George Zimmerman - Florida Unarmed Teen Shooting

View · by **nyffman** on Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:47 am

What really happened will come out in the investigation. The part that's more interesting and troubling is that, even before an investigation into the facts is completed, there is a push by the nanny staters to change or eliminate the "stand your ground" law. I guess it's to be expected from them.Hurry up and get a good law changed, based on an emotional appeal, regardless of what facts may come out later. I'd ask them, why this one kid's life is more valuable than the thousands that are saved every year according to the studies done by Kleck and others, but they don't have a close enough relationship with reality to deal with that. And before anyone jumps to the conclusion that I'm backing Zimmerman on this, I'm not. There isn't enough information to take a position.

View · by **Heffay** on Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:50 am

nyffman wrote:What really happened will come out in the investigation. The part that's more interesting and troubling is that, even before an investigation into the facts is completed, there is a push by the nanny staters to change or eliminate the "stand your ground" law. I guess it's to be expected from them.Hurry up and get a good law changed, based on an emotional appeal, regardless of what facts may come out later. I'd ask them, why this one kid's life is more valuable than the thousands that are saved every year according to the studies done by Kleck and others, but they don't have a close enough relationship with reality to deal with that. And before anyone jumps to the conclusion that I'm backing Zimmerman on this, I'm not. There isn't enough information to take a position.

If you would have read the Time article, this is HARDLY the first time there's been a very questionable use of stand your ground. The Zimmerman case is unresolved, but there is plenty of other ammunition to use to discuss modifying it.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 11,00.html

In September 2010, Trevor Dooley stormed into a park near his home outside Tampa, angry because a teenager was skateboarding on the basketball court. Dooley was carrying a .32-caliber semiautomatic handgun in his pants, and it was visible to David James, 41, who was in the park with his 8-year-old daughter. James tried to disarm Dooley, who is now 71, and as the two men tussled on the ground, Dooley shot James in the chest, killing him. Prosecutors, not surprisingly, charged Dooley with manslaughter. But if Dooley's lawyers can convince a judge by next week that he fired the gun because his life was being threatened — that he is therefore protected under Florida's "stand your ground" law — Dooley may well walk away a free man.

That is NOT stand your ground.

View · by **justaguy** on Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:51 am

nyffman wrote: nanny staters

You are using labels again. You are going to confuse people.

View · by **Hmac** on Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:59 am

nyffman wrote:What really happened will come out in the investigation.

I wish I could believe that that were true. The public rhetoric is escalating exponentially and I can certainly envision the "facts" getting changed by the immense political pressure that is being applied.

View · by **justaguy** on Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:03 am

Hmac wrote:
nyffman wrote:What really happened will come out in the investigation.

I wish I could believe that that were true. The public rhetoric is escalating exponentially and I can certainly envision the "facts" getting changed by the immense political pressure that is being applied.

What do you mean? The Media is on the case. We should modify laws in response to media reports and the death of children!! Emotional out rage is the answer.

View · by **photogpat** on Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:04 am

Relevant MN law.
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=609.06 lists when Use of Force is Authorized, key points:
*****************
Subdivision 1.When authorized.Except as otherwise provided in subdivision 2, reasonable force may be used upon or toward the person of another without the other's consent when the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably believes them to exist:
<snip>
(3) when used by any person in resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person; or
(4) when used by any person in lawful possession of real or personal property, or by another assisting the person in lawful possession, in resisting a trespass upon or other unlawful interference with such property;

609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.
******************

If my instructor was correct, MN law says you can use "reasonable" force to resist an offense against your person, or another person ("Reasonable" as defined by an impartial jury). There is no "Duty to Retreat" in MN law, just the "reasonable" force language. Case law (and someone smarter than me can link to it) gives us the "Duty to Retreat".

Edit:
Case MN v. Tony Carothers - ie. No Duty to Retreat in Defense of Dwelling: http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archi ... c89886.htm
Case MN v. James Johnson - ie. Duty to Retreat in public: http://is.gd/z9BiUu

View · by **plblark** on Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:06 am

One of the benefits to the law proposed this last session was getting all the requirements out into black letter statutory law without changing definitions or wording willy-nilly to leave an opening for courts to redefine it again in case law.

View · by **nyffman** on Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:06 am

Heffay, there's a big difference between "storming out", as Dooley did and physically attacking, as James did. The article you quote makes no mention of Dooley threatening with a gun. It doesn't sound like he was at his best that day, but unless there's more information, he should get off legally and if he has any conscience, that will be his real punishment. You seem to kinda like using the force of the govt on people.

View · by **justaguy** on Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:09 am

nyffman wrote:Heffay, there's a big difference between "storming out", as Dooley did and physically attacking, as James did. The article you quote makes no mention of Dooley threatening with a gun. It doesn't sound like he was at his best that day, but unless there's more information, he should get off legally and if he has any conscience, that will be his real punishment. You seem to kinda like using the force of the govt on people.

You just got sucked in and lost.

View · by **illbits** on Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:10 am

Heffay wrote:
nyffman wrote:What really happened will come out in the investigation. The part that's more interesting and troubling is that, even before an investigation into the facts is completed, there is a push by the nanny staters to change or eliminate the "stand your ground" law. I guess it's to be expected from them.Hurry up and get a good law changed, based on an emotional appeal, regardless of what facts may come out later. I'd ask them, why this one kid's life is more valuable than the thousands that are saved every year according to the studies done by Kleck and others, but they don't have a close enough relationship with reality to deal with that. And before anyone jumps to the conclusion that I'm backing Zimmerman on this, I'm not. There isn't enough information to take a position.

If you would have read the Time article, this is HARDLY the first time there's been a very questionable use of stand your ground. The Zimmerman case is unresolved, but there is plenty of other ammunition to use to discuss modifying it.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 11,00.html

In September 2010, Trevor Dooley stormed into a park near his home outside Tampa, angry because a teenager was skateboarding on the basketball court. Dooley was carrying a .32-caliber semiautomatic handgun in his pants, and it was visible to David James, 41, who was in the park with his 8-year-old daughter. James tried to disarm Dooley, who is now 71, and as the two men tussled on the ground, Dooley shot James in the chest, killing him. Prosecutors, not surprisingly, charged Dooley with manslaughter. But if Dooley's lawyers can convince a judge by next week that he fired the gun because his life was being threatened — that he is therefore protected under Florida's "stand your ground" law — Dooley may well walk away a free man.

That is NOT stand your ground.

Sounds like stand your ground to me. If some stranger attacked me and tried to take my concealed gun away from me I would assume it was a life and death struggle and I would defend myself accordingly.

View · by **illbits** on Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:12 am

justaguy wrote:You just got sucked in and lost.

Too true, participation in the thread is just futile.

View · by **justaguy** on Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:30 am

illbits wrote:
justaguy wrote:You just got sucked in and lost.

Too true, participation in the thread is just futile.

Its not the thread. Its who and what you choose to respond to.

View · by **Hmac** on Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:49 am

illbits wrote:
justaguy wrote:You just got sucked in and lost.

Too true, participation in the thread is just futile.

Why do you think that? Is it because you can't get everyone to see what is so obvious to you?

View · by **Snowgun** on Thu Mar 22, 2012 12:27 pm

I think Heffay has a good point. There might be benefit to delineating in a stand your ground law what is "business as usual" and "purposeful confrontation that could be construed as threatening".

View · by **photogpat** on Thu Mar 22, 2012 12:33 pm

Snowgun wrote:I think Heffay has a good point. There might be benefit to delineating in a stand your ground law what is "business as usual" and "purposeful confrontation that could be construed as threatening".

Don't we already have this with the "reasonable person" language? What actions would be "reasonable" to an impartial jury?