Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Josh Horwitz on the Zimmerman Case

Huffington Post

"Justifiable homicides" in Florida have increased from 43 the year the law was enacted to 105 in 2009. The law has been invoked in at least 93 cases in Florida involving 65 deaths, a 2010 St. Petersburg Times review found. Trayvon Martin is not even the first unarmed black teenager to be killed by a shooter using the "Stand Your Ground" defense. To read more stories about concealed handgun permit holders who shot unarmed Florida residents after the law was enacted, see the following articles by the Tampa Bay Times, New York Times, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, blogger J. David Goodman and Florida defense attorney Zachary Weaver.

The bottom line is that prior to the "Stand Your Ground" law, if you were out in public in Florida and could avoid spilling blood by safely retreating from a conflict, you were required to do so by law. Now, hundreds of years of common law have been thrown out the window and the Seminole County grand jury will have to evaluate Zimmerman's actions through the lens of the NRA's new (and dangerous) statutes.
Now that's one stupid law, don't you think? Please leave a comment.

27 comments:

  1. No, I don't think it is a stupid law under the right circumstances. In this case, I do not believe it applies to Zimmerman and he should be convicted of murder.

    From what I have read, Zimmerman can not use the law because he was the aggressor. He is the one who got out of his car to pursue Martin.

    Why the police have taken so long to complete the investigation is unknown to me, but I can't see where they could conclude anything but Zimmerman was the aggressor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But, Will isn't it too wide open to say "a perceived threat?"

      Delete
  2. No, I don't think it is a stupid law under the right circumstances. In this case, I do not believe it applies to Zimmerman and he should be convicted of murder.

    From what I have read, Zimmerman can not use the law because he was the aggressor. He is the one who got out of his car to pursue Martin.

    Why the police have taken so long to complete the investigation is unknown to me, but I can't see where they could conclude anything but Zimmerman was the aggressor.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mike,

    Yes, it sure is "a stupid law". USA and guns make a strange wedlock. With 40 times more chances of being killed in USA than in France, and 200 times more chances than in Japan - combined with the fact it is very very difficult to buy a gun in France and virtually impossible in Japan - one would think the conclusion that guns DO kill is so fucking obvious that one has to be blind not to see it.

    The only person I know who is mourning her "kalashnikov" (I think that is the name of the gun) is my young Russian female friend Stiletto (nickname obviously) who is an illegal immigrant in France. But since she is an expert at kickboxing, she can make up for the missing gun and channel her anger at close range, lol.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your math is incorrect. If you look at the number of murders compared to the number of guns owned by the population, you are 6 times more likely per gun to be a victim in France than in the US. That means our gun owners are far more responsible.

      Delete
    2. WhyNot, we here in the United States care about our gun rights. Besides, your numbers don't tell the whole story, as FatWhiteMan pointed out. But gun violence isn't nonexistent, even in France, as the recent shooting in Toulouse demonstrates. We keep telling your side that bad people will get guns. Gun control keeps guns out of the hands of good people. Why can't you understand that?

      Delete
    3. Thanks Why Not, As FWM demonstrated, statistics can be made to show anything we want.

      Your logic is "so fucking obvious that one has to be blind not to see it."

      Delete
    4. No comment on the incident in Toulouse?

      Delete
    5. what would you like to say about "the incident in Toulouse"? btw, when Sarko announced the police had taken the dude out, just in time for the 1 pm news, he framed his announcement, and almost quoted Obama's announcement about Osama Ben Laden word for word....
      The entire incident is now being dissected from the inception as the results of a Security apparatus too involved with the surveillance of Safrkps political opponents to spend time dealing with a previously identified real threat...the history of Mehrans overt actions are being reveled by the hour. The actual assault was totally mishandled. Sarko momentarily bounced in the polls, but he he will lose in the first tour of the French election to Hollande.
      Are you actually trying to make the point that if the French populace was armed that this would never have happened? Greg, you are a truly pathetic, nasty quickly rotting melon brained simpleton. I could forgive you for being just a melon, but your insinuation that the incidents in Toulouse demonstrate that French anti gun laws don't work in controlling violence here is so lame....So insulting to everyone, the victims, the real figures on violence here, the family of the obviously mentaly disturbed Mehran, the Muslim community here....bite me....

      Delete
    6. The point that this makes is that criminals will get guns. Your side lives under the delusion that gun control can stop that.

      Delete
    7. That was your point in bringing up Toulouse? Look, this isn't about sides, that's your problem.
      In fact, I'm glad I don't anymore about your problems, because then I might start pitying you.
      I live in a world where I'm confident enough to be a man on my own terms. You think you need a gun? The you start imagining that everyone else has a gun. You lose, I lose, we all lose.
      If you lived in the real world, instead of popping pimples in the mirror and shivering in your boots every time you encountered someone not quite like you, you might read the real numbers regarding gun related violence in France. Shit happens, but more shit happens because of the availability of guns, the pop culture of violence, the faggoty romance of violence, the paranoiac obsession of the insecurity of having to deal with the real world.
      As I said, just the fact that you brought up Toulouse, and tried to relate it to your obsession with your perceived lack of firepower makes me think that if I really knew you, I would pity you. What do you see when you look in the mirror in the morning and what are you going to do about it? Because, as I tell myself every morning, if I don't do it, nobody will do it for me....

      Delete
    8. I'm gonna ask you another question, Greg. Have you ever been to Toulouse? Have you ever been outside of the USA? Do you hold a passport? Do you speak any language besides English? I would be interested because it would help me form a real opinion as to how you perceive things. I am asking this politely, and it's not judgmental in a strict sense. But then again....

      Delete
  4. Josh Horror can't bring himself to consider the possibility that those justified homicides were genuine. To him, no act of self defense is justified. That would be good citizens not depending on the government to save them. Oh, the humanity!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I doubt that's true that Josh thinks no defensive shooting is legit. Why do you keep exaggerating what we say and putting words in our mouths?

      Delete
    2. Because I watch your side writhing whenever we request an example of what a justified shooting would look like.

      Delete
  5. "Your math is incorrect. If you look at the number of murders compared to the number of guns owned by the population, you are 6 times more likely per gun to be a victim in France than in the US."

    Nice strawman, buy him a hat.

    "Josh Horror can't bring himself to consider the possibility that those justified homicides were genuine.'

    Braindeadgreg Camp can't bring himsel to consider the possibility that he's a fucking moron who reacts like a yappy little doggie, every time someone suggests that totally unregulated ownership of firearms is not a good idea.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'll ask again since my first post was deleted.

    if you were out in public in Florida and could avoid spilling blood by safely retreating from a conflict, you were required to do so by law.

    How far should someone retreat from a violent attack?

    If a person is physically unable to retreat, why should he first have to defend himself against a violent attack and then defend himself in court?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I found your comment in the Spam folder. No comments are being deleted around here lately.

      Obviously if someone cannot physically retreat they would have to stand their ground. The idea is IF POSSIBLE retreat is required to avoid a gunfight.

      Delete
    2. Thank you mikeb, I removed it now so that I only had one comment concerning those questions. I guess my comment was hungry, is that a bacon spam folder?

      Obviously if someone cannot physically retreat they would have to stand their ground.

      But then, why should he have to defend himself in court? If there are no laws dictating what would preclude someone from having to retreat (broken toe, flat feet, too tired, heart condition, age) then the question of whether a person could retreat or retreated far enough would be left up to the unfettered opinion of a law enforcement officer.

      You made a comment in another post about conditioning bears with pepper spray to avoid contact with humans, perhaps this stand your ground law has been conditioning criminals to avoid contact with would-be victims as indicated by the declining violent crime rates.

      The idea is IF POSSIBLE retreat is required to avoid a gunfight.

      I'm guessing you meant confrontation.

      Delete
  8. "If a person is physically unable to retreat, why should he first have to defend himself against a violent attack and then defend himself in court?"

    Y'know, if you clownz could hear yourselvez make such idiotic comments as you do...

    The murderer, in the instant case, chased and assaulted an innocent teenager who he thought "looked suspicious". You people want to defend that piece of shit and others like him. You're a bunch of cowardly morons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice leap there, I didn't say anything about Zimmerman, but I understand comprehension isn't your forte.

      I have no opinion on whether Zimmerman committed a crime or not, I wasn't there.

      Delete
  9. I just typed this in another active comment about stand your ground so I will enter it here as well.

    It is actually dangerous sometimes for a citizen to retreat from a violent assault. "Stand your ground" laws protect citizens in those situations. Nothing more, nothing less. All common sense legal standards for self defense apply whether a citizen chooses to retreat or stand their ground. (In a nutshell the legal standards for self defense are that an attacker must have the capacity to cause great bodily harm or death, the threat must be immediate and imminent, and a reasonable person would be in fear of their life.)

    Note that "stand your ground" laws do not apply when a person is trespassing or involved in illegal activity. There is a very good chance that Zimmerman was trespassing so the "stand your ground" law is a moot point.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "It is actually dangerous sometimes for a citizen to retreat from a violent assault. "Stand your ground" laws protect citizens in those situations. Nothing more, nothing less. All common sense legal standards for self defense apply whether a citizen chooses to retreat or stand their ground."

    Zimmerman is a murdering piece of shit. Anybody who shoots an umarmed person who isn't an imminent physical threat--whether private citizen, soldier or cop--is a murderer. There is no possible justification for such an action whether it's legal, because of some bloodthirsty batch of RWA clowns ramming it through the lege, or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How do you know that Martin wasn't an imminent physical threat to Zimmerman? From the various accounts that I have read Martin was on top of Zimmerman, punching him repeatedly in the head, broke Zimmerman's nose, and bashed his head against concrete. That sort of activity has killed many a person. And to put some emphasis on it, if the attack was so gentle, why did the witness run away and not jump in to intervene?

      The real questions are whether Martin was trespassing, whether Zimmerman was trespassing, and who took the first swing. If Martin took the first swing -- and if Zimmerman were trespassing and tried to escape -- then Martin was the aggressor and Zimmerman did not commit murder. If Zimmerman took the first swing, then Zimmerman was the aggressor and is a murderer.

      Can you tell us additional facts that clarify these points?

      Delete
  11. "Nice leap there, I didn't say anything about Zimmerman, but I understand comprehension isn't your forte.

    I have no opinion on whether Zimmerman committed a crime or not, I wasn't there."

    Nor were you present during the 129 other "Stand your ground" incidents. They weren't all done wit teh gunz, apparently, some involved other weapons or implements.

    Singling out Zimmer and giving a pass to the rest is disingenuous.

    Zimmer is not one

    ReplyDelete