“Stand your ground” laws are just plain old common sense.
To the Prof. Dumbass, Don’t give up your Day Job!
Stay out of jurisprudentia!
I understand the situation; but I don't see that it is a problem.
One incorrigible budding career criminal was permanently stopped before he could rack up a large body count.
One intended victim was able to successfully defend himself against an intended deadly attack from the above criminal.
That's just one small victory for civilization, compared to the thousands of violent crimes every year wherein the perpetrator should die, but doesn't.
‘Stand Your Ground’ and ‘Self-Defense’ are different legal entities.
Both applied in this instance, but this was classic self-defense.
Apparently you have to be a Professor not to understand the difference.
What is with the spate of moronic columns trying to use Hollywood fiction to set up straw men that the writer attacks with false logic and outright lies?
He might as well argue for a change in the laws of physics based on what he saw the coyote and the roadrunner do.
What an ultra-maroon.
History is nice; too damn bad most people don’t study it before writing their articles.
“After several seconds of music and tension, the other man would reach for the handgun in his holster, which prompted Dillon to draw his gun faster and shoot him first”
I had trouble getting past this part. I know it might be a small and nitpickey point, but in that scene Dillon did not draw faster. He did shoot the other guy before he got shot himself, but Dillon did not shoot first. James Arness insisted that Dillon would only return fire and never shoot a man that had not shot at him first.
(The so-called “stand your ground” law that allowed neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman to shoot and kill Treyvon Martin in Sanford, Fla.)
What allowed Mr Zimmerman to shoot Mr Martin is a human beings right to defend their own life.
As our FOUNDERS stated, it is a right given by our Creator and one guaranteed in our Constitution.
You may not like that, but a fact is a fact...........
By “wild west” he obviously means Hollywood sound stages. It’s Hollywood, not history. Too many people confuse them.
The author seems to ignore the fact this particular case disproves his assumption that dialing 911 is adequate to defend the victim from an attacker.
GZ was attacked while he was in the due process of defending a community from burglaries. GZ had just spoken with 911, giving them a several minute head start to arrive at the scene. That still was inadequate time to prevent Trayvon from attacking GZ and begin smashing his head against concrete.
We still have not heard of what permanent neurological damages have been caused by Trayvon’s unwarranted assault upon GZ.
This guy’s an idiot.
I'd love for the "perfesser" to put that in his pipe and choke on it.
The State's investigator said under oath on the stand that he had no evidence that contradicted Zimmerman's story. So, that story is the story that stands. What was that story?
Zimmerman was returning to his truck on advice of the 911 dispatcher to stop following the suspicious person. Trayvon could've returned to his dad's condo easily. He turned around, came back, cold-cocked Zimmerman and was beating the crap out of him, threatening to kill Zimmerman, when he got himself shot and killed.
"Stand your ground" has zero to do with this incident. Zimmerman was on his back and could not retreat.
Why is it, that so many "professors" are so stupid and uninformed?
Does he mean like present day Chicago?
Funny. Statistically speaking, the Wild West was a lot safer and more peaceful than a lot of cities.
I must be lost, from what I understand Zimmerman fired in self-defense. Not sure why all the drama about the “stand your ground” law it shouldn’t be the issue. If someone has you down beating your head on the pavement your life is indeed in danger and you have the right to defend yourself. I have never heard that self-defense depended on the other person being armed- if someone is trying to kill you, with their bare hands you will be just as dead as if they shot or stabbed you if you can’t defend yourself. Isn’t self-defense allowed in every state in the U.S.? I would hope so.
As to the analogy to the western shows, yes you can now dial 911 but unless you are incredibly lucky- lottery winning lucky the response will not be fast enough to change the outcome if someone is trying to kill you.
Liberals have imposed an unjust and insane system of “zero tolerace” on public school children. Now they want to impose it on adults.
Zero tolerance makes the victim who defends himself with violence against a violent attacker equally guilty and equally punished for the violence.
This is what they do to Europeans who defend themselves and others from predators.
In the “wild west”, more men died from snake bite than from gunshot wounds.
An armed society is a polite society.
***No need for any investigation or police inquiry to determine whether it was a justified shooting because whichever cowboy drew last was standing his ground in self-defense. ***
Bunkum. In the REAL old West you were most likely to get shot in the back or from ambush.
Very few movie type gun fights happened.
The real fallacy with this article is the idea that a fit person can be “unarmed”. Perhaps, if literally they have no arms. That would still leave their legs, though.
Any reasonably fit person can train, in a short while, to kill even a physically superior opponent without much trouble, given the element of surprise. By the way, back in the Old West, there was much less knowledge of the science of hand-to-hand combat than there is today.
Many folks criticizing GZ in the TM shooting apparently have no idea of what a hand-to-hand encounter is like. Even if GZ shot TM unilaterally, he was having to make split-second, life-or-death decisions while being beat - and having my head beat on concrete would provide all the justification I would need to shoot, personally. There is also some indication that TM went for the gun, and it went off as he and GZ struggled for it.
If the scenario unfolded as described by GZ, “Stand Your Ground” is irrelevant, since GZ could not have retreated if he wanted to. Even where there is no such law, if you are physically prevented from retreating you have no obligation to do so.
It’s a shame that TM died, but I’m fairly convinced given what I’ve seen so far that he initiated the violence. From what I know right now, I think GZ will go free. If it was valid self-defense, I hope he gets immunity from further action as it looks like TM’s family and lawyer are out for money. Of course, GZ will have some lawsuit targets himself given some of the absolutely shameful media coverage of this case.
This article did have one positive outcome though - I’m going to have to watch “Shane” in the near future. ;-)