How Trayvon Martin shooting is relevant to AS rights
02 Apr 2012, 9:09 am
I know that public opinion on the Trayvon Martin shooting is divided. There is one side that holds that the murder of a defenseless black man was wrong and that his killer ought to be charged with a crime, and the other side holds the opinion that the crime was justified, and Zimmerman was right to shoot a black man in the face as he screamed for his life.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WI4x2JPcOA[/youtube]
Since we all know the value of moderation, perhaps I ought to take the centrist position and say they were both in the wrong. Trayvon Martin shouldn't have gone around in a hoodie being all black and suspicious-looking, and George Zimmerman may have stepped over the line a little bit in blowing a man's face off as he was screaming for help. I'm sure we could talk this over like civilized folk and come to a middle-ground.
/sarcasm
If you have AS or any other developmental disorder, such as Tourettes or ADHD, this is just as much your problem as it is a black person's problem. It would have been just as easy for Zimmerman to claim that he was justified in shooting someone who had AS symptoms. For example, if he had confronted and intimidated someone with AS and triggered a meltdown, he could have fired his weapon and claimed that he had shot in "self-defense." This could have been you, and you would have been buried as "the crazy Aspergers guy who finally snapped. Those Aspies really are dangerous, aren't they?"
Under Florida's "stand your ground" law, I might not be alive right now. One of my TS/AS symptoms is that, when I am feeling cornered and helpless, I sometimes go into this rage, and it looks very disturbing on the outside. On the inside, I feel like I'm being run over by a truck, so it's not exactly a picnic at my end. However, it's easy enough to tell when I'm bordering on such a blow-up: my eyes dilate dramatically, my voice drops in pitch, and my hair rooster-tails very visibly. Usually, when this happens to me, it's because someone wanted that reaction.
This has actually made me a target for bored security guards and the like. I have never been in this situation with an actual cop because the last thing an experienced police officer wants is more unnecessary work. Somehow, I know that some of the vermin I have been tormented by would have loved an opportunity to bait me into a rage, blow my face off, and have a bunch of witnesses testify, "it looked like he was going to leap at the guard's throat! He was out of control! I was so scared!" This is not something that might have happened, but I honestly think I would be in a grave right now if Florida's "stand your ground" law had been in effect. I am not a dangerous person. I have withheld physical retaliation, in the midst of rage, as blood streamed from my nose like a waterfall because, no matter how berserk I seem to be, I do not physically attack others, ever. I am too proud to lower myself to it.
And, before the medication that I am on right now, the rages weren't even what would have drawn attention. People always thought that I was on drugs or mentally unstable because I would do things like twirl around in circles as I walked and stuff like that. I had a lot of AS-type behaviors, and they made me look even more weird and eccentric than I actually am, which is already pretty considerable. I was always a magnet for jerks who thought that they were God's gift to the law. Again, police officers have always been very charming with me: once they realize that I am articulate and clearly NOT drugged, a real cop actually seems affectionate toward me. When I focus and actually start talking amiably, I can sound like a radio announcer except for a little stammering.
It's not just someone like me who could be killed, though, but it could be you. Someone could antagonize and bait YOU to the point that you went into hand-flapping, blow your face off, and have a bunch of witnesses testify that you had "reached up to strangle him." You would not just be dead, but you would be "the Aspie who finally snapped, and poor Mike had to shoot in self-defense. I knew those Aspergers guys were dangerous!" This could be YOU, got that? Someone could blow your face off and not only feel not a scrap of remorse but go home feeling like Superman. There are people out there who really would do this.
A "stand your ground" law is nothing but a legalization and legitimization of murder, and it effects everyone who could be victim of prejudice or profiling. This includes people who are AS, black, or even just unusually tall. Someone would have no problem at all murdering you, and it wouldn't even be prosecuted. If you were thought by the prosecutor to be a "menace to society" because of your disorder, whether it is AS, Tourettes or ADHD, you would just be another corpse.
Prejudice is real. It is deadly.
02 Apr 2012, 12:48 pm
Well, I think Florida's law is phrased based on the shooter's subjective feelings of threat. How can the law determine this? More or less, they're obligated to take the shooter's word. An improvement would be whether a reasonable person would reasonably feel mortal threat. If Zimmerman's perception of threat were irrational—driven by prejudice and an inflated ego—the defense would not be applicable. If Florida's laws make him inculpable for murder, then Florida's laws are seriously flawed. A subjective stand-your-grand law plus shoot first is indeed a decriminalization of murder.
John_Browning
Veteran
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range
02 Apr 2012, 2:58 pm
We don't know who is screaming really. Two voice experts say it's not Zimmerman but who knows.
I assumed it was Zimmerman and that he was just kind of a hysterical weak sister or trying to verbally justify the use of his gun. From the beginning he was setting up his defense by saying that Martin was "suspicious", "something is wrong with him", "on drugs", and he was a "f*cking goon (or coon)". And then suddenly he's the pursued, he was ambushed, and not just attacked but directly threatened with death. I just can't see a heavier and older adult male screaming like that in a fight. It's weird. But it could also be someone who was fighting over a gun. Be interesting if that's what he claims in the end.
The FBI and state prosecutor are both doing investigations now. We may never even get to the grand jury. The SP says she'd rather deal with it without one. Depends what they find and who they believe.
02 Apr 2012, 5:35 pm
It does bring up the disturbing possibility of an autistic person being shot in mid-meltdown because that was perceived as an intentional threat.
The verbal tics of Tourettes might also be mistaken for verbal threats.
There are all sorts of disturbing scenarios raised by the Stand Your Ground Law.
ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw
02 Apr 2012, 5:59 pm
simon_says wrote:
I assumed it was Zimmerman and that he was just kind of a hysterical weak sister or trying to verbally justify the use of his gun. From the beginning he was setting up his defense by saying that Martin was "suspicious", "something is wrong with him", "on drugs", and he was a "f*cking goon (or coon)". And then suddenly he's the pursued, he was ambushed, and not just attacked but directly threatened with death.
I agree, the setup is so transparent-sounding. It's so disturbing, when I've listened to it.
_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."
02 Apr 2012, 6:49 pm
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
George Zimmerman may have stepped over the line a little bit in blowing a man's face off as he was screaming for help.
You keep saying 'shot in the face' and 'blowing his face off', when all the information I have indicates he was shot in the chest.
_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton
02 Apr 2012, 7:25 pm
NeantHumain wrote:
If Zimmerman's perception of threat were irrational—driven by prejudice and an inflated ego—the defense would not be applicable.
The defense isn't applicable. Section 776.012 of Florida's laws, and one of SYG's cornerstones, clearly states:
Quote:
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. [Home Protection]
[Emphasis Mine]
(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. [Home Protection]
[Emphasis Mine]
Given the circumstances, I doubt there's a judge or jury in existence who would acquit Zimmerman via SYG. The sloppy and woefully inadequate police investigation of the matter certainly won't help his case either.
02 Apr 2012, 9:24 pm
NeantHumain wrote:
Well, I think Florida's law is phrased based on the shooter's subjective feelings of threat. How can the law determine this? More or less, they're obligated to take the shooter's word. An improvement would be whether a reasonable person would reasonably feel mortal threat. If Zimmerman's perception of threat were irrational—driven by prejudice and an inflated ego—the defense would not be applicable. If Florida's laws make him inculpable for murder, then Florida's laws are seriously flawed. A subjective stand-your-grand law plus shoot first is indeed a decriminalization of murder.
The law should be such that "rigging" a case of self defense would be very very difficult to do. In any case a kind of jury should decide whether deadly force was justified or not. We can't have people killing other people because the other person looked at one cross-eyed or was seen wearing a hood.
ruveyn
02 Apr 2012, 10:37 pm
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
I know that public opinion on the Trayvon Martin shooting is divided. There is one side that holds that the murder of a defenseless black man was wrong and that his killer ought to be charged with a crime, and the other side holds the opinion that the crime was justified, and Zimmerman was right to shoot a black man in the face as he screamed for his life.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WI4x2JPcOA[/youtube]
Since we all know the value of moderation, perhaps I ought to take the centrist position and say they were both in the wrong. Trayvon Martin shouldn't have gone around in a hoodie being all black and suspicious-looking, and George Zimmerman may have stepped over the line a little bit in blowing a man's face off as he was screaming for help. I'm sure we could talk this over like civilized folk and come to a middle-ground.
/sarcasm
If you have AS or any other developmental disorder, such as Tourettes or ADHD, this is just as much your problem as it is a black person's problem. It would have been just as easy for Zimmerman to claim that he was justified in shooting someone who had AS symptoms. For example, if he had confronted and intimidated someone with AS and triggered a meltdown, he could have fired his weapon and claimed that he had shot in "self-defense." This could have been you, and you would have been buried as "the crazy Aspergers guy who finally snapped. Those Aspies really are dangerous, aren't they?"
Under Florida's "stand your ground" law, I might not be alive right now. One of my TS/AS symptoms is that, when I am feeling cornered and helpless, I sometimes go into this rage, and it looks very disturbing on the outside. On the inside, I feel like I'm being run over by a truck, so it's not exactly a picnic at my end. However, it's easy enough to tell when I'm bordering on such a blow-up: my eyes dilate dramatically, my voice drops in pitch, and my hair rooster-tails very visibly. Usually, when this happens to me, it's because someone wanted that reaction.
This has actually made me a target for bored security guards and the like. I have never been in this situation with an actual cop because the last thing an experienced police officer wants is more unnecessary work. Somehow, I know that some of the vermin I have been tormented by would have loved an opportunity to bait me into a rage, blow my face off, and have a bunch of witnesses testify, "it looked like he was going to leap at the guard's throat! He was out of control! I was so scared!" This is not something that might have happened, but I honestly think I would be in a grave right now if Florida's "stand your ground" law had been in effect. I am not a dangerous person. I have withheld physical retaliation, in the midst of rage, as blood streamed from my nose like a waterfall because, no matter how berserk I seem to be, I do not physically attack others, ever. I am too proud to lower myself to it.
And, before the medication that I am on right now, the rages weren't even what would have drawn attention. People always thought that I was on drugs or mentally unstable because I would do things like twirl around in circles as I walked and stuff like that. I had a lot of AS-type behaviors, and they made me look even more weird and eccentric than I actually am, which is already pretty considerable. I was always a magnet for jerks who thought that they were God's gift to the law. Again, police officers have always been very charming with me: once they realize that I am articulate and clearly NOT drugged, a real cop actually seems affectionate toward me. When I focus and actually start talking amiably, I can sound like a radio announcer except for a little stammering.
It's not just someone like me who could be killed, though, but it could be you. Someone could antagonize and bait YOU to the point that you went into hand-flapping, blow your face off, and have a bunch of witnesses testify that you had "reached up to strangle him." You would not just be dead, but you would be "the Aspie who finally snapped, and poor Mike had to shoot in self-defense. I knew those Aspergers guys were dangerous!" This could be YOU, got that? Someone could blow your face off and not only feel not a scrap of remorse but go home feeling like Superman. There are people out there who really would do this.
A "stand your ground" law is nothing but a legalization and legitimization of murder, and it effects everyone who could be victim of prejudice or profiling. This includes people who are AS, black, or even just unusually tall. Someone would have no problem at all murdering you, and it wouldn't even be prosecuted. If you were thought by the prosecutor to be a "menace to society" because of your disorder, whether it is AS, Tourettes or ADHD, you would just be another corpse.
Prejudice is real. It is deadly.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WI4x2JPcOA[/youtube]
Since we all know the value of moderation, perhaps I ought to take the centrist position and say they were both in the wrong. Trayvon Martin shouldn't have gone around in a hoodie being all black and suspicious-looking, and George Zimmerman may have stepped over the line a little bit in blowing a man's face off as he was screaming for help. I'm sure we could talk this over like civilized folk and come to a middle-ground.
/sarcasm
If you have AS or any other developmental disorder, such as Tourettes or ADHD, this is just as much your problem as it is a black person's problem. It would have been just as easy for Zimmerman to claim that he was justified in shooting someone who had AS symptoms. For example, if he had confronted and intimidated someone with AS and triggered a meltdown, he could have fired his weapon and claimed that he had shot in "self-defense." This could have been you, and you would have been buried as "the crazy Aspergers guy who finally snapped. Those Aspies really are dangerous, aren't they?"
Under Florida's "stand your ground" law, I might not be alive right now. One of my TS/AS symptoms is that, when I am feeling cornered and helpless, I sometimes go into this rage, and it looks very disturbing on the outside. On the inside, I feel like I'm being run over by a truck, so it's not exactly a picnic at my end. However, it's easy enough to tell when I'm bordering on such a blow-up: my eyes dilate dramatically, my voice drops in pitch, and my hair rooster-tails very visibly. Usually, when this happens to me, it's because someone wanted that reaction.
This has actually made me a target for bored security guards and the like. I have never been in this situation with an actual cop because the last thing an experienced police officer wants is more unnecessary work. Somehow, I know that some of the vermin I have been tormented by would have loved an opportunity to bait me into a rage, blow my face off, and have a bunch of witnesses testify, "it looked like he was going to leap at the guard's throat! He was out of control! I was so scared!" This is not something that might have happened, but I honestly think I would be in a grave right now if Florida's "stand your ground" law had been in effect. I am not a dangerous person. I have withheld physical retaliation, in the midst of rage, as blood streamed from my nose like a waterfall because, no matter how berserk I seem to be, I do not physically attack others, ever. I am too proud to lower myself to it.
And, before the medication that I am on right now, the rages weren't even what would have drawn attention. People always thought that I was on drugs or mentally unstable because I would do things like twirl around in circles as I walked and stuff like that. I had a lot of AS-type behaviors, and they made me look even more weird and eccentric than I actually am, which is already pretty considerable. I was always a magnet for jerks who thought that they were God's gift to the law. Again, police officers have always been very charming with me: once they realize that I am articulate and clearly NOT drugged, a real cop actually seems affectionate toward me. When I focus and actually start talking amiably, I can sound like a radio announcer except for a little stammering.
It's not just someone like me who could be killed, though, but it could be you. Someone could antagonize and bait YOU to the point that you went into hand-flapping, blow your face off, and have a bunch of witnesses testify that you had "reached up to strangle him." You would not just be dead, but you would be "the Aspie who finally snapped, and poor Mike had to shoot in self-defense. I knew those Aspergers guys were dangerous!" This could be YOU, got that? Someone could blow your face off and not only feel not a scrap of remorse but go home feeling like Superman. There are people out there who really would do this.
A "stand your ground" law is nothing but a legalization and legitimization of murder, and it effects everyone who could be victim of prejudice or profiling. This includes people who are AS, black, or even just unusually tall. Someone would have no problem at all murdering you, and it wouldn't even be prosecuted. If you were thought by the prosecutor to be a "menace to society" because of your disorder, whether it is AS, Tourettes or ADHD, you would just be another corpse.
Prejudice is real. It is deadly.
Hi WilliamWDelaney,
With hostile responses to any ADAAA disabled person with Asperger's Syndrome and temporal lobe epilepsy, the "Stand Your Ground" Laws are inherently dangerous and discriminatory to all individuals with any signs and symptoms similar to mine.
Observations made by biased and illegally discriminating individuals with their assuming that such signs and symptoms establish any and all justifications for their bigoted responses verbalized by them as such as:
"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. He's [unintelligible], he was just staring……looking at all the houses.....Now he's just staring at me....Yeah, now he's coming towards me.....He's got his hand in his waistband.....Somethings 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....These as*holes they always get away.....Sh*t he's running...",
are, in their own minds, their own proof of justifications for their acting as if with a License To Kill With Immunity under "Stand Your Ground" Laws.
The deadly arrogance encouraged under "Stand Your Ground" Laws, greatly further the dangers of intense prejudice from biased individuals, biased persons who are already frequently encountered by the ADAAA disabled individual engaging in his, or her, own ADAAA protected essential daily activities:
On October 20, 2009, Tadzio wrote:
Since my seizures frequently just interfere with me originating speech, but often not my ability to read aloud or to write/type, it's my contention in such situations that people who assume that I have impaired consciousness because of my speech impairments, they are makng assumptions that are not well founded, and if they take any action adverse to my independence and civil rights based on such erroneous assumptions, they're at least violating the ADA. Similarly with walking, but if a public official stops me while I'm walking with my reasonable accomodations, challenges my degree of unimpaired consciousness, then tries to exploit a poorly founded, or insincere, concern for my safety (or makes other adverse assumptions from any difficulties I have with walking even with reasonable accommodations), if I can verify my consciousness with evidence, I can better protect my rights. Otherwise, it could be held that anyone with a defective walking gait, or shuffles, weaves, or looks off balance, shouldn't be allowed on public or private walkways and should be detained.
I've already been briefly detained (more than an hour) against my will over such matters by Medicaid providers, so I believe my concerns are well founded. Also, I've already been accosted over carrying my GPS unit while walking in public, and since I was counting to step in order to walk with a digital recorder, I also have record of their shouted obscenties and threats of physical harm if I didn't respond to their demands and questions. So, I'm wondering if the recording of my counting to steps, and GPS locations, is sufficient proof of my consciousness, or if a higher cognitive level of speaking is required with time verified events with GPS locations, and/or simultaneous panaoramic video recording with more equipment is also required to legally verify otherwise unimpaired consciousness, and at least violations of the ADA without other circumstances seperate from the faulty adverse assumptions based upon signs and symptoms of neurological impairments with walking and originating speech.
If I find out how to be more concise, and find all the possible loopholes, or better alternatives, I might be ready for my latest Catch-22 with epilepsy!! !
Tadzio
I've already been briefly detained (more than an hour) against my will over such matters by Medicaid providers, so I believe my concerns are well founded. Also, I've already been accosted over carrying my GPS unit while walking in public, and since I was counting to step in order to walk with a digital recorder, I also have record of their shouted obscenties and threats of physical harm if I didn't respond to their demands and questions. So, I'm wondering if the recording of my counting to steps, and GPS locations, is sufficient proof of my consciousness, or if a higher cognitive level of speaking is required with time verified events with GPS locations, and/or simultaneous panaoramic video recording with more equipment is also required to legally verify otherwise unimpaired consciousness, and at least violations of the ADA without other circumstances seperate from the faulty adverse assumptions based upon signs and symptoms of neurological impairments with walking and originating speech.
If I find out how to be more concise, and find all the possible loopholes, or better alternatives, I might be ready for my latest Catch-22 with epilepsy!! !
Tadzio
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt117594.html
On January 24, 2010, Tadzio wrote:
Since I have to carry a GPS unit to keep track of my location and direction, I speak out my location at intersections or whenever anything different happens into a digital voice-recorder that I keep running continuously when I'm away from home.
I've already recorded a few encounters with people voicing threats of violence and obscenities, and instances of the super "polite" police saying things when they think other people can't hear.
Here in California, it's mandatory to carry photo-ID at all times, and the State only issues one, only one Driver's License or one Identification Card, but not both to the same person. So, if the police confiscates your ID (which they "never" do), you're an illegal non-person. A couple decades ago, protesters were protesting oppressive foreign governments that had such ID requirements, while the police just a couple blocks away were arresting homeless people for not having current and valid IDs. (When the states of the USA do it, it's OK, or ELSE!! !).
Having paper ADA impairments' documentation didn't work for me when I requested reasonable accommodations at the Federal District Court Building in San Francisco. The armed guards refused to read it, and struggling against my impairments, the Court Clerks played stupid. And my lawsuit was about discrimination against disabled people by Federal employers, which the courts ruled never happened. My congressman wrote back to me with the explanation that the Equal Access To Justice Act didn't exist either.
When I lived closer to the SF Bay area, news stories were frequent about the police shooting anyone with anything that looked like a gun, from brooms to cell-phones. The joke back then was, that if your a victim of a crime, call the police and double the chances you'll get shot.
If there is a sidewalk, pedestrians are suppose to be on it. If there is no sidewalk, they are then suppose to walk against traffic. If there is a sidewalk that only extends part of the block, then the pedestrian, walking with traffic, on the sidewalk (as required by law), is in trouble when the sidewalk runs-out, because jay-walking is illegal too. On garbage day, the sidewalks are usually blocked off with the containers, but here in the USA, all law abiding citizens drive anyways, or so holds the NT moral majority.
Also, some police officers think they enforce the law, but that they are not obligated to follow it.
Tadzio
I've already recorded a few encounters with people voicing threats of violence and obscenities, and instances of the super "polite" police saying things when they think other people can't hear.
Here in California, it's mandatory to carry photo-ID at all times, and the State only issues one, only one Driver's License or one Identification Card, but not both to the same person. So, if the police confiscates your ID (which they "never" do), you're an illegal non-person. A couple decades ago, protesters were protesting oppressive foreign governments that had such ID requirements, while the police just a couple blocks away were arresting homeless people for not having current and valid IDs. (When the states of the USA do it, it's OK, or ELSE!! !).
Having paper ADA impairments' documentation didn't work for me when I requested reasonable accommodations at the Federal District Court Building in San Francisco. The armed guards refused to read it, and struggling against my impairments, the Court Clerks played stupid. And my lawsuit was about discrimination against disabled people by Federal employers, which the courts ruled never happened. My congressman wrote back to me with the explanation that the Equal Access To Justice Act didn't exist either.
When I lived closer to the SF Bay area, news stories were frequent about the police shooting anyone with anything that looked like a gun, from brooms to cell-phones. The joke back then was, that if your a victim of a crime, call the police and double the chances you'll get shot.
If there is a sidewalk, pedestrians are suppose to be on it. If there is no sidewalk, they are then suppose to walk against traffic. If there is a sidewalk that only extends part of the block, then the pedestrian, walking with traffic, on the sidewalk (as required by law), is in trouble when the sidewalk runs-out, because jay-walking is illegal too. On garbage day, the sidewalks are usually blocked off with the containers, but here in the USA, all law abiding citizens drive anyways, or so holds the NT moral majority.
Also, some police officers think they enforce the law, but that they are not obligated to follow it.
Tadzio
02 Apr 2012, 11:03 pm
CoMF wrote:
NeantHumain wrote:
If Zimmerman's perception of threat were irrational—driven by prejudice and an inflated ego—the defense would not be applicable.
The defense isn't applicable. Section 776.012 of Florida's laws, and one of SYG's cornerstones, clearly states:
Quote:
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. [Home Protection]
[Emphasis Mine]
(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. [Home Protection]
[Emphasis Mine]
Given the circumstances, I doubt there's a judge or jury in existence who would acquit Zimmerman via SYG. The sloppy and woefully inadequate police investigation of the matter certainly won't help his case either.
Tadzio wrote:
Hi CoMF,
[Previously,] I cited the particular official response for the public involving the present interest stating that SYG WAS THE LAW BEING APPLIED & BEING FOLLOWED:
So, it seems, the SYG law is now what's being politically/publicly defended by many of the law's continuing political/legal/public backers & defenders, while the potential defendant is (WAS, by most SYG promoters) under the SYG new version, which if SYG is then federally challenged as the new SYG law giving the potential defendant immunity, the new SYG law itself will probably fall in higher federal courts.
The Florida Supreme Court stands mainly with the immunity granted by Florida's SYG, overriding lower state courts:
Govoni v. State, writ of prohibition of denial of motion asserting statutory imunity:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district- ... 83559.html
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA, PER CURIAM. Govoni v. State of Florida:
http://www.4dca.org/opinions/Aug%202011 ... 371.op.pdf
With many of the legal arguments of the laws' application (they lost motion on IMO seeming "facts" not in criteria of the "laws", but the points in current potential defendant's case is the criteria of the laws (so I foresee possible irrelevant side-tracts to protect SYG laws instead of the following of the new SYG laws from the new SYG laws supporters with current "case"! !!)):
Florida v. Justin Campos, Motion To Dismiss & For Statutory Immunity From Prosecution:
http://media.naplesnews.com/media/stati ... motion.pdf
Campos denial: http://media.naplesnews.com/media/stati ... ng_PDF.pdf
Judge denies Stand Your Ground motion in Fort Myers strip club homicide case, (with sample video):
http://www.news-press.com/article/20120 ... -homicides
http://www.winknews.com/Local-Florida/2 ... -in-prison
ORDER ON MOTION FOR STATUTORY IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION
http://media.naplesnews.com/media/stati ... 150108.pdf
IMO, Florida's new SYG laws are illegal, but for for victims of the victims falling for the illegal laws, and these victims of the layers of the other victims..... , anyone believing the nonsense of the new SYG, and acted under the belief the laws were legal to the point of exploitation, will be in the lurch or "justice" of different (but the "same") Double Jeopardy & Guilt & Not & Immunity & Not, but mentioning these parts of "established" law & order will get...............................
Then, with endless pamphlets ensuring immunity involving deadly force in any "reasonable threat", is there an element of "screaming fire in a crowded theatre" with immunity only remaining for promoting groups pushing bogus "laws", under the seeming guise of the 2nd amendment, but actually the only possibility being the 1st?
(Will there be a maddening future career in mud-wrestling with only poor-to- mediocre "justice" for the killer perhaps offered to soon semi-playing "patsy" roles with lost immunity in order of only to save the new SYG Law, and no true justice at all for others???).
Tadzio
[Previously,] I cited the particular official response for the public involving the present interest stating that SYG WAS THE LAW BEING APPLIED & BEING FOLLOWED:
Tadzio wrote:
From: http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/ ... ooting.pdf
VERSUS:
DOUBLE GEE WHIZ!! ! "By Florida Statute, law enforcement was PROHIBITED from making an arrest based on the facts and circumstances they had at the time" by that "According to Florida Statute 776.032", and that is NOT being "protected" from being arrested according to a ""reliable"" source of balderdash cited by Dox47 (protected by the VERY BIG little word "if" to make the saying of nothing sound like saying something very important and decisive, but actually, the more possible unlawfulness is determined much later, with the Florida Statute Law 776.032 providing the immediate protection with PROHIBITION from arrest)! !!
Then, as follow up, the City cited followed & practiced Laws that "didn't" have anything with what's lawful by the double-talking VERY BIG little if'ers.
Tadzio
City Manager wrote:
In an effort to continue to be as responsive as possible to the public seeking information on the incident, I have asked Chief Lee to provide answers to some of the most frequently asked questions regarding this matter. Below are his responses. Please understand that since this is still an ongoing investigation, the Police Department is limited in what information it can publicly release.
..............
Why was George Zimmerman not arrested the night of the shooting?
When the Sanford Police Department arrived at the scene of the incident, Mr. Zimmerman provided a statement claiming he acted in self defense which at the time was supported by physical evidence and testimony. By Florida Statute, law enforcement was PROHIBITED from making an arrest based on the facts and circumstances they had at the time. Additionally, when any police officer makes an arrest for any reason, the officer MUST swear and affirm that he/she is making the arrest in good faith and with probable cause. If the arrest is done maliciously and in bad faith, the officer and the City may be held liable.
According to Florida Statute 776.032 :
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes ARRESTING, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
Why weren’t the 911 tapes initially released?
There are exemptions to the public records laws for active criminal intelligence and.......................
..............
Why was George Zimmerman not arrested the night of the shooting?
When the Sanford Police Department arrived at the scene of the incident, Mr. Zimmerman provided a statement claiming he acted in self defense which at the time was supported by physical evidence and testimony. By Florida Statute, law enforcement was PROHIBITED from making an arrest based on the facts and circumstances they had at the time. Additionally, when any police officer makes an arrest for any reason, the officer MUST swear and affirm that he/she is making the arrest in good faith and with probable cause. If the arrest is done maliciously and in bad faith, the officer and the City may be held liable.
According to Florida Statute 776.032 :
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes ARRESTING, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
Why weren’t the 911 tapes initially released?
There are exemptions to the public records laws for active criminal intelligence and.......................
VERSUS:
Dox47 wrote:
David Kopel takes a more in depth look at Florida's self defense laws and their applicability to this case:
http://volokh.com/2012/03/27/floridas-s ... more-57774
http://volokh.com/2012/03/27/floridas-s ... more-57774
David Kopel wrote:
.......................
In sum: there is not a shred of support for the claim that Florida law protects, or has protected Zimmerman, if he unlawfully attacked Martin. If Zimmerman’s story is true (Martin attacked him, putting him in imminent peril of grave bodily injury, with no opportunity to retreat), then Zimmerman’s self-defense claim would be valid under the laws of Florida, New York, or any other Anglo-American jurisdiction. The particular legal changes resulting from Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” and “Castle Doctrine” laws (deadly force in the home/automobile; no duty to retreat in public places; Fourth Amendment arrest standard affirmation; protection from civil suits) simply have nothing to do with whether Zimmerman’s actions were or were not lawful.
In sum: there is not a shred of support for the claim that Florida law protects, or has protected Zimmerman, if he unlawfully attacked Martin. If Zimmerman’s story is true (Martin attacked him, putting him in imminent peril of grave bodily injury, with no opportunity to retreat), then Zimmerman’s self-defense claim would be valid under the laws of Florida, New York, or any other Anglo-American jurisdiction. The particular legal changes resulting from Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” and “Castle Doctrine” laws (deadly force in the home/automobile; no duty to retreat in public places; Fourth Amendment arrest standard affirmation; protection from civil suits) simply have nothing to do with whether Zimmerman’s actions were or were not lawful.
DOUBLE GEE WHIZ!! ! "By Florida Statute, law enforcement was PROHIBITED from making an arrest based on the facts and circumstances they had at the time" by that "According to Florida Statute 776.032", and that is NOT being "protected" from being arrested according to a ""reliable"" source of balderdash cited by Dox47 (protected by the VERY BIG little word "if" to make the saying of nothing sound like saying something very important and decisive, but actually, the more possible unlawfulness is determined much later, with the Florida Statute Law 776.032 providing the immediate protection with PROHIBITION from arrest)! !!
Then, as follow up, the City cited followed & practiced Laws that "didn't" have anything with what's lawful by the double-talking VERY BIG little if'ers.
Tadzio
So, it seems, the SYG law is now what's being politically/publicly defended by many of the law's continuing political/legal/public backers & defenders, while the potential defendant is (WAS, by most SYG promoters) under the SYG new version, which if SYG is then federally challenged as the new SYG law giving the potential defendant immunity, the new SYG law itself will probably fall in higher federal courts.
The Florida Supreme Court stands mainly with the immunity granted by Florida's SYG, overriding lower state courts:
Govoni v. State, writ of prohibition of denial of motion asserting statutory imunity:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district- ... 83559.html
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA, PER CURIAM. Govoni v. State of Florida:
http://www.4dca.org/opinions/Aug%202011 ... 371.op.pdf
With many of the legal arguments of the laws' application (they lost motion on IMO seeming "facts" not in criteria of the "laws", but the points in current potential defendant's case is the criteria of the laws (so I foresee possible irrelevant side-tracts to protect SYG laws instead of the following of the new SYG laws from the new SYG laws supporters with current "case"! !!)):
Florida v. Justin Campos, Motion To Dismiss & For Statutory Immunity From Prosecution:
http://media.naplesnews.com/media/stati ... motion.pdf
Campos denial: http://media.naplesnews.com/media/stati ... ng_PDF.pdf
Judge denies Stand Your Ground motion in Fort Myers strip club homicide case, (with sample video):
http://www.news-press.com/article/20120 ... -homicides
http://www.winknews.com/Local-Florida/2 ... -in-prison
ORDER ON MOTION FOR STATUTORY IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION
http://media.naplesnews.com/media/stati ... 150108.pdf
IMO, Florida's new SYG laws are illegal, but for for victims of the victims falling for the illegal laws, and these victims of the layers of the other victims..... , anyone believing the nonsense of the new SYG, and acted under the belief the laws were legal to the point of exploitation, will be in the lurch or "justice" of different (but the "same") Double Jeopardy & Guilt & Not & Immunity & Not, but mentioning these parts of "established" law & order will get...............................
Then, with endless pamphlets ensuring immunity involving deadly force in any "reasonable threat", is there an element of "screaming fire in a crowded theatre" with immunity only remaining for promoting groups pushing bogus "laws", under the seeming guise of the 2nd amendment, but actually the only possibility being the 1st?
(Will there be a maddening future career in mud-wrestling with only poor-to- mediocre "justice" for the killer perhaps offered to soon semi-playing "patsy" roles with lost immunity in order of only to save the new SYG Law, and no true justice at all for others???).
Tadzio
The "Stand Your Ground" Laws neutralize equal protection for individuals on the autistic spectrum whenever their displayed autistic traits make anyone feel "threatened":
Tadzio wrote:
Hi John_Browning,
People distinguished by MMPI scores indicating paranoia and schizophrenia coincidentally are very frequent. You have added the word "conflict" that happens to bias the notion of "encounter". That is often characterized as the practice of "baiting" the subject.
Overall, "paranoid schizophrenics" are less likely than the "average" person to START a violent confrontation, but, the "average" person is MUCH MORE likely to initiate violent actions against an encountered "paranoid schizophrenic" than against an encountered "average" person. Most all individuals with any known mental disorders are assumed by the biased general population as being threatening to other individuals.
The chances of two "paranoid schizophrenics" encountering each other are much greater than a person encountering someone else during a day that has the same birthday (the "Birthday Paradox"):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem
Your views of absurdity tend more to be what's absurd, as are biased views of what is "Law Abiding":
The overall bias of the general population against individuals identifiable on the spectrum of autism tend to leads to a high level of violent actions against the autistic individuals. Even extremely highly trained and professional law enforcement officers have a significant increased tendency to needlessly shoot to death autistic individuals, while trigger happy private citizens can deny the contention of illegal "needless shootings" by claiming "reasonable expectation of threats" that are intensely biased, but supported as "reasonable" by the general population, since the general population shares the intense bias.
Tadzio
People distinguished by MMPI scores indicating paranoia and schizophrenia coincidentally are very frequent. You have added the word "conflict" that happens to bias the notion of "encounter". That is often characterized as the practice of "baiting" the subject.
Overall, "paranoid schizophrenics" are less likely than the "average" person to START a violent confrontation, but, the "average" person is MUCH MORE likely to initiate violent actions against an encountered "paranoid schizophrenic" than against an encountered "average" person. Most all individuals with any known mental disorders are assumed by the biased general population as being threatening to other individuals.
The chances of two "paranoid schizophrenics" encountering each other are much greater than a person encountering someone else during a day that has the same birthday (the "Birthday Paradox"):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem
Your views of absurdity tend more to be what's absurd, as are biased views of what is "Law Abiding":
John_Browning wrote:
Law abiding citizens are in bed or getting ready for woek when 1/3 of shootings happen and another 22% while they are at work. They have some free time in the afternoon, but even without detailed records it can be inferred that the law abiding citizens aren't doing the shootings in the afternoon either since they still have obligations and there is nothing preventing the people that are doing the shooting from shooting in the afternoon as well! Someone who spent their life in a all white town getting startled by a black person being the cause of a shooting is an isolated incident. Someone getting shot over a drug deal gone bad is well documented. Gang members getting singled out and shot is well documented. Attempted robbers and rapists, with clear intentions, getting shot in self-defense is well documented. The overwhelming majority of both illegal and justified shootings alike fall into well-defined categories. Percentage wise, lawful gun owners misidentifying someone or getting trigger happy amounts to an isolated incident.
The overall bias of the general population against individuals identifiable on the spectrum of autism tend to leads to a high level of violent actions against the autistic individuals. Even extremely highly trained and professional law enforcement officers have a significant increased tendency to needlessly shoot to death autistic individuals, while trigger happy private citizens can deny the contention of illegal "needless shootings" by claiming "reasonable expectation of threats" that are intensely biased, but supported as "reasonable" by the general population, since the general population shares the intense bias.
Tadzio
03 Apr 2012, 12:46 am
Janissy wrote:
It does bring up the disturbing possibility of an autistic person being shot in mid-meltdown because that was perceived as an intentional threat.
The verbal tics of Tourettes might also be mistaken for verbal threats.
There are all sorts of disturbing scenarios raised by the Stand Your Ground Law.
The verbal tics of Tourettes might also be mistaken for verbal threats.
There are all sorts of disturbing scenarios raised by the Stand Your Ground Law.
Agreed. As a parent, it scares the ,&@@€>< out of me. This law doesn't seem to require that your fear be reasonable. That is a huge flaw.
Putting guns in the hands of untrained individuals who are literally out looking for trouble guarantees they'll find it, and is frightening. No doubt my son would have looked suspicious to Mr. Zimmerman. My son does suspicious and shifty brilliantly. But he is also totally harmless and innocent.
Did I say this story has scared the $&@&)( out of me? As a parent to a teen AS boy? Yep, it has.
_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).
03 Apr 2012, 10:53 am
DW_a_mom wrote:
Agreed. As a parent, it scares the ,&@@€>< out of me. This law doesn't seem to require that your fear be reasonable. That is a huge flaw.
According to CoMF's quote of the law, it specifically requires reasonable belief, not fear.
_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton
Oodain
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
03 Apr 2012, 11:24 am
John_Browning wrote:
not really,
i dont see how anyone can claim to know what another person is about to do, there is plenty of places where people consistently come to a wrong conclusion so how can we expect them to consitently come to the right one?
we cant and i dont see why innocent people should lay down their lives for those that cant control their own anxieties and fear, no matter how justified(or not).
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
Oodain
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
03 Apr 2012, 11:31 am
ruveyn wrote:
NeantHumain wrote:
Well, I think Florida's law is phrased based on the shooter's subjective feelings of threat. How can the law determine this? More or less, they're obligated to take the shooter's word. An improvement would be whether a reasonable person would reasonably feel mortal threat. If Zimmerman's perception of threat were irrational—driven by prejudice and an inflated ego—the defense would not be applicable. If Florida's laws make him inculpable for murder, then Florida's laws are seriously flawed. A subjective stand-your-grand law plus shoot first is indeed a decriminalization of murder.
The law should be such that "rigging" a case of self defense would be very very difficult to do. In any case a kind of jury should decide whether deadly force was justified or not. We can't have people killing other people because the other person looked at one cross-eyed or was seen wearing a hood.
ruveyn
so what would that law be?
why not have the opertunity to belay the punishment of what would normally be a crime in certain circumstances,
so if you kill anyone in self defense you do so full well knowing that you will be arrested by the end of the day, best thing would be to turn yourself in at once, then once you receive your sentence the jury can literally vote to belay the punishment because of the circumstances, would still be on record but it would explicitly say you were found to do so in self defense.
that way there is plenty of incentive for people not to escalate and there is plenty of incentive to keep people from abusing the system, risks would be too great.
and before anyone tries the argument that that would be to treat people as if they were already guilty, well arent they? they did kill a person, the justification only tells the why not the what.
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
03 Apr 2012, 12:13 pm
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
A "stand your ground" law is nothing but a legalization and legitimization of murder, and it effects everyone who could be victim of prejudice or profiling. This includes people who are AS, black, or even just unusually tall. Someone would have no problem at all murdering you, and it wouldn't even be prosecuted. If you were thought by the prosecutor to be a "menace to society" because of your disorder, whether it is AS, Tourettes or ADHD, you would just be another corpse.
If an aspie had a meltdown and was pounding on someone, I wouldn't care if the aspie was killed by someone in self defense. If you can't maintain yourself in the real world, you shouldn't be outside. I don't give an aspie or autie a free pass for attacking someone.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Best selling author in shooting incident with cops |
10 Apr 2025, 5:02 pm |
| Florida State University Mass Shooting |
19 Apr 2025, 5:25 am |
| Attempted Michigan Church mass shooting thwarted |
Yesterday, 2:33 pm |
| North Carolina House Party Mass Shooting |
02 Jun 2025, 12:07 am |
