Bloomberg: ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws Don’t Belong in Civilized Society

Mayor Michael Bloomberg went down to Washington D.C. earlier today to advocate for limits to “Stand Your Ground” laws, made famous the recent shooting of Trayvon Martin, which allow looser standards for the use of deadly force. Flanked by representatives of groups like the NAACP and National Urban League, he announced a new initiative to push states, particularly Florida, to reform their self-defense laws.

“These laws are not the kind of laws that a civilized society should have,” Mr. Bloomberg said at the event. “This has nothing to do with gun owners’ rights, nothing to do with the Second Amendment. Plain and simple, this is just trying to give people a license to murder.”

“No civilized society that I know of, outside of America, has laws that permit anybody to just decide someone shouldn’t be alive, pull out a gun, shoot them, and get away with it,” he later added.

Ah-hah. The preceding portion of the statute says: "The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who: (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony"

Then there's an "or" and it goes into the "provoke force against himself" and "reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm" exceptions. Which means the "reasonable fear" part does not apply to someone committing a violent felony. He can't legally kill someone no matter how reasonable his fear might be. I don't know about Florida, but in many states a death occurring during the commission of a felony is by definition Murder One.

Let us assume Zimmerman assaulted Martin with a drawn gun. That's assault with a deadly weapon. It's a forcible felony.

If this were the case, Zimmerman could not claim the protection of SYG.

Similarly if Martin sucker-punched and assaulted Zimmerman, it would certainly be assault and might be aggravated assault. Which means, depending on the jurisdiction, that it might be a misdemeanor or it might be a forcible felony. If a misdemeanor Trayvon could claim self-defense if meeting the second criteria of the law. If a felony he could not claim self-defense under SYG.

I think.

We do not know Trayvon threw the first punch. That is Zimmerman's story and the police were unable to prove otherwise with the evidence. That does not mean it's the truth, only that it can't be disproven.

You mean except for the eyewitnesses who saw TM throw the punch and get on top of Zimmerman? As for fighting harder after the saw the gun, if he saw it, only means he was trying to get it so he could shoot Zimmerman.

the gun was holstered. If Zimmerman had waved the gun or even drew it before TM hit him, what you're saying might make sense. If light of the eyewitness accounts it is so much BS.

You obviously are one of the idiots that believe the MSM version of the "facts" instead of listening to the 911 calls and reading the police reports.

TM knew he was in a fight for his life? How so, since he was on top of Zimmerman and beating the crap out of him? Zimmerman is being railroaded, he shot in self defense and if the jury is fair(which is not very likely)he will be acquitted.

You mean except for the eyewitnesses who saw TM throw the punch and get on top of Zimmerman??

My understanding, quite possibly incorrect, is that we have no eyewitnesses to the start of the fight, only its conclusion.

Probably this is because people looked out their windows when the shouting and screaming started, which is after the fight was underway. Prior to this point everything had been quiet. Why would people be staring out their windows into the rain and dark without a reason?

While we have no choice but to accept eyewitness testimony, we should always keep in mind the overwhelming scientific evidence that it is very often remarkably inaccurate. People's recollections seldom mesh well with the actual facts, one reason two witnesses testimony can diverge so greatly. And they don't have to be intentionally shading the truth for this to be the case. When they are, which is often the case, the lineup is even less exact.

If you are one of the unfortunate eyewitnesses in this case, you have got to be aware of the grief you will get for your testimony on the stand, whatever you say.

Let us assume Zimmerman assaulted Martin with a drawn gun. That's assault with a deadly weapon.

(1) You assumed again. I thought we weren't going to do this. First, let's play your game. Let's assume that the weapon Zimmerman carried was a gift to him from King Carl Gustaf of Sweden of Sweden in International Waters on a gambling ship off the Barbados and declared under a nonexistent, but assumed, International Treaty that deemed all pre-WWII handguns given by International Heads of State to be relics and not handguns. Let's further assume that it was a Wembley Mark VI British Service Revolver, which was on the list of banned weapons in Florida, except that this handgun was one of the rare Mark Vi pieces made in the 1920s by Enfield, and not Wembley, and had currently been deemed by the Florida legislature as a 'relic,' and not a firearm, and was due to be presented to the Florida State University Football Department Museum of Handguns and Free Shoes the following week. But let's assume that after that designation, Zimmerman's uncle, without Zimmernan's knowledge, had the Wembley rechambered from the original .455 to 45ACP, destroying its value as a relic. And let's assume that due to a typographical error in the Department of Justice office, the name Trayvon Martin appeared on a Homeland Security report as a terrorist report with a 'shoot to kill' mandate, and there's evidence that Zimmerman subscribed to Homeland Security reports but not that he had specifically read the report with Martin's name on it. Let's also assume that Martin was packing a combination speargun and genuine police whistle with the DNA on it of 250 protected manatees and Amelia Earhart.How would that change your analysis?

Second, reports of Martin's girlfriend's account of the conversation she heard on the phone have Martin confronting Zimmerman, don't they? Just as Zimmerman says?

Then, you've said you're assuming 'assault with a deadly weapon.' Florida doesn't have such a crime as 'assault with a deadly weapon.' Florida has aggravated assault.

You can keep making assumption after assumption, and keep making generalized statements about laws without specifically referencing the laws that would pertain in the Martin/Zimmerman case, but why? I apologize for the frustration, because on other topics, I've enjoyed reading your posts and I don't mean to convey any ill will.

You are correct. My basic point is that we don’t know how the confrontation started.

Although the girlfriend’s claim of a verbal discussion preceding a physical confrontation does put a dent in the notion that M attacked Z from behind without warning.

I believe there are possible scenarios where Z would not be covered under the present FL laws of self-defense. Is one of those what happened? I have no idea. Unlike a good many around here, I don’t claim to know what happened.

In the final analysis, it probably doesn’t matter much what the law says or what actually happened. Z will be tried, first by the state and then, if needed, by the feds, as a sacrifice to the gods of political correctness. Those out to get him really don’t care about the law or what happened. Their outrage is based on ethnic and ideological solidarity.

Of course, the authorities can make this whole nightmare go away by sticking Z in with the general population.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.