The case clearly doesn't fall under even the broadest standard of "stand your ground".
It's kind of a dumb law to begin with, but it certainly was never intended to mean "Harass someone for no reason, stalk them, confront and assault them, and then murder them when they resist".
This is exactly what I was thinking when I read the post on it below. How the hell does this come under that definition? You would have to have a really screwed up view of what happened to justify it under "stand your ground".
I think it says something about the case that even the guys who passed the law Zimmerman wants to use as a defense are saying his case doesn't fall under its protection.
“The guy lost his defense right then,” said Peaden. “When he said ‘I’m following him,’ he lost his defense.”
That's right on the head. Zimmerman was in no way being threatened - Martin wasn't even approaching him (and even if Martin had been, just an approach does not count as a threat, unless he was carrying a weapon at the time).
No matter how broad the language, all homicide defenses and immunity laws depend on a core factor, which is imminent threat - the only way homicide or assault is justified is if you are in immediate danger. If not, then it was murder.
Should "likely" be arrested? (I get why they have to say it, but still.)
I agree with the Castle Doctrine, but it's fucking nutso to think it extends everywhere, including GETTING OUT OF YOUR CAR TO CHASE A KID DOWN BECAUSE HE'S EXISTING WHILE BLACK "REAL SUSPICIOUS".
broad protections to those who claim they had reason to be afraid and to use deadly force
Reason to be afraid OF WHAT? That's the whole point. The kid had Skittles and fucking iced tea. YOU CHASED HIM DOWN AND MURDERED HIM.
TBH, I'd like karma to pay this fucker a visit, preferably in the form of Frank Castle.
Comments 18
It's kind of a dumb law to begin with, but it certainly was never intended to mean "Harass someone for no reason, stalk them, confront and assault them, and then murder them when they resist".
Reply
Reply
“The guy lost his defense right then,” said Peaden. “When he said ‘I’m following him,’ he lost his defense.”
That's right on the head. Zimmerman was in no way being threatened - Martin wasn't even approaching him (and even if Martin had been, just an approach does not count as a threat, unless he was carrying a weapon at the time).
No matter how broad the language, all homicide defenses and immunity laws depend on a core factor, which is imminent threat - the only way homicide or assault is justified is if you are in immediate danger. If not, then it was murder.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Thank you! So tired of people justifying Zimmerman's actions.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
BUT SERIOUSLY THEY THINK IT'S WRONG THAT THE MURDERER IS NOT ARRESTED!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am ashamed!
Reply
I agree with the Castle Doctrine, but it's fucking nutso to think it extends everywhere, including GETTING OUT OF YOUR CAR TO CHASE A KID DOWN BECAUSE HE'S EXISTING WHILE BLACK "REAL SUSPICIOUS".
broad protections to those who claim they had reason to be afraid and to use deadly force
Reason to be afraid OF WHAT? That's the whole point. The kid had Skittles and fucking iced tea. YOU CHASED HIM DOWN AND MURDERED HIM.
TBH, I'd like karma to pay this fucker a visit, preferably in the form of Frank Castle.
Reply
Leave a comment