Guns don't kill people ....

[Aliantha]

And who had the biggest one?

[ZenGum]

and did he brandish it?

[sexobon]

and was it licensed to kill (007")?

[classicman]

I repeat ...
This case is about some asswipe who stalked a kid, chased him down and then shot him after instigating the altercation.
Show me ANYTHING in the "Stand your Ground" law that covers that.
Using that law is an abuse of it, by his lawyer.

[classicman]

... and to offer a little levity (not really)
.
.
.

[Ibby]

The "stand your ground" comes in when the police and/or DA don't think they can reasonably prove that Zimmerman didn't feel threatened. To a lot of us it's clear the police made a bad call, but they wouldn't have been able to make that (possibly racially biased) bad call if they didn't have a drastic standard of evidence to prove that Zimmerman didn't feel threatened - rather than Zimmerman having to show why HE felt threatened.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by wolf

... although Zimmerman did look beaten up when the cops got there.
...

So did Edward Norton in "Fight Club"

Originally Posted by classicman

..

X number of people texted whiles driving and didn't kill anyone yesterday.
X number of people were over the legal blood alcohol limit, drove, and didn't kill anyone yesterday.
X number of priests sodomized young boys and didn't kill anyone yesterday.
Need I continue with this stupid rationale?

Originally Posted by Ibram

(possibly racially biased)

Bingo! Had the race roles been reversed, the black shooter would have been arrested. THAT is the issue.

[classicman]

To a lot of us it's clear the police made a bad call,

We don't even have all the facts yet.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by classicman

We don't even have all the facts yet.

Then why have you already made up your mind about this?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by glatt

Then why have you already made up your mind about this?

My position is based upon what we do know.

[Lamplighter]

There are two separate legal issues...
One is the Trayvon Martin case, itself... the other is the "Stand Your Ground" law and concept.

As Classic says, the "facts" are not in on the Martin case, but there is a lot of emotion.
And, as Classic posted above, there is a lot to be said about the "Stand Your Ground" law.

It's more appropriate to call this law a “Castle Doctrine” because
that is what the NRA called it when it was distributed via "ALEC",
the American Legislative Exchange Council"

Here is a link to the "model legislation" as proposed by ALEC and the NRA.
The link down-loads a 3-page PDF document of the "Castle Doctrine".
I urge Dwellars to download and read the entire PDF.

But here is my short version...

Basically, Section 1 The concept of "a man's house is his castle" is
extended to vehicles and to anything in which a person might sleep, and that
anyone who claims to have used defensive force is presumed to have been in fear of bodily harm
and deems any defensive force as permissible under this law

Here is Section 1, Item 1:
Section 1. {Home Protection, Use of Deadly Force, Presumption of Fear of Death or Harm}

1. A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death
or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force
that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the
process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully or
forcefully entered,
a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed
or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling,
residence, or occupied vehicle; and
b. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe
that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was
occurring or had occurred.

Section 2 goes well beyond any previous legislation by giving immunity
from prosecution of any person using "defensive force"

It is section 2 that is controversial to the public,
and opposed by Depts of Justices, D.A.'s, and Law Enforcement.

Here is Section 2:

Section 2. {Immunity from Criminal Prosecution and Civil Action}

1. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting,
detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

2. A person who uses force as permitted in Section (1)
[and other state codes which are affected/amended by this legislation
and which refer to the use of force including deadly force]
is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal
prosecution
and civil action for the use of such force, except when:

a. The person against whom force was used is a law enforcement
officer as defined in
[insert appropriate reference to state/commonwealth code,
which defines the term “law enforcement officer” or similar],
who was acting in the performance of his or her duties and
the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with applicable law; or

b. The person using force knew or reasonably should have known
that the person was a law enforcement officer.

3. A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the
use of force as described in subsection (2), but the agency may not arrest the person
for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause
that the force that was used was unlawful.

[Getgo]

Bullets from guns people pull the trigger of kill people.

[Big Sarge]

in addition to the stand your ground law, there is also the use of force continuim to be considered which takes in to account physical condition, prior knowledge, and age

[classicman]

Does that apply to "Neighborhood watch" volunteers as well or just Police Officers?

[infinite monkey]

Just read that Zimmerman 'fears for his life'.

does that mean he's going to open fire on the world?