DescentBB

....is THIS case a bit more clear-cut for those of you out there, who defended Zimmerman?
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/20 ... case-video


for the record, I think this is a wholly different matter, and disagree with the link that the CS Monitor tries to make. The article does point out the key differences(defendant fled, there were a lot of witnesses, etc).

Zimmerman case had nothing to do with stand your ground.

agreed, although many on both sides tried to apply it.

Actually, this case is more similar to that theater shooting I posted about in my thread: "Whatever happened to Politeness".

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=21029

Kind of the same thing going on here. Someone is being a jerk and playing annoying and loud music. Someone else asks them to turn it down. The music loving adolescent kid probably said: "F**k you!" Then the irritated guy who asked the kid to turn down his music gets angry at being mouthed off at by a punk kid. So the music guy gets all in a snit and gets belligerent when he's asked again to turn down the music, maybe getting up in the face of the guy who made the original request. Bingo, the guy gets royally ticked off at the punk kid, the punk kid probably shows off to his friends that he's tough in the face of an adult and shots are fired. So the kid who started the problem by not turning down his music is now dead. What a country we live in.

By the way, the guy who fired the shots? He left the scene after he killed the kid. He didn't stick around for the police to show up. That was his second mistake, the shooting being this first, and probably the one that guarantees he gets put in jail for life.

Spidey wrote:Zimmerman case had nothing to do with stand your ground.

And slick likely has no interest in the other differences in the two situations.

From what little they offered I'm thinking a proper story would be highlighting the extreme contrast between the two cases.
Not attempting to associate them as slick has done despite his disclaimer.

If you associate the shooter with Martin, and Zimmerman with these victims, you can draw a parallel and examine what happens when the aggressor has the gun instead of the victim... Sort of a the-other-way-around study.

Will Robinson wrote:

Spidey wrote:Zimmerman case had nothing to do with stand your ground.

And slick likely has no interest in the other differences in the two situations.

this comment, despite the fact that I've stated, twice, in this thread that I think the two situations are completely different. What I was aiming for was the opinion of those who defended Zimmerman as to whether one can take the concept of 'self-defense' too far.

While it is well known I supported Zimmerman, in this case the shooter is guilty of murder. First off he approached the car, the occupants did not approach him. The shooter was at a dam gas station and could of just filled his tank and left. Thinking you saw a gun and actually seeing one are two different things. Leaving the scene without calling the cops is a big no no for ccw holders. As such all these things will keep the ★■◆● shooter behind bars for a long time.

thank you, Woodchip....THAT was the sort of response I was seeking(not the specifics, but the tone, although I agree with you on the specifics).

Slick I find your claim that you sincerely wanted to know if this was a case of self defense that we don't support completely bogus. The details of why we determined Zimmermans claim to self defense was justified were hashed out in fine detail and those same details work perfectly to prosecute this shooter.

You, on the other hand, tried all sorts of obfuscation to get around the facts and the law in that case. We know exactly where you stand equally well.

Now you want us to believe you see a distinction between the two scenarios that we may not and just had a bit of curiosity as if those weeks of discussion didn't lay out everyone's position on what is and what isn't self defense quite clearly?!?

I think you just wanted to stir the pot by associating Zimmerman with this crazy loon shooter in whatever backhanded fashion you thought you could pass off. And since you DO KNOW exactly where we stand on the issue you included your attempted pre-emptive disclaimer.
You just couldn't resist the urge to post a crazy shooter story and try to squeeze a little more excrement out in the process.

don't quit your day job, Will, because you suck at analyzing other people's intent.

Really slick?

Lets see:

Title of thread - "Stand your ground stupidity" implies there is an ill conceived application of the stand your ground defense. That the defense is wrong.

You then attached a single, loaded, question to the post - "....is THIS case a bit more clear-cut for those of you out there, who defended Zimmerman?"

Your emphasis/all caps on the word 'THIS' is telling.
By accenting that word you imply an association, a 'sameness' between the two and beg the supporters of Zimmerman to possibly now see the light...to recognize the ill conceived application of stand your ground defense.

In a courtroom the judge would affirm an objection to that language as leading the witness. You weren't neutrally inquiring of the opinion of others you were clearly framing the characteristics of the opinion of others and asking them if they wanted to take their ill conceived opinion to the next level of 'wrong' or admit fault.

This was no thoughtful invitation to discuss the differences between the two situations, not even close to it!
On this board, knowing your track record, it becomes quite obvious you were trolling.

Will Robinson wrote:Really slick?

Lets see:

Title of thread - "Stand your ground stupidity" implies there is an ill conceived application of the stand your ground defense. That the defense is wrong.

no, it 'implies' exactly what I meant....that this is NOT a case of anyone validly standing their ground.

You then attached a single, loaded, question to the post - "....is THIS case a bit more clear-cut for those of you out there, who defended Zimmerman?"

yes, because some claimed he had rights under that law, although his defense didn't invoke it.

but, thanks for the knee-jerk response.....almost predictable by this stage. You didn't even use as many exclamation points as you have of late.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:
Title of thread - "Stand your ground stupidity"
implies there is an ill conceived application of the stand your ground defense. That the defense is wrong.

no, it 'implies' exactly what I meant....that this is NOT a case of anyone validly standing their ground.

hmm, I state your title declares the 'stand your ground defense' is wrong. Then you announce I'm incorrect but then tell me that what you meant was....the defense was wrong....
Lol! Sounds...really similar doesn't it?

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:You then attached a single, loaded, question to the post -
"....is THIS case a bit more clear-cut for those of you out there, who defended Zimmerman?"

yes, because some claimed he had rights under that law, although his defense didn't invoke it. ...

Then here you, once again, concede I was correct in explaining your reason behind your assertion that the stand your ground defense was wrong. Stating you made that point in your title because some people here on the DBB wanted to use that defense for Zimmerman. And that is the impetus for your question that implies they had it wrong then and you want to see if they want to still be wrong....
Wait, that sounds familiar too. Oh well.

So I have it all wrong in spite of your confirming my assertions?!?

It seems what is left is for us to believe that you did not characterize their position as wrong, just merely wanted some people who claimed stand your ground for Zimmerman to chime in and let you know if they wanted to take the same position now? That is what you want us to believe was your intention with this thread. There was no contempt or mockery in your loaded question? I guess it was just a poorly worded invitation that smacked of trolling but you didn't mean for it to be worded that way.
At least when Thunderbunny does a drive by stick in the eye thread he doesn't pretend he didn't do it!
Man up dude!

But ok, lets keep playing, your game, your rules right?
So who were the DBB members who held the Stand Your Ground belief in Zimmerman's case anyway?
Surely you could have indicated this question was for them if their position two years ago has been on your mind enough to cause you to start this thread when you read about this recent shooting. A shooting that is quite unlike the Zimmerman shooting. Really it is a poor example to choose as catalyst to follow up on such a line of benign curiosity. There must have been other self defense shootings in the news during the last two years that weren't so obviously dis-similar. Maybe one where Stand Your Ground could apply maybe? Just me thinking...

I guess it was just an extremely oddly phrased and poorly executed invitation to discussion.
But at least I got it wrong, your affirmation, twice, notwithstanding, and you are of course innocent of trolling us.
How do they say....ahh yes... with all due respect, my apologies.

{ I'm Will Robinson, this message is loaded with contempt and I approve this message}

Will Robinson wrote:blah-blah-blah......etc,etc.
I'm Will Robinson, this message is loaded with contempt and I approve this message}

wow, do YOU have to get out more. You're a really angry guy. Hope you don't carry a gun around normal people.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:blah-blah-blah......etc,etc.
I'm Will Robinson, this message is loaded with contempt and I approve this message}

wow, do YOU have to get out more. You're a really angry guy. Hope you don't carry a gun around normal people.

Lol. That isnt anger. That rant is born of disgust and a worn out tolerance for your special blend of deceit and arrogance.

In fact I'm enjoying that we may have seen a bit of a Freudian slip from you just now as you referred to yourself as 'not normal'.

how did I do so? Wow, do you have issues! Add reading comprehension to the list.

It's curious that this was the second morning CNN spent a large block of time focused on this case. Why? I suspect there is some notion in the liberal circles that this case will somehow affect guns rights and Stand Your Ground laws. It won't. I'm still waiting for the newsies to spend any time focusing on a black guy killing a white guy. Does anyone smell agenda here?

woodchip wrote:It's curious that this was the second morning CNN spent a large block of time focused on this case. Why? I suspect there is some notion in the liberal circles that this case will somehow affect guns rights and Stand Your Ground laws. It won't. I'm still waiting for the newsies to spend any time focusing on a black guy killing a white guy. Does anyone smell agenda here?

if it was a liberal thing, why doesn't MSNBC have the same focus? I think this is a geographic thing, with CNN being out of Atlanta. They've had coverage of this case since it happened, and live coverage from the court.

callmeslick wrote:how did I do so? Wow, do you have issues! Add reading comprehension to the list.

I'm starting to realize you aren't as smart as I'd given you credit for.

My rant, clearly aimed at you, causes you to imply I am angry and you 'hope I don't go armed around normal people'.
You juxtaposed yourself with 'normal people'.

And I agree with the distinction you made. And I'm grateful that there are many more normal people than people like you out here in the world.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:how did I do so? Wow, do you have issues! Add reading comprehension to the list.

I'm starting to realize you aren't as smart as I'd given you credit for.

My rant, clearly aimed at you, causes you to imply I am angry and you 'hope I don't go armed around normal people'.
You juxtaposed yourself with 'normal people'.

how did I juxtapose in such a way? I made a pretty basic English sentence. You, out of anger, dislike, whatever, chose to read something into it which is in no way contained in my simple sentence.

And I agree with the distinction you made. And I'm grateful that there are many more normal people than people like you out here in the world.

whatever.

woodchip wrote:It's curious that this was the second morning CNN spent a large block of time focused on this case. Why? I suspect there is some notion in the liberal circles that this case will somehow affect guns rights and Stand Your Ground laws. It won't. I'm still waiting for the newsies to spend any time focusing on a black guy killing a white guy. Does anyone smell agenda here?

Afraid not woody. GMA has been running with this story the first part of the second half hour, every day for a week or more. They did this ad nauseum with that doctor who was convicted of murdering his wife before this one came along. It's just another sensational story for entertainment and ratings value. When this one concludes, they'll dredge up some other sordid story the court pundits can argue over.

mistrial on murder charge. Outrageous. Let the full-on boycott of every damned business in Florida go forth until that godawful law is stricken from the books.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mis ... ial-n31231

apparently, if your racism, paranoia, or whatever other loony fears convince YOU that someone is a threat, reason doesn't have to enter into it. Just fire away, and the fact that someone ends up dead is just fine with the residents of Florida.

Yea, take out your misguided anger on innocent people.

That's not the way I read it Slick. He got 60 years and there was some doubt as to whether it was first degree murder or not. He reacted out of fear and paranoia, just like you said. Would have all been avoided had he minded his own business. I think in this case, yes, racially motivated but more from conditioning than anything else. 60 years is a long time.

flip wrote:I think in this case, yes, racially motivated but more from conditioning than anything else.

Wait, are you suggesting that people can be conditioned by racial stereotypes to commit crimes and when they do a small part of the blame goes to society at large?

I can't claim any particular knowledge in this case, but I think the decision is that he reacted badly, not went out with the intent to kill someone, so it's not first degree murder.

Mistrial is no guarantee he won't be found guilty second time around. We don't know what evidence was used to make the jury indecisive. That prosecutor is not very good so this may be on her...

Also, as to 'the law'... really the premise that if you believe you are in imminent danger you may defend with lethal forced is fundamental to all state's self defense law. It isn't special to Floridas stand your ground. The big question I have, based on the little we know is did the shooter get out of his car or shoot from his car?

Because if the shooter was waiting in his car for his wife and he claims the victim was getting out of the other car but it has been proven the victim was in fact shot inside the other car...and no sign of any double barrel shotgun is to be found...if he got out of his car he clearly instigated or advanced a confrontation.

Without any other evidence (shotgun or eyewitness to support his claim) it seems pretty clear he was not in imminent threat condition unless the 'imagined double barrel' testimony was extremely convincing.

And if he got out of his car to approach the victim *after* the verbal dispute began and then imagined a gun and started shooting, in my mind, he has no defense because the victim at the instance the shooter advanced has more right to a self defense cause to produce a weapon than the shooter had to use one!

If they exchanged words, both parties still inside their respective vehicles, and he believed a belligerent party to the confrontation in the other car was bringing a weapon to bear on him so he shot right then from his car he might have a prayer to convince a jury he had no other option...split second to stop the guy with the shotgun from shooting him etc.

So if he shot from the inside the car and told a convincing account of believing he was about to be shot I could see a jury being reluctant to go for 1st degree murder. Under those circumstances I could see them thinking this guy is guilty of 2nd degree murder because he was wrong about what he believed and is responsible for creating that belief.

A lot of lawyers criticized this prosecutor for over reaching in the Zimmerman case so she may have failed in this one for the same reason. But mistrial means it isn't done yet.

callmeslick wrote:mistrial on murder charge. Outrageous. Let the full-on boycott of every damned business in Florida go forth until that godawful law is stricken from the books.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mis ... ial-n31231

Just as I suspected slick. Your post was not about a murder it was really about changing a law you saw as promoting gun violence. You also see this as a means to erode 2nd amendment gun rights and 1 step leading ultimately to total gun control. You are so mad at the verdict you would if you could, make it painful for all citizens in Fla. How Marxist of you.

callmeslick wrote:apparently, if your racism, paranoia, or whatever other loony fears convince YOU that someone is a threat, reason doesn't have to enter into it. Just fire away, and the fact that someone ends up dead is just fine with the residents of Florida.

What a perfectly stupid and ignorant comment. I guess you missed the part where the prosecutor is immediately re-filing for a 1st degree murder charge. So no to your looney statement about reason as you obviously don't know the meaning of the word.

woodchip wrote:Just as I suspected slick. Your post was not about a murder it was really about changing a law you saw as promoting gun violence.

I think the law is prone to this sort of murkiness around cold-blooded murder, but that wasn't my original point of the thread.

You also see this as a means to erode 2nd amendment gun rights and 1 step leading ultimately to total gun control.

seriously? You think having the right to kill a person because their music annoys you or they are on a phone in a theater is what the Founding Fathers had in mind? In what way would curtailing such absolute stupidity lead to 'total gun control'

You are so mad at the verdict you would if you could, make it painful for all citizens in Fla. How Marxist of you.

actually, it's true-blue American. The only people who can change this are Floridians, and if they can be stirred from what seems a bit of lethargy by the threat of a boycott, well, that's the American way. As American as apple-pie, actually.

What a perfectly stupid and ignorant comment. I guess you missed the part where the prosecutor is immediately re-filing for a 1st degree murder charge. So no to your looney statement about reason as you obviously don't know the meaning of the word.

at the time I posted, there was no talk of a retrial, merely a sentencing hearing next week or so on the charges he was found guilty of. No matter, any law that makes is difficult to sort out 'self-defense' in a case like this has to go.

Florida: still America's wang. Maybe one of these years it'll finally shrivel up and fall off.

Hell, TG, I've family there(Sebring area), and love to fish the lower parts of the state, but really, they've been controlled by whackos for too long.

By claiming he thought he saw the guy produce a shotgun during a confrontation and he feared for his life he isn't invoking anything unique to Florida. Everyone in every location in America has that right.
Of course for your claim to be justified it would serve you best if
A) you don't instigate the confrontation and B) you are correct in your assessment that you are in imminent danger!

This guy seems to fail both tests and likely the jury was willing to convict him of 2nd degree but the prosecution may not have included that charge in the indictment thus leaving the jury stuck trying to fit reality in between not guilty and 1st degree...neither of which apply!

Don't blame Forida for your not understanding universal self defense laws blame them for letting this over zealous prosecutor continue to posture for votes at the expense of proper execution of her duties!

Will Robinson wrote:By claiming he thought he saw the guy produce a shotgun during a confrontation and he feared for his life he isn't invoking anything unique to Florida. Everyone in every location in America has that right.

no, they don't, if several eyewitnesses, his girlfriend and the police investigators prove, definitively that such a claim was BS. And, they did. I can guarantee in every sensible state(both of my locations, for example), what he did, given the evidence presented, was a slam-dunk case of 1st degree murder. You can't just claim you saw something that wasn't there, can't claim someone got out of a car when he clearly did not, and so forth. That, actually, should have brought perjury charges on top of the rest.

If what you say is true, then "stand your ground" law doesn’t even apply here, and you should be mad at the court system instead.

Spidey wrote:If what you say is true, then "stand your ground" law doesn’t even apply here, and you should be mad at the court system instead.

the problem with 'Stand your ground' laws is this: ambiguity around the definition of the words 'reasonable' and 'imminent', mainly 'reasonable'. You see, such laws state(and I'm paraphrasing here) that one has the right to respond with force if one has the 'reasonable fear' of 'imminent' physical harm. So, if a jury finds one's fears to be 'reasonable' even if they were based on bogus perceptions, racism, anger, or outright hallucination, you neither have to retreat(as most sane states require) if such is practical, nor even hold fire. It's insane, and provides(as if such was needed with certain people) carte blanche to shoot first and ask questions later. In areas, which we've noted here still exist, where there are profound suspicions of people whose skin color is different, that can be seen as a 'reasonable' fear. The law is a crock of crap, should never have been enacted, and if one studies the matter, was a direct result of NRA infusion of cash into ALECC, a legislative workgroup for 'conservative' values. They tried to enact it in over 24 states, succeeded in a handful. I put quotes around the word conservative, because there isn't anything conservative about working to make it easier for your fellow citizens to wantonly kill one another.

Stand your ground doesn’t give anyone the right to shoot first and ask questions later or any sort of carte blanche whatsoever.

If the case is cut and dry murder as you say then the defense is just clutching for straws, and could have said the client went crazy because of the loud music, and used temporary insanity instead.

And yea yea, on all of that political and racial boo hoo hoo. Yawn...

Spidey wrote:Stand your ground doesn’t give anyone the right to shoot first and ask questions later or any sort of carte blanche whatsoever.

technically, no, it doesn't. Practically, yes, it does. When cases like the one at hand become even CLOSE to difficult to call, it will embolden the next one. Of course, the next time a BLACK person plugs a carload of white kids for playing loud country music, it likely won't come out the same way.

But, that has nothing to do with the law…

You can’t tackle every problem caused by racism by changing all of the laws that might be misused by some racist.

Spidey wrote:But, that has nothing to do with the law…

it has EVERYTHING to do with the law, and the wording of it.

You can’t tackle every problem caused by racism by changing all of the laws that might be misused by some racist.

but, if you have one that encourages an open hunting season on black people for anyone with access to a decent defense attorney, you can.

Well, I know when I’m being treated as stupid, and I sure as hell can tell a political rant when I hear one…

So you can have the last word if you want.