Family says fatal shooting case shows ‘stand your ground’ defense doesn’t work for Black men

By "demanded" I am referring to the burden of proof.

 

Which, as I showed you, Marc had the burden of proof to prove that SYG was valid in this case. Not the prosecutor. Again, I showed you that. Remember? Or did you block it out of your memory?

 

Yes. And a jury will tend to believe it's reasonable if the guy with the hoodie is black.

 

So, when you run out of arguments...you resort to race baiting BS. Got it. Typical. That's usually what libs will resort to when they have no argument.

 

And you prove you were concerned about being in danger... how exactly?

 

Oh, dear God, that IS the topic of the thread!!!!!

Read the OP. Or even just the title. On second thought, don't! If you don't know what this thread is about, I'm not wasting any more of my time.

 

If you'd like an example refer to post 161.

 

Already have. The OP just pointed out the comparisons that would inevitably be made. The family of Marc Wilson are the ones complaining that he didn't get SYG immunity...supposedly because he was black. I proved that it had nothing to do with his skin color as the reasons he was denied was for factual reasons. None of which referred to skin color. Marc Wilson's family are the ones making it about skin color. They're the ones that are race baiting. And you, ignoring the facts of the case, are continuing with the race baiting. Supporting their (the family's) race baiting. Because you have no valid argument. As I proved.

 

Jurisprudence is not about examples. Jurisprudence is about justice. Which means a set of rules that apply to everybody EQUALLY.

Of course Wilson deserved to go to jail. But so did Zimmerman! And probably most (probably all) of those who have been released based on "stand your ground" laws.

WHAT did George Zimmerman do to prove that, when he followed Trevon Martin around, he was concerned for "imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.", any more than Zimmerman's word?

This is a matter of BELIVING or not. Be it the judge or the jury. They BELIEVED George Zimmerman when he said he feared Trevon Martin was going to do bodily harm or commit a felony. They did NOT believe Wilson or his girl friend when they also feared that these kids might do bodily harm or commit some felony against them. There was NO objective evidence either way. And the ONLY difference was that one of the above accused was white, and the other was black.

In any state where these idiotic "stand your ground" laws don't exist, they would BOTH have been found guilty of ... manslaughter... or whatever the legal term is when you kill somebody unintentionally in a situation in which you irresponsibly put yourself into. Yet.... in these cases, the white guy walked free, and the black guy had to do prison time.

NOW do you understand how idiotic this "stand your ground" law is?

 

1: Zimmerman did not use SYG as a defense. He used plain old self defense law. Even jury members admitted that is what they based their judgment on.

2: Zimmerman did not follow TM around because he was "concerned for "imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.". He followed him because he believed that TM was being suspicious and looking into other peoples homes. Which IS a suspicious activity. And he wanted to let cops know where he was.

3: Zimmerman did not use SYG as a defense. He used plain old self defense law. Get that through your head.

 

Of course not! Because prosecutors knew that would place the burden on THEM to prove a negative if they accused him of anything that he could use Stand your ground. He wasn't even ARRESTED, because Florida police had seen this scenario play hundreds of times before.

"Suspicious" as in "he looked like he might commit a forcible felony." To accuse him of anything related to that would place the burden on prosecutors to PROVE that he DIDN'T look suspicious. A negative!

Zimmerman (on 911 call): Something's wrong with him. Yup, he's coming to check me out, he's got something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is.​

 

Did you really just state this mish mash of....something? Zimmerman didn't plead SYG because supposedly that would mean the prosecutors would have to a negative? Why the hell would the DEFENSE "help" the PROSECUTION? And why would the prosecution have to prove that TM was being suspicious when TM was not the one on trial?

Were you drunk or asleep when you wrote this? Because it makes no logical sense. Whatsoever.

 

He's not covered under the law and a basic understanding of either the law or cause and effect would tell you that.

 

I think he's given up on this thread. Probably due to embarrassment from his last post as it was a doozy.

 

Why is he not covered? Did he or did he not stand his ground?

The fact that somebody else died has nothing to do with standing his ground.

 

He is not covered because his actions were not reasonable. The passenger did not control the vehicle. He only could arguably have a reasonable belief of imminent threat from the DRIVER of the vehicle. Therefore, no belief he could've formed could have been reasonable and the law only covers a reasonable belief.

Stand your ground only covers you against the person creating a reasonable belief in you of an imminent threat of GBH or death. It doesn't cover you against bystanders. It doesn't cover you against a belief you form that jury doesn't find reasonable either.

 

You can't just start firing at anyone and everyone indiscriminately. How hard is that to understand? Shooting at a moving vehicle is just stupid unless they are shooting at you.

 

How have you gone this many pages into this and still don't understand the law? I'm baffled.

 

Nah, I'll bet he does understand the law. But he does want everyone to be disarmed and all guns confiscated and gotten rid of. He's admitted this straight out. So he'll bad mouth any self defense law that he can.

 

Good point, he and a few others here just want the illusion of nanny-state safety. Which, oddly enough, doesn't really exist when they coddle and make excuses for minority criminals.

 

What in the world is "reasonable" about not removing yourself from a potential crime scene in which somebody can get killed, even though you can?

If you put yourself in a position in which you can kill somebody ... be it by accident or not, you are NEGLIGENT. So the ONLY reasonable action is to remove yourself.

NOW do you understand how idiotic these "Stand Your Ground" laws are?

 

He wasn't firing indiscriminately. He was firing at the vehicle where the threat he perceived was coming from.

 

Reasonable conduct is what a jury determines a reasonable person in such a situation would do.

It is reasonable to defend yourself with deadly force against a person causing you the reasonable apprehension of an imminent harm to your person which will cause GBH or death.
Someone operating a motor vehicle and trying to run you over, for example.
It is not reasonable to defend yourself with deadly force against a person not causing you the reasonable apprehension of an imminent harm to your person which will cause GBH or death.
Someone acting as a passenger only in a motor vehicle in which the operator is trying to run you over, for example.

By accident you're negligent. If someone attacks you and you defend yourself, you haven't put yourself in any situation you've only responded with judicious marksmanship in self defense.

Your attitude is a good example of what will get a juror struck for cause.

 

Yes, he was firing indiscriminately. His first shots went up into the air. God knows where those bullets landed...hopefully not on someone. Then he shot at a vehicle not knowing where the bullets would go...the person driving, or a passenger who could do nothing to put him in harms way. Every person that owns a gun knows that you do not shoot blindly into a vehicle. The bullet could go into an innocent passenger, or through a window and into someone on a sidewalk. In fact you're not supposed to shoot period unless you have a clear shot to what it is you want to shoot. Even under castle doctrine law shooting through a door to someone on the outside can be a no no. (not always, but every instructor out there will tell you DON'T DO IT!, it may put you in legal trouble)

Additionally, you are not allowed to shoot someone who is moving away from you.

Oh, just to further drive a point from earlier home...

LINK: Is it Legal to Shoot an Intruder? - FindLaw

 

Bingo! There is NO objective parameter. It's completely subjective. And, being subjective... if you're black... you're screwed!

NOW do you understand how idiotic Stand Your Ground Laws are?