Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Stand Your Ground law coming under scrutiny due to the Zimmerman/Florida incident
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Glocktogo" data-source="post: 1777523" data-attributes="member: 1132"><p>Mike Brown already answered your questions and I really can't improve upon his response.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The standard has always been innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. SYG hasn't changed that in the slightest. The media and the public seem to have forgotten that. Even the phrase "Skittle-armed Martin as a mortal threat" is inflammatory rhetoric designed to make Zimmerman appear guilty, because no one could commit a lethal attack with a bag of Skittles". Well no duh genius! Who ever said that Martin threatened him with a bag of Skittles? What's claimed by the defendant is that Martin attacked him with fists and used the pavement as an anvil for his head!</p><p></p><p>The prosecution will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin didn't do that to Zimmerman, or that Zimmerman threatened to use his gun on Martin first. If they can't, they have no case. SYG doesn't even need to factor into it. Your previous scenario about shooting someone in an alley and claiming SYG self defense ignores the possibility that someone intent on killing another may claim they retreated, when in fact they did not. It also ignores that the defendant would need to show evidence of a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm before using lethal force, which is something that applies regardless of SYG. </p><p></p><p>SYG doesn't make it any easier to kill someone unnecessarily, it simply makes it easier to defend yourself. While you don't have to do "A" before doing "B", you still have to prove you had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. </p><p></p><p>As for the article quotes, when Zimmerman claimed self defense, he now has the requirement to show a reasonable fear. Once it was determined that the defense could use self defense as an immunity from conviction, the prosecution must now prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Zimmerman didn't <u>reasonably</u> fear for his life. This is how it was before SYG was enacted, so nothing in that respect has changed.</p><p></p><p>What's changed as a result of SYG is the precursor to the attack. Before, Zimmerman could be found guilty simply because he approached or attempted to approach Martin, regardless of whether he ultimately came to reasonably fear for his life. With SYG, he is legally allowed to be anywhere it's legal to be and defend himself, regardless of the potential threat.</p><p></p><p>The press and the anti-gun, anti-self defense liberals want to use this case to overturn the SYG laws. If they spent half as much time examining what makes people commit criminal attacks and how to prevent it, it would eliminate far more needless deaths than repealing SYG laws. Unfortunately, that doesn't get people elected or sell ad space. <img src="/images/smilies/frown.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":(" title="Frown :(" data-shortname=":(" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Glocktogo, post: 1777523, member: 1132"] Mike Brown already answered your questions and I really can't improve upon his response. The standard has always been innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. SYG hasn't changed that in the slightest. The media and the public seem to have forgotten that. Even the phrase "Skittle-armed Martin as a mortal threat" is inflammatory rhetoric designed to make Zimmerman appear guilty, because no one could commit a lethal attack with a bag of Skittles". Well no duh genius! Who ever said that Martin threatened him with a bag of Skittles? What's claimed by the defendant is that Martin attacked him with fists and used the pavement as an anvil for his head! The prosecution will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin didn't do that to Zimmerman, or that Zimmerman threatened to use his gun on Martin first. If they can't, they have no case. SYG doesn't even need to factor into it. Your previous scenario about shooting someone in an alley and claiming SYG self defense ignores the possibility that someone intent on killing another may claim they retreated, when in fact they did not. It also ignores that the defendant would need to show evidence of a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm before using lethal force, which is something that applies regardless of SYG. SYG doesn't make it any easier to kill someone unnecessarily, it simply makes it easier to defend yourself. While you don't have to do "A" before doing "B", you still have to prove you had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. As for the article quotes, when Zimmerman claimed self defense, he now has the requirement to show a reasonable fear. Once it was determined that the defense could use self defense as an immunity from conviction, the prosecution must now prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Zimmerman didn't [U]reasonably[/U] fear for his life. This is how it was before SYG was enacted, so nothing in that respect has changed. What's changed as a result of SYG is the precursor to the attack. Before, Zimmerman could be found guilty simply because he approached or attempted to approach Martin, regardless of whether he ultimately came to reasonably fear for his life. With SYG, he is legally allowed to be anywhere it's legal to be and defend himself, regardless of the potential threat. The press and the anti-gun, anti-self defense liberals want to use this case to overturn the SYG laws. If they spent half as much time examining what makes people commit criminal attacks and how to prevent it, it would eliminate far more needless deaths than repealing SYG laws. Unfortunately, that doesn't get people elected or sell ad space. :( [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Stand Your Ground law coming under scrutiny due to the Zimmerman/Florida incident
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom