its still funny they're posting like 3-5 year old pictures of trayvon.
You stated that you don't believe that stand your ground applies if you exercise your first option of retreat, in effect taking the option to retreat off the table. I think that it leaves the retreat option on the table but gets rid of your obligation to retreat first.
There is a misinterpretation. Maybe I didnt articulate it well
Yes, SYG takes away an obligation to retreat, but....
If one retreats FIRST, then SYG does not apply simply in definition. If one did not stand his/her ground, then why would SYG apply?
Stand Your Ground ONLY applies if one stands their ground to meet force with force. If someone retreats, they are not standing their ground; and are in a better legal position thus not needing the criminal/civil protection from prosecution that the SYG law gives and was the sole purpose of its intention.
The law is there only to protect victims that meet force with force by standing their ground when threatened, not fleeing. Previous to SYG, one would be lawful if they were threatened with force, retreated, then was forced to defend themselves with the same level of force they were threatened with.
I think I just maybe made you more confused.
There is a misinterpretation. Maybe I didnt articulate it well
Yes, SYG takes away an obligation to retreat, but....
If one retreats FIRST, then SYG does not apply simply in definition. If one did not stand his/her ground, then why would SYG apply?
Stand Your Ground ONLY applies if one stands their ground to meet force with force. If someone retreats, they are not standing their ground; and are in a better legal position thus not needing the criminal/civil protection from prosecution that the SYG law gives and was the sole purpose of its intention.
The law is there only to protect victims that meet force with force by standing their ground when threatened, not fleeing. Previous to SYG, one would be lawful if they were threatened with force, retreated, then was forced to defend themselves with the same level of force they were threatened with.
I think I just maybe made you more confused.
So by your interpretation, you give up the right to self defense if you first flee? Or just that SYG does not apply if you first flee? In which case you still have a right to self defense under the laws previous to SYG. I can see no scenario where you would lose the protection of the law if you practice lawful self defense. I think you are taking things a little bit too literally without regard to the intent and practice of the law.
Where Zimmermans trouble may lie is that he could be perceived as the agitator and brought the attack on himself. However, the other side of the coin is that if he was simply reporting suspicious activity and being in a place he has a legal right to be then he would have the protection of the law.
IDK I'm no legal expert so I could be wrong.
^^^This.^^^^
I tend to view "stand your ground" as a silly bit of legislative overkill if it is already lawful for one to exercise self defense. It's probably not a popular opinion to have on a shooters forum, but it seems like "stand your ground" laws are really more "stick it to the man" laws.
How would that apply in this case?
Seriously, I've seen some incredible leaps and contortions of logic concerning this case, ones that would make Cirque du Soleil performers clap appreciatively. Same for made up scenarios that didn't happen, or no one knows if they did or didn't happened. What do we actually know for a fact?
Zimmerman and Martin were present.
Zimmerman called 911.
Zimmerman relayed the information to the 911 dispatcher.
Zimmerman began following Martin.
The 911 dispatcher asked him if he was, and told him "We don't need you to do that".
Zimmerman acknowledged what the dispatcher told him.
We hear heavy breathing.
The call ends.
Martin was on the phone with his gf.
Martin eventually hung up.
A witness says they saw Martin on top of Zimmerman when he was shot.
What else do we know for a fact? Not a damned thing. If everyone in the country would stop assuming facts not in evidence, this wouldn't be such a debacle. All it's become is a 3 Ring Circus with everyone jockeying to be "right" before anyone else. I wonder what the Vegas odds are right now, seeing as how this incident has become a prime time spectator sport?
How would that apply in this case?
Seriously, I've seen some incredible leaps and contortions of logic concerning this case, ones that would make Cirque du Soleil performers clap appreciatively. Same for made up scenarios that didn't happen, or no one knows if they did or didn't happened. What do we actually know for a fact?
Zimmerman and Martin were present.
Zimmerman called 911.
Zimmerman relayed the information to the 911 dispatcher.
Zimmerman began following Martin.
The 911 dispatcher asked him if he was, and told him "We don't need you to do that".
Zimmerman acknowledged what the dispatcher told him.
We hear heavy breathing.
The call ends.
Martin was on the phone with his gf.
Martin eventually hung up.
A witness says they saw Martin on top of Zimmerman when he was shot.
What else do we know for a fact? Not a damned thing. If everyone in the country would stop assuming facts not in evidence, this wouldn't be such a debacle. All it's become is a 3 Ring Circus with everyone jockeying to be "right" before anyone else. I wonder what the Vegas odds are right now, seeing as how this incident has become a prime time spectator sport?
Sadly many prefer "facts not in evidence", it allows them to feel right regardless of the truth.
I didn't state anything as a fact J.B....but I'll insert the following to what you posted.
Zimmerman and Martin were present.
Zimmerman is/was not a law enforcement officer
Martin was not observed or reported to be commiting any crime or illegal act
Zimmerman called 911.
Zimmerman relayed the information to the 911 dispatcher.
Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and began following Martin, who again, was by all accounts not doing anything but walking through the neighborhood.
The 911 dispatcher asked him if he was, and told him "We don't need you to do that".
Zimmerman acknowledged what the dispatcher told him and apparentely continued to follow him
We hear heavy breathing.
The call ends.
Eyewitnesses testify Zimmerman was on his back getting his ass kicked when he shot Martin
It has always been my position that if Zimmerman had stayed in his vehicle, he would have been less likely to end up on his back getting a whoopin' from a 17 year old...he chose to play by big boy rules and he shouldn't be falling back on SYG as a defense, if that's even the angle his defense team will take.
Yes, we don't know what happened in between him hanging up on 911 and when he shot Martin. I'm not judging guilt or innocence...just engaging in the current angle of this conversation about the validity or applicability of SYG in this case. I don't need to read reams of court testimony to have the opinion that Zimmerman initiated this encounter as the aggressor and that SYG doesn't/shouldn't protect you if you are said aggressor.
How on earth is that a "contortion of logic"?
Zimmerman and Martin were present.
Zimmerman is/was not a law enforcement officer
Martin was not observed or reported to be commiting any crime or illegal act
Zimmerman called 911.
Zimmerman relayed the information to the 911 dispatcher.
Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and began following Martin, who again, was by all accounts not doing anything but walking through the neighborhood.
The 911 dispatcher asked him if he was, and told him "We don't need you to do that".
Zimmerman acknowledged what the dispatcher told him and apparentely continued to follow him
We hear heavy breathing.
The call ends.
Eyewitnesses testify Zimmerman was on his back getting his ass kicked when he shot Martin
It has always been my position that if Zimmerman had stayed in his vehicle, he would have been less likely to end up on his back getting a whoopin' from a 17 year old...he chose to play by big boy rules and he shouldn't be falling back on SYG as a defense, if that's even the angle his defense team will take.
Yes, we don't know what happened in between him hanging up on 911 and when he shot Martin. I'm not judging guilt or innocence...just engaging in the current angle of this conversation about the validity or applicability of SYG in this case. I don't need to read reams of court testimony to have the opinion that Zimmerman initiated this encounter as the aggressor and that SYG doesn't/shouldn't protect you if you are said aggressor.
How on earth is that a "contortion of logic"?
