Gawd, Guns, And Racism . . .

[Palehorse]

The religious right extremists are once again cloaking. . . 

(CNN) – President Barack Obama's suggestion that state "Stand your Ground" laws should be examined after the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin could amount to an assault on the right of Americans to own guns, Sen. Ted Cruz said in Iowa Friday.

Speaking after addressing a Republican group, Cruz told reporters he hadn't yet watched Obama's remarks. But when asked to respond to Obama's call for a review of laws in individual states, Cruz responded by saying the president was trampling on constitutionally guaranteed rights.

"It is not surprising that the president uses, it seems, every opportunity that he can to go after our Second Amendment right to bear arms," the Texas Republican said. "This president and this administration has a consistent disregard for the Bill of Rights."

For example, Cruz said the Obama administration was violating free speech guarantees by "restricting the rights of our servicemen and women to share their faith and not be gagged," and that the use of drones raised other constitutional questions. . .

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/19/cruz-says-obama-going-after-guns-with-stand-your-ground-remark/?hpt=hp_t2

And here we see an elected extremist feeling it is okay to trash the POTUS despite the fact he hasn't even seen the remarks; taking it all out of context in order to stir up the emotional storms necessary to obscure the facts from the sheep. . . 

[me]

He did remark on the stand your ground laws and that was not even an issue in the Zimmerman case.  So take all the other BS out and he, Cruz, would be correct.

[Locutus]

He did remark on the stand your ground laws and that was not even an issue in the Zimmerman case. So take all the other BS out and he, Cruz, would be correct.

What?!?!???

[Anne]

Stand you ground was not used as his defense or considered in the trial.

[Locutus]

Stand you ground was not used as his defense or considered in the trial.

Incorrect all the way around.  That statute was cited in the jury instructions, and was in no way irrelevant to the jury's decision either.

Title XLVI
CRIMES
   
Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
   
View Entire Chapter
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html

Title XLVI
CRIMES
   
Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
   
View Entire Chapter
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if: ...

...(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.


http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

[Locutus]

^^  Those are the Florida Statutes that comprise the "Stand Your Ground" law.

Please tell me you don't forget that part in bold coming up.  It was also included in the jury instructions which are available at this link:

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2013/07/12/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf

See page 12 specifically where the judge quotes almost verbatim the text of the Florida Statutes cited above.

[Locutus]

George Zimmerman and his lawyers declined (probably with good reason) a pretrial hearing for a dismissal of the case on the "Stand Your Ground" law.  That's what the right wing noise machine is seizing upon to make their claims like the one 'me' stated and Anne repeated.  However, that doesn't mean that the law played no part in the jury's decision.  Despite what the right wing talking heads are telling you, the statutes cited above were included in the instructions to the jury and clearly did come into play.

You guys should really vary your news sources and/or go back to the original documents such as the ones I cited above. 

[Locutus]

More from juror B-37's interview with Anderson Cooper:

JUROR:  It became very confusing.  We had stuff thrown at us.  We had the second-degree murder charge, the manslaughter charge, then we had self-defense, stand your ground, and I think there was one other one.  But the manslaughter case - we actually had gotten it down to manslaughter, because the second degree, it wasn't at second degree anymore.

JUROR:  Right.  Well, because of the heat of the moment and the stand your ground.  He had a right to defend himself.  If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sfl-zimmerman-juror-cnn-transcript-0716,0,2679289,full.story

[Locutus]

Now is there anyone else who wants to tell me that our Stand Your Ground law didn't come into play?

I'm all ears if so.

[Anne]

Are you saying Stand your ground was used as a defense by Mr. Zimmerman's defense team? I did not see that anyplace in the six or seven places I read about the trial. The fact the jury was instructed about the law, according to the juror, only muddied the water.

[Anne]

So what do all of you think about the Stand Your Ground laws on the books now, or the right to carry laws? I don't have a handgun anymore and never had a carry permit, but if I had put the gun in my purse, it would have been loaded, or why bother. I think Stand Your Ground, in certain circumstances is a good thing, it has it's good points, but I can see how it could be misused.

[Palehorse]

Well, I see the Philadelphia Lawyers have an intern. 

"Stand your ground" laws are nothing but redundant legislation in most states. Justifiable homicide is the same friggin thing; "stand Your Ground" is just entitled to meet the needs of the religious right wing zealots. 

[Locutus]

Are you saying Stand your ground was used as a defense by Mr. Zimmerman's defense team? I did not see that anyplace in the six or seven places I read about the trial. The fact the jury was instructed about the law, according to the juror, only muddied the water.

I said that Zimmerman and his lawyers declined, for whatever reasons, the preliminary hearing to have the case dismissed on the basis of of Florida's SYG law.  That doesn't mean that his attorneys didn't know that they had the full force and weight of the SYG law incorporated into his defense. 

There is no segregation of self-defense and the SYG statutes at least in Florida.  As you can see from what I posted above, they are one and the same.  Regardless of whether those statutes were referred to by name (Stand Your Ground), they were absolutely the grounds for Zimmerman's acquittal in this case.  It's why the clauses from the statutes were included in the jury instructions.  To imply, as some right wing talking heads are doing, that the SYG statute didn't play a role is being disingenuous.  It absolutely did as is evidenced by the statutes themselves, the instructions to the jury, and the comments from B-37 above. 

[Locutus]

"Stand your ground" laws are nothing but redundant legislation in most states. Justifiable homicide is the same friggin thing; "stand Your Ground" is just entitled to meet the needs of the religious right wing zealots. 

Not quite true my friend.

Stand Your Ground laws in most states are an extension of self-defense laws in that they take away the duty to retreat.  That's exactly what happened with the passage of that law in Florida, and I assume the same is the case in other states as well.  A duty to retreat generally includes initially finding a way to avoid the conflict if possible, and secondly, trying to find a reasonable manner to retreat once the conflict is initiated.  You must show that you tried to avoid the conflict if at all possible before making the claim that deadly force was necessary.

Had Zimmerman not had the full force and weight of the SYG law behind him, you would have seen a different trial altogether with possibly a completely different outcome. 

[Henry Hawk]

Not quite true my friend.

Stand Your Ground laws in most states are an extension of self-defense laws in that they take away the duty to retreat.  That's exactly what happened with the passage of that law in Florida, and I assume the same is the case in other states as well.  A duty to retreat generally includes initially finding a way to avoid the conflict if possible, and secondly, trying to find a reasonable manner to retreat once the conflict is initiated.  You must show that you tried to avoid the conflict if at all possible before making the claim that deadly force was necessary.

Had Zimmerman not had the full force and weight of the SYG law behind him, you would have seen a different trial altogether with possibly a completely different outcome. 

Interesting....