If you believe Trayvon was attacked in public, your crusade against SYG is especially misguided

Conservative Intel ^ | 7/17/13 | David Freddoso

[The Old Hoosier]

They want to blame the Stand Your Ground law for the result — the law on the books of 24 states — that eliminates any “duty to retreat” for any person who is attacked in a place where they have a right to be. (In fact, I’m told there are more states than that where the principle applies, even though there is no formal Stand Your Ground law for criminal cases.) George Zimmerman did not even attempt to put on a “Stand Your Ground” defense, which should really settle the issue. One possible reason is that it would have been incompatible with his version of events. By his account — whether you buy it or not — Zimmerman had no opportunity to flee once he feared for his life, because he was pinned to the ground. No “duty to retreat” would apply in such a situation. Rather, prosecutors had to prove that George Zimmerman was not really defending himself when he shot Trayvon Martin, or that he used disproportionate force. It was a difficult to case to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. But for a case where Stand Your Ground might have applied, let’s perform a mental exercise that changes the situation. Same Zimmerman trial, same evidence, and let’s assume from the start that the version of events Zimmerman gave at his trial is totally false. But then add this twist: pretend the struggle between the two men ended differently — Zimmerman was killed...

[The Old Hoosier]

Sorry, formatting:

...They want to blame the Stand Your Ground law for the result — the law on the books of 24 states — that eliminates any “duty to retreat” for any person who is attacked in a place where they have a right to be. (In fact, I’m told there are more states than that where the principle applies, even though there is no formal Stand Your Ground law for criminal cases.)

George Zimmerman did not even attempt to put on a “Stand Your Ground” defense, which should really settle the issue. One possible reason is that it would have been incompatible with his version of events. By his account — whether you buy it or not — Zimmerman had no opportunity to flee once he feared for his life, because he was pinned to the ground. No “duty to retreat” would apply in such a situation. Rather, prosecutors had to prove that George Zimmerman was not really defending himself when he shot Trayvon Martin, or that he used disproportionate force. It was a difficult to case to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

But for a case where Stand Your Ground might have applied, let’s perform a mental exercise that changes the situation. Same Zimmerman trial, same evidence, and let’s assume from the start that the version of events Zimmerman gave at his trial is totally false. But then add this twist: pretend the struggle between the two men ended differently — Zimmerman was killed...

[2harddrive]

Eric withHolder is against Stand Your Ground only because he is allied with the criminal class. He wants to turn the clock back to when only criminals could stand their ground, since most of his buddies are gangsters.

[showme_the_Glory]

I heard somewhere today that statistics of SYG have benefited blacks more than whites. More blacks have had favorable rulings than whites using the SYG argument.

[Okieshooter]

The low information voters do not have a clue what the Stand Your Ground Law is about. Of course it protects the victim of possible violence from prosecution , but mainly, just like the concealed carry law it provides a deterrent.

A criminal must think twice about assaulting someone when he knows that his intended victim is not required to run and may be armed.

Also we know it has absolutely nothing to do with the Zimmerman case.

[onyx]

Your loyal Support is truly and greatly appreciated.
Please Contribute Today, no matter the amount.
Thanks very much and may God bless and keep you all.

[Nervous Tick]

>> Eric withHolder is against Stand Your Ground only because he is allied with the criminal class.

Not ALL criminals. For example, he’s more than happy to persecute environmental “criminals”.

It’s the NO_LIMIT_NIGGA class of criminals for which Holder has a soft spot in his heart. And his skin matches them too.

[RC one]

Is there any doubt that this is a government of the criminals, by the criminals, for the criminals now? They are literally trying to empower violent criminals now with legal protections against their intended victims! What other interpretation of their actions is there? In the words of Mark O’Mara: “OUTRAGEOUS”!

[MasterGunner01]

George Zimmerman was on the ground being pummeled by Trayvon Martin who had broken his nose and was slamming his head into the concrete sidewalk. He could not stand his ground because he was on his back on the ground. He could not retreat (if he wanted to) because he was on his back on the ground. George Zimmerman was in fear of his life or serious injury and legally used deadly force on his attacker. Case closed.

So, Eric you legal genius, how does SYG even become relevant in this case?. Especially after a jury has found Mr. Zimmerman NOT GUILTY on all counts.