SYG does NOT apply to either person in this case. Neither was defending their abode, or vehicle. I can post the link again.

What evidence do you have that Zimmerman or Martin started the fight? Let's say that Martin was not killed for a hypothetical. Because Zimmerman was stupid in leaving his vehicle, is it OK for Martin to beat him because Zimmerman stupidly confronted? That appears to be what you are saying.

All I have ever said is let the investigation run it's course, and Zimmerman was stupid in not following the 911 dispatcher advise. If Zimmerman committed murder, then put him down. I think that is fair. Perhaps you think he should be lynched w/o a trial?

What about the stupid actions of Spike Lee tweeting the wrong address of where he thought Zimmerman lived? The poor people who were harassed there are victims as well.
[url]
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/ ... ertainment[/url]

Archduke, what other defences that currently put the burden of proof upon the defence do you think are unreasonable? Insanity (including temporary)?

I thinl to be honest it's not a good idea to mess around with legal burden of proof without good reason. If the statistics in Florida are showing a rise in deaths in this category, that is a major concern.

Ricky:

What I did Ray, was I put the term vigilante to the description of what you seem to think is appropriate behaviour.

Nope, you are misquoting me as usual. You don't know what I think. I never wrote it was appropriate behavior because I still don't know what behavior we are talking about. Calling the police is fine ... getting out of your car is fine ... asking someone in your neighborhood a question is fine. After that, there are conflicting witness accounts so we don't know.

SYG does NOT apply to either person in this case. Neither was defending their abode, or vehicle. I can post the link again.

That's not strictly accurate Brad. SYG does cover defensive force used outside of the home (or vehicle), it's just that where it takes place in defence of the home then a presumption exists in the law that reasonable fear of bodily harm has already been proven. This is the point that both yourself and Russ seem to be missing.

Indeed Sass. I think people have just been reading parts 1 and 2 of 776.013. here's part 3:

(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.

Under 776.032 (the SYG law) that applies just as much as parts (2) and (3) of 776.013, and this explains why SYG is being cited in Zimmerman's defence and has been suggested is a reason why the police did not act.

Sass is right, Brad is wrong.

If a person is defending his person or property then they shouldn't have to prove anything. It should be incumbent upon the government to have the burden to prove everything.

So the person who takes the life of another person shouldn't have any obligation to justify his actions ? Killing is an appropriate and reasonable response to a threat against property ? Sorry, I can't even begin to sympathise with this point of view. I think it's both ethically wrong and extremely dangerous, likely to result in many more unnecessary deaths.

Reference 3 applies, Owen. Thank you.

Who has said that Zimmerman should not justify his actions? I have said investigate (repeatedly!).

We have different world views Sass. I cannot begin to sympathize with a home invasion perpetrator who is killed. Do I need to post links of every home invasion? Perhaps the one in CT would be enough... In my opinion, if someone comes into a house and is shot, by the home owner, the shooter should be investigated, but the invader is too blame.

I had this issue happen to me when a person came into my house at 2AM. My wife woke me, and I saw the person in the hall. He did not see me, and I charged him, driving him into the wall and breaking some of his ribs. I handcuffed him on the ground (I keep my security belt handy), threw him out onto the pavement, and called military security (it was on base). The invader was drunk and got the wrong house. He is lucky that I did not draw on him. If I had a weapon on the base, I would have. I feel WELL within my rights to have dropped the guy. He should not have been in my house.

My point is that crime is out of control.

I don't necessarily sympathise with a home invader either of course, and I'm not saying that self defence can't be justified, even if it results in somebody being killed. I just don't think that it should be automatically sanctioned by the law and that defensive force should be applied proportionately.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/27/homer-wright-elderly-chic_n_1382797.html

How about this one...

I got a million of 'em...

Sassenach wrote:So the person who takes the life of another person shouldn't have any obligation to justify his actions ? Killing is an appropriate and reasonable response to a threat against property ? Sorry, I can't even begin to sympathise with this point of view. I think it's both ethically wrong and extremely dangerous, likely to result in many more unnecessary deaths.

Agree to disagree and conversation done.

bbauska wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/27/homer-wright-elderly-chic_n_1382797.html

How about this one...

I got a million of 'em...

Unfortunately you do ... it is interesting that this hasn't received that much attention, nor the 10 other people who were killed in Chicago a weekend ago.

Juan Williams wrote an interesting op ed in today's WSJ. He notes that the vast majority of blacks murdered in the US are murdered by other blacks. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj

This doesn't change the narrative or facts on the current subject, but it does tell you how subjective our reactions are when bad things happen.

Exactly the reason I gave earlier for why this case made national media...

White v Black tension. It fits the narrative.

This is why I've tried to steer clear of discussing the details of the specific Zimmermann case when talking about the issue. It's obviously become a big political sideshow and I don't think it's especially helpful to get bogged down in it.

And yes Russ, we probably had better just agree to disagree on that, although that doesn't mean we have to just close down discussion altogether.

bbauska wrote:Exactly the reason I gave earlier for why this case made national media...

White v Black tension. It fits the narrative.

I think the implied narrative is less benign than that: the South (and the US in general), many of its people, and its institutions are racist. Some of that is probably true; but there are other issues as well which are politically too challenging to discuss.