FL man charged in that "stand your ground" shooting

GAnthony

Well-Known Member
Supporter
No its not. In any state without that bullshit law, you're going to stand trial for 2nd degree murder.
well florida has that law....it's a valid law.

i like that law.

i wish we had that law in all 50 U.S. states and possessions.

so someone shoves your ass to the ground, and you got a gun, you ain;t gonna use it..??

bullshit.......:poo2:
 

Rigjockey

In Gord we trust!
Supporter
I am vaguely familiar with stand your ground law. Sure but, force should be met with equal force. Especially in a public place.
Not buddy shoved me so I used lethal force. The two are not equal!

As far as it being a hate crime, IMO. I doubt it but we can look to the Trayvon Martin case as a case study. The Same state and same defense law.
 
Last edited:

Injun

Rabid Squaw
Staff member
Supporter
Stand Your Ground does not allow somebody to go looking for trouble.

And being shoved to the ground is not valid grounds for taking a life unless the shover continues to advance and threaten.

Trayvon Martin is irrelevant.
Mr. Zimmerman was doing the job he was hired to do. He did not draw his weapon until Mr. Martin was straddling him, bashing his head in with a brick. My humble opinion is when someone is pinning you to the ground by straddling your chest while beating your head in with a brick, you would be in fear for your life and, therefore, justified in killing the individual who is bashing in your head with a brick. Stand Your Ground had nothing to do with this case.
 

GAnthony

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Stand Your Ground does not allow somebody to go looking for trouble.

And being shoved to the ground is not valid grounds for taking a life unless the shover continues to advance and threaten.
since there is no audio, maybe the shover was yelling out, "i'm gonna kill you".....and that was taken as a direct threat.

this will play out in court, and i hope the shooter wins.
 

ironpony

Professional Pot-Stirrer
Supporter
Stand Your Ground does not allow somebody to go looking for trouble.

And being shoved to the ground is not valid grounds for taking a life unless the shover continues to advance and threaten.

Trayvon Martin is irrelevant.
Mr. Zimmerman was doing the job he was hired to do. He did not draw his weapon until Mr. Martin was straddling him, bashing his head in with a brick. My humble opinion is when someone is pinning you to the ground by straddling your chest while beating your head in with a brick, you would be in fear for your life and, therefore, justified in killing the individual who is bashing in your head with a brick. Stand Your Ground had nothing to do with this case.
He wasn't "hired" to do anything. He took it upon himself to be the neighborhood vigilante.
 

Injun

Rabid Squaw
Staff member
Supporter
He wasn't "hired" to do anything. He took it upon himself to be the neighborhood vigilante.
Regardless, he did not engage Mr. Martin, merely watched him. There is no law against that. Mr. Martin was the aggressor. Mr. Martin got pissed because someone was watching an unfamiliar person inside a gated community where property crimes had become a problem. Mr. Zimmerman did not draw his weapon until he was pinned to the ground getting his head bashed in with a brick.

Stand Your Ground was irrelevant to that case and that case is irrelevant to this one.

In this case, you have a guy who sought out a problem. He instigated it by verbally attacking a woman over a parking spot. FFS. The husband/boyfriend was within his rights to defend the woman. Perhaps shoving the aggressor wasn't necessary, but from what I have seen, he shoved the guy and was walking away when he was killed. Stand Your Ground was not in play here, unless you apply it to the guy who was defending the woman. The root cause of this, though, was some guy who decided he was the parking police and began berating another person over her choice of a space to stop in for a minute or two.

One of the smartest things I've ever said to anyone is, "Sometimes, it's best to just mind your own business, isn't it?"

As for Mr. Zimmerman, it was his business to see who was in his neighborhood. I live in a ****ty area. You can bet I'm going to have a pretty good idea of who's coming and going, and what they're doing while they're in my neighborhood. If I was in a gated, limited access community and there were problems with property crime, I would be especially concerned to find out who is doing it and with who is coming and going. The whole point of a gated community is security. When that security is threatened, it's up to community members to get it under control. The way I understood the Martin case was Mr. Zimmerman was part of an organized community watch group. I thought he was a paid security guard, but either way, he was within his rights to protect his neighborhood. You would do the same thing if your formerly safe area began having issues with crime.
 

Keendriver

Hates all of you
I thought he was a paid security guard, but either way, he was within his rights to protect his neighborhood.
Protect his neighborhood from what, a kid walking thru who didn't meet his standards....wasn't the right color?

Zimmerman was told not to follow.... "Ok we don't need you to do that"

He made the call and the law was on it's way, if he had left it alone at that.....
But no, hero boy starts a fight he can't finish and has to shoot the kid to keep from getting his ass kicked.

I ain't gonna try to portray Martin as a choirboy but put yourself in his place, you're walking along minding your own feckin bidness, when Dirty Harry wannabe starts following/questioning you. You gonna take kindly to that?

Neighborhood watch is just that......watch. Report if ya see something....beyond that, you ain't trained.
Hell, even a cop would have no right to impede Martin.....kid hadn't done anything.
 

Injun

Rabid Squaw
Staff member
Supporter
I'm not convinced the Martin/Zimmerman case was racial until the media got involved and stirred that pot. There were many African-Americans living in that community and, therefore, one would expect to see African-Americans there. I'm not saying every action Mr. Zimmerman took was correct. In almost every case of a life being taken in the manner Mr. Martin's was, both parties had opportunities to avoid it. Mr. Zimmerman could have simply reported and moved on, rather than follow and observe. Mr. Martin could have simply kept walking to his aunt's home. If either of these things would have happened, we would not be talking about it.

Instead, Mr. Zimmerman followed and observed, which is not illegal. Mr. Martin doubled back and attacked, which is illegal. Even still, he could have made his point and run off. He chose to pin Mr. Zimmerman and commence to bashing his head in with a brick.. which was not necessary in making his point.

I will reiterate, this case has no relevance to the one in which the man decided to berate a woman for pulling into a handicapped parking spot. That man had no business yelling at another person for something that didn't affect him and had no bearing on him continuing to carry out his day. The woman's husband had every right to stand up for her. He didn't need to put his hands on the asshat who started it, but even though he did, he did not do anything to warrant a gunshot wound. He was responsible for putting his hands on the other man. But that other man instigated the whole thing by failing to mind his own damn business. He attempted to bully a female, the female's man stood up for her (which any man worth a grain of salt would do for his woman), he may have gone a little too far, but who knows what the instigator was saying to infuriate the husband? The guy with the gun had every opportunity, even after being shoved to the ground, to not pull that trigger. Everybody could have walked away. But three pounds of pressure later, a man lies dead, a woman is a widow and a man is led away in handcuffs. I know, it's not quite that cut and dried, it rarely is, but that's the gist of it.

What both of these cases boil down to is this: Mind your own business and leave people alone. Race, religion, relationship identity, gender, national origin... none of that matters when it's just as simple as minding your own damn business.

Stand Your Ground only indicates you are not required to run away. That's it. It does not give anyone the right to instigate an encounter that can only end badly for someone.
 

Fageol

Old acid hauler but not too caustic
Lots of you guys would make crappy liberals. That's because liberals care about the handicapped, saving the planet, and everything else other than their own kids, moral relativism, the national debt, killing babies, etc. And at least one guy cared -- that or he was constipated (recall H. D. Thoreau's remark to the effect that if your butt aches, you set out to reform the world. Regardless, I have to admit that I'd be pissed if that were the last handicapped parking space and I had to escort my wife to something near it -- she can barely walk.
 

Injun

Rabid Squaw
Staff member
Supporter
Lots of you guys would make crappy liberals. That's because liberals care about the handicapped, saving the planet, and everything else other than their own kids, moral relativism, the national debt, killing babies, etc. And at least one guy cared -- that or he was constipated (recall H. D. Thoreau's remark to the effect that if your butt aches, you set out to reform the world. Regardless, I have to admit that I'd be pissed if that were the last handicapped parking space and I had to escort my wife to something near it -- she can barely walk.
Mr. Fageol, in your case, you would have every right to speak up and request the woman move her car. But you would not have escalated it to the point of killing someone.
 
Top