Stand your ground has nothing to do with it. Seld-defense or not self-defense, that is the question.

Seems way too cynical to me.

Here's the article Andrew McCarthy is criticizing. It is by David French.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...t-david-french

Other Considerations
 

As I understand the law: If it is self defense then the person is responsible to rurn and try to get away before using any force. If "Stand your Ground" all the person has to prove is they were being threatened and they have a right to stand where they are and defend themselves (e.g. they do not have to run away).
The other considerations are the attempts by some, (we know who they are) to try to make this a "racial" issue. Under the circumstances that is dispictable.:read:

It appears that the State is making it's case against Zimmerman by the police operator advising him not to follow Martin. Zimmerman ignored it and went to confront Martin. If he was not following Martin, this tragic incident would not have happened.

your entire post is total supposition.

The 911 operators words were "we don't need you to do that." You do see the difference, don't you?

Stand your ground
 

Let me try to explain this as best I can. Let me compare state of Florida and my home state.

If someone breaks into your house while you're home and you are in fear you might shoot him and claim self-defense. Where I come from the first thing that would be examined is were you able to run away, run out the back door? If the coroner's inquest or anybody else thinks that you should have run out the back door then you're going to be arrested and charged.

If you are walking down the street and an assailant approaches you with the obvious intent to do great bodily harm and you shoot him, the first thing they will ask this could you have run away. If the coroner's inquest or anybody else thinks that you should have run away you will be arrested and prosecuted.

Now let's look at Florida. Look at the stand your ground law. It does not come into effect until after the shooting. In Florida you are not required to leave your home or castle a.k.a. Castle law in order to defend yourself.

In Florida you are under no obligation to leave any place that you are legally in order to defend yourself.

The merits of self-defense will be determined at some time in Florida. And the state where I came from you are already in trouble even if it was self-defense.

That is my best practical understanding of the Florida Castle law and stand your ground law. I think it's pretty accurate if not oversimplified.

Just my opinion.

PS my home state does not recognize your inherent right to protect yourself. There are several who do not. Washington DC comes to mind. There are others.

Maybe not complying with the 911 dispatcher's advisory was a stupid decision, but Mr. Zimmerman was under no legal requirement to do so. I don't see how that can be used as a charge against him.

We will have to wait until the court starts their process.Glad he is in jail,only thing he should have been there from the night of the shooting. Still think Sanford Police did poor job without charging him.

Richie, I was a legal secretary for over 30 years. I, too, have read the prosecutor's complaint in this case. Yes, it is vague -- complaints usually are. You state enough to get your case into court, not enough to lay everything on the table, especially since investigation and time can change things -- this is true whether it is civil or criminal. So, I take Mr. McCarthy's opinions as just that -- opinions. Nothing more, nothing less. He's entitled to his, I'm entitled to mine, you're entitled to yours.

It seems to me that self-defense laws are more "pro life," if you will. In a self-defense case, taking another's life is acceptable as a last resort. In a "stand your ground" defense, taking another's life is acceptable as a first resort.

If Martin was talking to his girlfriend on the cellphone, as she claims, and he expressed fear of a man following him, it is plausible that "an altercation ensued" because Martin was trying to stand his ground. Perhaps they were both scared of each other and tried to stand their ground.

If Martin was just an unarmed kid making his way home from the store and not out looking for trouble, it's sad he had to die, regardless of whether a crime was committed when he was shot.

Without any "hard evident" that might become available as the case makes its way through the justice system, (such as forensics, voice analysis of the screams, any physical clues, etc.) I don't have a position on what happened.

Some links about self-defense and related matters.
 

Right of self-defense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stand your ground law (NY Times 2006) http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/07/us...pagewanted=all

"Many prosecutors oppose the laws, saying they are unnecessary at best and pernicious at worst. 'They’re basically giving citizens more rights to use deadly force than we give police officers, and with less review,' said Paul A. Logli, president of the National District Attorneys Association." from above NYT article.

This is a timely article from Detroit-- http://www.freep.com/article/2012041...f-self-defense

If I understand you correctly, you are against people defending themselves. You want the killer punished even if it was self-defense. What is not to like about the law. It is good for the good guy and bad for thebad guy. What if it were you?


All the SYG law does is to prevent prosecution if it is believed to be self-defense and to protect the defender from civil suit if it was a lawful killing.

What is being missed here is that a person is not allowed to be the persuer and turn around and say they were standing their ground, otherwise every drive-by shooter in the country could say they were standing their ground. Hopefully, with George Zimmerman in jail facing life in prison, this will give other potential shooter's pause when they think they can get away with it under the stand your ground law. We should know a lot more in this case after the judge's decision next Friday and Zimmerman's testimony.

Persuit:
act of chasing after something: the act of chasing after somebody or something in order to catch, attack, or overtake that person or thing

Persuit hasn't been proven. To follow is not to chase.

Would you have a person pause and end up dead? You have a very low opinion of law abiding citizens. It is not the law abiding citizen who wantenly rape, pillage and murder it is the criminal. They don't care about the law.

What will you say if the court finds that it was a case of self-defense? I'd love to know.

Imho
 

:agree: :BigApplause: