NestorMakhnosLovechild, on 21 April 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:
... You can read, can't you? I don't think your quote, nor the original article, says what you think it says.
Basically, the article says: the first part of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law just regurgitates your standard "self-defense" affirmative defense. The second part, the expanded castle doctrine, is the really controversial part, and that part's not at issue here.
Your summary concludes by saying, if Zimmerman attacked Martin, SYG doesn't apply to Zimmerman. If Martin attacked Zimmerman, and if Zimmerman reasonably believed he was subject to death or serious bodily injury, SYG does apply to him but it's no big deal since pretty much every state has a similar standard for self-defense. In other words, SYG would apply, it's just not really that controversial.
So... again... how you can say with certainty that SYG doesn't apply to this situation... I have no idea.
Actually, NY doesnt have that, it seems...thats why Roderick Scott WAS charged with Manslaughter when he shot that teen to defend HIS life.
Also, sci and FLOW - I don't and have not seen any facts that have been revealed that have really changed anything substantial about what happened or what the issues were.
-we still have Zimmerman shooting and killing an unarmed 17 year old boy with no prior history of violent crime in a place that he had every right and reason to be.
-we still have the Sanford police being stupid.
-we still have Zimmerman's history of racial profiling
-we still have Zimmerman's ignoring the 911 operator
-we still have evidence of a physical confrontation
-we still do not have any direct witnesses
What's changed? To my knowledge there's no legal basis for defending yourself when someone punches you that allows you to use lethal force in response. And there's no justification for the Sanford police's response (or lack thereof) either. Zimmerman still appears to be pretty racist, as does the police department. What, exactly, has changed since the first few weeks?
What is changed, Kalbear, is that we are finding out more and more that Zimmerman was CORRECT. Media played up the tape that showed he was not injured...ooops, turns out he was, even if those wounds to his head may be minor (head wounds bleed ALLOT; cant tell from the amount of blood how severe the injury is). By the way, while Trayvon was savagely pounding Zimmermans head against the pavement, ZIMMERMAN had no way of knowing if the injuries would be minor or so severe as to leave him a vegetable. Of course he felt a REASONABLE fear for his life. Oh, and we ARE finding out, as you say Trayvon had no history of "violent crime" that the boy WAS a bit of a thug, as seen by his facebook and twitter accounts; he may have assaulted a busdriver. Then again, he enjoys presumption of innocence as he was not convicted on such, JUST AS ZIMMERMAN does...he to was never convicted of a crime of violence.
Legal indeed for Zimmerman to disregard the 911 operator. 911 did NOT say DONT follow, merely that it was not needed. And, as I stated in the last thread, reasonable profiling is very rational; as that area had been robbed by blacks, I could see why Zimmerman would think a strange black male acting oddly would be suspicious...just as Id suspect white men if I heard on the news that a white serial rapist was on the prowl. I bet YOU do it, even if its on a sub consious level. Oh, and we do have a bunch of witnesses.