Black teen shot and killed by neighborhood watch in Orlando gated community

[FlamingLonghorn]

SYG has been passed in states where the NRA and ALEC have pushed it. They put considerable resources into getting it passed.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by valo403

The fact of the matter is that SYG laws allow for increased use of deadly force and decreased judicial review of that use. This is a positive how?

2nd amendment, personal freedoms, yadda yadda.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by valo403

You have support for that? Very few states have a pattern of increasing murder rates. In fact, based on a quick review of your own chart there doesn't appear to be a single state that has seen a significant increase in murder rates over the last 5 years recorded.

The fact of the matter is that SYG laws allow for increased use of deadly force and decreased judicial review of that use. This is a positive how?

I just don't see that from the raw data. Once again, there's a link between high murder rates and stand your ground laws to begin with. Here's a lit of States with SYG laws:

http://globalgrind.com/news/stand-yo...n-meaning-list

Here's a list of murder rate by state and year:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murd...-state#MRalpha

Once again, I don't think the law relates to crime or homicide in any way though. In the USA murder, and crime as a whole, are related to drugs and poverty. Very few murders involve someone using the STY law or scenarios where one might use that law. The vast majority of murders are commited by people who know eachother (ex: husbands killing wives/girlfreinds), drug related, or the result of robbery in low income neighbourhoods. This is why about 50% of the victems of murder in the USA are black.

The biggest piece of evidence is that despite about 50% of the States enacting STY laws within the last few years, the murder rate is falling dramatically:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

And continues to fall. We've got a situation where roughly 50% of the States have STY laws. That's not an isignificant number.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by blankall

I just don't see that from the raw data. Once again, there's a link between high murder rates and stand your ground laws to begin with. Here's a lit of States with SYG laws:

http://globalgrind.com/news/stand-yo...n-meaning-list

Here's a list of murder rate by state and year:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murd...-state#MRalpha

Once again, I don't think the law relates to crime or homicide in any way though. In the USA murder, and crime as a whole, are related to drugs and poverty. Very few murders involve someone using the STY law or scenarios where one might use that law. The vast majority of murders are commited by people who know eachother (ex: husbands killing wives/girlfreinds), drug related, or the result of robbery in low income neighbourhoods. This is why about 50% of the victems of murder in the USA are black.

The biggest piece of evidence is that despite about 50% of the States enacting STY laws within the last few years, the murder rate is falling dramatically:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

And continues to fall. We've got a situation where roughly 50% of the States have STY laws. That's not an isignificant number.

What don't you see from the raw data?

And c'mon man, in one post it's 'SYG laws are enacted in response to rising murder rates' and in the next it's 'murder rates are falling dramatically'. Which one is it?

I really don't understand what you last link is supposed to prove. A death that is considered justified under SYG wouldn't be a murder, and therefore wouldn't be included in the stats anyways.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by valo403

Yes and no, it was included in the instructions given to the jury, although not explicitly utilized by the defense.

Not yes and no, just plain yes. The words "stand your ground" might have been mentioned in the jury instructions, but that is neither here nor there as this was clearly not an SYG case.

If it were a SYG case then there wouldn't even have been a jury to instruct in the first place. If some jury members mistakenly thought this was a SYG case that is unforunate, but fact remains this was a standard self defence case and the same principles used to get Zimmerman off could have been used in any of the 50 states.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by valo403

What don't you see from the raw data?

And c'mon man, in one post it's 'SYG laws are enacted in response to rising murder rates' and in the next it's 'murder rates are falling dramatically'. Which one is it?

I really don't understand what you last link is supposed to prove. A death that is considered justified under SYG wouldn't be a murder, and therefore wouldn't be included in the stats anyways.

Umm both....

Murder rates as a whole are decreasing now, but many STY laws were came into being in the early 2000s when this wasn't the case. So before the laws came into place, there were high murder rates, but the murder rates have decreased since. Like I also said, the SYG states also happen to be the ones on the high murder rate list.

That being said, that's not really my argument. My argument is that the STY laws are insignificant, and murder rates are linked to much larger societal problems. Most importantly the States with high murder rates and STY laws, not conincidentally happen to be states with a poor history of integration and close proximity to the Mexican border.

If you look at the study that sites STY laws resuting in increased murder rates, they've got many pages of calculation and variables they've excluded. If your trying to prove a point that murder rates are up by 5%, it's pretty easy to manipulate data with a small sample size to prove that, which is exactly what they've done. There are just as many right wing blogs manipulating the data to prove their points:

http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/201...7s+Constant%29

http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/20...s-2536144.html

Anytime you need 10s of pages of statistical manipulation to come up with a small figure from a small sample size, you should be suspicious.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

Not yes and no, just plain yes. The words "stand your ground" might have been mentioned in the jury instructions, but that is neither here nor there as this was clearly not an SYG case.

If it were a SYG case then there wouldn't even have been a jury to instruct in the first place. If some jury members mistakenly thought this was a SYG case that is unforunate, but fact remains this was a standard self defence case and the same principles used to get Zimmerman off could have been used in any of the 50 states.

Well if you're asserting that SYG was wholly inapplicable and a SYG instruction was given to the jury I'd say that's pretty good grounds for an appeal.

OR

SYG was applicable, hence the instruction being given by the judge, who likely has a bit more experience with Florida law than either of us.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by valo403

Well if you're asserting that SYG was wholly inapplicable and a SYG instruction was given to the jury I'd say that's pretty good grounds for an appeal.

OR

SYG was applicable, hence the instruction being given by the judge, who likely has a bit more experience with Florida law than either of us.

You're wrong:

http://mediatrackers.org/florida/201...our-ground-law

The single reference in the 27 pages of jury instructions to “Stand Your Ground” forms the basis of nearly all claims that the law was key to Zimmerman’s acquittal. The relevant language from the jury instructions is quoted below:

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

The law of Florida has also adopted an expanded version of the "Castle Doctrine", which is the above.

That being said, even the Castle Doctrine is not applicable to this case, which is why it was referenced only once in the jury instructions. In the present case, Zimmerman's story was that he was pinned on the ground at the moment he decided to use his gun. That's hardly a scenario where an ability to retreat exists.

[missdpuck]

Originally Posted by valo403

The fact that there is a Tampa suburb called "Town N' Country" is the most Florida thing I have ever heard.

How about Christmas, Sopchoppy, ,Pahokee, and Doctor Phillips ?

[fatso]

My apologies BBF for taking so long to respond to you.

It looks like we've all moved on from the President's speech so I won't belabour the point, particularly since others like Daradon and FlamingLonghorn basically share my view more eloquently than me.

I do not see how anyone can conclude from the President's speech that he "hates white people and loves black people". I don't believe many Americans think that and, in any event, any who do have serious issues about race they should probably confront.

Moreover, in addition to the passage quoted about "things getting better", I would also direct people to the passage where he asks Americans to emulate the dignity of Trayvon's parents in responding to this. Frankly, I think those who are suggesting the President was race-baiting in his speech are simply projecting their own racial anxieties on the situation.

Tellingly, it doesn't seem anyone is disagreeing with the substance of what he said, in particular the profiling he experienced or that race is an issue with this case (maybe not the trial itself, but certainly the discourse around it). Actually, I wouldn't have a problem with that position because people would have to back that up which, of course, they wouldn't be able to do.

However, I do take issue with this idea that the President should not say anything at all on this point. My sense is those who think he should not have said anything at all, either consciously or unconsciously, believe a black person talking about race is ultimately trying to be divisive. The notion that he should "shut up" or not say anything is garbage. He's the President responding to a question about a topic of national interest. This was absolutely an appropriate time for him to speak about race, and he could not have been more circumspect in doing so.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The only minority on the all-female jury that voted to acquit George Zimmerman said today that Zimmerman "got away with murder" for killing Trayvon Martin and feels she owes an apology Martin's parents.

"You can't put the man in jail even though in our hearts we felt he was guilty," said the woman who was identified only as Juror B29 during the trial. "But we had to grab our hearts and put it aside and look at the evidence."

She said the jury was following Florida law and the evidence, she said, did not prove murder.

The court had sealed the jurors' identities during the trial and still hasn't lifted the order, but Juror B29 edged out of the shadows in an exclusive interview with "Good Morning America" anchor Robin Roberts. She allowed her face to be shown, but -- concerned for her safety -- used only a first name of Maddy.

Despite the prosecution's claim the Zimmerman profiled Martin because he was black, Maddy said the case was never about race to her, although she didn't want to speak for her fellow jurors.

But her feelings about Zimmerman's actions are clear.

"George Zimmerman got away with murder, but you can't get away from God. And at the end of the day, he's going to have a lot of questions and answers he has to deal with," Maddy said. "[But] the law couldn't prove it."

http://gma.yahoo.com/george-zimmerma...opstories.html

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

http://gma.yahoo.com/george-zimmerma...opstories.html

Aside from the God part, I pretty much feel the same as her.

[CaptainCrunch]

Interesting, but in the end she did the right thing, she didn't vote with what clearly is emotion. Under the law they couldn't convict.

That's the ultimate in the definition of justice. Sometimes we don't like the law, but we have to live by the law.

My dad was in a jury for a murder case where a guy came home and found his wife in bed with his brother. the poor guy went to the kitchen got a knife and killed both of them.

Because he left the room and had a cooling off period to get the knife it because a planned first degree murder. Every single juror had sympathy for the guy. Probably a lot of them said the same thing, but at the end of the day they had to go against their heart and convict.

[DuffMan]

This reminds me of when Phil Mickelson won the British Open, and he went to the Calloway Headquarters and shook hands with employees.

(Reuters) - George Zimmerman's lawyer has chided him for visiting a Florida firearms factory that makes the type of gun he used to kill unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin last year.

Celebrity news website TMZ posted a photo of Zimmerman at the Kel-Tec plant in Cocoa, shaking hands with an employee and grinning.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...97N0CT20130824

[RedMileDJ]

nm. I like pie.

[RedMileDJ]

nm

[Temporary_User]

If someone was assaulting me and someone else came and assisted me I would probably go to that persons house later and personally thank them.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Temporary_User

If someone was assaulting me and someone else came and assisted me I would probably go to that persons house later and personally thank them.

I guess I'd have to be drunk to understand this.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Temporary_User

If someone was assaulting me and someone else came and assisted me I would probably go to that persons house later and personally thank them.

Hopefully, you're not being serious.

[Pizza]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

I guess I'd have to be drunk to understand this.

He would be thanking the person who rescued him

...not the person who assaulted him