Why Zimmerman's is not a SYG case

[Atman]

Why 'stand your ground' law doesn't apply to Zimmerman

June 25, 2013|By David Simmons, Guest columnist

After the tragic death of Trayvon Martin in a fight with George Zimmerman last year in Sanford, many people took to the streets and airwaves, claiming that his death somehow resulted from Florida's "stand your ground" law.
They claimed, erroneously, that Florida's "stand your ground" law protected lawless criminals. Unfortunately, these people did not properly understand this law, its application or its purpose.

Nearly a year and a half later, Zimmerman is being prosecuted and the case has gone to trial before a jury. Much to the amazement of those who had claimed that this case was a "stand your ground" case, Zimmerman's attorneys this spring stated publicly that the case is not.
But I still hear news media today talking about the Zimmerman case and referring to it as a "stand your ground" case. Let me explain why it is not.

(continues at link)

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-06-25/news/os-ed-stand-your-ground-062513-20130625-12_1_ground-law-zimmerman-case-george-zimmerman

[rdharma]

1. The subject of the OP has become a favorite right wing talking point.......

The right wing and the NRA want to make sure that Zimmerman's stalking and killing of an unarmed teenager doesn't jeopardize the "stand your ground" portion of Florida's self-defense laws.

It's understandable why the Republican State Senator David Simmons would argue to keep this legalized "license to kill" portion of the law, after all, he sponsored it in the Senate.

I find it quite strange that some DUers find themselves in complete agreement with Republican lawmakers and the NRA on this issue. But maybe I shouldn't be surprised after having seen what is written by the gun "enthusiasts" in the RKBA group.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

2. Their vigorous defense of Zimmerman and demonization of Trayvon Martin tells me all I need to know.

[Atman]

3. I'm not defending SYG. I just posted an article.

It doesn't mean I agree with it.

[rdharma]

6. Fair enough.

But be aware, that posting an op-ed like this without comment gives the impression that you are in agreement with the op-ed.

[John2]

4. That depends on

who Mr Simmons considered the aggressor. His assumption is Trayvon was if that is what he is insinuating. Trayvon was the kid pursued and he wasn't armed either. Zimmerman pursued Trayvon and Trayvon had all the rights under his law. Zimmerman had no rights when he pursued an innocent person. People are justifying Zimmerman's actions by saying he had a right to be where he was. The only reason Zimmerman ended up at a certain place, was because he pursued Martin. Intent has a lot to do with it in both person's mind. There is no evidence Trayvon circled back and attacked Zimmerman like he claims. You can't go from point A to B, without evidence. There is no evidence to claim Trayvon circled back or started the fight. The only witness claiming they know who started it favored Martin. That is the only evidence for that, take it or leave it, but it does not favor the Defense. And Trayvon Martin should not lose his rights to stand your ground if Zimmerman was the aggressor, even if Zimmerman ended up on the short end of it as his one witness (Good) asserts. Imagine a 158 pound skinny kid holding down a 204 pound grown man from moving if you believe that Bull!

[onehandle]

5. It's a lynching case. nt

[ileus]

7. It's sad we have to have SYG laws to protect the innocent.

One would think it would be common sense that if attacked you don't need to risk death and injury just because you're in a public place.

Safety first, Victim later...would be a better name for the law.