Author Topic: Stand Your Ground law  (Read 18939 times)

Offline StreamOfTheSky

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1219
    • View Profile
Re: Stand Your Ground law
« Reply #60 on: July 20, 2013, 08:56:58 AM »
"defendant/victim"?  And YOU want to talk about mental fantasies?

What evidence is there that Martin assaulted him?  (Even if that did happen, Martin could have rightly claimed Stand Your Ground protection, were he alive)

The killer's testimony?  That shouldn't count for squat.

The fact he's bruised?  That doesn't prove he was ambushed/jumped and beaten.  He could just really suck at fighting.  Coincidentally, fabricating how it happened to protect his machismo also happens to make him appear less/not guilty.  But yeah, I'm sure he had no motivation to fib about how it happened...

What actual physical evidence was there that the "fight" consisted of Martin blindsiding him and beating the snot out of him without Zim fighting back?

And if he were ambushed...how does that happen if he was NOT following Martin?  How do you lay an ambush on someone moving away from you?  Because, damn that's impressive.  If he was following Martin, then even if he did get ambushed, Martin had a reasonable cause to feel threatened and SYG applies.

Offline linklord231

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3352
  • The dice are trying to kill me
    • View Profile
Re: Stand Your Ground law
« Reply #61 on: July 20, 2013, 01:02:38 PM »
"defendant/victim"?  And YOU want to talk about mental fantasies?

What evidence is there that Martin assaulted him?  (Even if that did happen, Martin could have rightly claimed Stand Your Ground protection, were he alive)

The killer's testimony?  That shouldn't count for squat.

The fact he's bruised?  That doesn't prove he was ambushed/jumped and beaten.  He could just really suck at fighting.  Coincidentally, fabricating how it happened to protect his machismo also happens to make him appear less/not guilty.  But yeah, I'm sure he had no motivation to fib about how it happened...

What actual physical evidence was there that the "fight" consisted of Martin blindsiding him and beating the snot out of him without Zim fighting back?

And if he were ambushed...how does that happen if he was NOT following Martin?  How do you lay an ambush on someone moving away from you?  Because, damn that's impressive.  If he was following Martin, then even if he did get ambushed, Martin had a reasonable cause to feel threatened and SYG applies.

All testimony, including the testimony from the accused, must be assumed to be true unless concrete, verifiable evidence is presented to the contrary.  "I think he's lying" is not sufficient evidence to prove that Zimmerman perjured himself. 

As I quoted before, "feeling threatened" is not enough to be able to claim Stand Your Ground.  You have to be attacked, and reasonably fear for your own or others' death or grievous bodily harm. 
I'm not arguing, I'm explaining why I'm right.

Offline brujon

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2554
  • Insufferable Fool
    • View Profile
    • My Blog (in PT-BR)
Re: Stand Your Ground law
« Reply #62 on: July 20, 2013, 02:29:59 PM »
It's not as much as "must be assumed as true", as it is "mustn't be assumed to be untrue". They can't say it's untrue unless they can prove it is, but neither Judge nor Jurors have to take his testimony as fact... Several cases that ended with a conviction with only circumstantial evidence and no proof over the decades wouldn't have happened if that wasn't the case.
"All the pride and pleasure of the world, mirrored in the dull consciousness of a fool, are poor indeed compared with the imagination of Cervantes writing his Don Quixote in a miserable prison" - Schopenhauer, Aphorisms: The Wisdom of Life

Offline EjoThims

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 531
  • The Ferret
    • View Profile
Re: Stand Your Ground law
« Reply #63 on: July 21, 2013, 02:34:10 PM »
Whatever it's called, you still created a fallacious argument and therefore it need not be addressed.

Reduction to the absurd is actually a completely legitimate technique and not at all fallacious. It gets a bad rap because of fools (like Scalia and, apparently, Demelain) who cannot distinguish it from the slippery slope.

Either way, assuming it not need be addressed falls squarely under the fallacy fallacy and the false assumption that the mere notion that an opponent's logic may not be completely sound intrinsically invalidates that opponent's conclusion.

But, I've found that, more often than not, people who spout off fallacy names without actually addressing an issue generally only do so because they are unable to actually address the issue themselves, even if it would only require actually explaining how and/or why a fallacy has been used. It's the current trend in total argument evasion and is as valid as simply shouting "nu-uh!"

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.

There is tons of room to argue when, exactly, the criminal action has stopped. After all, if the robbery was thwarted and the attempted robber was fleeing, a crime has been committed, but is not being committed.

And the fact that we even have to discuss it is absolutely ridiculous.

And please don't start up about Zimmerman stalking Trayvon as I swear that's been addressed a fair few times before.

Even if not stalking, a quick googling seems to find that instigating violence, even if you don't expect the violence from your actions, (even against yourself and friends) can be construed as criminal activity or at least stop you for qualifying for self defense.

So, he may well have been committing a crime, regardless of the definition of stalking, and if not, it's still questionable that he was able to claim self defense, even if his story of not physically attacking first is true, as we should assume it to be, since the only one who could refute it is dead.

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.

The deceased's character is moot because it cannot be defended.

It also has no bearing on the reason Zimmerman took action before a physical confrontation occurred. What Martin may or may not have done in the past has absolutely no bearing on whether or not Zimmerman was motivated by any kind of previous grudge or prejudice.

Offline Demelain

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
    • View Profile
Re: Stand Your Ground law
« Reply #64 on: July 21, 2013, 04:05:27 PM »
I suppose I lied when I said I was done.

Quote from: EjoThims
Reduction to the absurd is actually a completely legitimate technique and not at all fallacious. It gets a bad rap because of fools (like Scalia and, apparently, Demelain) who cannot distinguish it from the slippery slope.

Quote
Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity"), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: argument to absurdity), is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.

Quote
In logic and critical thinking, a slippery slope is an informal fallacy. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B.

The statement which I called slippery slope:
Quote
Next they will be saying that I am not at fault when the bullet comes down into a crowd just because I incorrectly thought firing it into the air was the end of it.

He made a conscious choice to take a weapon meant for killing along while stalking a complete stranger with no reason other than vigilantism. And he is still to blame for the events set in motion by that aggressive act, including his own death if that had been the result instead.

The poor logic that an aggressor gets to choose the end of the encounter and has any ground to claim self defense both set horrible and dangerous precedents that will not, ever, end well.

Why it is not reducto ad absurdum, and it is instead slippery slope:
*Following someone on public property is neither inherently dangerous nor irresponsible, unlike discharging a firearm into the air, which anyone who has taken a firearm safety course knows is reckless and dangerous.
*You are attempting to claim that if we allow someone to follow someone else and, as a result, the follower is assaulted by the person being followed, and the follower is forced to kill his attacker because he is in legitimate fear for his life, we must accept that someone who, unprovoked and without cause, discharges a firearm into the air, is not responsible for where that bullet lands.

So you can just fucking explain how your argument made any goddamn sense at all.


Quote from: EjoThims
Either way, assuming it not need be addressed falls squarely under the fallacy fallacy and the false assumption that the mere notion that an opponent's logic may not be completely sound intrinsically invalidates that opponent's conclusion.

I acknowledged the argument from fallacy fallacy and also indicated that to avoid it, maybe you shouldn't use a fallacy to begin with. Further, I addressed your falacy by explaining why it was a fallacy and why the conclusion reached because of it was false.

Quote from: Demelain
Quote from: EjoThims
With the logic this has established, I could break into someone's home and, if they had the gall to attack me, I could shoot them. And I may be arrested for breaking and entering and I may be charged with attempted robbery... But killing them was purely self defense.
Nice straw man.
George didn't "break into someone's home" - he was on public property. Trayvon was not defending himself or his property. Trayvon did not attack a burglar, a belligerent drunk, or a verbally aggressive provocateur. Trayvon noticed someone was following him, lost his pursuer, turned around and followed his pursuer, confronted his pursuer, and physically assaulted his pursuer. If you're going to shit on Zimmerman for not letting the police handle it, then you've got to shit on Trayvon, too - because George followed Trayvon with the intent of making sure he was not breaking into a house. Trayvon followed George with the intent or knowledge that a physical altercation would results, lent credence by the fact that he began that altercation.

I admit I did not address the second one, because it was so blatantly absurd that I didn't think it needed addressing. But apparently I'm wrong about that. I've corrected myself and addressed it in this post.

Quote from: EjoThims
But, I've found that, more often than not, people who spout off fallacy names without actually addressing an issue generally only do so because they are unable to actually address the issue themselves, even if it would only require actually explaining how and/or why a fallacy has been used. It's the current trend in total argument evasion and is as valid as simply shouting "nu-uh!"/quote]

I did address your issues, and they were even issues which had been raised elsewhere in the thread and addressed.
Quote from: Demelain
Quote from: EjoThims
Does not matter. He instigated the confrontation. He was the initial aggressor. It is HIS fault that a conflict happened.
Except again, that's wrong. Zimmerman followed Trayvon, but lost sight of him and returned to his vehicle. Trayvon turned around and followed George back to his vehicle. Meaning the Trayvon instigated the conflict, because he could have just kept going home.

Quote from: EjoThims
Nor should you be allowed to stalk them, both in a vehicle and on foot, while carrying a gun (anyone with proper training knows guns are not for intimidation or wounding, they are for killing), against the advice of the people charged with coordinating government assistance to private citizens no less, and still claim self defense when you kill them because they had the audacity to perceive you as a threat.
That's right. Guns are for killing. And it was used for its purpose, within the constraints of the law, and to reasonably protect himself from serious harm or death.

Quote from: EjoThims
He admitted to killing another human being. He is guilty by confession.
The trial was not to determine guilt or innocence, but whether the killing was justified and what the punishment would be.
And because of a poorly worded law combined with grossly moot character assassination, the wrong decision was reached.
Addressed, and repeatedly. And drop the character assassination - the prosecution instigated in by attacking Zimmerman (the judge in the pre-trial informed the prosecution that they were permitted to question Zimmerman's character. The defense was told that they were permitted to question Trayvon Martin's character only if the prosecution made it relevant by questioning Zimmerman's). The attacks on the character of the defendant and Martin were both unwarranted, but the Defense did not initiate it. They were both aware ahead of time it was a possible topic, and had adequate time to prepare. That Zimmerman's defense was more successful cannot be attributed to him being alive (he never took the stand) - it can be more properly attributed to either inadequacy on the part of the prosecution, or the fact that there simply wasn't much to attack.

Quote from: EjoThims
Sadly, this is the truth. And the argument in favor of it being self defense is that just because Zimmerman thought the encounter that HE had deliberately initiated was over, he was no longer at fault for setting it in motion.
...
He made a conscious choice to take a weapon meant for killing along while stalking a complete stranger with no reason other than vigilantism. And he is still to blame for the events set in motion by that aggressive act, including his own death if that had been the result instead.
The poor logic that an aggressor gets to choose the end of the encounter and has any ground to claim self defense both set horrible and dangerous precedents that will not, ever, end well.
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. You cannot dispute this, because you have no evidence to the contrary. If you do, both I and the state of Florida would like to see it - such evidence would be significant enough to prompt a retrial.

So why don't you take a moment to explain why I'm wrong, instead of repeating the same arguments as though they'll become true if you say them enough.


On the matter of Zimmerman instigating the conflict:
While following someone on public property is odd, it is neither a crime in and of itself, nor would anyone consider it reasonable to turn around and assault said follower. Your opinion may differ on this, but it remains an opinion until you both provide a more concrete definition of instigation and show that Zimmerman's actions fall securely under it.

Quote from: EjoThims
There is tons of room to argue when, exactly, the criminal action has stopped. After all, if the robbery was thwarted and the attempted robber was fleeing, a crime has been committed, but is not being committed.

And the fact that we even have to discuss it is absolutely ridiculous.
You're right that you could not shoot a fleeing criminal. Why? Because you are not in immediate fear for your life. But you COULD pursue him and attempt a citizen's arrest, using non-lethal force if necessary.

Quote from: EjoThims
even if his story of not physically attacking first is true, as we should assume it to be, since the only one who could refute it is dead.
Also the physical evidence of Trayvon only having wounds on his knuckles and the single bullet wound supports that George did not physically confront or oppose Trayvon prior to the self-defense action. You know, because he was screaming for help and wanted to get away without anyone getting hurt. A shame that Trayvon wouldn't let that happen.

Quote from: EjoThims
The deceased's character is moot because it cannot be defended.

It also has no bearing on the reason Zimmerman took action before a physical confrontation occurred. What Martin may or may not have done in the past has absolutely no bearing on whether or not Zimmerman was motivated by any kind of previous grudge or prejudice.
Why can't it be defended? Is it beause the deceased cannot testify? Zimmerman didn't testify, but that didn't stop his character from being defended. It's almost like character is attacked and defended primarily through people who know you, rather than yourself. Maybe that's because, for the purpose of establishing someone's character, it is useless to ask the person directly.

What Trayvon did in the past does have bearing on establishing whether or not he posed a credible threat to Zimmerman, and whether or not Zimmerman could have defended himself without lethal force. Martin's participation in informal fighting competitions were vital to that.

Offline RobbyPants

  • Female rat ninja
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8325
    • View Profile
Re: Stand Your Ground law
« Reply #65 on: July 21, 2013, 10:21:03 PM »
(click to show/hide)
Tone it down. If you want to provide a rebuttal, fine. If you want to bow out for whatever reasons, fine. Don't insult someone and then refuse to carry on the discussion.

I don't particularly care if you're not being friendly, but you need to back your assertions.


EDIT: I guess I missed the page after this one. Thanks for taking the time to back what you said.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2013, 10:23:03 PM by RobbyPants »
My creations

Please direct moderation-related PMs to Forum Staff.

Offline Solo

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1778
  • Sorcelator Supreme
    • View Profile
    • Solo's Compiled Works
Re: Stand Your Ground law
« Reply #66 on: July 22, 2013, 05:59:14 AM »
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.

7:13:10 — Zimmerman says he does not know Martin's location.

Evidently, Zimmerman lost track of Martin, so yes, I would say Martin could have just left.

If you are of the opinion that people should not act out vigilante cowboy fantasies, that is perfectly reasonable. However, by the same logic, people should also not act out vigilante martial arts fantasies.

Quote
What evidence is there that Martin assaulted him?  (Even if that did happen, Martin could have rightly claimed Stand Your Ground protection, were he alive)

The killer's testimony?  That shouldn't count for squat.

The fact he's bruised?  That doesn't prove he was ambushed/jumped and beaten.  He could just really suck at fighting.  Coincidentally, fabricating how it happened to protect his machismo also happens to make him appear less/not guilty.  But yeah, I'm sure he had no motivation to fib about how it happened...

What actual physical evidence was there that the "fight" consisted of Martin blindsiding him and beating the snot out of him without Zim fighting back?

Forensic evidence suggests that the nature and position of the injuries sustained by Zimmerman and Martin is consistent with Zimmerman getting knocked on his back and his front punched by Martin's fist.

While this does not clearly show who is the aggressor, in an actual fight, the person who wins initiative tends to do better. Of course, Zimmerman could have done something and rolled a 1, but there's really no way to tell.

So now I guess I have to ask you a philosophical question: Why do the judicial systems of first world countries presume innocence over guilt, unlike, say, the judicial systems of the Russia, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, etc?

Quote
And if he were ambushed...how does that happen if he was NOT following Martin?  How do you lay an ambush on someone moving away from you?  Because, damn that's impressive.  If he was following Martin, then even if he did get ambushed, Martin had a reasonable cause to feel threatened and SYG applies.
Forgive me for asking, but have you read SYG? I am just curious; feel free to not answer this question, but I would like to know if you have seen the law you are talking about.

Here is the relevant text of Florida's SYG law.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—

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

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.


What portion of the law would Martin have, in your opinion, been able to invoke to justify attacking Zimmerman?

----------------------------------

If I may ask, how did you hear about this in the first place? From what I recall, initial reporting was inaccurate in the extreme, portraying it as a case of a white man shooting a black man for "feeling threatened" when the actual case is more complex. There is such a rush to be the first one to report the news that it is sadly not fact checked, and when the news is reported, controversy is better than factual reporting.

However, since we know this to be true, the correct approach to compensate for the unreliability of the media should be to maintain a degree of skepticism until all the facts are in, as forming judgement based on incorrect premises is a terrible idea.

Have you ever seen a young earth creationist? They are typically very religious individuals whose parents raise them from a young age to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, and keep them close to the church so as to limit their access to contradictory information. Now, as they grow older, they are exposed to more scientific explanations of how the world came to be. For some individuals, they come to question their original beliefs and modify or abandon them. For others, they experience an intensification of their religious beliefs. They rationalize away evidence that the world is billions of years old, that evolution occurs, that the universe was formed in the Big Bang, etc. It's really quite fascinating.

But this sort of behavior is hardly limited to the very religious...
« Last Edit: July 22, 2013, 11:51:28 AM by Solo »
"I am the Black Mage! I cast the spells that makes the peoples fall down."

Offline Hallack

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 415
  • With Jetpacks
    • View Profile
Re: Stand Your Ground law
« Reply #67 on: July 22, 2013, 11:15:43 AM »
This case was more about what could not be proven than what could. 

The fact that Zimmerman killed Martin was not in dispute.

The case before the court was to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was NOT self defense. 

Our legal system has a high bar for proving guilt or it is supposed too.   It is designed to er on the side of letting guilty go vs convicting the innocent. 

Innocent until proven (beyond reasonable doubt) guilty. 

The State never had good case and it should have never went to trial.  It did so due to politics, political pressure, and to distract the masses from other issues like NSA, etc...

A civil case by the damaged parties (family) may be another matter.  There may or may not be grounds for such a suit.  I really don't know and I'm sure that the family will be or has considered their options in that regard.

Also, I think that even having a need for "stand your ground" type laws goes to some of the retardedness in our system.  It is self evident that we all have the right to defend ourselves.  How that is done best will differ from case to case but the right is there naturally, not licensed by the government.  Sometimes it is more prudent to run, sometimes to talk, sometimes to punch someones face, and sometimes to shoot. 


Offline Solo

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1778
  • Sorcelator Supreme
    • View Profile
    • Solo's Compiled Works
Re: Stand Your Ground law
« Reply #68 on: July 22, 2013, 11:48:39 AM »
Quote
The State never had good case and it should have never went to trial.  It did so due to politics, political pressure, and to distract the masses from other issues like NSA, etc...

They might have had a case for manslaughter, but they set the bar at 2nd degree murder when they didn't have enough evidence for 2nd degree murder. I believe they went for murder due to political pressure?

Anyways, one flaw with SYG laws is that they may make people feel like they can act more aggressively than they should. IMO, it would be better if the law says that de-escalation or retreat should be your first option, but should that prove impractical (victim is in a wheelchair, has a heavy backpack on, is cornered, surrounded, etc) or the victim is in his house/property, use of deadly force is acceptable.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2013, 11:50:56 AM by Solo »
"I am the Black Mage! I cast the spells that makes the peoples fall down."

Offline Jackinthegreen

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 6176
  • I like green.
    • View Profile
Re: Stand Your Ground law
« Reply #69 on: July 25, 2013, 01:07:41 PM »
This video, assuming it is true, raises some questions about Trayvon's actions and character.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebu6Yvzs4Ls

Offline awaken_D_M_golem

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7639
  • classique style , invisible tail
    • View Profile
Re: Stand Your Ground law
« Reply #70 on: July 25, 2013, 04:42:40 PM »
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.

Yeah, most towns normally (normally!) a fight gets a slap.
Fight where 1 guy gets beat-up, that guy gets a warning, the "winner" gets 30 days.
Nobody knows any better, no national news coverage.

So then there's this from News Of The Weird of all things:
http://www.newsoftheweird.com/archive/index.html
(click to show/hide)

Usually the 1st Dude kills his wife in a crime of passion
and gets 10 to 20 depending on lawyers.
Dude kills the homewrecker guy = maybe a shorter sentence.

The 2nd woman/man combo ... she should get off
and even local juries really ought to know better.


I think the thing so upsetting to people who don't have a bone
to pick one way or another, on 2nd amendment or Racial
... is these punishments are way off "community standards".
Your codpiece is a mimic.

Offline ksbsnowowl

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4776
  • Warrior Skald, teller of tales.
    • View Profile
Re: Stand Your Ground law
« Reply #71 on: July 25, 2013, 07:00:14 PM »
Quote
However, Marissa Alexander, 34, of Jacksonville, was sentenced last year to 20 years in prison for "aggravated assault" for merely firing a warning shot during an altercation with her estranged husband. The man, Rico Gray, is a serial domestic abuser and admitted that he was threatening Alexander that night and that she never actually pointed her gun directly at him. However, the judge denied Alexander use of the "stand your ground" defense because she had declined to simply walk away from Gray. [Tampa Bay Times, 5-30-2013] [Miami Herald, 5-28-2012]

What was left out of this, however, is that during the argument, she left to go get her gun (from the garage, IIRC) and returned to the front room and shot at her ex as he was leaving.  Oh, and her kids were in the line of fire.  That last is the part that really got her, I'll wager.  Add on Florida's automatic +15(?) year enhancer for using a firearm in your crime, and you get to 20 years.

Had Zimmerman been convicted of manslaughter, he would have faced the same extra time for using a firearm.

Offline dman11235

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2571
  • Disclaimer: not at full capacity yet
    • View Profile
My Sig's Handy Haversack  Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

Avatar d20

Offline StreamOfTheSky

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1219
    • View Profile
Re: Stand Your Ground law
« Reply #73 on: July 26, 2013, 02:15:43 AM »
7:13:10 — Zimmerman says he does not know Martin's location.

Evidently, Zimmerman lost track of Martin, so yes, I would say Martin could have just left.

20/20 is the best kind of hindsight!  Did Martin *know* he could just leave?  Just because Zimmerman lost him (temporarily) doesn't mean Martin knows he's "safe," especially when the stalker is still looking for him.  Like I asked below, how is it possible for Martin to simultaneously follow Zimmerman on his way back to his car AND ambush him?

If you are of the opinion that people should not act out vigilante cowboy fantasies, that is perfectly reasonable. However, by the same logic, people should also not act out vigilante martial arts fantasies.

False equivalency, you act like one is just as dangerous, reckless, and lethal as the other. Ideally, neither would be acted out.  But considering Martin was a an unarmed minor being followed by some stranger, it's quite likely he was scared and not thinking as calmly and rationally as someone sitting at a computer screen.  Zimmerman might also have been afraid of who Martin was and not thinking straight, though he was a fully grown adult, the one doing the pursuing, the one with access to a car for actual easy escape, and the one with a gun.

Forensic evidence suggests that the nature and position of the injuries sustained by Zimmerman and Martin is consistent with Zimmerman getting knocked on his back and his front punched by Martin's fist.

While this does not clearly show who is the aggressor, in an actual fight, the person who wins initiative tends to do better. Of course, Zimmerman could have done something and rolled a 1, but there's really no way to tell.

And yet, Zimmerman can claim self defense from the "attack" that he may or may not have instigated.  Lovely.  I've been talking about Martin's right to self defense from things that aren't disputable - being followed by some guy (who had a gun, though he may not have known that).  As opposed to claiming Zimmerman swung first and Martin was defending himself from that, as if it's a certainty how the fight started.

So now I guess I have to ask you a philosophical question: Why do the judicial systems of first world countries presume innocence over guilt, unlike, say, the judicial systems of the Russia, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, etc?

Innocence was never in question here, it's certain he shot Martin.  It was whether he was guilty or not guilty.  Innocence should be fiercely protected, you shouldn't be falsely convicted of killing someone.  When you for-sure killed someone and are the only eye witness and the matter is whether or not you were justified?  Not the same thing, not at all...

Forgive me for asking, but have you read SYG? I am just curious; feel free to not answer this question, but I would like to know if you have seen the law you are talking about.

Here is the relevant text of Florida's SYG law.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—

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

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.


What portion of the law would Martin have, in your opinion, been able to invoke to justify attacking Zimmerman?

The underlined part.  I don't need to justify the use of lethal force, because Martin wasn't using lethal force.  Though 1 is so stupidly broadly worded, it could probably apply, too.

However, since we know this to be true, the correct approach to compensate for the unreliability of the media should be to maintain a degree of skepticism until all the facts are in, as forming judgement based on incorrect premises is a terrible idea.

Definitely.  The facts include Zimmerman pursuing Martin and shooting him.  I don't claim to know how the encounter went, unlike everyone who says Zimmerman was defending himself.  The stalking with a gun alone is enough for Martin to have a right to defend himself.

If I may ask, how did you hear about this in the first place? From what I recall, initial reporting was inaccurate in the extreme, portraying it as a case of a white man shooting a black man for "feeling threatened" when the actual case is more complex. There is such a rush to be the first one to report the news that it is sadly not fact checked, and when the news is reported, controversy is better than factual reporting.

Yeah...fishing for ad hominem attack ammunition (no matter what I possibly answer, you'll find some fault with it to criticize with).  Not playing your stupid games.  Well, maybe I'm being too pessimistic, and you're not like that...

Have you ever seen a young earth creationist? They are typically very religious individuals whose parents raise them from a young age to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, and keep them close to the church so as to limit their access to contradictory information. Now, as they grow older, they are exposed to more scientific explanations of how the world came to be. For some individuals, they come to question their original beliefs and modify or abandon them. For others, they experience an intensification of their religious beliefs. They rationalize away evidence that the world is billions of years old, that evolution occurs, that the universe was formed in the Big Bang, etc. It's really quite fascinating.

But this sort of behavior is hardly limited to the very religious...

Nope, right the first time!  Trying to compare me to a creationist?  GO.  FUCK.  YOUR.  SELF.   :fu  :fu  :fu  :fu  :fu  :fu  :fu  :fu

Offline Solo

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1778
  • Sorcelator Supreme
    • View Profile
    • Solo's Compiled Works
Re: Stand Your Ground law
« Reply #74 on: July 26, 2013, 02:17:46 AM »
I would respond in greater detail, but I feel it would not be taken well.

Let me simply conclude by saying that I hold your optimization skills in as high a regard as always.
"I am the Black Mage! I cast the spells that makes the peoples fall down."

Offline StreamOfTheSky

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1219
    • View Profile
Re: Stand Your Ground law
« Reply #75 on: July 26, 2013, 02:20:51 AM »
I would respond in greater detail, but I feel it would not be taken well.

Let me simply conclude by saying that I hold your optimization skills in as high a regard as always.

Likewise.  On both parts.

Offline Solo

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1778
  • Sorcelator Supreme
    • View Profile
    • Solo's Compiled Works
Re: Stand Your Ground law
« Reply #76 on: July 26, 2013, 02:39:30 AM »
Since you now seem to be in a calmer state of mind, would you oppose me sharing my thoughts on your response?
« Last Edit: July 26, 2013, 02:49:01 AM by Solo »
"I am the Black Mage! I cast the spells that makes the peoples fall down."

Offline StreamOfTheSky

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1219
    • View Profile
Re: Stand Your Ground law
« Reply #77 on: July 26, 2013, 02:48:27 AM »
Since you now seem to be in a calmer state of mind, would you oppose me sharing my thoughts on your response?

I'm not going to tell you to do something or not do it.  I would rather not get into a big back and forth fight with you, over something that doesn't even matter any more, though.

Offline Solo

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1778
  • Sorcelator Supreme
    • View Profile
    • Solo's Compiled Works
Re: Stand Your Ground law
« Reply #78 on: July 26, 2013, 02:49:12 AM »

If I may point out one thing as a matter of law?

Quote
The underlined part.  I don't need to justify the use of lethal force, because Martin wasn't using lethal force.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/use-of-deadly-force/
Quote
Deadly force is generally defined as physical force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.

Using your fists counts as deadly force by the definition of deadly force.
"I am the Black Mage! I cast the spells that makes the peoples fall down."

Offline StreamOfTheSky

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1219
    • View Profile
Re: Stand Your Ground law
« Reply #79 on: July 26, 2013, 02:51:30 AM »
If I may point out one thing as a matter of law?

Quote
The underlined part.  I don't need to justify the use of lethal force, because Martin wasn't using lethal force.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/use-of-deadly-force/
Quote
Deadly force is generally defined as physical force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.

Using your fists counts as deadly force by the definition of deadly force.

That's fine.  I did not know "deadly force" was defined that broadly.  Unarmed defense is usually considered nonlethal, I thought.  Would that also make tasers deadly force?