Hateful letter stirs local support for an Autistic Boy

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

No, it really isn't. A sociopath could play target practice with anyone they deemed to be "suspicious" and if they go after them and their target aggressively defends themselves verbally or physically, the sociopath could kill them and claim "stand your ground".

 

[Tonichelle]

they don't often work that way - but the courts have been so polluted with loophole chasers that the system is broken. Any law you make they will find a way around it.

 

[TontoK]

"Stand your Ground" had nothing to do with the Zimmerman case. It was not a legal principal in the trial, and neither side brought the law into argument.

Again... the media assisted in spreading that bit of disinformation.

The case was decided on self-defense, which is not some new-fangled idea.

The case rested on this point: Did Zimmerman have a reasonable belief that his life was in danger when Martin had him on the ground pounding his head into the sidewalk?

The jury decided "yes" which was in agreement with what local investigators and the FBI had already determined, and is why neither recommended the case go to trial.

I agree that the media serves a purpose in shining a light on problems, and (returning to the topic for just a moment), I think they could in the case of this autistic boy and his family who have been treated horribly.

However, the Zimmerman case was not the media's finest moment. It essentially ratcheted up political pressure to put a man on trial for his life when the actual law and the facts had made clear that a crime had not been committed.

ETA: The Florida Attorney General should have been fired for caving to that pressure. Her job is to enforce the law, not to try to please reporters and activists. Zimmerman was put on trial because people didn't like him. Had both participants been black... or if they had both been "white Hispanic"... whatever that is.... you'll have to ask the New York Times about that one... this wouldn't have been a case at all.

 

[dorispulaski]

No, the whole definition of self defense has been warped in Florida. In FL, you have no requirement to retreat, whereas you do in many other states. And, in fact, your right to sue in civil court (as in the OJ Simpson case) has also been abridged.

It's a mess.

 

[TontoK]

The definition of self defense may have been warped by SYG, or it may not. In fact, if the warping is a good thing or not...

I suppose that depends on point of view.

In any event, SYG had nothing to do with the Zimmerman/Martin case. Zimmerman could hardly have honored a "duty to retreat" when he was on his back, straddled by Martin sitting on his chest, and having his head bashed into the sidewalk.

Never once, not a single time, was SYG brought up in the actual court case, either by the defense or by the prosecution.

The law simply had nothing to do with the case, except, of course, for the media and activists who repeatedly brought it up, and they have apparently duped some very smart people into believing that the case centered on that law.

 

[dorispulaski]

Clearly, the people of FL have not repealed the law, so their point of view must be that it is OK. But when I'm in FL, my point of view is that I don't ever feel safe there.

 

[heyang]

"Stand your Ground" had nothing to do with the Zimmerman case. It was not a legal principal in the trial, and neither side brought the law into argument.

Again... the media assisted in spreading that bit of disinformation.

The case was decided on self-defense, which is not some new-fangled idea.

The case rested on this point: Did Zimmerman have a reasonable belief that his life was in danger when Martin had him on the ground pounding his head into the sidewalk?

The jury decided "yes" which was in agreement with what local investigators and the FBI had already determined, and is why neither recommended the case go to trial.

I agree that the media serves a purpose in shining a light on problems, and (returning to the topic for just a moment), I think they could in the case of this autistic boy and his family who have been treated horribly.

However, the Zimmerman case was not the media's finest moment. It essentially ratcheted up political pressure to put a man on trial for his life when the actual law and the facts had made clear that a crime had not been committed.

ETA: The Florida Attorney General should have been fired for caving to that pressure. Her job is to enforce the law, not to try to please reporters and activists. Zimmerman was put on trial because people didn't like him. Had both participants been black... or if they had both been "white Hispanic"... whatever that is.... you'll have to ask the New York Times about that one... this wouldn't have been a case at all.

I do agree with you that Zimmerman did not use SYG as part of his defense.... and that under FLorida law, the prosecution did not have a strong case. No witnesses, only the aftermath.

However, since no one knows exactly what happened after Zimmerman called 9-1-1 and before Zimmerman pulled the trigger, most feel that Zimmerman's actions lead to Trayvon's death as he was told by police dispatch that he did not need to follow Trayvon. Zimmerman's failure to do so led to his confrontation with Trayvon and Trayvon's death. Therefore, many people feel Z is responsible and should have some accountability.

In a non-stand your ground state, it's more likely that Zimmerman would've been convicted of some level of criminal sentencing IMHO.

 

[Tonichelle]

In a non-stand your ground state, it's more likely that Zimmerman would've been convicted of some level of criminal sentencing IMHO.

Probably not here. But he would probably be brought up on Civil Charges.

 

[Olympia]

I do agree with you that Zimmerman did not use SYG as part of his defense.... and that under FLorida law, the prosecution did not have a strong case. No witnesses, only the aftermath.

However, since no one knows exactly what happened after Zimmerman called 9-1-1 and before Zimmerman pulled the trigger, most feel that Zimmerman's actions lead to Trayvon's death as he was told by police dispatch that he did not need to follow Trayvon. Zimmerman's failure to do so led to his confrontation with Trayvon and Trayvon's death. Therefore, many people feel Z is responsible and should have some accountability.

In a non-stand your ground state, it's more likely that Zimmerman would've been convicted of some level of criminal sentencing IMHO.

The thing that stands out to me is that Zimmerman had insufficient training for the kind of situation he put himself in. He was the one in authority, and he was the one with the gun. Yet somehow he ended up feeling that he was in danger from the unarmed Martin. A more experienced law enforcement official would have been able to keep control of the situation, not by physical strength but by strategy. Because Zimmerman didn't have that kind of knowledge or savvy, he was instructed by the dispatcher to stay in the car. I'm sure (at least I certainly hope) that when he started with the neighborhood watch, he would have been given at least an orientation session where he would have been told to (a) avoid confrontation and (b) to listen to the instructions of the dispatcher. He did neither. As a result, even though he had a weapon, he allowed Trayvon Martin to become the master of the situation. Therefore, no matter what one assumes about Martin, it was Zimmerman who was responsible for the way events unfolded.

 

[Tonichelle]

with as many "cop shootings/kills" I don't think training keeps you from feeling threatened. If anything it makes you react even quicker on the trigger - and makes you deadly accurate. At least all of my gun safety courses have taught control that way.

Just my two cents. I don't pack 24/7, but I don't NOT "pack heat" either.

 

[dorispulaski]

But I'm sure you wouldn't shoot somebody over an argument about whether somebody put out an extra bag of garbage or whether somebody played music in the car too loud, packing or not packing.

 

[Tonichelle]

But I'm sure you wouldn't shoot somebody over an argument about whether somebody put out an extra bag of garbage or whether somebody played music in the car too loud, packing or not packing.

no, but I'm the person that is going to be the one forced to give up the right and ability to pack a gun.

 

[dorispulaski]

I don't think that is true, because you are not a felon.

If gun legislation passes, which it most probably won't, what you'd be required to do is have your id checked whenever you buy a gun to see whether you had a criminal record. There would be no buying on the internet or in gun shows without having your id checked any more.

(The exact form of the law would determine what a background check would consist of. What most people want is an id check, such as is now done in most states in gun shops.)

 

[Tonichelle]

it won't stop or even curtail gun crime. the ones that use them in the wrong way are the ones that don't follow the laws in the first place.


and considering the Federal Government background checks are crap (they hired a felon to not only work the Alaska Census, but sent him out to the villagers. He was a rapist and ended up killing his mother while he was employed with the Census. He was killed by cop that night. The guy creeped us all out when he'd come into the office, but the background check never picked it up - and he used his real name and social.)

doesn't make me feel confident in the government.

 

[dorispulaski]

IMO it will curtail gun crime, it just won't stop it. Government won't get it all right, but they can get some of it right. This is a statistical issue. If you can make it harder for a felon to get a gun, it's a good thing. If the felon gets the gun next week by stealing one, at least he didn't have it this week just by toodling down to the gun show.


The main way crooks get guns in FL is legally, because it is so easy there. That shouldn't be.

 

[Olympia]

If you think that the presence of government is bad, only compare it with countries without a workable government. Of course bureaucracy is inefficient. It's conducted by humans. It's still better than any alternative. And since funding is limited, they're not going to come and round up law-abiding people's guns in Alaska. They're interested in the proliferation of guns in urban cesspools like Newark and Camden.

 

[heyang]

It seems to me that the lowest gun crime states are either rural areas where everyone has a gun or large cities with little gun ownership.

 

[Tonichelle]

It seems to me that the lowest gun crime states are either rural areas where everyone has a gun or large cities with little gun ownership.

except the ones that ban them

 

[TontoK]

except the ones that ban them

Washington DC and Chicago have very strict gun laws.

And their rates of gun violence are staggering.

Although I haven't specifically fact-checked this, I've read that more Americans are murdered in Chicago than are killed in Iraq.

 

[Olympia]

There are several questions I'd ask when reading those two statistics:

Does either city have enough money to enforce those laws by a large police presence? Laws don't enforce themselves.

Also, does this fact imply that if more people could own guns, there would be less gun violence in those neighborhoods where it is widespread?