<p>Saw video today of GZ shot the week of incident…he looked a lot more in shape physically back then. Today on TV he looks overweight and like a soft dough ball…wonder if defense team told him to look less fit and to gain weight for trial so he’d look less menacing?</p>
<p>riprorin, as we said yesterday, if you want to discuss that start another thread.</p>
<p>This thread isn’t about every gun crime and every murder or generally guns and murder.</p>
<p>It’s about this case.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Can you quote a SYG law in any state that allows chasing and attacking, as opposed to resisting when someone is actively trying to commit a serious crime against you or another person?</p>
<p>Because those stories do not draw ratings. Same reason they do not appear to cover missing minority children but a little blond girl goes missing it is national news.</p>
<p>It is ratings plain and simple.</p>
<p>^ raiders - Yes, that’s the idealized view. And since you’re here on CC, I’m sure you take your responsibilities seriously … no opening fire on that van that cut you off in traffic and the like. Not everyone is responsible as you. The thing that makes SYG dangerous, is that you don’t know when “the other guy” thinks you are a threat.</p>
<p>Ok, SYG makes people attack others? You have absolutely no basis but your imagination for any such thing. I follow many twitter accounts that update daily all firearm self defense cases across the country. It’s almost nonexistent that someone carrying commits a crime with their carry firearm. </p>
<p>It’s just as illegal now as it would be without SYG laws for someone to initiate a confrontation with a firearm. CC courses teach people that you are to act absolutely the same as you would if you weren’t armed, many even teach not to draw your weapon if you are being robbed.</p>
<p>riprorin, how about this for an answer? We all know street gangs are trigger-happy and don’t value human life. Is this wrong? Of course. But “we” as a society expect this kind of violence and don’t have easy answers to solve it.</p>
<p>We do expect more of people who, for the most part, have no reason to hunt other people down no matter their race. When a white or half-white person exhibits the same behavior that we are accustomed to seeing among gangbangers, we take notice, because these people are “supposed to” behave better.</p>
<p>And that’s why it makes the news.</p>
<p>I’ve been following this case for a while: [Jury:</a> Hoopa man murdered Willow Creek fireman - Times-Standard Online](<a href=“http://www.times-standard.com/news/ci_23541450/jury-hoopa-man-murdered-willow-creek-fireman]Jury:”>Jury: Hoopa man murdered Willow Creek fireman – Times-Standard)
What this story doesn’t recount is how the man who died came out of his son’s house when the robbers were trying to flee and started shooting at them. After a while, one of them shot back. Again, a bad outcome all around. </p>
<p>But again, it doesn’t fit the “good guy with a gun” narrative. The “good guy” is supposed to stop a crime, not shoot people who have abandoned any effort to commit a crime - and he’s not supposed to be killed when they shoot back.</p>
<p>But like the things raiders83 obsesses about - that’s just one story. An anecdote. And the “biased mainstream media” didn’t pick up on it, either.</p>
<p>I’ve never heard anyone complain about castle laws. Ever. SYG, however, is a different animal. And Florida SYG is even “differenter”.</p>
<p>One of the major reasons so many of us criticize the Florida version of SYG law is that it legalizes deadly force if the shooter feels himself to be in danger. Most similar laws have a higher standard; i.e., that a reasonable person would feel himself to be in danger. That’s a huge difference. It’s becoming a big reason for the increase in criminal deaths, where the killer says “Oh, I felt threatened”, and the law requires the police to say, “oh, well, in THAT case, it’s okay then”. The law requires that the police have the burden to prove the killer did NOT feel threatened. Since the dead person is well, dead, there is no challenge. Does anyone think the murder rate in Florida has gone up?</p>
<p>If people REALLY want to talk about SYG here, fine. In the Florida v. Zimmerman case the ONLY person with a legitimate SYG claim was Trayvon Martin. If he were here to defend himself, he could use the law as the reason he gave George Zimmerman a bloody nose and a couple of minor lacerations on his head (if in fact that is what he did). Zimmerman was following him and Martin felt threatened. So go ahead–let’s talk SYG.</p>
<p>
What on earth makes you think that such an event would be reported by your sources of information? Seriously?</p>
<p>Or maybe… just maybe, like in the case we’re posting about, the guy who’s carrying may have fudged the details about what happened - just a little - so it wouldn’t look like he did, well, what he really did?</p>
<p>Those twitter feeds you follow so slavishly raiders are just other wannabes telling stories.</p>
<p>Kluge - Ok, I hadn’t heard about that case It’s too bad the man died. I have no problem with him shooting at a bunch of robbers on his property.</p>
<p>Thank you Haydn. That is exactly, to the point, why I find that law in Florida so frightening.</p>
<p>Anybody can shoot anybody and say they felt their life was in danger.</p>
<p>That completely negates the rights of anybody else. It’s nuts. At least to me, it’s nuts.</p>
<p>Sally,</p>
<p>“There is nothing more painful to me … than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.” </p>
<p>Do you know who said this? Jesse Jackson.</p>
<p>Where is your evidence that Zimmerman “hunted down” Martin because of his race? </p>
<p>So you think that this story is getting attention because Zimmerman is white-hispanic (I think that this is what the media calls him even though he identifies himself as hispanic) and we expect better out of white-hispanics versus gangbangers who are presumably non-white. non-white-hispanic?</p>
<p>I really don’t get your point.</p>
<p>I’m sure you know all about the feeds and websites that I follow. They’re obsessed with being able to defend themselves and their families like me(crazy concept I know) and they post everything to do with gun laws and stories. They post stories like the one you posted and like the one where the guy in Utah ran out of his house to chase the burglars that just robbed him and shot them in the back. </p>
<p>Mods-this is just our 80 page recess/break away from the case, we will resume shortly.</p>
<p>Forgive by confusion with SYG versus Castle Laws. I appreciate the differentiation now between the two, but I would react and feel the same way if I/my family were attacked in the mall parking lot or in my living room. I don’t have a Concealed Carry Permit, but you can bet I’d grab whatever was handy if I thought my wife or children’s lives were in danger. Just one man’s opinion…FWIW.</p>
<p>The problem occurs when people cite one-sies/two-sies stories about incidents where guns were possibly used unnecessarily and then try to imply that SYG laws as a whole are creating an epidemic of vigilante-type people instigating confrontations just so they can shoot someone. It’s just not true. SYG laws are necessary and good. Will they need some tweaking and will there be case law precedents that get set as the laws are in effect for longer periods? Absolutely…just as there has been for many other laws throughout our history. Give it time, and be fair and open-minded when looking at the statistics.</p>
<p>sally305…I actually agree with you that in this case, it APPEARS TM might have had a valid SYG case had things gone differently. And I think GZ’s lawyers realize that as well, which is why they’re not asserting SYG. The problem in this case is the INTERPRETATION of the facts is (at least so far) completely INCONCLUSIVE to the non-biased observer.</p>
<p>"Can you quote a SYG law in any state that allows chasing and attacking … "</p>
<p>The Florida SYG does explicitly allow it, but judges have certainly interpreted FL’s SYG law that way. Greyston Garcia is perhaps the best known case:</p>
<p>“Garcia, armed with a knife, had chased down a thief who had broken into this truck and stolen his radio in Little Havana in January 2011. With one fatal thrust to the chest, Garcia felled Pedro Roteta.”</p>
<p>calmom: “I always try to visualize things and there is simply no way I can visualize that account unless each man has 3 hands. Which hand does TM have on GZ’s mouth? Which side of his body is GZ’s gun holster? Where are TM’s legs when he is straddling GZ? If GZ’s hands are free when GZ is on top of him, why isn’t he trying to push TM away? If TM is in the superior position and can see the gun, who does GZ manage to successfully get the gun with one hand and manipulate it to a position where he can get a clear shot at TM’s chest – without TZ seeing what he is doing and trying to deflect the gun?”</p>
<p>calmom, Zimmerman demonstrates this during his walkthrough the following day. Keep in mind that his gun was holstered behind his right hip, that is, under his buttock if he is lying on his back. He shows how he traps Trayvon’s hand, which is reaching for the gun, between his own right arm and his body, then demonstrates the contortion his right arm goes through to get the gun (probably not physically possible if he is on the ground on his back). The contortion brings his arm well away from his body, so it’s not clear how he continues to keep Trayvon’s hand trapped. And it’s not clear how Trayvon sees the gun through Zimmerman’s body. X-ray vision?</p>
<p>As in the Casey Anthony case the state of Florida is wildly over reaching here. They LOVE to over charge people down here. The facts disclosed thus far do not support a murder 2 indictment, never mind a conviction. I’m not sure if the jury is allowed to convict on a lesser charge, say manslaughter. Which I believe would have been the correct charge and very attainable per conviction.</p>
<p>A lawyer on tv said that at some point into a physical fight, both parties have a right to defend themselves. I was wondering if someone familiar with law could explain whether or not this is true, or if it only ever justified as self defense if you weren’t the aggressor?</p>