Stand Your Ground law

[Elevevated Beat]

The character assassination and baseless accusations that Demelain was referring to was EjoThims' earlier post, not outside sources that we have no control over and who have had no say here.

[zook1shoe]

He admitted to killing another human being. He is guilty by confession.

yes, he killed a man and confessed to it and is guilty. The difference between murder and self-defense (and others) are the circumstances.

the stand your ground gives more leeway than the standard self-defense circumstances allow.

here's some help from your friendly Wikipedia (assuming its an accurate quote on the site) about a similar law in Michigan

For example, Michigan's stand-your-ground law, MCL 780.972, provides that "[a]n individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if . . . [t]he individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent" the imminent death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault of himself or another individual."

In his statement of the series of events, Zimmerman felt that he was in imminent fear for his life and and not involved in a crime when he was attacked. These circumstances allow him to be protected by the law.

[StreamOfTheSky]

The character assassination and baseless accusations that Demelain was referring to was EjoThims' earlier post, not outside sources that we have no control over and who have had no say here.

I wasn't referring to Demelain's post.

I've been fed up for weeks now with how the trial is more a trial of Trayvon than one of George.  They keep trying to say crap like "if the races were reversed, there'd be no arrest" or "that pic of Trayvon flipping the bird totally show he had murderous intent!" or "he did drugs, so he's obviously a horrible person."  Just...SHUT THE FUCK UP, YOU ASSHOLES!

(click to show/hide)

You Assholes being Zimmerman, his family, and his legal defense team.  Oh, and Fox News anchors.  I don't know if they were saying any of that, but they probably were, and them shutting the fuck up would be good in general.

[bhu]

http://www.thestate.com/2013/07/10/2856356/sc-supreme-court-stops-murder.html#storylink=cpy

[Elevevated Beat]

I wasn't referring to Demelain's post.

I've been fed up for weeks now with how the trial is more a trial of Trayvon than one of George.  They keep trying to say crap like "if the races were reversed, there'd be no arrest" or "that pic of Trayvon flipping the bird totally show he had murderous intent!" or "he did drugs, so he's obviously a horrible person."  Just...SHUT THE FUCK UP, YOU ASSHOLES!

(click to show/hide)

You Assholes being Zimmerman, his family, and his legal defense team.  Oh, and Fox News anchors.  I don't know if they were saying any of that, but they probably were, and them shutting the fuck up would be good in general.

Ah kk. My mistake

[linklord231]

http://www.thestate.com/2013/07/10/2856356/sc-supreme-court-stops-murder.html#storylink=cpy

According to that, it's not the SYG law itself that's under scrutiny, but rather when in the trial process the defendant has to claim its protection.  They kind of buried that in the last few paragraphs of the article though 

[Demelain]

http://www.thestate.com/2013/07/10/2856356/sc-supreme-court-stops-murder.html#storylink=cpy

According to that, it's not the SYG law itself that's under scrutiny, but rather when in the trial process the defendant has to claim its protection.  They kind of buried that in the last few paragraphs of the article though 

I don't think they're even considering granting him immunity - I think they're looking to head off this entire idea and go ahead and set the legal precedent that no, it doesn't work like that.
At least I hope so. The definition of SYG usually required you to not be engaged in an unlawful act, so this shouldn't even remotely qualify.

[bhu]

They are trying to head it off because people are using this same idea in Florida to get off.  People think the Zimmerman trial set a precedent that you can now be an aggressor due to loose wording of the law, and then still claim self defense. 

[Solo]

So far I have learned two things:

1) Don't follow people whom you think are criminals late at night when you can just stay in your car.
2) Don't start fights with people who are following you late at night when you can just leave.

[StreamOfTheSky]

2) Don't start fights with people who are following you late at night when you can just leave.

Can you just leave?  Some creep is following me like that, the last thing I want is to show him where I live.  Being in terror for that moment is still > living in terror from then on.  Once creep knows where I live, he can stalk me at his leisure, and my family is also in danger.  Going to a friend's house just gets them involved.

I saw a lot of people in the paizo thread saying, "if he'd followed him all the way home, then he'd be justified to fight him" (because, again, stand your ground doesn't exist for Martin, only Z-man) or the like.  As if you'd know for sure that crazy stalker dude would actually get into a fight with you right then and there, rather than peel off to come back later.  Possibly with friends.

[brujon]

Eh... As an aspiring judge and law student, albeit from a different country with a different legal tradition, my opinion is they should define the circumstances where it applies better, I.E, rewrite the law in a way that ends the ambiguity, or just remove the law. It makes no sense to continue propagating the debate forever... Also, something that allows preemptively striking an would-be-offender is just insane. Regardless of the questionable morality of this, it's something that is so much in the realm of "what ifs" that there's little room for objectivity. Stuff like perceived threat level,  justifiyable violence, etc. yadda yadda. I mean, come on. Unnecessary litigation because it's just too easy to appeal such things, because of vague wordings and subjective arguments. It always ends up being the higher courts that do the final ruling in these cases, bloating the judicial system, when a simple rewrite of the law with a clearer set of rules would make it possible for decisions to actually stick, rather than always being appealed. Me likeys objectivity!

[bhu]

Eh... As an aspiring judge and law student, albeit from a different country with a different legal tradition, my opinion is they should define the circumstances where it applies better, I.E, rewrite the law in a way that ends the ambiguity, or just remove the law.

It's a conservative backed law in a heavily conservative state, that they wish to expand to other states.  Admitting that the law is too ambiguous or needs redone is admitting the law has failed and hampers passage elsewhere.  They'll never do that.  Instead it will be hoped that the fury will die down, future cases won't get nearly this attention, and the status quo can continue as is.  The minority party in this case is such a minority it effectively doesn't exist and has little to no power in the state.  So one side can't change the law, and one side sees no reason to.  Blind fanaticism at it's most fun.  The interesting part will come if the sound and fury doesn't die down.

[EjoThims]

The attacks on the character of the defendant and Martin were both unwarranted

I fully disagree. Showing that Zimmerman's character was a particular way shows if he has a grudge and had any more intent when getting out of the car with his weapon. The character of the dead, however, is not only entirely moot, as he is not the one on trial, but also cannot be defended as he is unable to be present to do so (owing to the whole being shot to death thing).

For the rest of that, he wasn't the aggressor. Trayvon followed Zimmerman knowing that he (George) had lost him (Martin) and was returning to his vehicle.

Failing on a spot vs hide check ends the encounter? As long as Martin felt his life and safety were genuinely at immediate risk (it's entirely possible he felt Zimmerman was headed back to the car in order to catch up with him again - unfortunately we will never know, thanks to Zimmerman's actions), he is still being affected by that initial aggression.

EDIT: Wanted to address this more clearly, and correct an error (identified fallacy as strawman, is actually slippery slope)

It's actually reduction to the absurd. The difference (which so many people miss, especially when using the labeling of something as a fallacy in order to avoid addressing it) is that slippery slope is used to say another separate item will occur because this item has. Such as, because gay marriage, beastiality. Reduction to the absurd is used to say that this individual principle will have unexpectedly absurd consequences. Such as, because gay marriage, shortage of really fabulous tuxedos.

This individual example is "If no longer being able to see the consequences of your aggression makes you irresponsible for them, this absurd example fits the principle."

The self defense on a robbery with stand your ground falls into the same category. And is already being attempted.

He admitted to killing another human being. He is guilty by confession.

yes, he killed a man and confessed to it and is guilty. The difference between murder and self-defense (and others) are the circumstances.

the stand your ground gives more leeway than the standard self-defense circumstances allow.

And this extra leeway is a huge issue with the law itself, as is the interpretation that it lets the initial aggressor of a situation still claim defense.

But what I was referring to specifically there was that I still believe the burden of proving self defense lies with the one making the claim (as is the norm when making a claim).

There is no presumption of innocence for the killing, since it has already been admitted to. But if you wish to claim there was a particular reason for it that sets it aside as protected circumstances, you must prove it.

And a valid reason you would not be able to prove that, would be, for example with the Michigan law quoted, if it was proven you were conducting illegal activity, such as stalking (while carrying a deadly weapon) someone because you have a predecided grudge against people who look like them.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

The jury ... was as wtf as juries are anywhere.


Next small town over from me, two guys are crossing the busiest
street in town.  Drunks blows through, kills the one, maims the other.
The guy that lived has to wear a concussion helmet for the rest of
his life.  The jury took the side of the Drunk.  The guy that lived got
a settlement of less than 2 months of medical care, and was immediately
deposited on SSi + Medicare , and for life.  Drunk gets 30 day slap,
and his insurance policy pays the maimed guy's settlement. 
No national news coverage.

[linklord231]

Just so we're clear, here's the full text of Florida's Stand Your Ground law:

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.

"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

And since it's likely to come up:

Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person’s child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(1) An “aggravated assault” is an assault:
(a) With a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or
(b) With an intent to commit a felony.
(2) Whoever commits an aggravated assault shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

[Elevevated Beat]

*snip*

So what's aggravated stalking?

I fully disagree. Showing that Zimmerman's character was a particular way shows if he has a grudge and had any more intent when getting out of the car with his weapon. The character of the dead, however, is not only entirely moot, as he is not the one on trial, but also cannot be defended as he is unable to be present to do so (owing to the whole being shot to death thing).

Because someone is not on trial and/or deceased does not mean that their character is moot.
If you're going to look at Zimmerman's character, look at the whole thing. Don't just cherry pick.

Failing on a spot vs hide check ends the encounter? As long as Martin felt his life and safety were genuinely at immediate risk (it's entirely possible he felt Zimmerman was headed back to the car in order to catch up with him again - unfortunately we will never know, thanks to Zimmerman's actions), he is still being affected by that initial aggression.

Well if intent and feelings matter from the perspective of one person to the exclusion of others, then we're at an impasse. Zimmerman was following, not because he was "after" Trayvon, but because he was worried about unknown individuals wandering around his neighbourhood. No malice, no aggression. Then Zimmerman loses Trayvon, walks back to his car. Suddenly(!) a person jumps out of the bushes and starts smashing his head into the sidewalk, telling him he's going to die.

It's actually reduction to the absurd. The difference (which so many people miss, especially when using the labeling of something as a fallacy in order to avoid addressing it) is that slippery slope is used to say another separate item will occur because this item has. Such as, because gay marriage, beastiality. Reduction to the absurd is used to say that this individual principle will have unexpectedly absurd consequences. Such as, because gay marriage, shortage of really fabulous tuxedos.

This individual example is "If no longer being able to see the consequences of your aggression makes you irresponsible for them, this absurd example fits the principle."

The self defense on a robbery with stand your ground falls into the same category. And is already being attempted.

Whatever it's called, you still created a fallacious argument and therefore it need not be addressed.
Self defense on a robbery does not fall into the same category as this case as you are in the act of a committing a crime. So that is an ineffectual point.
And please don't start up about Zimmerman stalking Trayvon as I swear that's been addressed a fair few times before.

[bhu]

Not only do you follow your victim but you make threats of physical violence or death, or shove them or in some way put your hands on them that can't otherwise be considered assault.


Granted it may be different for florida.

[linklord231]

*snip*

So what's aggravated stalking?

I just quoted it, but here it is again: "Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person’s child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084."

There are other ways to commit it to, but they all involve violating restraining orders or similar, and are not relevant to this discussion. 

Edit:  Basically, "stalking" is repeatedly following someone with malicious intent, and "aggravated stalking" is stalking + a credible threat.  Just following someone around is not the same as stalking them, but it might be considered harassment in some circumstances.  More information about Stalking, Aggravated Stalking, Harassment, and what constitutes a "credible threat" can be found here.

[Elevevated Beat]

My bad, I really read that quote of yours incorrectly. I blame lack of coffee.

[Demelain]

(click to show/hide)

Whether it fits your fantasy or not, Zimmerman acted in self-defense in justified fear of his life after being assaulted with little (reasonable) provocation. I'm bloody well done discussing this with you - you either shit fallacies, ignore physical evidence, or replace the testimony of the victim/defendant with constructed mental fantasies. You've set yourself in an indefensible position and rather than admit you may be wrong you cling to it with the tenacity of a religious fundamentalist.
Zimmerman didn't roll into the neighborhood in his massive pick-up truck after backing over a girl-scout troop (he couldn't see them because his backglass is covered with a confederate flag). He didn't malaciously follow little Trayvon (on his way home after reading to the elderly, of course), tracking him by the glow of his halo. He didn't shoot Trayvon and then call his BFF Dorner to beat him up a little bit so that he could claim self-defense.
No, I'm not making an effort to construct an argument anymore because you're not worth that effort. You've been fucking ridiculous. If you can't divorce yourself from gut emotional instinct triggered by socially-constructed race guilt, you shouldn't be attempting the discussion to begin with.