped him in the parking lot and started asking questions, and when he tried to walk away that's when the sparks flew.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Yes, the cops stopped him, frisked him, and questioned him. He got tired of the questions, picked up his bags, and started to walk away. Everything to this point was caught on a surveillance tape.

    One of the cops then attacked him from behind with a baton, and supposedly got hit in the head with the bag. The other cop then fired two shots and killed him.

    Witnesses disputed the police account of the shooting, but strangely enough, the camera glitched right before the baton attack, and started working again after the shooting, so their statements could not be corroborated with the video evidence.

    A shooting review board cleared the deputy that shot and killed Turner of any wrong-doing, while adding a detailed picture to what happened that night.

    It all started about 12:45 a.m. on July 10, at the Fastrip store at Niles Street and Mt. Vernon Avenue, when deputies confronted Turner, who they thought may be buying alcohol for minors. Turner was detained in the parking lot with his 19-year-old son and a 16-year-old juvenile. But as deputies began to investigate, they say he picked up his two grocery bags and tried to walk off. Sheriff Youngblood said Turner had two warrants out for his arrest, and that may be why he became aggravated. A deputy went after him and hit him in the lower legs with a baton. That's when they say Turner struck Deputy Aaron Nadal in the head, and his beat partner Wesley Kraft shot him.
  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    In that case he was fleeing from police. Would you rather they immediately shoot him in the back?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Would you rather they immediately shoot him in the back?

    What I think they should have done is irrelevant to my original point, which is that the shooting is not a good analogy to the Zimmerman case.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Would you rather they immediately shoot him in the back?

    Cops can't aren't supposed to be able to shoot anyone who's fleeing unless they are are an imminent danger, right?

  • tarran||

    but strangely enough, the camera glitched right before the baton attack,

    It wasn't strange at all; the camera was activated by a motion sensor monitoring the sidewalk just in front of the liquor store and would operate for about 5 seconds after the motion sensor stopped triggering it.

    When I saw the video, they were dropping about 2 seconds out of every 15.

    The police detained their victim on the opposite side of the parking lot. The action was way outside the motion-detector's monitoring zone. It was just happenstance that resulted in the initial confrontation being recorded: people were entering and leaving the store. The camera then shut down and was re-triggered by people coming out of the store to watch the altercation.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "He spoke to the cops on the scene, and that gives him huge credibility imo...He didn't need to testify at trial."

    He didn't need to talk to the cops, either. The benefit he got from doing so was that he enhanced his credibility *with the cops* and the cops initially chose not to charge him...how did *that* work out? He ended up charged anyway, and the prosecution tried to use his statement to the cops to say he was a liar. Oops.

    I'm not sure how someone can enhance their credibility by talking to the cops, but failing to testify to a jury doesn't mean anything. Unless cops are more entitled to respect that jurors.

  • AuH20||

    A part of me is tempted to pop onto one of the less populated comment threads on this shit I've seen (Autostraddle's) use a fake email, and step by step show why they are fucking retarded... but a part of me knows it won't work. The facts simply DO NOT matter to these people. No matter how much you point out that yes, there were probably grounds for legal self-defense even if you think Zimmerman is a racist dick, it simply will not get through these people's heads.

    I think that is ungodly frustrating. You could go step by step, logically showing them why they are wrong, and they are just going to go, "LALALLA I'M NOT LISTENING BLACK KID KILLED EVIL ADULT WHITE PEOPLE POST-RACIAL AMERICA IS BULLSHIT!"

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Humans are tribal creatures by nature. Loyalty to the group (even when not expressed or understood consciously as such) runs much deeper than logic.

    It's present in all of us, and must be consciously fought against every day of our lives. It just becomes more obvious when it's the other side doing it.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    When I was a teenager in the '70s, it was not at all unusual for me to be challenged if I was walking through a neighborhood after sundown. I was expected to identify myself and explain what my business was. Even if the challenger was unnecessarily rude about it, that didn't give me leave to pound his head into the sidewalk.

    I guess times have changed.

    And yes, I'm white--so white I'm translucent. And I still got challenged.

  • John||

    When I was a teenager in the '70s, it was not at all unusual for me to be challenged if I was walking through a neighborhood after sundown. I was expected to identify myself and explain what my business was.

    The exact same was true in the 1980s. There was a time when teenagers were expected to respect the adult homeowners in an area. Now not so much. Sadly, forgetting this little convention is as much as anything what got us here. If Martin had been anything but a cocky piece of shit and just told Zimmerman he was walking back to his uncle's house, this whole incident wouldn't have happened.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    In the 1990s too, and I'm not sure it's not true today.

    The left threw their brains out the window on this case so it's not something you can extrapolate norms from.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    I guess I'm just trying to reason through something that reason doesn't apply to.

    The way I figure it, young males have been society's troublemakers since the beginning of time, and society has been trying to deal with it since the beginning of time. Young males will always be regarded with suspicion, generally with good reason.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I'm trying to imagine how the Outrage Industry would react if a white kid were walking through a black neighborhood and beat the shit out of a black guy who he thought was following him. Particularly if he told his girlfriend on the cell phone that some "macabre-ass monkey" was following him.

  • John||

    Change the situation. Imagine Martin as a white kid with a criminal record whose girlfriend testified to him saying "there is creepy ass nigger following me" and then proceed to double back and attack a middle aged and upstanding black man worried about crime in his neighborhood.

    If the black man had had a gun and shot the kid, we never would have heard about this case. If not, and the white kid had seriously beaten the black man, it would have been on national media as an example of a hate crime.

    This whole case is about tribe not facts.

  • shamalam||

    There actually was a case like you describe, John. It happened in Florida about 10 or 15 years ago. The black guy shot and killed a 15 year old white kid. The guy was charged with manslaughter or M2 and tried. The facts in the case were considerably more damaging to the shooter than the facts against Z. The hoodlum kid threw a brick through the guy's window and the shooter came out of his house armed with a 357 revolver and confronted the kid and shot him dead. The shooter was acquitted!

    FrontLine or 20/20 or one of those types of shows did an hour long show on the trial. I watched it and was convinced the guy was not guilty. I wish I could find a link to that show, I would like to post it at various places.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    I remember that case - Adrian Crump, in 1992.

    The defendant claimed he thought the teenager was armed with a gun because he thought it was a bullet that had been shot through his window, when it was actually a rock from a slingshot. During the trial the defense used a slingshot to shoot a window panel when the jury wasn't expecting it, to show how Crump could make that mistake. Very dramatic, and it worked extremely well.

  • shamalam||

    Thanks, Fatty, for the link. I have been wracking my brain for weeks trying to find this link.

    There was a "48 hours" episode about this. If you are interested and can watch it, I suggest you do.

    So much for the "if the roles were reversed" argument.

  • John||

    Did he get convicted?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    No, like shamalam said, he was acquitted.

  • tarran||

    No. Found not guilty. I remember that case too. Basically, the guy thought he was pursuing someone shooting randomly into houses, and his intention was to arrest him and wait for the cops.

  • Mike M.||

    I too in my youth was told a couple of times by elder members of the oppressive white patriarchy to get off the street and go home. And it never occured to me that I ought to channel my inner mixed martial artist and do the ground-and-pound on the guy.

    But things are definitely much different today. Even good parents have a really hard time in fighting against all the malevolent cultural forces that are out there now.

  • ||

    Depends where you are. I'd never tell a kid in the city to get off my block.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    I heard a jibe today from an NAACP spokesman that I thought was interesting: that Zimmerman was a "self-appointed neighborhood watchman".

    Zimmerman didn't just strap on his gun and start roaming the neighborhood; he was a member of an organized program. Now, perhaps Neighborhood Watch programs have changed since I last participated. But as I recall the local police run the program. And the citizens are volunteers. Interesting that volunteering to serve your neighborhood now makes one the object of sneers. I guess it's "wrong" unless the federal government is running it.

  • John||

    There was nothing self appointed about him. But since when did the NAACP let the facts get in the way of a good hate rant?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Depends on the area. Some neighborhood watches are informally organized and have nothing to do with the police (beyond calling them to report crimes/suspicious people).

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Actually, looking further into the case, this neighborhood watch was not sanctioned by the police (who had no agreement with the HOA for patrols) and according to the HOA president's testimony, Zimmerman was in charge of it.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    according to the HOA president's testimony, Zimmerman was in charge of it.

    Which indicates to me that Zimmerman's neighbors trusted him.

    I, on the other hand, made sure my neighbors stopped bugging me to join the neighborhood watch.

  • some guy||

    I, on the other hand, made sure my neighbors stopped bugging me to join the neighborhood watch.

    I assume you did this by repeatedly refusing to report instances of drug use, prostitution and gay marriage within your community?

  • John||

    http://www.newscientist.com/ar.....eLyhKHe7Tq

    Yes, most food allergies are psychosomatic.

  • shamalam||

    This has been my opinion for a long time. Gluten is simply protein, the exact same shit that all of us are made from. There might be one person in a million who is allergic to it, but there are oracles trying to convince all of us to forego it. Best possible response it to laugh at them.

  • Xenocles||

    There are a lot of different proteins. It ought to be obvious that since gluten is only found in certain foods, it is not identical to other proteins. Animals digest the protein they consume and use the constituent amino acids to synthesize the proteins they actually need. The actual structure of your body is probably zero percent gluten.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Says an assistant professor of Chinese philosophy, about one kind of food allergy (gluten), with no evidence.

    I've observed food allergies in infants, not sure how they're convincing themselves.

  • Xenocles||

    Sure. All you have to do is believe that we understand allergies completely, or that we have an infallible test for them.

  • amelia||

    I wish my food allergies were psychosomatic so I could get hypnotized or something, and get rid of them. Milk protein, wheat protein, chocolate, and citric acid. I can't eat anything! And they were diagnosed by a doctor, not by me.

    There is a difference between a food intolerance and a food allergy, BTW. See here:
    http://www.mayoclinic.com/heal.....gy/AN01109

  • RG||

    The Atlantic has gone full stupid, too.

    The reaction Saturday night, shortly after 10 p.m. ET, when the six woman jury found Zimmerman not guilty of second degree murder and acquitted him of manslaughter for killing Trayvon Martin, was swift, immediate, and one primarily of disgust for a broken justice system. Zimmerman's lawyers and family got to go on television and dance on the dead black boy's grave. Martin's family thanked people for fighting for their son. There was a verdict, but no answers. Everyone from celerities to athletes expressed their outrage over what was seen as an extreme injustice.

    http://www.theatlanticwire.com.....ict/67152/

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Everyone from celerities to athletes expressed their outrage over what was seen as an extreme injustice.

    Because when I want hard hitting analysis of the facts that address the law, I turn to celebrities and athletes.

  • RG||

    Maybe Amanda Bynes and Dennis Rodman should get an hour special to discuss the verdict.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I'd bet money that the day after that special, people would be quoting them on Facebook.

  • Nazdrakke||

    Because when I want hard hitting analysis of the facts that address the law, I turn to celebrities and athletes.

    I wonder if there is a logical fallacy that the left is not going to employ in regards to this verdict over the next few days.

  • sticks||

    Coates' post today however was somewhat levelheaded. Except for this bit:

    An intelligent, self-interested observer of this case, who happens to live in Florida, would not be wrong to do as George Zimmerman did--buy a gun, master the finer points of Florida self-defense law and then wait.
  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    And then wait... until someone attacks you.

  • sticks||

    Yeah that bit is always left unmentioned.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    The white man walked

    Correction: The white/hispanic/black man walked. Because, you know, race matters.

    Zimmerman's lawyers and family got to go on television and dance on the dead black boy's grave.

    If someone tells me "you're going to die tonight" and attempts to make good on the threat, then I would rather be the dancer than the corpse.

    Everyone from celerities


    Hello, mister professional writer man. Learn how to spell "celebrities." Not that a celebrity's opinion counts for much in legal matters.

    Almost certainly a wrongful death civil action for money damages filed by the family of Trayvon Martin," CBS's Andrew Cohen, who also contributes to the Atlantic, said last night.

    Then Andrew Cohen is a fucking idiot. When a homicide is justified by self-defense, then the deceased bears the responsibility for their own demise.

  • Pro Libertate||

    There are different standards of proof between murder and wrongful death. While the evidence doesn't seem to achieve a preponderance of the evidence, either, it is a lesser burden. Ask OJ.

  • RG||

    JFC, the Lecturer in Chief just had to weigh in. If only he didn't have the compulsive need to share his wisdom with us rubes.

    http://politicalticker.blogs.c.....?hpt=hp_t2

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    How dare you question him. He has a law degree from Harvard, you uncooth boor.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    At least Obama didn't go all Tywin Lannister and start a war to avenge his son and the honor of his house.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Now seriously:

    We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this

    So, he wants this to be about gun control?

    I'm certain every word was vetted by his campaign staff, who have proven that they really do know what they're doing even when they appear batshit insane, but WTF? He just got smacked down on that issue. Why is he going there? If he wants to energize the base it should be about race.

  • Rich||

    We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis.

    *** facepalm ***

  • Gus||

    "We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this"

    1. Stop glorifying the thug life.
    2. Repeat as necessary.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Although it's uncalled for, it isn't as bad as I thought it would be.

    "Jury decided, get over it" isn't the worst position he's taken on things. He takes a small political shot (Are we doing everything we can to minimize gun violence?), but it's miles better than anything the media is doing.

  • RG||

    It's amazing we have to lower the bar so much for this narcissistic assclown.

  • Mike M.||

    Translation: "Fuck, my plan completely failed. I'd better come up with something that sounds good to cover my ass."

  • lap83||

    The speech doesn't seem so bad until you realize it's all just a diplomatic way of saying "revenge is a dish best served cold"

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's bad because the hack keeps interjecting himself into a purely local matter. He has no business interfering in matters that are purely internal to Florida.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Are we doing everything we can to minimize gun violence?

    Google... Google... Google. Nope, drugs are still illegal.

  • Rich||

    That's *drug* violence, NEM -- and you *know* it!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    One way to minimize gun violence is not to jump on law-abiding gun-owners and pound their heads into the pavement. That would be a start.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis.

    I await Rahm Emanuel's response.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I just wonder how Saturday Night Live is going to respond (assuming they didn't last night).

  • Whahappan?||

    SNL is repeats until mid or late September.

  • Sidd Finch||

    HE GOT OUT OF HIS CAR!!!

  • Andrew S.||

    I really should have stayed off of the internet today. The amount of idiocy coming out on Facebook and Twitter (not counting the lefty sites; I expect it from there) just astounds me. It probably shouldn't, but it does.

  • JHK1776||

    The new Stand Your Ground law only requires law enforcement and the justice system to ask three questions in self-defense cases:

    Did the defendant have the right to be there? Was he engaged in a lawful activity? Could he reasonably have been in fear of death or great bodily harm?

    Without convincing evidence to the contrary, "stand your ground'' protection prevails. Also you cannot "provoke" the conflict but that is ambiguous at best & hard to prove if the other guy is dead.

    This is why over 70% of all cases where a SYG hearing is granted that the defendant wins and is free of legal and civil responsibility -- that is why it should be called "Fight to the Death"

    SYG is the only reason why GZ was not arrested. Under the old law, GZ would have had a duty to flee any situation that he fears or where he might get hurt. He called 911 and said that there was a suspicious guy- that alone meant he feared him and he then would have been legally obligated to escape the situation. Under the new law, he can engage the subject, kill him and be free of consequence -Mark O'Mara was smart enough to realize that the politics involved in the case would not allow the judge to dismiss the case due to SYG & he did not want to lose the self defense argument before the trial -- Under SYG- GZ should have never been arrested in the first place and I hope he sues the state for arresting him. People are getting shot in the back & are getting off from judgment due to SYG- Jacob you are a moron

  • AuH20||

    You... you just aren't that bright, are you? I'd say remember Socrates advice, but I'm guessing you think that's a great new Greek place that just opened around the corner.

  • JHK1776||

    do you have an argument or just an insult?

  • Gus||

    "that's a great new Greek place that just opened around the corner."
    I'd eat there.

  • John||

    Stand your ground is not duty to retreat you half wit. Learn what the terms mean and then come back and talk to us.

    Stand your ground means you can use deadly force in a fight you start if the other guy without justification resorts to deadly force.

    Duty to retreat says that even when confronted with deadly force, you still must retreat if such retreat is available. Stand your ground is all about what happens in mutual combat. Duty to retreat has nothing to do with mutual combat. In a duty to retreat state, if someone confronts me with deadly force, I must retreat if such avenues are available. Duty to retreat applies even if there is no physical fight.

    They are two different legal concepts. Either learn the terms or shut up. It gets tiresome giving constant law lessons to people like you.

  • JHK1776||

    "Stand your ground means you can use deadly force in a fight you start if the other guy without justification resorts to deadly force." -- No the other guy does not have to use deadly force for you to be free of consequence under SYG --

    Under duty to retreat, if you could not retreat, you had the right to use deadly force -- it just obligated the person to try and escape first before using it --

    You say "stand your ground is not duty to retreat you half wit." -- never said it was -- dont get your point

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Stand your ground is all about what happens in mutual combat.

    I don't think that is correct, though I might misunderstand you. Can you elaborate?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Stand your ground means you can use deadly force in a fight you start if the other guy without justification resorts to deadly force.

    No, it doesn't. I suggest you do some research at your local law library, or Wikipedia for a start.

    Stand Your Ground laws guarantee that if you are in a place where you have a right to be and are not committing a crime, you have the right to defend yourself from an attacker with no duty to retreat. It doesn't apply to situations where you provoke the fight.

    There is a provision in FL law, existing before SYG, that says that even if you provoke a fight, if the other person escalates it to the point where you fear for your life, and there is no avenue of safe retreat, you can use deadly force (again, assuming you're not committing a crime and are in a place where you have a right to be). THAT is the provision GZ was using.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Not an SYG case here, but even under not-SYG common law, the duty to retreat is only applicable if the defendant could do so in complete safety. Not the case here, even from the evidence provided by the prosecution.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Under the old law, GZ would have had a duty to flee any situation that he fears or where he might get hurt.

    Unless safe retreat is impossible, as it would be with Trayvon Martin on top of you gounding and pounding.

    He called 911 and said that there was a suspicious guy- that alone meant he feared him and he then would have been legally obligated to escape the situation.

    ??? No.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Suspicion =/= fear. If it is, you hand the police an excuse to draw down on suspects and argue that they were reasonably in fear for their lives (not that the police need any more cover for shooting anyone).

  • JHK1776||

    The people in Florida now have the right to shoot and kill anyone they deem suspicious and places them in fear of harm -- does not have to be physical

  • Calidissident||

    "The people in Florida now have the right to shoot and kill anyone they deem suspicious and places them in fear of harm"

    No, they don't

  • JHK1776||

    The new Stand Your Ground law only requires law enforcement and the justice system to ask three questions in self-defense cases:

    Did the defendant have the right to be there? Was he engaged in a lawful activity? Could he reasonably have been in fear of death or great bodily harm?

    As long as you can prove these three elements -- you cannot be prosecuted --

  • Calidissident||

    "Could he reasonably have been in fear of death or great bodily harm?"

    This is the key. You can't just kill anyone you deem suspicious or are afraid of. There has to be a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. In this case, Martin was on top of Zimmerman punching him and banging his head in the ground. Zimmerman didn't just walk up and shoot him

  • JHK1776||

    A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
    (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

  • JHK1776||

    Ok -- so if I am an a alley alone with a stranger and the stranger says to me ' I am going to kill you' - I have the legal right to shoot that person --

  • JHK1776||

    Because the State cannot disprove my fear or how I felt -- if there are no witnesses -- how could they?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    That's where the whole 'reasonable' comes in, it's an objective standard, not subjective.

    Perhaps you're just trolling here.

  • Irish||

    Ok -- so if I am an a alley alone with a stranger and the stranger says to me ' I am going to kill you' - I have the legal right to shoot that person --

    If someone approaches you in an alley and says 'I am going to kill you' you probably should have the right to preemptively stop him from killing you.

    Are you sure that's the example you want to use?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    If someone approaches you in an alley and says 'I am going to kill you' you probably should have the right to preemptively stop him from killing you.

    That's not necessarily enough. The threat needs to be credible and imminent to justify deadly force in retaliation.

    If it's a 300 pound NFL linebacker and you're a 100 pound woman, it would probably suffice (though good luck proving he said that it in court). If you're a guy and the threatener is the same size as you, probably not.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Your last prong is simply the common law as it was in most states in the US for most of history.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    The people in Florida now have the right to shoot and kill anyone they deem suspicious and places them in fear of harm

    Citation?

    does not have to be physical

    Citation? Or are you just talking out of your ass?

  • JHK1776||

    776.012 Use of force in defense of person

    (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

    Its the law moron -- It says nothing of having to be physically attacked first -- does it?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It would be hard to show a reasonable belief that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm without showing evidence of at least an imminent attack. I guess such a belief could be formed from someone seeming to 'draw first' on someone, but then I think a truly reasonable belief in that respect should be an excuse.

  • JHK1776||

    thank you -- finally a little sense -- why do you think 70% of the SYG cases get dismissed -- It is nearly impossible to disprove how the defendant 'felt' -- its subjective -- if I am walking alone and someone follows me - am I not reasonable in fearing for myself & preventing bodily harm? How would the police disprove what I say when all I would have to say his "well he followed me & said he was going to kill me" -- good luck disproving that with a dead witness --

  • JHK1776||

    google tampa tribune and Stand Your Ground to see some of the case where people have gotten off - & you tell me if they had "reasonable fear" or not --

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    In the law 'reasonable belief' is an objective, not a subjective standard. It's whether a reasonable person facing the circumstances would have had the belief.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Incorrect cite.

    If you are arguing Stand Your Ground, cite to the correct statute, which, as I pointed out below, is 776.013(3).

    Its the law moron -- It says nothing of having to be physically attacked first -- does it?

    Neither statute says anything about "suspicious" either, dumbass. And yet, here you are, arguing something that doesn't exist in the statute.

  • JHK1776||

    The old law worked well -- put it this way -- if you were in a road rage incident and someone one was following you -- you had to try to escape -- now you can stop the car, get out, kill the other driver and invoke stand your ground -- I still think GZ had a self defense claim -- it is just he would have been arrested immediately - and yes the police would have said - while why did you follow someone you thought looked dangerous? there is culpability there -- People always had the right to defend their life -- before they just had to flee first -- again GZ probably would have gotten off under the old law but at least he would have been arrested -- the circus would have never come to town

  • John||

    if you were in a road rage incident and someone one was following you -- you had to try to escape -- now you can stop the car, get out, kill the other driver and invoke stand your ground

    No you can't. Not unless you have a reasonable, immediate fear of death or bodily injury. Stand your ground doesn't change that requirement.

    The funny part about your post is that not only does it totally misstate the law, it also, if the logic is applied to this case effectively says the new law made it okay for Martin to attack Zimmerman. I don't think that means what you think it does.

  • JHK1776||

    No yes you can -- as long as you had fear of harm -- if I thought that the other driver was going to hurt me -- I could shoot him first -- I have no duty to leave the conflict -- In my example if I feared the other driver -- I can engage him with violence and end the threat & be free of consequence -- Martin did have a right to attack Zimmerman -- google Stand Your Ground & Tampa Tribune -- there are over 200 cases of SYG in Florida with 70% of the defendants being free to go after invoking the law -- including people who have killed unarmed people including shooting them in the back -- this is why every law enforcement agency in America is against it --

  • Calidissident||

    First off, Martin wasn't on trial, Zimmerman was. Secondly, there has to be a REASONABLE fear of death or great bodily harm. The law does not say you can shoot anyone as long as you thought they were going to hurt you.

  • JHK1776||

    What is "reasonable?" -- How can the State judge whether you were reasonable in your fear? What if you are alone at night -- and some stranger walks up to & has is hand in his pocket? Would you not be reasonably afraid of being harmed? it cannot be disproved --

  • Calidissident||

    "Would you not be reasonably afraid of being harmed?"

    If all he's doing is walking with his hands in his pockets, then no, you don't have justifiable reason to kill him. If Zimmerman had emerged from this struggle without a scratch on him, he would have been convicted. The fact that he had wounds (and witness testimony) consistent with his story of Martin beating him against the concrete was why he got off.

    In every state, the prosecution has to prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt. To take your stupid example, and assume that the shooter would get off in a state with SYG, which he wouldn't, in a state with a duty to retreat, couldn't the shooter just claim he/she tried to run away and then the person ran after them and was faster than them?

  • JHK1776||

    YOU CANNOT DISPROVE THAT -- that's the point -- you might not be justified in killing the person who is keeping his hands in his pockets but under the law -- you have the right to -- read the cases that have been dismissed under SYG -- I am not making this up --

    "couldn't the shooter just claim s/he tried to run away" -- well if they were running away - how did they shoot the person? Where is the bullet wound? in his back? b/c there have been cases of people in Florida that have been shot in the back - and yet were free to go under SYG -- I find it hard to believe that a guy with a gun would be running away from a conflict where the other guy was unarmed --

  • Calidissident||

    "I find it hard to believe that a guy with a gun would be running away from a conflict where the other guy was unarmed --"

    Did you not read the scenario? I'm saying if this took place in a state with a duty to retreat, the shooter would have to make the claim they tried to get away. If they heard the other person closing on them, and then turned around and shot them, by your logic, they would be not guilty. So what's the difference?

    What even is your point? That we should do away with reasonable doubt or self-defense laws?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    This.

    He says he has issue with SYG because it got rid of the duty to retreat but he really seems bothered by the 'reasonable belief' prong which is just straight up common law self defense. I've pointed out to him several times that 'reasonable belief' is an objective standard but he continues to attack it as a subjective one.

  • Irish||

    No yes you can -- as long as you had fear of harm

    No. It's as long as you had REASONABLE fear of harm. If someone gets out of their car and is yelling and angry, I cannot get out of my car, shoot him, and claim stand your ground. I can only do that if he is actually a clear threat to me.

    there are over 200 cases of SYG in Florida with 70% of the defendants being free to go after invoking the law

    What if 70% of those people should have been let free because they did nothing wrong? Then without the stand your ground law, there would be over 150 people currently in prison that don't deserve to be there. Unless you can prove to me that many of those cases should have resulted in a conviction, this statistic is meaningless.

  • JHK1776||

    "REASONABLE fear of harm. If someone gets out of their car and is yelling and angry, I cannot get out of my car, shoot him, and claim stand your ground. I can only do that if he is actually a clear threat to me."

    3 question Judges look at under SYG --

    Did the defendant have the right to be there? Was he engaged in a lawful activity? Could he reasonably have been in fear of death or great bodily harm?

    So you are telling me that a lawyer could not argue that a guy who gets out of his car and begins yelling at another driver does not put that driver in fear of being harmed? wow -- apparently you don't know any lawyers -- but it seems quite easy to me that if someone chased someone down and begin yelling at them that the defendant at a reasonable fear that he might be harmed -- google tampa tribune/stand your ground -- look it up yourself --

  • Calidissident||

    If all the guy's doing is yelling, and he's at a distance, and is not brandishing a weapon, then no a reasonable person would not have a fear of imminent death or bodily harm that would justify shooting him.

  • Irish||

    So you are telling me that a lawyer could not argue that a guy who gets out of his car and begins yelling at another driver does not put that driver in fear of being harmed?

    A lawyer can argue whatever the fuck he wants. What a lawyer argues is of no relevance.

    All that matters is whether or not he can win the case with his argument. Under the law, someone who shot a guy that was yelling at him would go to jail. If a lawyer wants to argue there was reasonable fear, then fine. No jury is going to buy that argument though, so your point is still unbelievably stupid.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    SYG probably wouldn't apply under any circumstances if you get out of your car while in the roadway, because in most places, barring an emergency, it's illegal to get out of your car in the roadway.

    Now, if you park off to the side of the road in a legal spot, maybe, but then we start getting into the possibility that you're provoking the fight, in which case SYG doesn't apply either.

    Methinks JHK has a much more expansive interpretation of SYG than is justified.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You'd have to have a reasonable belief you were in imminent danger of deadly force or serious harm, but that's always been the law in most US jurisdictions. The duty to retreat was a minority rule before SYG laws were heard of.

  • JHK1776||

    The common law principle of “castle doctrine” says that individuals have the right to use reasonable force, including deadly force, to protect themselves against an intruder in their home. This principle has been codified and expanded by state legislatures.

    Yes in your house but in public most states said you had to try to escape the incident & only use force as last resort -- as the law is now written -- If you and I get into a fight -- & I pull a gun and you plead for your life - I can now execute and be free of consequence -- when before -- once I pulled the gun and had you on your knees -- I would have to leave -- not any more

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "in public most states said you had to try to escape the incident & only use force as last resort "

    That's just wrong, flat wrong.

    See here for a very early recognition by the US Supreme Court that the general rule was to the contrary.

    http://supreme.justia.com/case...../case.html

  • JHK1776||

    "might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant, rather than kill him."

    In Florida before SYG -- this is what duty to flee said -- if you cannot escape then you can use deadly force -- now it says -- you don't have to try to escape and you can use deadly force -- under the old law -- you still had the right to use deadly force -- it was just last resort -- it does not have to be last resort any longer --

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Yes, it may have been Florida law before SYG, but my point is that SYG is not some new, revolutionary thing. The duty to retreat may have applied in Florida but it was not followed in a majority of US jurisdictions. See LaFave & Scott's 1986 criminal law treatise for example.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    If you and I get into a fight -- & I pull a gun and you plead for your life - I can now execute and be free of consequence

    You're wrong, it doesn't mean that at all. All it means is that you are not obligated to run rather than defend yourself. It does not mean that you can execute somebody.

  • Calidissident||

    Yeah I noticed that too

  • JHK1776||

    Are you kidding? Good luck trying to disprove that -- if we get into a fight -- and you punch me once -- I pull out a gun -- you scream for your life and beg -- I can put a bullet in your head & walk -- what the hell do you think just happened in the GZ case? Now really under SYG -- I could shoot you before you punched me --

  • Calidissident||

    "Are you kidding? Good luck trying to disprove that -- if we get into a fight -- and you punch me once -- I pull out a gun -- you scream for your life and beg -- I can put a bullet in your head & walk -- what the hell do you think just happened in the GZ case?"

    You think Zimmerman executed Martin after he was pleading for his life? All the evidence, forensic and witness, indicates that Zimmerman shot Martin while Martin was on top of him.

    As for your example, forensic evidence can tell how far away someone was when shot. If you're at a distance, and the other person is unarmed and standing still begging, there's no reasonable fear for your life. To even have a chance at getting off, you'd have to get up close and personal, which risks the other person disarming you. Furthermore, how is SYG relevant in this case? How would prosecutors in a duty to retreat state know that the other person begged for their life and that the shooter had an opportunity to escape.

  • JHK1776||

    NO your wrong there with the examples of being far away -- again take 5 minutes google Tampa Tribune/Stand Your Ground -- plenty of examples of people being shot in the back and at a distance -- even the case I just showed shows a woman who went into her house got a gun and shot a guy who was running down her street -- all she had to do was stay in her house -- but under SYG -- you can get into a conflict & kill the other person without being physically harmed -- You do not have to be up close and personal -- where does the law say that?

    It is relevant in the case because GZ should have never been charged. SYG is why he never was arrested.

    Well (last question) under Duty to Retreat -- the shooter would have to prove why he did not leave the situation where he had a weapon and the other guy did not -- so like ZImmerman -the defendant would have to have bruises and witnesses -- Under Duty to Retreat the shooter would have to prove why he did not retreat after he brandished his weapon -- I think that is reasonable -- there is not one case in Florida's history where someone who was attacked and tried to get away but could not -- killed their attacker and then got charged with murder -- never happened-- it is self defense -- now it is harder to prove intent & who the aggressor was b/c no one has to flee any the fight any longer

  • Calidissident||

    In the example you cited, from the article you posted, the guy was walking down her driveway, not her street, and was not shot in the back. And it was at her house, so castle doctrine would apply even in states that didn't have a SYG law for public encounters

  • JHK1776||

    Wrong Castle Doctrine only applies to inside your house -- not on your property --

  • JHK1776||

    No -- I said nothing of TM pleading for his life - I was giving an example -- not talking about the case

  • Irish||

    what the hell do you think just happened in the GZ case?

    I think that the evidence suggests Martin was on top of George Zimmerman hitting him repeatedly and slamming his head into concrete. He didn't 'punch Zimmerman once.'

    Stop lying about the case and stop lying about what Stand Your Ground means.

  • JHK1776||

    Here is case from Alabama -- a 21-year-old African American approached the home of his step-father’s ex-girlfriend in Jefferson County, Alabama, and ended up dead. The woman who lived in the home said she shot him out of fear for her safety, and as a result, no charges will be filed against her under Alabama’s Stand Your Ground law — the same law that gained notoriety after the tragic killing of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin.
    The woman, whose name was not released, said she was out walking her dog when she saw a man run by her home and went inside to get a gun. When she came back out, a man she believed to be the same person was walking down her driveway. She told him to stop, and that she had a gun. But he kept approaching. She shot and he died.
    Unfortunately, little else is known about the case, and likely never will be now that the inquiry has ended with the state’s Stand Your Ground law. The woman said she could not identify the man and feared he was planning to attack her. She said she had particular fear because her boyfriend had been recently robbed, according to Jefferson County District Attorney Brandon Falls. The man, Demetrius Antuan Thompson, had no criminal record. He had no known motive for an attack or break-in.

  • ||

    Geez Cali, where'd you find the unhinged psychopath?

  • ||

    Thanks to Anonymous Coward :

    (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
  • JHK1776||

    "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

    Right -- If I fear that you are going to attack me and cause me great bodily harm -- I can meet force with force -- I can shoot you before you harm me -- I have no duty to retreat & can stand my ground -- Are you guys arguing that I have to be beaten first physically? look at the Alabama case -- doesn't seem to be the case

  • Calidissident||

    Are you purposely ignoring the word "reasonably?" And have you read Bo Cara Esq.'s posts explaining what that legally means? And are you aware that this standard is true for regular self-defense cases not involving SYG?

  • JHK1776||

    can you explain to me the reasonableness of this guys fear?

    Pedro Roteta was 26 years old, a young barber who loved his nephews. But in early 2012, he tried to steal a radio out of Greyston Garcia's truck in Miami, Florida. Garcia's roommate alerted him to the attempted theft, and according to the Miami Herald, he grabbed a large knife and ran outside towards Roteta.

    Roteta ran, and Garcia chased him for more than a block, according to the Huffington Post. He then stabbed him in the back, killing him.

    A Miami-Dade County Judge recently threw out the murder charge against Garcia, citing Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    You left out the part where Garcia failed to notify the police after the stabbing. You also missed the part where Garcia lied to the police about his involvement in the homicide, which is what led to the initial prosecution (Aesop: Don't tell the cops anything, but don't lie, either).

    Finally, you left out the most important fact: that Roteta swung a bag full of car radios at Garcia, which the judge said constituted lethal force.

    But why let facts get in the way of your dishonest, weaselly bullshit?

  • JHK1776||

    Ok so we went from arguing what reasonable fear is and the justification of SYG and using deadly force to justify a guy who was in not in any fear or harm whatsoever to placing himself in a deadly situation and killing a guy over radios -- he walked and you are defending him for stabbing the guy in the back b/c the victim swung radios at his head --

  • Virginian||

    The thief is in the wrong. He stole shit, tried to run, then when he lost the footrace he took a swing at the guy he stole from. Said guy then defended himself.

    Fuck you and your pro-criminal bullshit. Pedro Roteta got exactly what he deserved for committing theft and assault upon an innocent man.

  • Irish||

    Fuck you and your pro-criminal bullshit. Pedro Roteta got exactly what he deserved for committing theft and assault upon an innocent man.

    BUT HE LOVED HIS NEPHEWS! Doesn't that mean he's allowed to commit any crime he wants and not face the consequences?

  • JHK1776||

    fuck you asshole

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Allow me to let you in on a little secret of our judicial system: Trial judges routinely fuck up. Sometimes, it's a fuck up on procedure. Sometimes, it's a fuck up on law. Occasionally, it's a fuck on the facts. That's why the dead white slaveowners thought having appellate courts would be a good idea.

    In this instance, it appears the trial judge fucked up on the law, which is why the state appealled the dismissal, which is irrelevant now because Garcia is as dead as Roteta.

    P.S., pick up a 5 pound dumbbell and hit yourself in the head. It will serve two purposes: First, it will practically demonstrate just how dangerous a five-pound weight (and thusly, a six-pound bag) can be. Secondly, it might improve your rhetorical skills.

  • JHK1776||

    Is this reasonable?

    Here is another case:
    Pedro Roteta was 26 years old, a young barber who loved his nephews. But in early 2012, he tried to steal a radio out of Greyston Garcia's truck in Miami, Florida. Garcia's roommate alerted him to the attempted theft, and according to the Miami Herald, he grabbed a large knife and ran outside towards Roteta.

    Roteta ran, and Garcia chased him for more than a block, according to the Huffington Post. He then stabbed him in the back, killing him.

    A Miami-Dade County Judge recently threw out the murder charge against Garcia, citing Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law.

  • Jeff||

    Don't blame Cali. MasterDarque has been with us for a long time now. This is just his new handle because he has posted so much flagrant nonsense under the old one that people would see his name, laugh, and keep scrolling.

  • JHK1776||

    Thank you Jeff -- I thought I was losing my mind for a bit --

  • Fatty Bolger||

    as a result, no charges will be filed against her under Alabama’s Stand Your Ground law

    Wrong again.

    "Relying on the "Castle Law" this was ruled justifiable by the district attorney's office,'' said Chief Deputy Randy Christian.
  • JHK1776||

    You always had the right to defend yourself in a fight -- it was just that before you shot someone or killed them -- you had to leave or try to leave - so before SYG -- if we got into a fight and I pulled a gun -- I would be under legal duty to leave the scene -- NOW I DON"T HAVE TO GO ANYWHERE -- I can kill you -- simple as that -- as long as these three elements are proven -- once again --

    1-Did the defendant have the right to be there?
    2 -Was he engaged in a lawful activity?
    3- Could he reasonably have been in fear of death or great bodily harm?

    Seems to me that I could answer all three Yes -- as Zimm proved great bodily harm could mean a broken nose or that I even feared a broken nose -- Once all three questions are answered -- The State could not press charges -- why is this so hard for everyone to grasp?

  • Irish||

    A few points:

    1. Why-do-you-keep-typing-like-this?

    2.

    if we got into a fight and I pulled a gun -- I would be under legal duty to leave the scene -- NOW I DON"T HAVE TO GO ANYWHERE

    WRONG. We have told you why this is wrong. You need to be in REASONABLE FEAR OF DEATH OR BODILY HARM. A fight is not reasonable fear of death or bodily harm, unless the person is actually attempting to kill you. If you throw a punch and I shoot you, I would still go to jail.

    3.

    as Zimm proved great bodily harm could mean a broken nose or that I even feared a broken nose

    Again, you're wrong about the facts of the case or you're blatantly lying. The issue wasn't that Zimmerman had a broken nose, it was that Trayvon Martin was on top of him and continuing to hit him in the face and slam his head into concrete. If Martin hit him once and broke his nose and that was it, Zimmerman would not have been allowed to shoot him. It was the continuing assault that put Zimmerman in reasonable fear of bodily harm, and that is why he was legally allowed to defend himself.

    Plus, Zimmerman was pinned to the ground. He couldn't have left anyway. What does anything you just said have to do with Stand Your Ground?

  • JHK1776||

    It cannot be disproven by LAW what I FELT -- you jackass

  • Calidissident||

    No one is disputing the points in the last paragraph. The vast majority of people here think there wasn't evidence to charge or convict Zimmerman. What's your point? Even in a "duty to retreat" state, Zimmerman could have claimed self-defense at trial (and he did not use the SYG law as a defense), because he didn't have an opportunity to safely retreat

  • Irish||

    I like that he actually mentions reasonable fear of serious bodily harm in his post, but doesn't seem to comprehend what reasonable fear of serious bodily harm means.

  • ||

    Mophead here is absolutely hilarious in his insanity.

  • JHK1776||

    How about this case jerkoff -

    Here is another case:
    Pedro Roteta was 26 years old, a young barber who loved his nephews. But in early 2012, he tried to steal a radio out of Greyston Garcia's truck in Miami, Florida. Garcia's roommate alerted him to the attempted theft, and according to the Miami Herald, he grabbed a large knife and ran outside towards Roteta.

    Roteta ran, and Garcia chased him for more than a block, according to the Huffington Post. He then stabbed him in the back, killing him.

    A Miami-Dade County Judge recently threw out the murder charge against Garcia, citing Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law.

  • JHK1776||

    I am not arguing that Zimm should be in jail -- my point is that he should have been arrested immediately and charged -- the case would have never been nation news -- he still might have gotten off but at least he would have been forced to answer why he engaged TM while he was armed and wanted to pursue him for some reason -- I do think the judgment was right but he should have been arrested sooner & charged with manslaughter

  • JHK1776||

    The law of self-defense is at its core about reasonableness. If a person reasonably perceives a serious threat of harm, and uses reasonable force to meet that threat, the law justifies even deadly force, and it does so even if it turns out that the perceived threat was illusory.

    If you did not have the means to kill me -- since I had a gun -- that does not matter any longer --

  • Calidissident||

    I'm not sure what your point is. In all the examples you're coming up with, the killer does not have a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily harm that would justify deadly force.

  • JHK1776||

    How about this case jerkoff-

    Pedro Roteta was 26 years old, a young barber who loved his nephews. But in early 2012, he tried to steal a radio out of Greyston Garcia's truck in Miami, Florida. Garcia's roommate alerted him to the attempted theft, and according to the Miami Herald, he grabbed a large knife and ran outside towards Roteta.

    Roteta ran, and Garcia chased him for more than a block, according to the Huffington Post. He then stabbed him in the back, killing him.

    A Miami-Dade County Judge recently threw out the murder charge against Garcia, citing Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law.

  • Irish||

    Pedro Roteta was 26 years old, a young barber who loved his nephews.

    This is of no relevance and only exists in a desperate attempt to stir up sympathy.

    Roteta ran, and Garcia chased him for more than a block, according to the Huffington Post. He then stabbed him in the back, killing him.

    Clearly this was not proper under Florida's self-defense law if it happened this way and the judge who threw out the verdict should be kicked off the bench.

    I notice however that you left this out:

    The judge said when Roteta swung a 4- to 6-pound bag of stolen car radios at Garcia just before the stabbing, it amounted to a lethal threat.

    I don't know what the situation looked like or how much danger Garcia was in, but the guy he was chasing attacked him with a bag of car stereos.

    The only reason you wouldn't include that is to willfully mislead us about the case and pretend that Roteta didn't attempt to harm Garcia. Clearly he did, which is why the judge overturned the ruling.

  • JHK1776||

    Hmm -- so you are saying that although Garcia -- who was not an any harm whatsoever -- chased a guy for stealing his radio and murdered him -- had the right to defend himself b/c they guy tried to fight him -- So you are saying that a person can murder someone for a radio -- seems very reasonable --

  • JHK1776||

    Oh yes -- who said Roteta swung 6 pound bag at Garcia? oh yes Garcia said it. Wow that's shocking -- you mean the guy that was not in harms way -- who chased down the other guy for stealing his radios -- said that he was attacked by the guy he was trying to knife? wow how shocking!

    Was it reasonable for Garcia who was in his house to be fearful from harm b/c Roteta was breaking into his car? I guess if someone was breaking into my car I would be fearful from great bodily harm to -- especially if I was in my apartment at the time of the breakin -- again you said that it had to be reasonable and that you could not attack first -- here is a prime example of guy who did not fear, had no reason to attack but did so -- and stabbed a guy in his back and walked --

  • JHK1776||

    point is that person who killed got off under STAND YOUR GROUND

  • Irish||

    Because the judge either made a mistake or the person got off because he was in danger from being attacked with car stereos.

    That has nothing to do with the validity of the law itself. If the judge was wrong she should be punished. If the guy's life was in danger from the bag of car stereos it was legitimate defense as he was attempting to retrieve his property. Either way, the judge either wrongfully applied the law, which can happen with any law, no matter how well written, or it was a proper case of stand your ground.

    Leaving out important info. like the fact that he was attacked with a bag of stereos and there is video of the incident makes it seem like you're still trying to lie and mislead.

  • ||

    Yeah, that will happen. That doesn't make your hypotheticals examples of a reasonable fear.

  • Irish||

    Yeah, that will happen. That doesn't make your hypotheticals examples of a reasonable fear.

    If it wasn't a reasonable fear, and I don't know if it was because I haven't watched the video, then the judge was incorrect.

    A judge incorrectly applying a law does not mean the law is wrong. It means the judge is.

  • JHK1776||

    Ok -- how about this case?
    Daniel Adkins, Jr., 29, was the only son of Daniel and Antonia Adkins of Phoenix. He was mentally disabled and lived with his parents. One night in April 2012, on his usual evening walk with the family dog, he stepped in front of a car in a Taco Bell drive-thru.

    The driver, Cordell Jude, 22, claims he mistook the bright green dog leash in Adkins' upraised hand for a bat or a pipe, according to the police report. Jude, who carried a Smith and Wesson .40-caliber handgun at his hip, shot him once in the torso and killed him. He stayed at the scene afterwards because Adkins' dog was still attached by the leash, and was apparently in the way of the car. But police did not arrest Jude.

    John Roman, a fellow with the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute, called the shooting a prime example of the trouble with "Stand Your Ground," which Arizona made law in 2006, with the NRA's support. He told USA Today that, because of the law, police can't arrest the shooter and question him in detail, even though the police report recommended second-degree murder charges against Jude.

  • JHK1776||

    here is another case for you -- here the defendant shot the guy twice -- but like you said -- you cannot execute anyone under SYG -- since you know everything -- this has to be a mistake --

    Christopher Cote was 19 years old in 2006 when his family moved to a neighborhood in West Palm Beach, Florida. In the early hours of September 17, 2006, according to the Florida Sun Sentinel, Cote confronted his neighbor, Jose Tapanes, over whether or not Cote was walking his dog on Tapanes' property.

    The two had apparently argued earlier in the day, and according to the Palm Beach Post, Cote had thrown a beer bottle at Tapanes that night.

    Tapanes shot Cote with his shotgun. According to Assistant State Attorney Andrew Slater, the first bullet grazed Cote's abdomen, and he was incapacitated, but Tapanes still shot a second time. "Cote is stumbling. He is no longer a danger, and the defendant can see what is going on," Slater said. "Why fire a second time?"

    Cote died in his mother's arms. Due to a mistrial, Tapanes was tried twice for first degree murder. He was convicted of manslaughter the first time, and faced 15 years in prison. At the second trial, however, he was acquitted under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. THe victim was unarmed.

  • Irish||

    And he was acquitted by a jury. Clearly the jury disagreed with the Attorney General's argument.

    What the fuck is your point? These men were tried and acquitted BY JURIES. The people on the jury obviously, after hearing more evidence than you've given us here, decided that these were reasonable cases of defense.

    The one person you quote is the State Attorney. I wonder why you don't quote the defense attorney?

    Cote's family members, who had tried to stop him from going back to Tapanes' house shortly before he was killed, left the courtroom immediately after the verdict was read...Prosecutors during this trial had only sought a manslaughter conviction. Haughwout said the jury's verdict showed a lack of evidence to support even that charge.

    "This was the appropriate verdict in this case - a tragedy, no question, for the Cote family, but the appropriate result," Haughwout said.

    Two juries essentially decided he had some reasonable fear, since the first found for manslaughter instead of murder. The second decided he had reasonable fear to the extent that he shouldn't be convicted at all.

    Why are you so opposed to trial by jury? Your argument essentially amounts to this: SYG is wrong because jurors can't be trusted. You seem opposed to the very concept of a criminal justice system.

  • Virginian||

    A thief swung a heavy sack at the rightful owner of the property he was stealing. Said rightful owner then defended himself.

    I'm sure there are, or will be in the future, times when SYG allows the bad guy to go free. But that's not one of them.

  • JHK1776||

    So you justify stabbing a guy in the back for a radio huh? That's great -- I guess then if someone murdered Bernie Madoff they could use Stand Your Ground huh. So now you can kill anyone for property theft -- sounds reasonable

  • ||

    Heh. This is getting good. Tell us more, Mophead.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    So you justify stabbing a guy in the back for a radio huh? That's great -- I guess then if someone murdered Bernie Madoff they could use Stand Your Ground huh. So now you can kill anyone for property theft -- sounds reasonable

    Wow, great analogy! Brilliant! LOL!

    See, if you steal something from me, and there is no law against me chasing after you to get it back (or to report your whereabouts the cops, or whatever) and you attack me, then I can defend myself. That's what happened in this case. Now, maybe you don't believe those facts as presented. But the judge did, and that's why she dismissed the case.

  • Virginian||

    If Bernie Madoff took a break from Ponzi schemes to steal car stereos, sure why not?

    He took something that didn't belong to him, and then attacked the rightful owner. Now he's dead. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

  • Irish||

    No. He justified stabbing someone for attacking a person with a bag of heavy, blunt objects after robbing him.

    Your reading comprehension is unbelievably bad.

    Sorry, I'll write this in a way you can comprehend.

    Your reading - comprehension - leaves much to be - desired.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    So you justify stabbing a guy in the back for a radio huh?

    Yes. It is perfectly legal in Texas, for example, to use deadly force to protect your property from burglary.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    No yes you can -- as long as you had fear of harm -- if I thought that the other driver was going to hurt me -- I could shoot him first

    Wrong. In fact there was a case in Florida like that back in the 90's (around the same time as the Adrian Crump case we were talking about in another thread) where two drivers got into a parking lot road rage fight. One guy went into a store, and when he came out the other guy had a buddy with him, and a brick he said he was going to use to smash his head in. The guy who had come out of the store grabbed a gun from his car and shot brick guy. He was convicted of murder, and sentenced to life if I remember correctly. Now, if brick guy had come running at him with the brick even after confronted with the gun, it's very unlikely he would have been convicted.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Now that we've heard the blithering idiot's guide to 776.013(3), let's see what the statute actually says:

    (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

    Notice the word "suspicious" does not appear in the statute. Notice that no variant of the word "suspicious" appears in the statute. The test is "reasonable belief," which the law's "reasonable person" would draw from a battery in progress, a threat to commit homicide, and reaching for a deadly weapon.

  • JHK1776||

    suspicious -- reasonable fear -- what are you suspicious of? basic question -- If you find someone suspicious - is it not reasonable you have a fear that they might do something? I don't know the point you are trying to prove -- the statue pretty clear -- If I fear for my safety and it is reasonable -- hence a stranger walks up to me with their hands in their pockets & says something to me -- Am I not reasonable in my fear for my safety? Read the above example about the girl that saw a guy jogging past her house -- she went inside retrieved a gun -- and shot him -- although he said nothing to her and did not approach her in any threatening manner -- she was not arrested b/c NO ONE CAN DISPROVE HOW SHE FELT -- idiots

  • Calidissident||

    "If you find someone suspicious - is it not reasonable you have a fear that they might do something?"

    It's not whether or not you are suspicious. It's whether a reasonable person in that situation would have fear of death or great bodily injury. If a reasonable person would not have been suspicious to the point of having a reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury, then you are not authorized to use deadly force. It doesn't matter if you irrationally were fearful.

    Also, isn't your example more of an example of castle doctrine rather than SYG? And it says that the guy was walking down her driveway and did not stop when she said she had a gun. Forgive me if I don't form an opinion on the case based on the article posted by you.

    If you're asking for a perfect judicial system, you're never going to get it. Sometimes, people who commit murder will not go to jail. Sometimes, people who kill in self-defense will go to jail. The existence of such cases doesn't mean that the laws are flawed.

  • JHK1776||

    the castle doctrine is clear -- the person has to be in your house physically -- they cannot be outside, in the driveway & they cannot be fleeing your house either -- so if the person is halfway out the window -- you do not have the right to shoot them in the back --

    The person had to be completely in your house --

    google
    Demetrius Antuan Thompson

    thats the kid that got shot in the case --

  • JHK1776||

    Here is another case:
    Pedro Roteta was 26 years old, a young barber who loved his nephews. But in early 2012, he tried to steal a radio out of Greyston Garcia's truck in Miami, Florida. Garcia's roommate alerted him to the attempted theft, and according to the Miami Herald, he grabbed a large knife and ran outside towards Roteta.

    Roteta ran, and Garcia chased him for more than a block, according to the Huffington Post. He then stabbed him in the back, killing him.

    A Miami-Dade County Judge recently threw out the murder charge against Garcia, citing Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law.

  • Calidissident||

    Here's a quote from the chief deputy regarding the situation:

    "Relying on the "Castle Law" this was ruled justifiable by the district attorney's office,'' said Chief Deputy Randy Christian."

    You were saying?

  • JHK1776||

    THey used Stand Your ground in the Alabama case --

  • Calidissident||

    That's a quote from the chief deputy in the Alabama case you cited. Direct quote, not something a reporter pulled out of their ass.

  • JHK1776||

    In Alabama Stand Your Ground/Castle Doctrine is under the same statute Section 13A-3-23 --

  • Calidissident||

    The fact that he used the term "castle law" implies that the fact that this took place on the woman's property was an important factor.

  • JHK1776||

    In florida Castle doctrine means the person has to be entirely inside the house -- I live in florida -- so I was wrong there -- apparently in Alabama dwelling includes property -- it doesnt in Florida -- no where in the Alabama law does it say anything of property -- just dwelling -- but sure -- why not -- like I said -- they were essential the same law in Alabama since they are under the same statute -- you can call it whatever you want -- if Stand Your Ground didn't exist in Alabama -- she would have been arrested since the prep had not entered her house yet -- my opinion but we have case law in Florida where homeowners have shot people on their property and tried to use castle doctrine but were denied b/c they person was not actually inside the house - plus they teach this in concealed weapons class

  • Calidissident||

    What's your point? We don't know what the guy was up to. What proof is there that she just blew him away for the hell of it? If he comes on her property, refuses to explain himself, and continues approaching her even after she tells him she has a gun, why exactly should she be arrested?

  • JHK1776||

    You are right -- she should not be questioned and wasn't -- the police let her go -- it was later found out that he was the step-son of her boyfriend --

  • Fatty Bolger||

    she should not be questioned and wasn't

    Now you're just making shit up.

  • Calidissident||

    She wasn't questioned? Or arrested? Those are very different things

  • Irish||

    There's no way a man was shot and she didn't get questioned.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    suspicious -- reasonable fear -- what are you suspicious of?

    Is this supposed to be a question? An argument? A definition? Or are you just vomiting on the keyboard?

    basic question -- If you find someone suspicious - is it not reasonable you have a fear that they might do something?

    Mixing terms. Fear is an emotion, induced by a perceived threat. Suspicion only implies a lack of evidence. Fear is an emotion. Reasonable fear requires that a reasonable person, that is, hypothetical person that would exist in the community, would feel fear in the same situation.

    I don't know the point you are trying to prove

    That you have no idea as to what the fuck you're talking about, which has been amply demonstrated.

    If I fear for my safety and it is reasonable

    Read again, smart guy. The statute says "death", "great bodily harm", or "forcible felony." Slapping someone does not enable you to fire away.

    hence a stranger walks up to me with their hands in their pockets & says something to me

    Why would you kill someone for asking you for directions?

    Am I not reasonable in my fear for my safety?

    For killing someone for asking you for directions? That would make you a murderer.

    she was not arrested b/c NO ONE CAN DISPROVE HOW SHE FELT -- idiots

    You'll forgive me if I don't rely on your overwhelming knowledge of the law and criminal procedure.

  • ||

    Is this supposed to be a question? An argument? A definition? Or are you just vomiting on the keyboard?

    Obviously vomiting. This looks like a job for Mophead!

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Jude's trial is set for August 9th, therefore Stand Your Ground is clearly not applicable.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Mophead's wisdom is positively Stackian.

  • Acosmist||

    You forgot to log in under Palin's Buttplug. Log off and back on, champ.

    We'll wait.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    The old law worked well -- put it this way -- if you were in a road rage incident

    PAUSE. Stop working backwards from a conclusion.

    and someone one was following you

    Following a person is not unlawful.

    you had to try to escape

    What are you escaping from if all the person is doing is following you?

    now you can stop the car

    You have ceased escaping from something that isn't a crime.

    get out

    Removed yourself from a place of safety.

    kill the other driver

    You have removed yourself from a place of safety and committed homicide on a person who was not violating any laws.

    Congratulations. You look an awful lot like a murderer.

    To distinguish your asinine scenario from the case at hand, Zimmerman would have been legally in the wrong but for Martin's initiation of violence and resultant infliction of grievous bodily harm.

  • JHK1776||

    Well good luck proving how the shooter "felt" about the guy who was following him in the car -- and disproving that he wasn't threatening the shooter -- Seems to me that all the shooter has to say is "why did the other driver stop when I got out of the car if he was not going to harm me?" - without a duty to flee -- the shooter has the right to engage his would be attacker and if the would be attacker stops his car and gets out - then he has a "reasonable" fear for his safety and thus can shoot to kill

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Well good luck proving how the shooter "felt" about the guy who was following him in the car

    Would a reasonable person in the same position have done the same thing?

    and disproving that he wasn't threatening the shooter

    Following someone is not threatening them. Or are you changing your scenario until you get the answer you want?

    Seems to me that all the shooter has to say is "why did the other driver stop when I got out of the car if he was not going to harm me?"

    Because, depending on where the shooter stopped (facts not in evidence), had he continued to drive, he would have plowed into the back of the shooter's vehicle. Responsible driving is not grounds for murder.

    without a duty to flee

    What was he fleeing from? As has been established, no crime was being committed and no reasonable belief that a crime would be committed can be drawn from the facts.

    the shooter has the right to engage his would be attacker

    Based upon what reasoning?

    and if the would be attacker stops his car and gets out

    Getting out of a car = Imminent threat of bodily harm?

    Whatever law school you attended should refund you your money and give you a lifetime job suited to your skills. Like cleaning toilets.

    then he has a "reasonable" fear for his safety and thus can shoot to kill

    Getting out of a car = reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm?

  • ||

    Whatever law school you attended should refund you your money and give you a lifetime job suited to your skills. Like cleaning toilets.

    I hereby dub JHK1776 "Mophead". Some people are just BORN to clean.

  • JHK1776||

    I said it was a ROAD RAGE incident moron -- what do you think that means ?

  • ||

    That an angry person is inherently a threat? And that you're a nutjob, Mophead.

  • JHK1776||

    can you argue a point of law or does your intellect just allow you call people names -- & Yes in the eyes of a law -- someone who is angry could be perceived as a threat --even if it illusionary -- moron

  • Anonymous Coward||

    I said it was a ROAD RAGE incident moron -- what do you think that means

    "Road rage" is not a crime, dumbass. It's media fearmongering. Aggressive driving is a crime, depending on the jurisdiction. Assault is a crime. Battery is a crime.

    Flipping someone off while driving is not only not a crime, it's cathartic (at least in my experience).

  • JHK1776||

    If you would have read the argument -- someone questioned how the driver who was being chased would be fearful -- since most road rage incidents are done by people who are angry -- I thought it was a logically conclusion -- no its not media fearmongering -- road rage exists -- people get in fights while they drive -- some even have shoot outs -- I didnt say it was a crime

  • Anonymous Coward||

    If you would have read the argument -- someone questioned how the driver who was being chased would be fearful

    Irrelevant.

    since most road rage incidents are done by people who are angry -- I thought it was a logically conclusion

    You haven't laid out any logical statements (your conclusion does not follow from your premises).

    no its not media fearmongering -- road rage exists

    Read closer, smart guy. I didn't write that road rage does not exist. I wrote that road rage is not a CRIME. If you're going to argue, at least argue what is said, not with what the voices in your head tell you.

    people get in fights while they drive

    Chris Brown and Rihanna don't fall under the Stand Your Ground statute.

    some even have shoot outs

    More likely to happen in a Grand Theft Auto game than real life.

    I didnt say it was a crime

    Here's a little help for you: When start with "the old law" and in the same sentence say "road rage incident," a read might get this strange idea that you are referring to THE LAW.

  • JHK1776||

    Daniel Adkins, Jr., 29, was the only son of Daniel and Antonia Adkins of Phoenix. He was mentally disabled and lived with his parents. One night in April 2012, on his usual evening walk with the family dog, he stepped in front of a car in a Taco Bell drive-thru.

    The driver, Cordell Jude, 22, claims he mistook the bright green dog leash in Adkins' upraised hand for a bat or a pipe, according to the police report. Jude, who carried a Smith and Wesson .40-caliber handgun at his hip, shot him once in the torso and killed him. He stayed at the scene afterwards because Adkins' dog was still attached by the leash, and was apparently in the way of the car. But police did not arrest Jude.

    John Roman, a fellow with the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute, called the shooting a prime example of the trouble with "Stand Your Ground," which Arizona made law in 2006, with the NRA's support. He told USA Today that, because of the law, police can't arrest the shooter and question him in detail, even though the police report recommended second-degree murder charges against Jude.

  • JHK1776||

    As the examples I give below -- those were not even ROAD RAGE incidents -- one guy shot another for holding a leash in front of his car -- he got shot and the guy did not even get arrested b/c of SYG -- his FEAR WAS REASONABLE BECAUSE HE FELT THREATENED-- but you are right -- with your comments above -- it never happens --

  • Almanian!||

    The derp is STRONG with this one...

  • JHK1776||

    Would a reasonable person in the same position have done the same thing?

    You think that would hold up in Court? haha

    I could see the prosecutor -- Well maybe you thought the guy following you in the road rage incident was going to attack you -- but would another person feel that same way? Would Joe the Plumber have done that? not the way the law works muchacho -- you must be a law student -- wait until you begin to practice

  • Calidissident||

    That's how a court works. If the jury doesn't think you had a reasonable fear in that instance, they'll vote to convict.

  • Irish||

    He's basically arguing that we shouldn't have stand your ground laws because we can't trust juries. By that logic, why do we have any trials? We should just do away with the justice system entirely.

  • Calidissident||

    You don't understand Irish. Because laws will not always be applied correctly, and not every guilty person will be caught, we should ... yeah I don't even know what his solution to that is.

  • JHK1776||

    reasonable is subjective -- I see no one is commenting on the guy who killed that kid in front of taco bell - and used SYG to get off -- what is reasonable to one person may not be to another -- I dont think a guy with a dog standing in front my car is a reasonable fear but this guy did -- and he was not charged with murder for it although he shot an unarmed man -- I say we don't need Stand Your Ground laws because it makes it more difficult to prove who the aggressor was and who was not -- plus it allows people to kill unarmed people or place themselves in dangerous situations when before they had a legal duty to flee or escape the conflict -- just like the guy who killed that kid for stealing his radio -- I don't death for a radio is just nor do I think a guy stabbing a kid in the back is fair as well -- but what do I know -- Let's fight to the death -- and as long as the witness is dead -- who cares who started it-- just matters who finishes it --

  • JHK1776||

    "I don't think death for a radio ...."

  • JHK1776||

    Remember before SYG -- no one and I mean no one was ever charged with murder for defending themselves from being attacked -- not seniors, not women not anyone -- the old law worked fine -- there were never any problems -- look at SYG now and see the problems that have been caused by it -- the law is only 8 years old in Florida -- IN Orange County Florida this year alone -- 8 cases of men killing unarmed men and getting off on SYG -- if there is no witness and no duty to flee -- it is impossible to prove who the aggressor is and who the victim is --

  • Calidissident||

    "no one and I mean no one was ever charged with murder for defending themselves from being attacked"

    Really? This never happened?

  • JHK1776||

    No -- not when proper self defense was proved --

  • Calidissident||

    Define "proper self defense." How do you know some of the people charged weren't defending themselves?

    Heck, this very case is an applicable example because it wasn't based on SYG. Zimmerman claimed that Martin was on top of him, punching him and beating his head into the sidewalk, which was supported by forensic evidence and witness testimony, and thus didn't have the opportunity to escape. Now, we'll never know who initially started the physical fight, but based on available evidence, there was nothing to convict Zimmerman of murder, and he was still charged.

  • Calidissident||

    Define "proper self defense." How do you know some of the people charged weren't defending themselves?

    Heck, this very case is an applicable example because it wasn't based on SYG. Zimmerman claimed that Martin was on top of him, punching him and beating his head into the sidewalk, which was supported by forensic evidence and witness testimony, and thus didn't have the opportunity to escape. Now, we'll never know who initially started the physical fight, but based on available evidence, there was nothing to convict Zimmerman of murder, and he was still charged.

  • JHK1776||

    I don't think under SYG he should have been charged at all -- I think he has a civil case against the state -- apparently engaging a stranger while armed does not have any consequence -- it is a shame that TM attacked with violence and that is why he is dead -- GZ had the right to kill him but he did have the right to suspect him as a criminal since he does not have the skills of a trained officer -- You have to ask yourself -- Under Stand Your Ground as it is written if TM would have never attacked -- for instance GZ turned around before TM got to him -- pulled his gun and shot -- do you think that GZ would have still gotten off or been protected by Stand Your Ground? I do -- even though he is hispanic and would have been treated as such -- I think SYG would have applied b/c GZ would have argued that he had a reasonable fear b/c TM was approaching him -- this is the problem I have with the law -- or put it this way-- what if TM would have beaten GZ to death or stabbed him? Wouldn't TM have the same protections under SYG? He would have argued that he was being followed by guy with a gun at night. He had a reasonable fear and had the legal right to be there and was doing nothing wrong. How could have the cops or DA disproved it?

  • JHK1776||

    GZ had the right to kill him but he did have the right to suspect him as a criminal since he does not have the skills of a trained officer -

    I meant to say DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT (not illegal just wrong)

  • Calidissident||

    "but he did have the right to suspect him as a criminal since he does not have the skills of a trained officer"

    Because cops are wizards who always know when a guy's up to no good and never harass or profile anyone? I don't necessarily disagree that Zimmerman did some stupid things that night, but to say he didn't have a right to suspect him is just stupid. That amounts to thoughtcrime.

  • JHK1776||

    Look there is a reason why the Neighborhood Watch said -- don't ever engage anyone -- and why most police just say -- call the cops -- he did nothing illegal but a kid is dead and his own life is ruined -- that is why he should not have judged that night-- i personally could care less but there are reasons why you should not judge a book by its cover

  • Calidissident||

    Suspecting someone isn't the same as engaging them. You said he didn't even have the right to find someone suspicious. That's not the same thing as what you're saying in this last post.

  • Calidissident||

    "You have to ask yourself -- Under Stand Your Ground as it is written if TM would have never attacked -- for instance GZ turned around before TM got to him -- pulled his gun and shot -- do you think that GZ would have still gotten off or been protected by Stand Your Ground? I do -- even though he is hispanic and would have been treated as such -- I think SYG would have applied b/c GZ would have argued that he had a reasonable fear b/c TM was approaching him"

    I don't see how Stand Your Ground would make the difference in this case either. There's no way Zimmerman could outrun Martin, so even in this scenario, he couldn't retreat, unless he was right next to his car.

  • JHK1776||

    This is my point although now really unclear -- SYG makes it less clear on who started what because their are no demands on either party to flee the conflict -- so it is harder to prove who is culpable. Does that make any sense or am I just nuts? The only think that SYG did in this case was prolong the arrest and allow the media whores to get involved which meant that there was a political motive that ensured no justice for anyone. GZ's life is essential over -- he better find a new country or lose some weight -- people are going to be out to hang him -- if he was arrested the night of or the next day -- No one would even know his name and he could safely be free now -- this is why I hate SYG -- it confuses justice and makes it harder to prove who did what -- I am not arguing that GZ did not have the right to defend his life -- I am arguing that he should have been arrested immediately, charged and the case should have happened -- he would have got off since he had physical proof of being attacked --

  • Calidissident||

    Why should he have been arrested and charged? There was no evidence to contradict his version of events, and he had physical evidence that supported the notion that he was being assaulted by Martin.

  • Calidissident||

    "reasonable is subjective -- I see no one is commenting on the guy who killed that kid in front of taco bell - and used SYG to get off -- what is reasonable to one person may not be to another"

    In this case, it would depend on whether it was actually reasonable to mistake a dog leash for a weapon. Which would depend on the location, lighting, etc. If he did think he had a weapon, how was he supposed to get away without running the guy over, which could also kill or severely injure him. But once again, the fact that a law isn't applied correctly in every instance, and that not every guilty person gets convicted, is not proof that it's an unjust law. By that standard, every law is unjust. And how many times have we seen cops get off because they claimed they thought a guy was going for a weapon, had a weapon, etc? I guess it's ok when the king's men do it?

  • Irish||

    But once again, the fact that a law isn't applied correctly in every instance, and that not every guilty person gets convicted, is not proof that it's an unjust law. By that standard, every law is unjust.

    Exactly. You can find any law which is improperly applied and results in horrific consequences.

    His argument, when taken to its logical end, is essentially this:

    We should have no laws or jury trials because laws are often wrongfully applied.

  • JHK1776||

    No it isn't -- how dramatic -- I just think this is an unnecessary law that impedes justice -- People already had the right to defend their life if it was threatened -- there is nothing wrong with having a law that says that if you in a conflict you have to try to escape it before you kill the other person -- there is nothing wrong with trying to preserve life -- no matter whose it is -- if two hot heads get into a fight - the last thing I want is a fight to the death law that allows them to kill each other and be free of consequence -- we should not be promoting this -- people should be legally obligated to try to flee a dangerous situation

  • Fatty Bolger||

    people should be legally obligated to try to flee a dangerous situation

    Why?

  • JHK1776||

    helps prevent violence -- Also if I am being attacked I want the other to be legally under obligation to flee -- so if he kills me -- he will have to prove to the police why he did not try to flee if he tries to blame me for the incident - under SYG -- now he can just say that I started it and since I am dead -- and if their are no witnesses -- how could they disprove it? If he was obligated to flee or try to -- he would have to explain why he didn't or he would not stick around after he killed me -- thus ensuring that although they might not find him but if they do he will be charged properly -- I dont want my attacker to have immunity under SYG if he started it, killed me and if no witnesses called the police and said that I started it -- Trust me Criminals are watching this law and learning how to use it --

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    helps prevent violence

    So does making people legally obligated not to initiate violence, amirite?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    helps prevent violence

    [citation needed]

    Also if I am being attacked I want the other to be legally under obligation to flee -- so if he kills me -- he will have to prove to the police why he did not try to flee if he tries to blame me for the incident - under SYG -- now he can just say that I started it and since I am dead -- and if their are no witnesses -- how could they disprove it? If he was obligated to flee or try to -- he would have to explain why he didn't or he would not stick around after he killed me -- thus ensuring that although they might not find him but if they do he will be charged properly -- I dont want my attacker to have immunity under SYG if he started it, killed me and if no witnesses called the police and said that I started it

    You don't seem to understand how this works. Just because you claim it was self defense doesn't mean the police/judge/jury have to believe it, stand your ground or not. It's like the case where the Florida woman got 20 years for firing a gun in her own house, because the jury did not believe her claim of self defense. It has to be a reasonable belief. You keep ignoring that.

    Sure, you could contrive a situation where a murderer got away with it because of the law and lack of witnesses, but that's just as true with pure self defense. SYG prevents victims from being charged for fighting back.

  • JHK1776||

    wrong --- citizens always had the right to defend their life -- no state can give you that right -- it comes from God

  • JHK1776||

    Ok so in your eyes -- a guy has the right to kill an unarmed man if he thinks that the guy is a threat right? So you agree then -- that it is possible to kill someone who is absolutely no threat whatsoever to you and get away -- as long as you - the shooter -- just tell the cops that you felt threatened -- the Taco Bell case -- the guy could have easily just wanted to kill someone -- he had no duty to flee -- no duty to it in his car and lock the doors -- no duty to wait -- He put down a perceived threat even though it was illusionary -- again -- like I said before -- you can execute someone -- and get away -- as long as you tell the cops that you were afraid --

  • Irish||

    That's because your post about Arizona's stand your ground law is a lie.

    The police claim they can't question the guy due to the stand your ground law and that they aren't even allowed to bring charges. This is from your post about the taco bell:

    John Roman, a fellow with the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute, called the shooting a prime example of the trouble with "Stand Your Ground," which Arizona made law in 2006, with the NRA's support. He told USA Today that, because of the law, police can't arrest the shooter and question him in detail, even though the police report recommended second-degree murder charges against Jude.

    The Arizona stand your ground law does not say that. Its wording is almost identical to the Florida law. The police can bring charges and have chosen not to. I don't know why they chose not to, but you can't blame the SYG law if the police don't even bring charges.

    Show me in the Arizona statute what is stopping the police from charging Cordell Jude with manslaughter or murder. You won't find anything.

  • JHK1776||

    B/C if they arrest and the Judge throws out the case -- there are civil repercussions -- there is not a statute that prevents them but they read the law as it is written and make recommendations but it is the DA that has the power to file criminal charges -- as well you guys said that I don't like SYG b/c I dont trust juries - Juries don't decide SYG -- a Judge does -- if it goes to trial and a jury -- then the jury can read SYG but they cannot rule on it -- only a judge can before the case ever gets to trial --

  • Calidissident||

    Jude was charged with murder. I'm not sure what you're talking about.

    http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.c.....murder.php

  • JHK1776||

    The only reason he is being charged now is b/c the police and DA realize that Jude hangs out with known gang members who are currently "committing drive-bys." -- I took them two years to bring a case on this and if he was not involved with other crimes he would most likely be free

  • Calidissident||

    That article is from July 2012, and it says that the shooting occurred "in April" which would imply April of that year. So three months, not two years.

  • JHK1776||

    I meant trial -- excuse me there

  • Calidissident||

    As if it's unusual for there to be a long delay between a person being charged and the trial?

  • JHK1776||

    again the DA has the power to file criminal charges -- not the police -- they only arrest

  • ||

    And?

  • JHK1776||

    thank you guys for the debate -- at least you guys are thinking -- I wish you the best -- just remember dont trust anyone over 30! take care -- keep up the good fight - question everything -- much love

  • Redmanfms||

    thank you guys for the debate -- at least you guys are thinking -- I wish you the best -- just remember dont trust anyone over 30! take care -- keep up the good fight - question everything -- much love

    FOADIAF.

  • Jerry on the boat||

    Statement by the President.

    Apparently not a tragedy for Zimmerman?

  • Rich||

    we are a nation of laws,

    some of which we pay attention to.

  • AuH20||

    we are a nation of laws

    Luckily, it's not a crime when the President does it.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    America sucks

    The United States itself has been on trial. It is a shame the nation has been represented by such a wretched example.

    The shooting to death of Martin may likely have gone without notice outside of Sanford, Florida, had race not been the key ingredient. As it was, a powerful national campaign of indignation pressured the Sanford police and Florida legal authorities to eventually take a second look and treat the killing as murder rather than another routine summary execution allowed under the state's pernicious "stand-your-ground" law.

  • Rich||

    the all-too predictable acquittal

    OJ?

  • Sidd Finch||

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/.....4624.story

    A 60-year-old woman was shot in the chin about 4:50 a.m. ...
    About a half hour later, a 33-year-old man was shot in the left leg ...
    A 17-year-old boy was shot about 5:35 a.m. ...
    Someone shot a 19-year-old woman about 3 a.m. ...
    Two boys, 14 and 15, were shot about 11:55 p.m. ...
    Another man, 38, was shot about 11:30 p.m. ...
    A 72-year-old woman sitting on her porch in the Chicago Lawn neighborhood on the Southwest Side was shot about 8:30 p.m. ...

    Apparently there's a lot of White Hispanic wannabe cops in Chicago.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    More:

    It might have been expected that President Barack Obama's election might in itself ease this perennial curse, but it is plainly going to take many more years and perhaps many more similar deaths before the truth that all men are created equal is accepted by all Americans to be self-evident. Polls show that rather than make our country more tolerant, the president's skin color has led to an increase in racism.

    There is little ground for optimism either that the passage of time will gradually make America more tolerant. The younger people are, the more it is imagined they will have progressive attitudes on race and other social issues. But Zimmerman was himself of mixed race, with a father of German descent and his mother a Peruvian. He was raised as a Roman Catholic and is aged just 29. To be young and Christian today is plainly no protection against hatred contaminating the mind.

    Young Martin's death should cause us to stop and consider the broader principles of policing and justice. The reckless pursuit of an unarmed black boy in a hoodie by a vigilante inspired by suspicions based on race shows how dangerously unjust it is to use racial profiling as a means to detain suspected criminals.

    Go fuck yourself, you overwrought dimwit.

  • Rich||

    To be young and Christian today is plainly no protection against hatred contaminating the mind.

    To be old and British today is plainly no protection against stupidity contaminating the mind.

  • GILMORE||

    The lesson here =

    The left wants and needs this case like Iran needs Israel, like Pakistan needs India, like North Korea needs the Imperialist Capitalist Hegemony. They need to be victims. Constant, perpetual victims. They want to wheedle, hue and cry about the essential injustice of the world, like a 4 year old whose sibling got the flavor of ice cream they really wanted (but forgot to ask for...changed their mind, see?). They need to have an excuse to wear their hairshirt and make a spectacle of their moral superiority, writ large. It is their perennial fallback posture. Never will they allow this story to be = "Guy shoots someone in self defense". No - its about racial injustice, just how every Faulkner novel that used the word "Nigger" is about Racism and not, naturally, about the essential nature of life in the South in the early 20th century. They can own the meta-narrative regardless of the facts or outcomes. By the time this is long in the past this will have been treated like the "White OJ Simpson" story for so long that any alternative understanding will be impossible. Accept it. The media will not let this go for as long as possible. It is "a tragedy". they need a reason to keep this story pulling in concern-troll eyeballs. Enter a new meme, a 'story about a story' that no longer has any bearing on reality. Its how things work these days. Que sera, sera.

  • GILMORE||

    also = Gun control. Sorry, should have mentioned that any possibly relevant liberal issue will get strapped to this pony ASAP.

  • Pro Libertate||

    The real story? The system worked. The one that is designed to allow the state to take life, liberty, or property in criminal cases only when it can absolutely convince a jury of the defendant's guilt.

    That's really the whole story. Zimmerman might be guilty, but there's little proof of that. And it's clearly not about race, the case isn't about SYG, and it isn't about guns. Not to mention, it's also a local matter, and not much else.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    One more nugget of wisdom from wapshott:

    Perhaps, when someone whose personal history reveals a vigilante mentality and an obsession with the violent pursuit of criminals is freely granted such a license, supporters of the National Rifle Association (NRA) have a point: background checks have little effect on gun violence when they are so easy to obtain. The alternative would be for background checks to be thorough and effective which is easier said than achieved.

    Background checks should include a seance, apparently.

  • Rich||

    AAARGH!! MAKE IT GO AWAY!!!

  • Calidissident||

    Zimmerman had a history of "violent pursuit" of criminals prior to this incident?

  • GILMORE||

    (say it in whisper voice)

    = "He's Batman"

  • Pro Libertate||

    That was actually one of the problems with people harping on him calling in all of those 911 calls--I don't recall any allegation that he pulled his gun on anyone or used force.

  • GILMORE||

    What did I just say above you? Par for course.

  • Almanian!||

    How many murders in Detroit over the weekend? Chicago? Oakland?

    Just checking.

  • Archduke Trousersenthusiast||

    Do yourself a favour, don't search "Zimmerman" on twitter.

  • sticks||

    The defense lawyers on twitter were pretty funny this morning. All the people calling for an appeal were mocked.

  • sticks||

    @btannebaum: Strenuously object? RT @sharoncarbine #GeorgeZimmerman trial is NOT settled. Many of us do NOT accept jury's decision. We object!!!

  • Redmanfms||

    @btannebaum: Strenuously object? RT @sharoncarbine #GeorgeZimmerman trial is NOT settled. Many of us do NOT accept jury's decision. We object!!!

    That statement is hilarious if you read it as Frito Pendejo.

  • Sidd Finch||

    Fans still mad about that double switch yesterday afternoon?

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Calidissident,

    It's pretty sad when Lupe Fiasco has a far more sane and reasonable reaction to this case than the vast majority of the MSM


    I agree.

    LINK, by the way.

    Leaving aside the very many instances of media malpractice anybody was able to witness since the beginning of the case; just take a look at the current commentary in CNN and other networks, almost giving the impression that a great national tragedy happened, still throwing around the bromides like that Zimmerman "profiled" Trayvon or that he disobeyed an order to stay in his car (no such order was given) or that Zimmerman followed Trayvon to start a fight with him, clearly insinuating that the jury had it all wrong while they (the "good consciences", the goodists) had it all right from the beginning.

  • General Butt Naked||

  • Gus||

    OBAMA: HONOR TRAYVON WITH GUN-CONTROL

    Someone shut this fucker up. Why would the president of the Unied States honor a thug?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Typical.

    Maybe we should honor Brian Terry and Christopher Stevens with Obama's impeachment.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    What a disgraceful comment. Wow. Using a tragedy to push his political agenda. And while I'm not convinced Trayvon was a 'thug' or deserved to die, but at the very least a jury of peers decided after hearing all the evidence and both sides that Zimmerman may have saved his life because he had a gun with him, so the exact opposite message is the stronger one here.

  • Gus||

    Sen. Reid: 'This isn't over'...

    And shut up this piece of shit too.

  • Rich||

    "I don’t always agree with what the jury does but that’s the system and I support the system.”

    "Support." (Or "respect".) You keep using that word ....

  • DeJarvis Floyd||

    Their is no way in hell George Zimmerman should have been acquitted on all charges. Check this out!!! www.dejarvisfloyd.com George Zimmerman vs O.J. (They both Got Away With it!!!)

  • Irish||

    Solid grammar, DeJarvis.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: DeJarvis Floyd,

    "Their is no way"???

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Well, I know I was persuaded by...whatever that was.

  • GILMORE||

    The three exclamation points told me I was listening to the reasoning of a serious legal mind.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Profiling!!!

  • OldMexican||

  • Rich||

  • RBS||

    I see Tulpa "left" again...

  • Almanian!||

    Gosh! I hope he doesn't STAY THE FUCK AWAY! That would be AWFUL! And we'd all be REALLY SORRY if that happened.

    /derp

  • John||

    He was in rare form today. Testimony by a defendant is just a claim not evidence.

  • Almanian!||

    Tulip is out there. It can't be bargained with! It can't be reasoned with! It doesn't feel pity common sense, or remorse, or fear reality. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead ready to barf from the stupidity of it all!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Separation anxiety already! You guys sure are a dependent bunch.

  • Dan||

    They're still using the pictures of 10 year old trayvon martin to try to convince everyone that this was some tiny child and not a grown man of 17. Why would they be at all concerned with what the defense actually was or what laws were even relevant?

  • MJGreen||

    I didn't realize until last night that calling Martin a "child" was a common tactic. I checked a few spots I intentionally ignored during the trial, and all these people were calling a 17 year-old (that was able to break a man's nose) a "child." I'm pretty sure Martin himself would have argued against that label.

  • C. Anacreon||

    Imagine if someone had called that 17-year-old black male a "boy".

  • ||

    With just the right amount of Georgia accent to it.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I was out with some of my die-hard leftist coworkers last week and one of them referred to Trayvon as a "kid". I foolishly corrected him "17 year old guy". That turned awkward real fast.

    My suffering through a diatribe about how Monsanto had blood on its hands for GMO the week before apparently was in vain; I've been outed as a racist teabagger once again.

  • Omni||

    A black lady on CNN just accused the black guy who said it wasn't about racial profiling of not being black basically.

  • Rich||

    IOW, she profiled him?

  • Almanian!||

    I haz a confyooz

  • Guy Laguy||

    Florida: Shoot first, ask later.

  • ||

    Florida: Get tackled to the ground first, ask later

    FIFY.

  • Nazdrakke||

    Next Troll Up.

  • sarcasmic||

    Moral of the story: don't bring fists to a gunfight. The end.

  • John||

    Yup. If you think you are a bad ass and plan to attack everyone you feel disrespects you, prepare to end up dead or in prison.

  • Almanian!||

    Hey guys!

    S'up?

  • John||

    Are you disrespecting me Almanian?

  • Almanian!||

    STAND YOUR GROUND, JOHN! OR ELSE!

  • John||

    I am not sure if I can do that in this state.

  • sarcasmic||

    You live in a state? I thought you lived in a district.

  • John||

    No a state.

  • Almanian!||

    A state of ECSTASY, yeah?

  • some guy||

    State... or Commonwealth?

  • sarcasmic||

    Or at least carry a gun.

  • sarcasmic||

    My neighbor maintains that Zimmerman started it by getting out of his car. If he hadn't gotten out of his car then he would have never been jumped. By getting out of his car and not being a big badass who can handle anything without need of a gun, then he had no right to defend himself with lethal force against some punk who jumped out of the bushes and proceeded to smash his skull against the concrete. He's got a point. None of this would have happened if Zimmerman had stayed in his car. Except that getting out of your car is not a crime, while jumping someone and smashing their head against the sidewalk is.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    If Trayvon had just stayed home and smoked weed and played Call of Duty with his mom's boyfriend's son, none of this would have happened either.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    None of it would have happened if Martin had just gone home, either. Instead he decided to teach the creepy ass cracka a lesson.

  • sticks||

    Regarding SGY and the jury instructions.

    @btannebaum: Oh God the confusion over stand your ground. Defendants CAN ask for an pre-trial immunity hearing. When they don't, its a jury instruction

    He is a defense Aattorny in FL so.....

  • sticks||

    Or SYG. Whatever.

  • sticks||

    Fuck it. Too many typos.

  • Almanian!||

    The one sappy bit of commentary that almost got to my cold, cold heart was, "Imagine if George Zimmerman had offered Trayvon Martin a ride home instead..."

    I bet you thought that bit of sentimental nonsense was gonna overcome years of abuse in The Man's prison system? I don't think so - Homey don't play that.

  • John||

    Or had a bake sale with him.

  • Almanian!||

    Another excellent idea!

  • sarcasmic||

    Sentimental? Try creepy child molester! Had Zimmerman offered the kid a ride home, then the kid had every right to drag him out of his vehicle and give his perverted ass a beating of a lifetime! Fuck!

  • Almanian!||

    *hangs head*

    I'm sorry...

  • sarcasmic||

    Seriously? Do you ever think before you type? The only men allowed to offer anyone a ride home are uniformed police officers! Everyone else is a potential predator! Fuck! Think, man! Think!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I was going to post a joke about Trayvon being barely legal, but it turns out the age of consent in FL is 18. I thought MA was the only place with 18.

  • Calidissident||

    It's also 18 in California

  • Acosmist||

    I may have lived in FL for a year and may have met a rather fetching young woman, and may have known that was the law. Stupid Florida.

  • Sunken Idaho||

    Your average Progger: "We are the party of science, facts and reason." (Presented with evidence in Zimmerman case) YOU RACISTNEOCONBUSHITLERHOMOPHOBELANNISTERSCUM!!!! IT'S ABOUT JUSTICE!

  • Almanian!||

    These are the REALITY-DRIVEN people, yo! Ya fuckin' racist homophobe man gazer!

  • John||

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breit.....rman-Tweet

    I wonder if the NFL will discipline Cruz?

  • Sidd Finch||

    That seems more like a prediction than a threat.

  • JeremyR||

    This is exactly what's wrong with this case.

    Why isn't Trayvon Martin's lifestyle the problem?

    Why is it perfectly acceptable to blacks to act like a thug?

    Martin would have ended up in jail or dead eventually. That's the problem. Instead of constantly pushing thug behavior, they should promote responsible behavior.

    Don't burgle. Don't start fights with strange people by sucker punching them

    "The Hood" is the problem and what killed Martin. Not Zimmerman.

    Instead, when blacks try to do better for themselves, they get attacked for trying to be white. That's what's holding them back, their own culture. Blacks raised in mostly white suburbs are basically no different than whites economically or otherwise. But the ones raised in the "hood" are, same with white people raised there (see that NFL player arrested for murder)

  • Mike M.||

    Although there are obviously still significant problems there, I'm actually encouraged by the fact that in a full day since the verdict, basically nothing really bad has happened as a result, and it seems obvious now that nothing bad is going to happen either.

    What the last day tells me is that the race hustling poverty pimp scumbags like Sharpton and Jackson don't have anywhere near the power and influence they had 20-25 years ago. And that is news that all rational people can celebrate.

    There is a long way to go, but real progress is slowly but steadily being made in the black community.

  • Sidd Finch||

    http://www.talkleft.com/story/.....rman-Trial

    It may surprise you but, (1.50 / 2) (#22)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 03:12:37 PM EST

    .

    almost all firearms are NOT "designed specifically for killing." They are designed to reliably, safely, and accurately place a bullet on target. Don't confuse talking points with reality.

    .

    Then why not bullets made of paper? (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Palli on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 03:14:57 PM EST

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    "Palli" makes a very poor rebuttal of course, but the larger point is correct.

    The fact that wine tastings don't involve actually drinking wine does not mean that the purpose of wine is to be imbibed.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    ...does not make the purpose of wine something other than being imbibed.

    Point being, guns are designed to kill things, and the various shooting sports evolved as a means of practicing their use for that purpose.

  • JeremyR||

    Guns are designed to shoot bullets. No more, no less.

    Are some bullets useful for killing people? Sure.

    But what about the .22? It's not designed for killing. It does a very poor job of it. It takes a good 3 hits to kill a squirrel in my experience.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    More people are killed worldwide by .22LR than any other cartridge in the world. Of course that's probably due to it being by far the most common cartridge, but still, it can be lethal (not a stopper though).

  • Xenocles||

    Guns are designed to shoot bullets, and the purpose of shooting bullets is to kill things, to get better at killing things, or to demonstrate your skill at putting a bullet where you want it (which, in the abstract, came from the desire to kill things with bullets effectively).

  • Sidd Finch||

    I don't really care about the philosophical debate. I just found Palli's engineering acumen hilarious.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Apparently Zimmerman's gated community was "Retreat at Twin Lakes". How inappropriate....

  • ΘJΘʃ de águila||

    Zimmerman should emigrate [flee] to Peru to avoid the Federal Lynch Mob. Quickly.

  • C. Anacreon||

    Thought the same thing. Also, for any civil suit seeking damages against him, he can just say from Peru, "good luck getting any money from a resident of another country!:

  • Hyperion||

    Except that he doesn't want to be sold out by a 3rd world dictator, for a fat bag of dollars.

    Really, you want to see this guy handed over to Obamey and tortured?

  • Sidd Finch||

    Relevant?

    GS Elevator Gossip ‏@GSElevator 12 Jul

    #1: How easily someone is offended is directly proportional to how stupid they are.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    I find that offensive

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Zimmerman's acquittal undermines NBC's legal defense - they were sued for creative editing of Z's phone call. NBC lawyers replied that if Z were convicted for second-degree murder it would help show the damage to his reputation was his own fault, so he couldn't claim defamation.

    So there's at least one media outlet which has reason to be disappointed at the acquittal.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....-nbc-news/

  • Mike M.||

    I forgot about that civil suit. Jeez, talk about a conflict of interest!

  • General Butt Naked||

  • some guy||

    GZ to get his gun back

    As well he should, seeing as how it is his gun. How is this newsworthy? I know cops like to steal stuff that gets admitted into evidence, but are we really that surprised that this particular piece of evidence was never mishandled?

  • Guy Laguy||


    Michael Moore ‏@MMFlint
    This is what the Trayvon Martin protest looked like in Union Sq 3 hours ago!
    http://twitter.com/MMFlint/sta.....96/photo/1
  • lap83||

    Someone on my Facebook feed posted a picture of Dexter looking at a newspaper with the Zimmerman acquittal headline. The comments ranged from delighted to debating the races of the jury members. No one but me seemed alarmed at the cognitive dissonance behind approving of calculated vigilante killing on tv but considering self defense in real life to be evil.

    So if a detached observer wants to kill someone they consider to be bad it's ok, but if I want to kill someone who I'm reasonably sure is trying to kill me it's not?

    What the fuck is wrong with people.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    lap, yes, the irony of them calling for death using "creative metaphors" is still uttering death threats I reckon.

    They're unhinged. If I saw my kid doing that I'd smack them out.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Is it me or, on the balance and excluding the irrational dingbats on the left and all their violent lunatic ravings, or has public opinion been mostly on Zimmerman's side?

    I can't see how any thinking person would think otherwise.

  • lap83||

    I do agree that it's probably a minority that disagreed with the outcome. It's just that they're so batshit crazy that it's hard to put their opinions in perspective. I personally think it's frightening that anyone would believe the rightness of self defense depends on the races involved. But they do.

  • Homple||

    Zimmerman's problem, and ours, is the scarcity of thinking people in the population.

  • madilynbrady6||

    like Valerie said I'm surprised that a mom can earn $6978 in four weeks on the computer. did you look at this web site Go to site and open Home for details
    http://WWW.JOBS31.COM

  • JHK1776||

    meaningless choice -- enjoy it ---- sheep

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    You want to see the polar opposite from Daily Kos, etc, take a gander at the Zimmerman threads at Zero Hedge. That place has SERIOUSLY degraded into Racist/Anti-Semite/Conspiracy Theorist Central.

  • ||

    The comments there have always been a depressing clusterfuck. I only go for the articles.

  • Guy Laguy||

    Michael Vick serves jail time for killing a dog and George Zimmerman walks free for killing a young boy

  • ||

    seriously? ugh.

    Vick wasn't convicted of dog killing. He was convicted of running an illegal gambling operation.

    You should try to pay attention.

  • Guy Laguy||

    Michael Vick serves jail time for killing a dog and George Zimmerman walks free for killing a young boy

  • MJGreen||

    Say it three times and it will come true.

  • ||

    You're the worst Guy.

  • ConstitutionFirst||

    Martin was a punk gangsta, breaking into peoples cars stealing their stuff. He was spotted and stopped. He then assaulted, with martial arts tactics, the man trying to keep his neighbors safe from criminals, and was subsequently shot for being a thief/thug/punk. Yeah poor little Tyron martian, just a thief trying to make a living when some big ol mean cracker come and sticks his nose in his business..

  • some guy||

    Was the dog bashing Vick's head into the sidewalk when he killed it?

  • triclops||

    Humanity can be so depressing sometimes. I have to remind myself how far we've come despite these flaws.

  • chewinmule||

    I am thankful for my early exposure to "The Trivium". My first steps were taken from that little primer. What a joy to "see" the truth when folks like you hit me with it!LOL

  • Hash Brown||

    The Philly FOX affiliate had two lawyers on this morning, one to argue that the verdict was a travesty, the other to argue that the verdict was correct but the law is a travesty. The latter guy maintained that the law should be changed such that no one who is the aggressor can claim self-defense.

    sarcasm Very enlightening. /sarcasm

  • ConstitutionFirst||

    This show trial, and subsequent manipulated riots were about race politics.
    Eric Holder dragged Jackson and Sharpton down to FL to interfere in Florida law and to incite manufactured protests.
    The cops in all the troubled cities have been told to stand down and allow the carnage to proceed unmolested.
    Now Eric Hold continues the charade with new civil charges (and more rioting to follow)
    You would have to be pretty thick, or a Leftwing Tool not to see through this charade.

  • eatapc@me.com||

    I think Sullum's argument is demolished in the addendum. The jury instructions directly quoted from two clauses in the 2012 Florida "stand your ground" statute. Just because the defense didn't directly bring up the Florida "castle" law doesn't mean the law had nothing to do with the case. As Sullum admits, since language in the "stand your ground" law is "part of the standard jury instruction" in self-defense cases, I'd say the law has everything to do with this case.

    My question: Could the prosecution have made a case that Zimmerman was engaged in an "unlawful activity" by chasing Trayvon Martin with a concealed weapon after Martin ran away, and that he was in a place he didn't have the right to be, given that he chased Martin in contradiction to police instructions (and certainly in contradiction to neighborhood watch guidelines). Dunno. That may be a stretch, but at least it's a point of law to argue -- maybe the only point, given that Trayvon can't tell his side of the story. It can certainly be argued in a civil suit.

  • XM||

    Not really, because Zimmerman did not "chase" him with premeditated plans to kill him or even apprehend him. He carried the gun for self defense purposes.

    The gun is what scares people. But in reality, Zimmerman is just some guy who shadowed a suspicious looking person for observational purposes. Otherwise, why call the cops?

  • ||

    People can die from a single punch. Being physically assaulted by someone, even if they are unarmed, is not a risk-less proposition. I'm surprised you need a "stand your ground" law. I would think it would be assumed that you could defend yourself, unless there was some bizarre "you can't stand your ground" law.

    Having a gun and letting yourself get pummeled is great, right up until you die. I imagine that, in that situation, the person with the holstered gun would feel quite silly as his life slipped away from him.

  • XM||

    Other misconceptions of the case that persists -

    1. The dispatcher "ordered" Zimmerman to stop following Martin.

    2. There was no Martin DNA on Zimmerman's fist and gun (which somehow disproves the allegations of physical assault, despite photo evidence)

    3. Trayvon only had a skittle and iced tea, so Zim didn't have to shoot him.

    4. Zimmerman "confronted" Martin and provoked the fight.

  • HypatiaLeigh||

    Mr Sullum, Great article. Appreciate your help in battling the many media/political lies.

    Wondering if you could explain for us the difference btwn "stand your ground" and "self defense"? That would help us non legaleagles get a better grasp!

    Regardless, as you stated very well, MANY in the police/justice systems directly involved in this case have repeatedly stated "SYG" not/never involved. Repeatedly shocked with the unrelenting, continual INTENTIONAL neglect of facts while spewing BS (harming our society). So sad. Thanks for your work! Pls post if you know link for SYG vs SD.

  • BambiB||

    Six companies control 95% of all media consumed in America. I wonder if this is just another test case? If they repeat a lie long enough, does it become the truth? And if the next lie they repeat is, "The government is good. The government is your friend. Without the government (food stamps) you could not eat." - would people believe it?

    I see two common factors among Trayvon Martin "supporters". Ignorance and stupidity. They don't know the facts of the case. If you challenge them on the facts, their lack of knowledge is obvious... as the article above demonstrates. But they don't want to know the truth either, They prefer to be ignorant. That's stupidity.

    Any impartial person who looked at the evidence presented at trial and applied a modicum of intelligent thought would conclude that Martin spent four minutes circling back to Zimmerman to engage in one of his favorite past times - beating people up.

    There is one thing I probably would have done differently from George Zimmerman. I would have fired more shots - possibly emptying the magazine. It's tragic that Martin wasn't taught better, that he decided to be a thug. But once he attacked Zimmerman, the only tragedy was that Zimmerman was put through a trial. Few people acknowledge it, but Zimmerman did the public a service by eliminating a violent, dangerous gangsta wannabe from society. The segment of society that thinks that's a BAD thing, is a segment of society we can do without.

  • eatapc@me.com||

    I wonder what Mr. Sullum makes of the juror's interview with Anderson Cooper's last night. She specifically mentioned the stand your ground law when questioned about how the 3 jurors who were initially for conviction were convinced to change their minds.

  • arby||

    I practiced criminal law in a number of similar Commonwealth jurisdictions and sat as judge for over 30 years. I followed the Zimmercase closely. IMRO, no stand your ground elements existed. The police were correct in not pursuing charges- a gutsy call on their part. The prosecutor's team improperly laid charges. The test is "could a reasonable jury, properly instructed, convict on the evidence"? The answer is a resounding No!. The prosecutor at the top of the food-chain in that office should be subject to a disciplinary hearing for laying the charge. That was clearly a gross dereliction of duty, blatant incompetence and motivated by considerations that should never enter a prosecutor's work. Period. IMHO

  • mooo||

    The Addendum notes "stand your ground" language was part of Judge Nelson's (merely) "standard jury instructions". That's no reason to imply it was ignored. In fact, juror B37 said it played a big role in their verdict.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement