Zimmerman Case

[WD-40]

Did you hear about that one singer who wont perform in any state with the stand your ground law. That law is bullcrap its usless

Too bad 'every' State doesn't have a 'Stand your Ground' Law. That way the singer won't make a lot of 'munah'.

[Darth Crater]

Ted, I sincerely hope you become better informed as you grow up. You have all mans knowledge available to you- its good that youre reading news and not just lolcats, but you need to read past the mainstream headlines.

To be fair, Stand Your Ground laws are pretty much useless. They don't deter crime (see p. 9) but do increase homicides. In addition, they are often passed with terrible wording that lets drug dealers get away with murder.

That doesn't mean Ted's post was very useful or coherent, of course.

[(SWGO)Rock]

Ted, I sincerely hope you become better informed as you grow up. You have all mans knowledge available to you- its good that youre reading news and not just lolcats, but you need to read past the mainstream headlines.

[(SWGO)Rock]

Ted, I sincerely hope you become better informed as you grow up. You have all mans knowledge available to you- its good that youre reading news and not just lolcats, but you need to read past the mainstream headlines.

To be fair, Stand Your Ground laws are pretty much useless. They don't deter crime (see p. 9) but do increase homicides. In addition, they are often passed with terrible wording that lets drug dealers get away with murder.

That doesn't mean Ted's post was very useful or coherent, of course.

[MATTHEW'S_DAD]

The point of interest behind the Stand Your Ground laws and Castle Doctrine laws is to protect the individual from civil suits in a justifiable self defense act. Yeah, drug dealers abuse these laws and literally get away with murder. As I've ALWAYS said on here, the more laws we pass, the more trouble we have. On the flip side though, people need to be protected from expensive and frivolous civil suits when they have had to enact these laws for self defense. In this instance the solution is NOT to repeal SYG laws but to discover a way to prevent it's abuse by criminals.

And for what it's worth, SYG was not used in the Zimmerman trial.
http://www.fox4now.com/news/local/Zimme ... 49891.html

Attacking the SYG ground laws because of this trial is idiotic.

[Darth Crater]

The point of interest behind the Stand Your Ground laws and Castle Doctrine laws is to protect the individual from civil suits in a justifiable self defense act. Yeah, drug dealers abuse these laws and literally get away with murder. As I've ALWAYS said on here, the more laws we pass, the more trouble we have. On the flip side though, people need to be protected from expensive and frivolous civil suits when they have had to enact these laws for self defense. In this instance the solution is NOT to repeal SYG laws but to discover a way to prevent it's abuse by criminals.

I'm not convinced that the people passing these laws are using the same reasoning you are to defend them. They seem to be thinking that it will reduce crime or save lives, neither of which are the case.

I also don't see why you would want more homicides (and fewer legitimate lawsuits) in exchange for fewer frivolous lawsuits, but I guess that's ultimately your choice.

And for what it's worth, SYG was not used in the Zimmerman trial.
http://www.fox4now.com/news/local/Zimme ... 49891.html

True.

[Bryant]

I also don't see why you would want more homicides (and fewer legitimate lawsuits) in exchange for fewer frivolous lawsuits, but I guess that's ultimately your choice.

The law removes the necessity to retreat from life threatening situations. So by definition it only increases violence where there is already violence present and empowers the defending party. Now maybe you could argue that a legitimate judgement of if there really is a life threatening situation is not being met (or in cases like the drug dealer - the man was literally inviting lawless activity into his home - the law could possibly be optimized in cases like this, but even a drug dealer has a right defend himself in a legitimate situation). The reason I'm in favor of the law is not that I'm in favor of more homicides, but that I believe people should be able to fight back when they're not the aggressors. Of course lethal force must be met with legitimate concern for loss of life.

[Darth Crater]

Now maybe you could argue that a legitimate judgement of if there really is a life threatening situation is not being met (or in cases like the drug dealer - the man was literally inviting lawless activity into his home - the law could possibly be optimized in cases like this, but even a drug dealer has a right defend himself in a legitimate situation).

His home? Ha, no. As the article states, he was acquitted for two separate homicides committed in public places. He wasn't trespassing, wasn't committing "criminal activity" at the time (according to the courts), and claimed he felt threatened. Under the wordings of these laws, that's all you need. (To be fair, he was actively being attacked in the second case, but I don't think we want to encourage people to actively return gunfire in public areas.)

The law removes the necessity to retreat from life threatening situations. So by definition it only increases violence where there is already violence present and empowers the defending party.
...
The reason I'm in favor of the law is not that I'm in favor of more homicides, but that I believe people should be able to fight back when they're not the aggressors. Of course lethal force must be met with legitimate concern for loss of life.

The problem is that these laws encourage people to seek and escalate confrontations. People are not exactly known for good judgment, so the end result is creating violent situations.

[Bryant]

lol, I just skimmed that article a couple days ago and thought I read that it was in his home. Don't know where I got that from. Regardless, my point was the same.

That's what I was referring to by 'optimizing' - clearly the intention of the law is not to have people seek out these situations and thus needs some additional common sense added. In other words, "the right to stand your ground" should not give you "the right to actively place yourself into violent situations".

For the drug dealer though, some things just aren't sitting right:
"Smith claimed that Williams pulled a gun on him, though at least one witness said Smith was unarmed."
"The state did not file "felon in possession" charges against Smith. However, eight months later, a federal gun possession charge was filed against him."
It kind of seems like there was never really a thorough investigation.
Also "Although it does not apply if the defendant is committing a crime, the law does not define criminal activity and courts have differed on their interpretations of the statute. As a Times database of nearly 200 "stand your ground" cases shows, simply being a felon in possession of a gun or a drug dealer has not prevented defendants from successfully invoking the law." It would also seem that the courts are unwilling to consider these cases as not applying.

[Darth Crater]

That's what I was referring to by 'optimizing' - clearly the intention of the law is not to have people seek out these situations and thus needs some additional common sense added. In other words, "the right to stand your ground" should not give you "the right to actively place yourself into violent situations".

I just don't see how you can avoid encouraging people to seek out violence. It seems to be a natural consequence of the laws. If you take away a disincentive (potential for legal action because of excessive force), that's the same thing as adding an incentive.

I have no clue why the courts made those decisions either, but the people involved have much more law experience than I do. The case still serves my point well enough - the laws are atrociously written.