General Discussion

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,153 posts)

53. Should SYG exonerate George Zimmerman? Hopefully not. Will he use it a defense?

Reply to Are_grits_groceries (Original post)

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 10:29 AM

Mar 2012

You bet your top dollar he will.

That it and its low threshold exists as a potential defense for such a sickening situation, even if the facts don't fit square within that exception, is cause enough to scrap the damn thing.

But thanks to this little troll:

And her willing accomplice:

SYG is the law of my state. Disgusting.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

80 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The effects of the 'Stand Your Ground' law in Florida: [View all] Are_grits_groceries Mar 2012 OP

With laws like these Politicalboi Mar 2012 #1

Except that that's not what it means at all. TheWraith Mar 2012 #38

17 states have 'Stand Your Ground' laws. Are_grits_groceries Mar 2012 #45

It's been a month and he hasn't even been detained Doctor_J Mar 2012 #51

You might be right if "justified" entered into the equation at all Major Nikon Mar 2012 #72

If Zimmerman grabbed him, tried to detain him, or started the altercation, then it doesn't apply.. X_Digger Mar 2012 #74

Only one version of the story gets told Major Nikon Mar 2012 #75

As is always the case. Hence witness statements, 911 calls, forensics.. X_Digger Mar 2012 #76

I certainly hope all that stuff makes a difference. Major Nikon Mar 2012 #77

Even if there was a 'duty to retreat', he (or his cop buddies) would have changed the story.. X_Digger Mar 2012 #78

There should be some boundaries in the law... socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #2

Correct me if I a wrong, but the law was supposedly intended HockeyMom Mar 2012 #3

You are totally correct - you can't shoot someone in the back socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #5

yes, you CAN shoot someone in the back. provis99 Mar 2012 #42

Sounds like it would be hard to proove socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #49

No, it would go to trial, and a jury would say that the fear was unreasonable. X_Digger Mar 2012 #52

You obviously did not read the Florida law provis99 Mar 2012 #71

I actually have them handy.. shall I quote them? X_Digger Mar 2012 #73

Actually, duty to retreat wasn't forgotten, it was specifically removed. X_Digger Mar 2012 #10

Especially if that violent attacker is safeinOhio Mar 2012 #31

If a reasonable person would fear grievous bodily harm, it doesn't matter. X_Digger Mar 2012 #39

It's not easy being a (wannabe) police officer. safeinOhio Mar 2012 #41

And a can of iced tea... ellisonz Mar 2012 #47

Duty to Retreat does not negate protecting yourself! Are_grits_groceries Mar 2012 #46

Hell, you got a whole forum here full of pretend-liberals who routinely pimp for these kinds of laws apocalypsehow Mar 2012 #4

+1 xchrom Mar 2012 #6

Care to share some examples of what you mean? socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #7

There are plenty of examples over on the supposed "Right to Keep and Carry Arms" forum on DU. Hoyt Mar 2012 #11

That pesky Bill of Rights, Huh? OPOS Mar 2012 #13

Toting weaponry around in public spoiling for a shootout has nothing to do with the "Bill of Rights" apocalypsehow Mar 2012 #14

And where do you see me agreeing that is good? OPOS Mar 2012 #25

Puhleeze - you're in this thread pimping for the right-wing point of view on guns. Your credibility apocalypsehow Mar 2012 #28

4/9ths of Supreme Court disagrees. And 2nd Amendment wasn't written to protect Zimmerman. Hoyt Mar 2012 #15

I remember how in the Gungeon pre-Heller there was nothing but open contempt for the only applicable apocalypsehow Mar 2012 #18

Shooting people in the back of the head is not covered by the Bill of Rights Major Hogwash Mar 2012 #43

Not in Florida... Bandit Mar 2012 #57

Here you go Doctor_J Mar 2012 #50

We are Democrats who support gun rights - that's all socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #54

Not exactly Doctor_J Mar 2012 #58

Yes, it does seem like a disconnect... socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #61

No you are not. Democrats, that is. I have no doubt you support "gun rights" though. Which is to say apocalypsehow Mar 2012 #68

I've tried to reason with you but you want to argue socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #69

Yup. Hoyt Mar 2012 #8

Since when is this Liberal Underground? OPOS Mar 2012 #17

Since about forever. You really should take your phony act someplace else; few buy it. n/t. apocalypsehow Mar 2012 #20

My phony act? OPOS Mar 2012 #23

My "position" is you're not fooling anyone. And you well know it. n/t. apocalypsehow Mar 2012 #27

My Position is I am not trying to fool anyone, but you are labeling me OPOS Mar 2012 #32

Blah, blah, blah - cry me a river. You're still not fooling anyone. n/t. apocalypsehow Mar 2012 #34

I support OPOS socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #60

Post removed Post removed Mar 2012 #66

ad Hominem insults safeinOhio Mar 2012 #36

We have a term for conservative democrats Hugabear Mar 2012 #21

So, DU does not accept DINOs socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #62

I read the rules and I am wrong socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #64

Can't you even be bothered to read the "about" page on DU? This is not a place for "conservatives" apocalypsehow Mar 2012 #22

And you ASSume I'm conservative because I own a firearm? OPOS Mar 2012 #24

Oh, lookey here: "OPOS" thinks he's just the cleverest little thing cuz he snuck the word "ASS" into apocalypsehow Mar 2012 #26

No Problem keeping track, what with you analysing every syllable I post. OPOS Mar 2012 #35

No, the issue was DU, not the Democratic party. You're the one that said DU welcomed conservatives apocalypsehow Mar 2012 #37

We are Democrats who support gun rights - that's all socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #55

No, you are not. That is quite clear, and not one of you is fooling anyone. n/t. apocalypsehow Mar 2012 #65

Then report me to DU and let's have them decide socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #70

Now that I've read this I see I am wrong socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #63

+2 ellisonz Mar 2012 #48

-1 Elric Mar 2012 #79

Too bad nobody could have foreseen this gratuitous Mar 2012 #9

This case doesnt apply to stand your ground OPOS Mar 2012 #12

Lots of folks in Texas are ready to shoot an unarmed teenager running away after rummaging for food Hoyt Mar 2012 #16

The law has been interpreted very broadly. Are_grits_groceries Mar 2012 #19

Maybe not, but the police chief of Sanford, Florida seems to think that it applies here. yardwork Mar 2012 #29

What I don't understand about guys like you, and this goes for your chums in the Gungeon, is why, apocalypsehow Mar 2012 #30

What I dont understand, is the Vitriol your spewing for no reason. OPOS Mar 2012 #40

You're still not fooling anybody, sport. Peddle it to someone who cares. n/t. apocalypsehow Mar 2012 #67

Hahaha -- you said "chums" Major Hogwash Mar 2012 #44

Haven't seen the post where Skinner appointed you the Elric Mar 2012 #80

So you want to abolish Juries? Riftaxe Mar 2012 #33

Should SYG exonerate George Zimmerman? Hopefully not. Will he use it a defense? Tommy_Carcetti Mar 2012 #53

And it will fail, thanks to Section 776.041 X_Digger Mar 2012 #56

Defense against what? He hasn't even been arrested yet, much less charged Doctor_J Mar 2012 #59