• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

The "Stand Your Ground" Law....

Status
Not open for further replies.
ZenG

ZenG

Guest
Dec 13, 2013
6,465
13,121
You can't get there from here
#1
It worked for Zimmerman.

Now there's the 71 year old ex-cop using the same defense.

In his argument with the guy that was texting in the movie theater, he claims that when the victim threw some popcorn at him ,he was in fear for his life.

From what I've read per the S.Y.G. law, your life doesn't have to be really be in danger........you just have to think it is......which opens the door for anyone to use that reasoning in explaining why they shot someone......

Think it will work for the above-mentioned guy?
 
#2
ZenG said:
Think it will work for the above-mentioned guy?
Click to expand...

Nope.

At least Zimmerman had his side of the story in which he was attacked and had his head bashed against the sidewalk. Whether you believe it or not is not the point; he had the story and a little physical evidence, and no credible witness to contradict it.

Popcorn guy has nothing, and a lot of eye-witnesses to make that clear. He went off the deep end, and the law is not there to protect people like him.
 
#4
A) The law is unconstitutional.

B) Our firearms laws are absolutely ridiculous when we have citizens who:

1) feel the need to be armed in a movie theater.

2) are allowed to be armed in a movie theater.

Neither of these are issues for the countries that we should be comparing ourselves to.

C) This story plays into my perception bias as to the caliber of our law enforcement officers.[/unpopular, bordering on political views]
 
#6
Unrepresented said:
A) The law is unconstitutional.

B) Our firearms laws are absolutely ridiculous when we have citizens who:

1) feel the need to be armed in a movie theater.

2) are allowed to be armed in a movie theater.

Neither of these are issues for the countries that we should be comparing ourselves to.

C) This story plays into my perception bias as to the caliber of our law enforcement officers.[/unpopular, bordering on political views]
Click to expand...

A million laws would not prevent this crime. Criminals don't obey laws.
 
#8
I do not think this guy will get away with it whatsoever. He mustn't be right in the head if he's trying to justify an impulsive murder with this.



Unrepresented said:
A) The law is unconstitutional.

B) Our firearms laws are absolutely ridiculous when we have citizens who:

1) feel the need to be armed in a movie theater.

2) are allowed to be armed in a movie theater.

Neither of these are issues for the countries that we should be comparing ourselves to.

C) This story plays into my perception bias as to the caliber of our law enforcement officers.[/unpopular, bordering on political views]
Click to expand...

With all due respect, that statement about being armed in a movie theatre makes no sense to me.

Now if someone was armed in the movie theatre in Aurora CO, they could have fired back at the shooter and saved a lot of lives.
 
#12
ZenG said:
It worked for Zimmerman.

Now there's the 71 year old ex-cop using the same defense.

In his argument with the guy that was texting in the movie theater, he claims that when the victim threw some popcorn at him ,he was in fear for his life.

From what I've read per the S.Y.G. law, your life doesn't have to be really be in danger........you just have to think it is......which opens the door for anyone to use that reasoning in explaining why they shot someone......

Think it will work for the above-mentioned guy?
Click to expand...

BTL:

I support 100% anyone's right to challenge any law that they do not see fit at any time for any reason but, having said that, I can not support someone doing that with factually incorrect statements.

1. It did not work for Zimmerman. His SYG application was denied.

2. That 71 YO LEO's SYG application lasted all of about 10 seconds in front of that judge before his trial was set.

3. The self defense laws have ALWAYS been based on a reasonable fear of harm. You have ALWAYS been able to shoot someone that has placed you in reasonable fear.

4. SYG removes the "duty to retreat" or the requirement to "run away! run away!" if you will.

5. That is pretty much all SYG does from a criminal standpoint, the rest is protection from civil action for the most part.

It is not a license to kill
It is not permission to "bait and wait" or "bait and bang"

And no. That guy is not going to walk. He is going to get spanked as hard as you can spank a 71 year old.
 
#13
IvanMunoz said:
I do not think this guy will get away with it whatsoever. He mustn't be right in the head if he's trying to justify an impulsive murder with this.





With all due respect, that statement about being armed in a movie theatre makes no sense to me.

Now if someone was armed in the movie theatre in Aurora CO, they could have fired back at the shooter and saved a lot of lives.
Click to expand...

If no one was armed in that movie theater all those lives would have been saved.;)
 
#16
eyeballkid said:
But unfortunately, only the nutjob was.
Click to expand...

I agree, our laws are highly suspect if we're tolerating people like that having access to weapons capable of harming so many.
BawanaRik said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

Not to introduce any of that reality thang but not everyone dies from guns.
Click to expand...
Never made such a claim, but eliminating a quick and easy way to kill a lot of people shouldn't be avoided because we can't eliminate all long and difficult ways to kill people.
 
#17
STEVE:-


I stand corrected.

You obviously have some more "in-depth" info than I do on this.....

Just going with what I'd seen so far......

Not trying to segue into "Gun Control" or any of that stuff here.......

I was surprised that you mentioned G.Zimmerman's SYG defense being rejected......

I thought that was the whole basis of his case.......
 
#19
ZenG said:
STEVE:-


I stand corrected.

You obviously have some more "in-depth" info than I do on this.....

Just going with what I'd seen so far......

Not trying to segue into "Gun Control" or any of that stuff here.......

I was surprised that you mentioned G.Zimmerman's SYG defense being rejected......

I thought that was the whole basis of his case.......
Click to expand...

He wouldn't have gone to trial if they accepted it
 
#20
Unrepresented said:
I agree, our laws are highly suspect if we're tolerating people like that having access to weapons capable of harming so many.

Never made such a claim, but eliminating a quick and easy way to kill a lot of people shouldn't be avoided because we can't eliminate all long and difficult ways to kill people.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're trying to say here.

It's getting late.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back