Stand your ground ruled unconstitutional

[HoughMade]

...Shouldn't the burden always be upon the government to prove guilt? Wasn't that a founding principle?

It is. And if the State proves that you intentionally pointed a gun at someone and intentionally fired the gun, knowing that the person had a high likelihood of dying.....

 

[Floivanus]

I'm trying to figure out where anyone would want george zimmerman to flee to? He had a person sitting atop him, raining down punches and bashing his head into the cement below. I'm certain trayvon wasn't going to stop if george said 'dude, I'm done'

not too long ago I had to tell that tidbit to some coworkers who had never heard that part of the stort, all they heard was zimmerman was 'wacist' and attacked poor trayvon...

 

[Family man]

I'm trying to figure out where anyone would want george zimmerman to flee to? He had a person sitting atop him, raining down punches and bashing his head into the cement below. I'm certain trayvon wasn't going to stop if george said 'dude, I'm done'

not too long ago I had to tell that tidbit to some coworkers who had never heard that part of the stort, all they heard was zimmerman was 'wacist' and attacked poor trayvon...

A White Hispanic Dont forget.

 

[TangoSierraEcho]

I think it is interesting how many people didn't read the whole article or missed the important parts of the article to focus only on the misleading attention grabbing headline.

And on another note, while I agree Mr. Zimmerman has every right to defend himself from an attack, he should never have initiated the confrontation that led to that attack. He may have been acquitted of murder but that fact doesn't make his actions that led to the shooting any less wrong.

 

[actaeon277]

I think it is interesting how many people didn't read the whole article or missed the important parts of the article to focus only on the misleading attention grabbing headline.

And on another note, while I agree Mr. Zimmerman has every right to defend himself from an attack, he should never have initiated the confrontation that led to that attack. He may have been acquitted of murder but that fact doesn't make his actions that led to the shooting any less wrong.

Initiated the confrontation?
The man that threw the first punch is the one that initiated the confrontation. Do you have knowledge we don't have as to who threw the first punch?

 

[oldpink]

Initiated the confrontation?
The man that threw the first punch is the one that initiated the confrontation. Do you have knowledge we don't have as to who threw the first punch?

Clearly, the only knowledge he has came from the likes of the "unimpeachable" CNN.
How CNN found the Reddit user behind the Trump wrestling GIF - CNNPolitics.com

"CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change."

 

[ATM]

Initiated the confrontation?
The man that threw the first punch is the one that initiated the confrontation. Do you have knowledge we don't have as to who threw the first punch?

'Who threw the first punch' is only a single data point, not of much relevance even in determining schoolyard guilt or innocence.

It's generally quite simple to get a weaker person to throw the first punch if your actual desire is to clobber them with legal impunity.

 

[TangoSierraEcho]

Initiated the confrontation?
The man that threw the first punch is the one that initiated the confrontation. Do you have knowledge we don't have as to who threw the first punch?

You are only focusing on the fight and not what led to it. How did these to meet so as to get to a point where punches are flying? There are several news outlets you can google yourself to find out what happened depending on whatever slant you prefer but what has not been refuted by anyone is what is listed below and on other sites I selected this version and cut in the relevant element below.
Fact vs. Narrative in the Trayvon Martin Case - The Truth About Guns

"In fact, the dispatcher specifically told Zimmerman to continue to report on Martin’s actions, as any competent dispatcher would. When Martin abruptly ran, Zimmerman ran a short distance, but lost sight of Martin before he could leave his truck. Zimmerman’s only intention was to keep Martin in sight so he could report to the police who he believed were on the way. Even if Zimmerman had been actively following Martin, that too would have been entirely lawful.The dispatcher asked if he was following Martin, and when Zimmerman said he was, he was told, “we don’t need you to do that.” Zimmerman, who had already lost Martin, replied, “OK,” and told the dispatcher he had lost Martin and had no idea where he was. It was about four more minutes before Martin, who was hiding somewhere in the immediate area, surprised and confronted Zimmerman, broke his nose with a sucker punch, knocked him to the ground, straddled him and repeatedly swung at his face and beat his head on a concrete sidewalk. There is no evidence, physical or testimonial, that Zimmerman so much as landed a single blow on Martin."

Again I repeat that I agree Zimmerman had every right to defend himself, but by following Martin and getting out of his vehicle to then pursue on foot is what ultimately led to the confrontation. I'm sorry if you don't agree but if someone is following me and then gets out of there car and looking around for me as Zimmerman was, there will be a confrontation especially if I can't find an escape. How would you perceive that if you were Martin? But hey if all you want to focus on is the fight, I'm all good. Yes Martin threw the first punch.

 

[actaeon277]

You are only focusing on the fight and not what led to it. How did these to meet so as to get to a point where punches are flying? There are several news outlets you can google yourself to find out what happened depending on whatever slant you prefer but what has not been refuted by anyone is what is listed below and on other sites I selected this version and cut in the relevant element below.
Fact vs. Narrative in the Trayvon Martin Case - The Truth About Guns

"In fact, the dispatcher specifically told Zimmerman to continue to report on Martin’s actions, as any competent dispatcher would. When Martin abruptly ran, Zimmerman ran a short distance, but lost sight of Martin before he could leave his truck. Zimmerman’s only intention was to keep Martin in sight so he could report to the police who he believed were on the way. Even if Zimmerman had been actively following Martin, that too would have been entirely lawful.The dispatcher asked if he was following Martin, and when Zimmerman said he was, he was told, “we don’t need you to do that.” Zimmerman, who had already lost Martin, replied, “OK,” and told the dispatcher he had lost Martin and had no idea where he was. It was about four more minutes before Martin, who was hiding somewhere in the immediate area, surprised and confronted Zimmerman, broke his nose with a sucker punch, knocked him to the ground, straddled him and repeatedly swung at his face and beat his head on a concrete sidewalk. There is no evidence, physical or testimonial, that Zimmerman so much as landed a single blow on Martin."

Again I repeat that I agree Zimmerman had every right to defend himself, but by following Martin and getting out of his vehicle to then pursue on foot is what ultimately led to the confrontation. I'm sorry if you don't agree but if someone is following me and then gets out of there car and looking around for me as Zimmerman was, there will be a confrontation especially if I can't find an escape. How would you perceive that if you were Martin? But hey if all you want to focus on is the fight, I'm all good. Yes Martin threw the first punch.

I don't agree, because the argument that Martin had a right to be there, also implies that Zimmerman had a right to be there.
Since both men had a right to be there, I don't see how Zimmerman can be guilty of anything.

 

[TangoSierraEcho]

I don't agree, because the argument that Martin had a right to be there, also implies that Zimmerman had a right to be there.
Since both men had a right to be there, I don't see how Zimmerman can be guilty of anything.

I don't think Zimmerman is guilty of anything other than poor judgement, my point from the beginning was that he should never have exited his vehicle in an attempt to pursue Martin. Did he have a right to exit his vehicle, yes! Did Martin have a right to jump Zimmerman and beat him up, no, Martin also exercised poor judgement but to lay this tragedy squarely on the feet of one or the other is ignoring the totality of circumstances that led to the event.

 

[jamil]

Didn't we have a multi zillion post thread hashing out the martin/Zimmerman stuff?

 

[Floivanus]

I don't think Zimmerman is guilty of anything other than poor judgement, my point from the beginning was that he should never have exited his vehicle in an attempt to pursue Martin. Did he have a right to exit his vehicle, yes! Did Martin have a right to jump Zimmerman and beat him up, no, Martin also exercised poor judgement but to lay this tragedy squarely on the feet of one or the other is ignoring the totality of circumstances that led to the event.

Yes zimmerman showed poor judgement in following a poor innocent kid when he was on the lookout for a neighborhood thief. Luckily the narrative the crooked media spins leaves out the fact that poor saint Martin's locker had 'found property' and some type of 'burglary tool' in it.

But, as far as 'stand your ground' goes, george zimmerman couldn't exactly retreat, and using that 'example' in the article makes it obvious that the author only wants to push an agenda.

 

[KLB]

Didn't we have a multi zillion post thread hashing out the martin/Zimmerman stuff?

Of course we did
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...kid-shot-dead-neighborhood-watch-captain.html

As well as a boat load of other threads related to it

 

[KLB]

I don't think Zimmerman is guilty of anything other than poor judgement, my point from the beginning was that he should never have exited his vehicle in an attempt to pursue Martin. Did he have a right to exit his vehicle, yes! Did Martin have a right to jump Zimmerman and beat him up, no, Martin also exercised poor judgement but to lay this tragedy squarely on the feet of one or the other is ignoring the totality of circumstances that led to the event.

Your logic is flawed. If Zimmerman did nothing wrong, then Martin is totally to blame for going back and attacking Zimmerman. All Martin had to do was keep going home and nothing would have happened to anyone.

 

[cosermann]

Who gets to determine "innocent until proven guilty," vs. "guilty until proven innocent," - the legislature or the courts?

 

[HoughMade]

Your logic is flawed. If Zimmerman did nothing wrong, then Martin is totally to blame for going back and attacking Zimmerman. All Martin had to do was keep going home and nothing would have happened to anyone.

There are multiple causes for everything that happens and only a few are crimes. Not being guilty of a crime does not mean you are not part of a causal chain. Zimmerman certainly was.

Who gets to determine "innocent until proven guilty," vs. "guilty until proven innocent," - the legislature or the courts?

Both, theoretically, but the due process enshrined in the Constitution includes the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" that was a mainstay of criminal common law that predated the Constitution.

Anyhoo, the reality is that only the media...maybe some prosecutors and an ill-informed portion of the public believes in "guilty until proven innocent".

 

[thebishopp]

.

 

[thebishopp]

It is. And if the State proves that you intentionally pointed a gun at someone and intentionally fired the gun, knowing that the person had a high likelihood of dying.....

Since the principle was that the burden was to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt they would have to prove that you did such an action without just cause. There was no principle requiring that you had to prove you did anything legally, the burden was upon the government to prove that your action was illegal. In the case of "shooting someone", that action is only "illegal" if you did so without a lawful cause (ie; self defense) as such the burden is on the state to prove you did so "illegally". Basically they would have to convince a jury that your actions were in fact unlawful. Not just that you "shot someone" but that you did so without lawful cause.

 

[TangoSierraEcho]

Your logic is flawed. If Zimmerman did nothing wrong, then Martin is totally to blame for going back and attacking Zimmerman. All Martin had to do was keep going home and nothing would have happened to anyone.

and all Zimmerman had to do was stay in his car and nothing would have happened either.

 

[HoughMade]

Well yes, but:

Self-defense is recognized as a valid justification for an otherwise criminal act. Ind.Code § 35-41-3-2 (1993). When raised, a defendant must establish that he or she was in a place where he or she had the right to be, acted without fault, and was in reasonable fear or apprehension of death or great bodily harm. See Brooks v. State, 683 N.E.2d 574, 577 (Ind.1997); Lilly v. State, 506 N.E.2d 23, 24 (Ind.1987). Once a defendant claims self-defense, the State bears the burden of disproving at least one of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt for the defendant's claim to fail. Sanders, 704 N.E.2d at 123; Birdsong v. State, 685 N.E.2d 42, 45 (Ind.1997). The State may meet this burden by rebutting the defense directly, by affirmatively showing the defendant did not act in self-defense, or by simply relying upon the sufficiency of its evidence in chief. Lilly, 506 N.E.2d at 24; Davis v. State, 456 N.E.2d 405, 408 (Ind.1983). Whether the State has met its burden is a question of fact for the jury. Birdsong, 685 N.E.2d at 45; Brooks, 683 N.E.2d at 577.

Miller v. State, 720 N.E.2d 696, 699–700 (Ind. 1999)

In other words, the defendant has the burden of showing that the self-defense statute applies to him, and the State must disprove at least one element beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the nature of an affirmative defense.

Defense: I didn't do it.

Affirmative defense: I did it, but it's not illegal.

(oversimplification)