Repeal 'stand your ground'

Register
Jul 21, 2013

The “stand your ground” laws in Florida — the same template used for almost identical laws in Ohio and other states — resulted in the not guilty verdicts that many see as unjust in the trial of George Zimmerman. 

At its most basic level, Zimmerman armed himself and ignored police when he killed Trayvon Martin, who was walking home unarmed after buying a bag of Skittles and a soft drink at a neighborhood store. That’s what happened. Florida law — and Ohio law — make it legal to kill, but not right. 

These laws provide vague and codified terms to the intensely complicated act of killing and render almost any outcome in such cases — and potentially in less similar cases — the same as the verdicts that found Zimmerman not guilty on both manslaughter and murder charges July 13.

Ohio and 24 other states have “stand your ground” laws modeled after the same legislation Florida lawmakers used to enact its state law that provides a path to justifiable homicide with the weakest of circumstances. Trayvon was a teenager, who was walking home to his father’s house when he was killed. 

At its most intense center, these laws are derived from good, if fearful, intention, wrapped into the always difficult American system of courtroom justice. The national GOP successfully pushed the legislation inside state capitals across the country, but the outcome is not what these lawmakers likely intended. 

“Stand your ground” laws are emotionally opportunistic, destructive, and create situations to kill and glory in the killing. 

The president of the Sandusky chapter of the NAACP offered readers his reaction after Zimmerman verdicts were announced. 

“Try to imagine the situation reversed, if a black man shot a white teenager on his way home in his neighborhood,” Jim Jackson said. “There would be outrage among everyone. What it comes down to is the question: ‘Is racism dead in America?’ Obviously it’s not.”  

We’re hard-pressed to see any plausible argument to refute what Jackson, and others, have said. We hope the Sandusky branch of NAACP, other Ohio chapters, the national NAACP, the ACLU, residents and legislators unite for repeal, to remove these laws.

Comments

buttermaker

Stand your ground was not used by Zimmerman as a defense. He was found not guilty by reason of self defense, not on a stand your ground defense. Please try to get the facts straight, Reflector. And as for Jim Jackson crying foul over race and outrage, here's one for you, Jim. Where is the outrage, indeed. Try focusing on the real scourge and source of homicides in the black community, black on black crime.

http://www.westernjournalism.com...

The Big Dog's back

Get your facts straight. The JURY, you know, that group of 6 people who determine guilty or not guilty, used SYG in making their decision.

grumpy

Get YOUR facts straight and read what they said, not what you wanted them to say. They said Zimmerman's DEFENSE, you know the lawyers and those helping present Zimmerman's case didn't use SYG. Reading is fundamental, comprehension is sadly lacking for some.

buttermaker

The FACT is that Zimmerman and his defense team did not use SYG as a defense. This case was not about SYG, despite the judges' best efforts to make it that way. So, again, little pup, try to pay attention to what the adults are talking about or go back to your seat at the kids table.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/30/ju...

grumpy

From piddle puppies link:

"Still, the degree to which Stand Your Ground led to the not-guilty verdict is unclear and in dispute. Cooper never asked B37."

---------------------------------------------------------

Unclear, in dispute, and never asked are not very persuasive when used to back your reasoning.

The Big Dog's back

He didn't have to ask moroon, she volunteered it.

The Big Dog's back

poohball, maybe you need reading glasses.

grumpy

What part of my quote from your article are you saying wasn't there? Unclear, in dispute, or never asked?

The article was the one YOU provided to prove your contention. It calls it into question, much more than proves what YOU claim.

Don't like it go to my previous post and read about your reading comprehension and maybe you will get a clue where you made your screw ups. Not that that is unusual for you, the screw ups, not the comprehension, which you seem to be sorely lacking in, per your posts.

The Big Dog's back

BY MARC CAPUTO
MCAPUTO@MIAMIHERALD.COM
Jurors discussed Florida’s controversial Stand Your Ground self-defense law before rendering their not-guilty verdict in George Zimmerman’s trial, one of the jurors told CNN’s Anderson Cooper.

1st paragraph in the story moroon.

grumpy

Juror B37 mentioned Stand Your Ground a second time of her own accord, saying the jury ultimately made its not-guilty verdict Saturday night based on the evidence and “because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground.”

Still, the degree to which Stand Your Ground led to the not-guilty verdict is unclear and in dispute. Cooper never asked B37.

Stand Your Ground allows a law-abiding citizen to “meet force with force, including deadly force” if he reasonably feels threatened in a confrontation. The NRA-drafted law, passed by the Florida Legislature in 2005, made two major changes to homicide cases:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

3rd 4th and 5th paragraphs. and below the 4th paragraph again...

'Still, the degree to which Stand Your Ground led to the not-guilty verdict is unclear and in dispute. Cooper never asked B37.'

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

again unclear, in dispute, and unasked. No one except the jury knows how much, or how little they took SYG into consideration, or if they knew the content of the law. No one asked. You are guessing what you want them to have done. In other words you are guessing.

That has to do with reading comprehension. unclear, in dispute, and unasked. Not what you want to read when you are citing something to back your claims... but what we have from you as proof... unclear, in dispute, and never asked. Clear as mud.

The Big Dog's back

poohball, not a big deal getting glasses. Lots of people wear them.

grumpy

Here is a link to the jury instructions. Nowhere does it mention nor imply that the jury should consider SYG.

http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

IF the jury considered SYG it was done on their own, it was not mentioned in their presence in the court room, nor in the judges instructions. In fact the judge told them not to consider things outside of her instructions. She gave them the laws to consider and not to let anything else influence their deliberations.

The Big Dog's back

What's your point pooh? I said the jury used SYG to reach a verdict. I never said anything about the Judge or defense instructing them to. I understand you need someone to tell you every move to make, but this jury did this on their own.

grumpy

unclear, in dispute, and unasked.

eriemom

Actually, I think that the judge did send the SYG document in with the jury.

grumpy

Proof? Or is "think" enough for you to believe someone else's thinking different?

The Big Dog's back

pooh, you lost this one. Give it up and move on.

grumpy

SYG was not mentioned in either the court proceedings nor the judges instructions tp the jury, just as I said.

The Big Dog's back

Stick a fork in it pooh, you're done.

grumpy

Poor piddle puppy. got his nose rubbed in ---- yet again.

goofus

How can there be any racism in the U.S. The Great White Guilt got Obozo elected the first time and our sense of fairness in that people deserve a second chance got him elected a second time.Could Obozo's opining about this subject be a drive to reinvigorate the Great White Guilt before the 2014 midterms because the GOP is poised to take over the senate. The weasel in the white house does nothing but campaign!

The Big Dog's back

Try looking in the mirror and ask yourself that question.

West

Please, lets all remember that "it takes a village to raise a child." And, we as adults, lead by example.

West

@Sam, you just keep running your mouth....you think you have all the answers to everything. Well, just remember every dog has his day coming!

registerer

To the editors of the SR and all other media outlets. PLEASE show us an updated photo of this kid! Using one that is 3-4 years old is only self serving to those who would like to promote further rift.

The Big Dog's back

Would a photo of him lying dead please you?

BULLISDEEP's picture
BULLISDEEP

Now that you keep bringing it up,
where are the photos ?

The Good Doctor

At the time Martin was shot, Martin was supposed to have been on top of Zimmerman. If Martin was on top, please explain why Martin's blood was not found on Zimmerman.

Pages