I have a problem with any law that allows one to start a fight and claim SYG/self defense when they begin to lose.
I'd think it would encourage LESS violence. Perhaps if people realized that they could be lawfully shot, they might not continue to assault innocent people.No it's a horrible law that encourages more violence and unless there are witnesses it's almost impossible to prove a crime was committed.
It's a short sighted law and should be repealed but won't because the gun lobby will spin it into some kind of anti gun movement.
Excuse me, but it seems to me some people don't want to do the proper thing, but rather, look for legal loopholes to skate through.
Sure, it isn't illegal to follow someone, but where I am from, that's sure to get some mess started -- if you're thinking they're suspicious for whatever reason.
Then, where your from is due for a change in culture. Someone just following you is NOT a reason to attack them.
Yes we hold people accountable.
Its a conscious decision to use violence, and if you do you put yourself possibly in the path of death.
I have a problem with any law that allows one to start a fight and claim SYG/self defense when they begin to lose.
I have a problem with any law that allows one to start a fight and claim SYG/self defense when they begin to lose.
Please elaborate as to how SYG allows someone to start a fight and then pull a gun when the fight goes south.
even without SYG laws they still do that because the penalty would obviously be lower.I think people like to confuse the fact that a good number of defendants attempt to claim self defense means that having a law that allows it means more will commit said crimes. It is always in the defendant's best interest to claim self defense if there is evidence they actually killed the person.
Zimmerman went out looking for trouble, found it for himself, and created it for Martin. Martin is alive today if Zimmerman doesn't make a string of bad choices that leads to the physical altercation. How can it be right during such an altercation that one party can take the life of the other just because he/she fears for his/her own life?
Please elaborate as to how SYG allows someone to start a fight and then pull a gun when the fight goes south.
I find it interesting that these laws are favored in those parts of the country that are most fundamentally Christian, in name only, of course, because, as every real Christian knows, he or she is commanded to resist not evil and turn the other cheek.
I find it interesting that these laws are favored in those parts of the country that are most fundamentally Christian, in name only, of course, because, as every real Christian knows, he or she is commanded to resist not evil and turn the other cheek.
Too easily abused. Get rid of it. With no real witnesses it's probably one of the easiest ways to murder someone legally. Not saying that's what happened in this case but I can see people getting the idea.
In the case that we are mostly talking about, if Zimmerman didn't get out of his vehicle, there wouldn't have been a death that night. Does that mean that Zimmerman shouldn't have gotten out of his vehicle? Maybe, maybe not. In hindsight it is an example of escalation that went from 'this guy looks like he may break into a place' to death of someone. There were probably a half dozen things that could have been changed and would not have resulted in the outcome that happened. Since we basically only have 1 side of the story, it is not cut and dry in this case. Either way, both sides probably did stupid things and the stand your ground law was the one that ended up being used as a defense.
It doesn't but some yahoos feel the laws allow them to do this. That is the only flaw I see in the law.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...enied-bond-again-in-fatal-loud-music-dispute/
Ultimately this guy is going to prison, but still someone is dead.
If there was evidence that Zimmerman somehow abused this law by for example, starting the fight or being the one on top pummeling Martin, then you can be assured that this law would not have saved him from conviction.
Except, you are blaming the victim (Zimmerman) in this case. It is the same as blaming a scantily clad women for getting raped. Sure, she could have dressed in sweat pants and a hoodie, but that does not mean it was her fault (in any way) that someone else chose to break the law.
In the Zimmerman case, all evidence points to him not doing anything illegal and not showing any reason to be punched in the face. Martin, decided to escalate a situation to illegal status by attacking Zimmerman. And not just attacking, but getting on top of and pummeling. If Martin had punched Zimmerman and then ran away, Zimmerman had no reason to use force, as the situation was over.
All the evidence? No, he was acquitted because there was a lack of evidence. If Martin had lived and Zimmerman died (assuming no racial bias) the outcome would have been the same, Martin would have been acquitted for lack of evidence.
Or, Martin would be alive if he decided to use words instead of his fists. All the evidence points to Martin turning back to confront Zimmerman. Martin could have defused the entire situation with a simple statement that he lives in the community, instead he decided that words weren't enough.
With regards to SYG laws, those laws typically have provisions that disallow the use of the SYG defense if you are the provocateur of the altercation. Similarly, for many self-defense laws, there are escalation exceptions to the use of self-defense as a defense for a killing (i.e., if you are in a fist fight with someone, you cannot shoot that person. If during the fight the person pulls a knife, thus escalating the danger, they cannot claim self-defense if you match their force). Each state has various exceptions to the use of the SYG and self-defense laws. Additionally, different states have different burdens on proof of SYG and self-defense laws. Some states require the prosecution to bear the burden to disprove while others have SYG and self-defense laws as affirmative defenses, which requires the person claiming the defense to bear the burden of demonstrating that the elements of SYG and self-defense were met.
Except, in the event of a crime, persons who did not break the law have no expectation of responsibility. The only crime that looks to have been committed was the assault of Zimmerman. Thus, he cannot be held legally responsible for the actions of Martin or the consequences of those actions (which in this case happen to be Martin's death). The idea that Zimmerman in any way is partly responsible for being in a situation has been proven complete BS numerous times in other laws. If a woman is walking down a dark alley, is she to blame if an attacker assaults her there? She "put her self in that situation" right? Martin acted outside of any influence Zimmerman had, unless Zimmerman somehow threatened Martin's life enough that Martin could enact his SYG rights. There was no evidence of that, in fact, Zimmerman's own admission to police was he hoped someone had it on tape. Why would you even state that if you had started the altercation?Although we have no witnesses (other than Zimmerman) to say who started the fight, I agree it's likely that Martin also made some bad choices. If both parties make bad choices, then it'd seem reasonable to expect both parties to shoulder some responsibility for the consequences. It seems in this case Martin's consequence is death and Zimmerman's consequence is exhoneration. Something's wrong here.