[Debate] Why is everyone so butthurt about repealing Stand Your Ground laws?

[Troyg39]

Well without a SYG at all people who are seriously just defending themselves from attackers are at risk of criminal conviction because there would be no law to protect and cover the damage they do to their attackers. So repealing them altogether isn't the answer. The issue is creating a law that properly draws the line between what is considered a reasonable means of self defense as related to the danger someone is in and what isn't.

Example: Zimmerman started the incident by following Martin, but once they got into that physical fight, IF Martin had saw the gun and attempted to use it to shoot Zimmerman, in that case Zimmerman would've had no choice but to try and grab the gun and shoot Martin because Martin would've surely shot him and possibly killed him. Zimmerman's life would've been on the line so it makes sense to shoot Martin then.

However, if Zimmerman were only at risk of being physical wounded from a beat down that he so rightfully deserved for violating this kid's civil rights and stalking him, shooting him and killing him would not be a means of reasonable self defense because Zimmerman's life wasn't on the line then.

Even further, if Martin ended up getting the upper hand in the fight, the fact that Zimmerman followed him and started all this would not give Martin the right to beat up Zimmerman so badly that he ends up taking his life. Martin should only physically assault him enough so that he ceases to be a threat, but not end up killing him. That wouldn't be reasonable self defense either

There are so many scenarios that it's difficult to write a law to properly cover it all. You need to have some sort of protection for those who defend themselves from danger but there needs to be limits so that no one ends up losing their life without having any justice for it. It's not all that easy. Starting a physical altercation doesn't mean you should lose your life, nor does having one started against you mean you have the right to take someone's life

 

[Darthlawsuit]

Well without a SYG at all people who are seriously just defending themselves from attackers are at risk of criminal conviction because there would be no law to protect and cover the damage they do to their attackers. So repealing them altogether isn't the answer. The issue is creating a law that properly draws the line between what is considered a reasonable means of self defense as related to the danger someone is in and what isn't.

Example: Zimmerman started the incident by following Martin, but once they got into that physical fight, IF Martin had saw the gun and attempted to use it to shoot Zimmerman, in that case Zimmerman would've had no choice but to try and grab the gun and shoot Martin because Martin would've surely shot him and possibly killed him. Zimmerman's life would've been on the line so it makes sense to shoot Martin then.

However, if Zimmerman were only at risk of being physical wounded from a beat down that he so rightfully deserved for violating this kid's civil rights and stalking him, shooting him and killing him would not be a means of reasonable self defense because Zimmerman's life wasn't on the line then.

Even further, if Martin ended up getting the upper hand in the fight, the fact that Zimmerman followed him and started all this would not give Martin the right to beat up Zimmerman so badly that he ends up taking his life. Martin should only physically assault him enough so that he ceases to be a threat, but not end up killing him. That wouldn't be reasonable self defense either

There are so many scenarios that it's difficult to write a law to properly cover it all. You need to have some sort of protection for those who defend themselves from danger but there needs to be limits so that no one ends up losing their life without having any justice for it. It's not all that easy. Starting a physical altercation doesn't mean you should lose your life, nor does having one started against you mean you have the right to take someone's life

Zimmerman was being beat against concrete, travon went waaay overboard. If he didn't Zimmerman would have been found guilty easily.

Actually it matters who attacked first. You can walk up and confront anyone but you cannot attack unless they attack you. If you have a dispute call an officer to solve the civil dispute, its what they are best at doing. I have had people try to lure me into attacking but I never fell for it and waited for them to assault me first, didn't happen, so that it would be self defense.

Actually whenever you start a fight you could be killed. If you fight me I will go for vitals due to my lack of strength.

 

[Troyg39]

Zimmerman was being beat against concrete, travon went waaay overboard. If he didn't Zimmerman would have been found guilty easily.

Actually it matters who attacked first. You can walk up and confront anyone but you cannot attack unless they attack you. If you have a dispute call an officer to solve the civil dispute, its what they are best at doing. I have had people try to lure me into attacking but I never fell for it and waited for them to assault me first, didn't happen, so that it would be self defense.

Actually whenever you start a fight you could be killed. If you fight me I will go for vitals due to my lack of strength.

Well I don't know what part of my post led you to start giving your personal opinion of the case but I'll entertain your effort.

I believe Trayvon probably did attack Zimmerman first. But what's clear from the case is that Zimmerman was following this kid and Trayvon did make an attempt to run away. An attempt that failed. Now when a guy is following you and you attempt to go away and they catch and confront you, the perceived danger is limitless. You don't know what that person is going to do to you. And if you tried to run away and they ended up catching up to you, your only option at that point is to try and fight. Because if you don't and "wait for the person to attack you first" their first attack could be a gun shot, or they could attack your vitals (which I'll get to that in further detail as well). Basically what you expected the kid to do was wait for a stranger who was stalking him to make the first move, when indeed that first move could've very well been the last. By attacking a man that he wasn't able to get away from, he not only made an attempt to avoid the situation but he was defending himself from a perceived threat.

Zimmerman's injuries were not as bad as his allegations claimed. He had a scar on the back of his head, but had Zimmerman truly had his head repeatedly beat against concrete, not only would there have been more damage both externally and internally, Zimmerman most likely would've been knocked unconscious before ever really having a chance to defend himself. I'm not saying he wasn't facing a beat down, but this "severe beating" that you are implying isn't back by his damages.

Also, you do realize that thinking to go for vitals isn't a common reaction that most people would have if faced with a fight right? The fact that you have enough experience to think that clearly in that situation and again, go for the VITALS means that you have the competency to defend yourself more adequately than the average person. If you ended up seriously doing some damage to an attack that may have started a fight with you, but didn't have the skills to be a real threat to you due to your clear knowledge of combat, you would still face criminal prosecution because the measure of self defense you would take be more than you needed to defend yourself. Just because someone starts a fight with you doesn't mean you have to right to damage someone's internal organs. You have to cause serious damage to do that, more damage than needed to subdue someone. Basically you would be doing no better than what you claim Trayvon was doing.

At the end of the day, Zimmerman didn't just simply walk up and confront Trayvon. He was following him, and in the video taped phone call it was confirmed that not only was Trayvon aware, he tried to escape. If I walk up to you that's one thing. If I follow you and catch up to you despite your attempt to get away from me, I have made myself a possible threat to you and therefore you have the right to minimize any damage that I might do to you. As I said by waiting for me to attack first, you are allowing me to possibly take your life on the first try. And just because you end up beating me up, I don't have the right to then shoot you, especially considering I (Zimmerman) am much bigger than you and you (Trayvon) are a smaller person. The measure of self defense always needs to match the perceived threat. Trayvon was beating a man up. Zimmerman shot a smaller target that he initially threatened with his actions. It's like cornering an animal, you shouldn't be surprised if they take a bite at you out of fear. That doesn't give you the right to kill it. It's a shame that animal protection laws protect them better than humans laws protect us

 

[Darthlawsuit]

Well I don't know what part of my post led you to start giving your personal opinion of the case but I'll entertain your effort.

I believe Trayvon probably did attack Zimmerman first. But what's clear from the case is that Zimmerman was following this kid and Trayvon did make an attempt to run away. An attempt that failed. Now when a guy is following you and you attempt to go away and they catch and confront you, the perceived danger is limitless. You don't know what that person is going to do to you. And if you tried to run away and they ended up catching up to you, your only option at that point is to try and fight. Because if you don't and "wait for the person to attack you first" their first attack could be a gun shot, or they could attack your vitals (which I'll get to that in further detail as well). Basically what you expected the kid to do was wait for a stranger who was stalking him to make the first move, when indeed that first move could've very well been the last. By attacking a man that he wasn't able to get away from, he not only made an attempt to avoid the situation but he was defending himself from a perceived threat.

Zimmerman's injuries were not as bad as his allegations claimed. He had a scar on the back of his head, but had Zimmerman truly had his head repeatedly beat against concrete, not only would there have been more damage both externally and internally, Zimmerman most likely would've been knocked unconscious before ever really having a chance to defend himself. I'm not saying he wasn't facing a beat down, but this "severe beating" that you are implying isn't back by his damages.

Also, you do realize that thinking to go for vitals isn't a common reaction that most people would have if faced with a fight right? The fact that you have enough experience to think that clearly in that situation and again, go for the VITALS means that you have the competency to defend yourself more adequately than the average person. If you ended up seriously doing some damage to an attack that may have started a fight with you, but didn't have the skills to be a real threat to you due to your clear knowledge of combat, you would still face criminal prosecution because the measure of self defense you would take be more than you needed to defend yourself. Just because someone starts a fight with you doesn't mean you have to right to damage someone's internal organs. You have to cause serious damage to do that, more damage than needed to subdue someone. Basically you would be doing no better than what you claim Trayvon was doing.

At the end of the day, Zimmerman didn't just simply walk up and confront Trayvon. He was following him, and in the video taped phone call it was confirmed that not only was Trayvon aware, he tried to escape. If I walk up to you that's one thing. If I follow you and catch up to you despite your attempt to get away from me, I have made myself a possible threat to you and therefore you have the right to minimize any damage that I might do to you. As I said by waiting for me to attack first, you are allowing me to possibly take your life on the first try. And just because you end up beating me up, I don't have the right to then shoot you, especially considering I (Zimmerman) am much bigger than you and you (Trayvon) are a smaller person. The measure of self defense always needs to match the perceived threat. Trayvon was beating a man up. Zimmerman shot a smaller target that he initially threatened with his actions. It's like cornering an animal, you shouldn't be surprised if they take a bite at you out of fear. That doesn't give you the right to kill it. It's a shame that animal protection laws protect them better than humans laws protect us

That is the reason Zimmerman was found not guilty. He got out of his car and followed Trevon. Something happened and they got into a fight. If we knew what happened during that period we wouldn't be debating here. It is completely uncertain of what happened. Zimmerman could have walked up and said "hey" then trevon punched him.

Here is the actual transcripts. Seems travon noticed him on the phone and bolted. Strange he lost sight of him yet was able to catch up to him.

Dispatcher: Sanford Police Department. ...
Zimmerman: Hey, we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy, uh, [near] Retreat View Circle. Um, the best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: Okay, and this guy is he white, black, or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
Dispatcher: Did you see what he was wearing?
Zimmerman: Yeah. A dark hoodie, like a grey hoodie, and either jeans or sweatpants and white tennis shoes. He's [unintelligible], he was just staring...
Dispatcher: Okay, he's just walking around the area...
Zimmerman: ...looking at all the houses.
Dispatcher: Okay...
Zimmerman: Now he's just staring at me.
Dispatcher: Okay. You said it's 1111 Retreat View? Or 111?
Zimmerman: That's the clubhouse... [Note 3, 3rd picture]
Dispatcher: That's the clubhouse. Do you know what the – he's near the clubhouse right now?
Zimmerman: Yeah, now he's coming towards me.
Dispatcher: Okay.
Zimmerman: He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male.
Dispatcher: How old would you say he looks?
Zimmerman: He's got a button on his shirt. Late teens.
Dispatcher: Late teens. Okay.
Zimmerman: Something's wrong with him. Yup, he's coming to check me out. He's got something in his hands. I don't know what his deal is.
Dispatcher: Just let me know if he does anything, okay?
Zimmerman: How long until you get an officer over here?
Dispatcher: Yeah, we've got someone on the way. Just let me know if this guy does anything else.
Zimmerman: Okay. These *******s, they always get away. When you come to the clubhouse, you come straight in and make a left. Actually, you would go past the clubhouse.[Note 3, 3rd picture]
Dispatcher: So it's on the lefthand side from the clubhouse?
Zimmerman: No, you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left...uh, you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. Shit, he's running [background noises, possibly car door open warning chimes, heard].
Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?
Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.
Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
Zimmerman: The back entrance...****ing [disputed/unintelligible]
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Okay, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Okay.
Dispatcher: All right, sir, what is your name?
Zimmerman: George...He ran.
Dispatcher: All right, George, what's your last name?
Zimmerman: Zimmerman.
Dispatcher: And George, what's the phone number you're calling from?
Zimmerman: [redacted]
Dispatcher: All right, George, we do have them on the way. Do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Alright, where you going to meet with them at?
Zimmerman: If they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the club house, and uh, straight past the club house and make a left, and then they go past the mailboxes, [Note 3, 4th picture] that's my truck...[unintelligible]
Dispatcher: What address are you parked in front of?
Zimmerman: I don't know. It's a cut through so I don't know the address.[Note 3, 6th & 7th pictures]
Dispatcher: Okay. Do you live in the area?
Zimmerman: Yeah, I...[unintelligible]
Dispatcher: What's your apartment number?
Zimmerman: It's a home. It's 1950,[Note 3, 3rd picture] Oh, crap. I don't want to give it all out. I don't know where this kid is.
Dispatcher: Okay. Do you want to just meet with them right near the mailboxes then?
Zimmerman: Yeah, that's fine.
Dispatcher: All right, George. I'll let them know to meet you around there okay?
Zimmerman: Actually, could you have them call me and I'll tell them where I'm at?
Dispatcher: Okay, yeah. That's no problem.
Zimmerman: Should I give you my number or you got it?
Dispatcher: Yeah, I got it [redacted]
Zimmerman: Yeah, you got it.
Dispatcher: Okay. No problem. I'll let them know to call you when they're in the area.
Zimmerman: Thanks.
Dispatcher: You're welcome.

 

[Prime Rib]

Its sad as self defense will soon be revised as syg is a form of self defense

 

[Troyg39]

That is the reason Zimmerman was found not guilty. He got out of his car and followed Trevon. Something happened and they got into a fight. If we knew what happened during that period we wouldn't be debating here. It is completely uncertain of what happened. Zimmerman could have walked up and said "hey" then trevon punched him.

Here is the actual transcripts. Seems travon noticed him on the phone and bolted. Strange he lost sight of him yet was able to catch up to him.

Just because that is the reason Zimmerman was found not guilty doesn't make it correct. He was found guilty in the state of Florida thanks to 6 jurors. Had it been a different state, with different people, the outcome could've been different. That is the error in our Justice System. It's actually more accurate to call it "Justice Systems", plural, because each state to a degree has it's own and they aren't all uniform. His being found guilty wasn't simply due to Trayvon defending himself. The defense just did a good job at convincing the jury that Zimmerman's life was on the line. Following an individual who ran from you and wasn't causing anyone any harm, and then shooting that same person who is much younger and smaller than you because you are getting beat up may be cause to stand your ground under that particular state's laws, but under other states and more importantly from a moral stand point it's not a reasonable measure of defense, which is why people are fighting for both better weapons ban and SYG laws.

You stated that the reason Trayvon was shot and the case was found not guilty is simply because he gave Zimmerman a supposed "severe beating" that neither his damages nor the circumstances such as this being a 17 year old child vs a larger adult male support. As I explained and you just proved with the transcript, Trayvon became aware than he was being watched and ran away, only to be found again by that same man which he had ran away from. In Trayvon's perspective, that man had made himself a threat to Trayvon's safety.

He was followed by an unknown stranger who he had just witnessed spying on him. He wasn't committing any crimes and he lived in the area, so Trayvon did not have a reason to be followed by anyone. I believe just like you clearly do that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman but due to the circumstances it also falls under the SYG laws of the state of Florida because Zimmerman was a perceived threat to his safety. Like I said, waiting for Zimmerman, a man who had already trailed and followed this kid, to attack first could've resulted in Trayvon's death anyway because we, and most importantly Trayvon didn't know what he was going to do at that time. This is why I say it doesn't matter who attacked first. Zimmerman became a danger to Trayvon when he caught up to him. So Trayvon had a right to attack someone to attempt to minimize any possible damage to him. Also if Zimmerman had attacked first, well that part is self explanatory. Trayvon attacking first does not mean he didn't have a right to as he would've been defending himself from a perceived threat. Even if Zimmerman had walked up to him and just said "Hey", Trayvon had a right to attack because he was FOLLOWED by this stranger who instead of rolling down his window when he initially saw Trayvon and simply asked him what he was doing, he got out of his car and followed a kid that was clearly afraid of him as he ran away from him. The fact that anyone sees this as Trayvon's own fault is really astounding to me.

It's really not strange that he lost sight of Trayvon but was able to catch him again. Trayvon ran away, and once he thought he was in the clear, began to slow down, as per testimony by his friend. Zimmerman however, was still vigorously pursuing him, so he ended up catching Trayvon, which sent Trayvon, rightfully so, into alarm. You can say what you want, but if these circumstances were placed on you I'm sure I'd be saying the same thing for you as well. You should be protected as you rightfully would've been standing your ground from a perceived threat

What's interesting to me is that you started this by stating your opinion that Trayvon started the fight, but you then claim that we don't know what happened. I'm glad you brought up that point because at the end of the day, you really don't know what happened. We don't know if Zimmerman started the fight or not. We don't know if Trayvon started the fight or not. We don't know what Zimmerman or Trayvon said before the fight. We don't even know if Trayvon was the one that inflicted Zimmerman's wounds, or if Zimmerman self inflicted them to give him a better argument of self defense. We can only assume those things, and this is why he was found not guilty. The defense did a good job of forming the jury's, and clearly your assumptions that Zimmerman was badly injured by Trayvon and that Trayvon had no right to start a fight if that's what actually happened.

 

[Jin Hayami]

**** that. I watched a drunk guy pull a knife on someone last weekend. If I had been strapped he'd be dead. I don't care if he was getting his ass beat by the other guy. That was his problem and where the whole problem comes from. It is wrong to bring a weapon to a fist fight. Zimmerman deserved manslaughter because he pulled a gun on someone beating his ass. That's the problem with America today people are afraid to take an ass whooping. That said if I see a threat to myself or anyone around me I will gladly put two in their chest and I shouldn't have to worry about some bullshit charge either.

 

[Strawberry]

dont seee the problem myself