<p>“SYG makes people attack others?”</p>
<p>Never said it did. I said it ALLOWS killing as retribution for small offenses. In the case of Pedro Roteta, a $25 radio.</p>
<p>I am carrying a concealed weapon and I walk up to you and spit on your wife, slap your kid and punch you in the mouth. You grab me and start to beat me. Can I shoot you?</p>
<p>NO, not in any state.</p>
<p>You HAVE to be the victim. Any thing else is murder and should be.</p>
<p>Hard to see an aggressor as a victim, no?</p>
<p>Jeb Bush on the SYG law as it relates to this case;</p>
<p>He said “it’s always good to review laws” when asked about the stand your ground legislation he signed into law in 2005 but said he did not think Trayvon’s killer will be able to use it as a defense.</p>
<p>“This law does not apply to this particular circumstance,” he said. “‘Stand your ground’ means ‘stand your ground.’ It doesn’t mean ‘chase after somebody who’s turned their back.’”
Bush told the crowd that “anytime any innocent life is taken, it’s a tragedy.”</p>
<p>I am carrying a concealed weapon I see you in the store and you look like someone on a wanted poster. You are not the criminal but you look like him. I try to detain you in the store until the police come. You fight back to get away and begin to overpower me. Can I shoot you?</p>
<p>Am I a victim if you start to beat me in either of these instances? I thought it did not matter how the situation was created once I was in danger I thought I could shoot you?</p>
<p>Any guesses how many more days the trial will go on for?</p>
<p>^ raiders - FL court cases have been very uneven on this. Sometimes cases are dismissed … sometimes the survivor goes to prison. Here are specifics on 200 FL homicides in which survivors claimed SYG immunity. </p>
<p>[Stand</a> your ground law, Trayvon Martin and a shocking legacy | Tampa Bay Times](<a href=“http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/fatal-cases]Stand”>http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/fatal-cases)</p>
<p>Well, don’t we still have to see the new investigators who took over the case testify?</p>
<p>I mean, these aren’t the final investigators are they? I thought they had to reopen this case? Maybe I’m wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did you listen to his statements to police? Or his NEN call the night he killed Trayvon? On the call he lamented how these “f-ing punks/a**holes always get away.” And as he discussed his actions of that night he mentioned again that there had been break-ins recently and that the suspicious people were black.</p>
<p>Tom, I think it depends on what you do when you try to detain them. I don’t know whether you are the aggressor when you start commanding the person, or when you physically try to force them. </p>
<p>Tom it depends entirely upon how the situation was created, that is where the line is for either being murder or justifiable homicide. </p>
<p>[Castle</a> doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine]Castle”>Castle doctrine - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>this is my state which I believe is very pro self defense
[Bill</a> Text: NV AB321 | 2011 | 76th Legislature | Enrolled | LegiScan](<a href=“Bill Text: NV AB321 | 2023 | 82nd Legislature | Enrolled | LegiScan”>Bill Text: NV AB321 | 2011 | 76th Legislature | Enrolled | LegiScan)</p>
<p>"Did you listen to his statements to police? Or his NEN call the night he killed Trayvon?:</p>
<p>Which NEN call, the legitimate one, or the one that was doctored by NBC news that made Zimmerman look like a racist?</p>
<p>f-ing punks/a***holes always get away is a racist comment? I guess some hear what they want to hear, see what they want to see.</p>
<p>Rip. at this point we’ve heard the statements in the trial. Not media filtered. But people need to stop confusing rip and raiders. They are saying different things. Fwiw</p>
<p>The editing of the call does not make GZ look like a racist. GZ makes himself look like a racist. Here’s the unedited version (the edited one had the dispatcher’s question deleted).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Give it up, riprorin. Being black in GZ’s gated community is apparently a crime in itself.</p>
<p>^Sally you are really reaching…so TM wasn’t black?</p>
<p>[George</a> Zimmerman’s Father Identifies The ‘True Racists’ In New Book](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>George Zimmerman's Father Identifies The 'True Racists' In New Book | HuffPost Voices)</p>
<p>Robert Zimmerman has an interesting take on racism. um, if he wrote the book trying to dissuade people from perceiving any racial issues in this case he surely took an unusual approach.</p>
<p>yes, GZ was asked to identify the “suspect” by race. so he didn’t just blurt that out. however, he identified TM as a f—n punk based on…?? why did he place the call to begin with? really why?</p>
<p>I believe that if my blonde hair blue eyed 17 yr old returned from our local deli with an Arizona iced tea, and skittles talking with his girlfriend,(as he does regularly) and strolling in our gated community in Florida he would not have been perceived as a f—n punk, but would have been perceived as a kid walking home, and GZ would never have called NEN.</p>
<p>The answers to those two unrelated questions don’t add up to racist, but that’s just my opinion.</p>
<p>People are notoriously poor at assessing risk, and so will tend to feel threatened far more often than is warranted, or to exaggerate the level of the threat. This is one of the things that makes me wary of private gun ownership. If, after a night of drinking at a local bar, Joe starts punching John upon finding out that John is now dating his ex-girlfriend, it is pretty unlikely that John is going to wind up dead. There are countless bar fights each year, and only a small minority end in the death of one of the parties. But John is going to be understandably panicked if he’s getting the worst of the fight, and not inclined to start doing a statistical analysis of his chances of death or serious injury. If he has a concealed handgun, he might well use it. Suddenly, the odds of someone winding up dead are a lot higher, and while Joe may indeed be at fault for attacking John, we don’t typically hand out the death penalty for assault and battery. </p>
<p>There’s a big difference, however, between this hypothetical and the Zimmerman case. The hypothetical is, IMO, an argument in favor of gun restrictions, but not a reason to charge John with murder. Hindsight is twenty-twenty, and if you’re going to let people carry legal guns, you can’t charge them with murder for an otherwise reasonable defense that may have, in hindsight (or, in probabilistic terms) been excessive or unnecessary. One may not be likely to die after being attacked at a bar, but the fear of death is not unreasonable.</p>
<p>Zimmerman’s case is different, because he actively walked into a situation that he himself had assessed as potentially dangerous. If a person is minding his own business, gets attacked by a mugger and shoots him in an ensuing altercation, it seems to me that the law rightly gives him the benefit of the doubt even if further analysis suggests that the killing was probably unnecessary. But if a person is attacked only after making the monumentally reckless decision to follow a potentially suspicious person around with a gun, I think he loses that benefit, and the law, even in Florida, seems to agree, depending on how the jurors chose to interpret the evidence. As I’ve said before, I don’t see the justification for a murder charge, but manslaughter seems like the right call based on what I’ve seen so far.</p>