Florida, where murder is legal

Post Reply New Topic

IMO, David Kopel makes fundamental errors of assumptions & errors in logic & law here.

Care to back that up with specifics? Or is this going to be yet another of your naked assertions "backed" with tangential references and thinly veiled insults?

Did I say the NRA was not behind anything? What I said was "what does it matter?". See, I tend to evaluate ideas independently of their source and partisan alignment; I don't care who came up with the idea, only whether or not it's a good one. You on the other hand, seem to think that the mere presence of the NRA somehow "taints" the idea, though the exact mechanism you seem to be imagining is illusive to me.

Also, I can change reality with my words; it's called persuasion, lobbying and activism. Here though, I'm just having fun.



Can you not tell the difference between ignoring something and disputing it? For a guy who keeps insisting that none of this means anything, you're sure being stubborn about playing out your (willful?) misunderstanding of self defense law (see my handy posts explaining it all in both TM threads).



Who said anything about "special rights"? I asked you if you thought that people wrongfully prosecuted over self defense incidents should have to pay their own legal fees or be reimbursed by the state, and you said yes. I asked if you really meant that using plainer language, and you deflect with this "special rights" distraction. SYG and other self defense shield laws are universally applicable, no one is getting anything anyone else isn't and that kind of kills your idea of "special" right there.

Hmm, "special rights" that apply to everyone? Sounds an awful lot like the conservative objection to gay marriage, doesn't it?



Indeed, and apparently yours really does include a rush to satisfy emotions before the facts are in, as I've given you multiple chances to clarify and all. And (yet) again, I've never disputed that the NRA has been involved in pushing for liberalized gun laws and self defense related legislation, it's sorta what they do. The point is that I. Don't. Care. CATO could propose some stupid idea tomorrow and it would still be a stupid idea even though it came from people I tend to like and agree with, while the KKK could come up with a great idea that wouldn't be made any less great by it's odious originator. Maybe in your world an idea's merit is partially derived from who came up with it, but it isn't in mine.



*sighs* Where to start... Now if I said I was "playing with my guns" I'd have people down my throat about how I'm not treating deadly weapons seriously, but when I take them seriously I get the likes of you telling me I've got some sort of Rambo complex. Maybe you should accept that you clearly know nothing about guns and that you know less than nothing about me personally and what I happen to do with them.

I'm a gunsmith, friendo, Colorado School of Trades class of 2004, which makes me a professional when it comes to firearms and their handling, and much of what I do with them is fix and tune them, in addition to my own sport shooting and habitual carry.

I don't harbor any ideas about the British monarchy getting in my face, but I do take responsibility for my own security and that of my family, a responsibility I take very seriously. I don't roam the neighborhood looking for trouble, I don't try and put myself in dangerous situations, but I do know that if one of those situations should find me that I'm equipped and prepared to give myself the best chance of coming out OK.

I think I adequately addressed your "special rights" red herring above, but feel free to peruse the excellent David Kopel piece I'm posting to this and the other thread, *just for you*.



Evidently *you* aren't likely to do any productive research period, so I guess I should just lower my expectations when "debating" with you and think of it more as a Larry King softball questions sort of experience.

As to the rest, you seem to be missing the entire "is there actually something to prosecute here?" boat. If there is something to prosecute, the law will not get in the way (read that David Kopel), and if there's nothing there, then I'm glad they can't try to slap a charge on someone just to please the media and the horde.

Also, if you're going to employ the "why are you typing so much/it won't change anything" tactic, you need to shut up yourself or it doesn't have the same impact. Don't worry, we've got the thread covered without your... contributions.

In an effort to continue to be as responsive as possible to the public seeking information on the incident, I have asked Chief Lee to provide answers to some of the most frequently asked questions regarding this matter. Below are his responses. Please understand that since this is still an ongoing investigation, the Police Department is limited in what information it can publicly release.
..............
Why was George Zimmerman not arrested the night of the shooting?
When the Sanford Police Department arrived at the scene of the incident, Mr. Zimmerman provided a statement claiming he acted in self defense which at the time was supported by physical evidence and testimony. By Florida Statute, law enforcement was PROHIBITED from making an arrest based on the facts and circumstances they had at the time. Additionally, when any police officer makes an arrest for any reason, the officer MUST swear and affirm that he/she is making the arrest in good faith and with probable cause. If the arrest is done maliciously and in bad faith, the officer and the City may be held liable.
According to Florida Statute 776.032 :
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes ARRESTING, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

Why weren’t the 911 tapes initially released?
There are exemptions to the public records laws for active criminal intelligence and.......................

David Kopel takes a more in depth look at Florida's self defense laws and their applicability to this case:

http://volokh.com/2012/03/27/floridas-s ... more-57774

"Neutralized" humans are just like flat tires, minus the blood.

What is the applicability of the 'Stand Your Ground' law to the deceased Mr. Martin, as opposed to Zimmerman? Martin, after all, was the one who was stalked through the streets of his father's neighborhood by an adult male who outweighed him by 100 lbs and had a gun. If I happened to be in Florida and was confronted by someone exactly like Zimmerman under the exact same circumstances, I would feel in danger for my life; if he pointed the gun at me and told me to go with him, I might decide that I'd rather try to take it from him and risk being killed there, than go with him somewhere else where I could be raped and murdered all tidy-like.

If anything, Trayvon was possibly living up to the spirit of Stand Your Ground.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

He took the risk of standing his ground though and was shot people can still be afriad of you for standing your ground that doesnt excuse him of shooting the guy though.

True. This law can cause just as many people to get killed as it might save.

North Carolina has a similar law but when the shooter kills he goes to prsion unless the person was on their property then it falls under slef defense.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

What is the applicability of the 'Stand Your Ground' law to the deceased Mr. Martin, as opposed to Zimmerman? Martin, after all, was the one who was stalked through the streets of his father's neighborhood by an adult male who outweighed him by 100 lbs and had a gun. If I happened to be in Florida and was confronted by someone exactly like Zimmerman under the exact same circumstances, I would feel in danger for my life; if he pointed the gun at me and told me to go with him, I might decide that I'd rather try to take it from him and risk being killed there, than go with him somewhere else where I could be raped and murdered all tidy-like.

The law is applied unevenly so it's difficult to say what you can get away with. In some cases if someone steps toward you, they can be shot and you won't be charged. Even a smaller man. That's actually happened.

If the shoe was on the other foot it might help Martin that Zimmerman apparently has been arrested three times. Twice for violence. His judge father may have helped him get the charges expunged. So if Martin had killed Zimmerman with a brick he could say whatever he wanted assuming he was the sole witness to the start of the fight. Just as Zimmerman can. And assuming the history of arrests is true, investigators would have some pattern of violent behavior to refer to, plus the evidence that Zimmerman pursued Martin.

The law is applied unevenly so it's difficult to say what you can get away with. In some cases if someone steps toward you, they can be shot and you won't be charged. Even a smaller man. That's actually happened.

If the shoe was on the other foot it might help Martin that Zimmerman apparently has been arrested three times. Twice for violence. His judge father may have helped him get the charges expunged. So if Martin had killed Zimmerman with a brick he could say whatever he wanted assuming he was the sole witness to the start of the fight. Just as Zimmerman can. And assuming the history of arrests is true, investigators would have some pattern of violent behavior to refer to, plus the evidence that Zimmerman pursued Martin.

The truth is if Zimmerman had killed Martin with a brick instead of a pistol (or any gun for that matter) you and a few others here wouldn't have your drawers in a knot over it.

So if he had killed Zimmerman with a brick, would you be demanding that he be charged?

So if he had killed Zimmerman with a brick, would you be demanding that he be charged?