This is a discussion on Zimmerman Juror Wants Self-Defense Laws Changed within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; : Zimmerman juror calls for change in self-defense laws...
"Denial has no survival value." David Grossman
Don"t let stupid be your skill set....
"She wanted to find him guilty of something but couldn't because of the law. The way the law was written, he wasn't responsible for (negligent) things that he had done leading up to that point," she said.
So was the jury aware that this wasn't a SYG case?
Here is the Florida law (since 1998) for us to view again since that one really, really long thread was closed:
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of 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 such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if 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.
So the law that didn't allow the jury to do anything but find him not guilty has nothing to do with SYG...
I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it.
LOL. Changed how? Like you can't just be in fear for your life, you have to have already lost it before you can defend yourself. IQ<shoe size
NRA Life Member
"I don't believe gun owners have rights." - Sarah Brady
Shes looking to get back the book deal that fell thru after her cnn interview.
When one is flat on their back being pounded just how are they supposed to retreat???
When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.
"Don't forget, incoming fire has the right of way."
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the court deny the SYG defense, for Mr Zimmerman, more than a year ago?
"If you make something idiot proof, someone will make a better idiot."
She'll change her mind if she or someone she cares about finds themselves in a similar situation.
The part in bold is the key to the whole provision. If someone really is in fear of their life or great bodily harm, why do they have to retreat at that point? The media, politicians, and the LIV (low-information voters) are making this out to be some sort of evil law that allows people to shoot and kill others for no reason.According to the instructions given to the jury, Zimmerman had "no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force" if he reasonably feared for his life or great bodily harm.
Beware of stupid people in large numbers.
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9
“The purpose of the law is not to prevent a future offense, but to punish the one actually committed” - Ayn Rand
"She wanted to find him guilty of something but couldn't because of the law."
Well now, that's not the correct way to assume someone is innocent until proven guilty, is it?
Vietnam Vets, WELCOME HOME
Crossman 760 BB/Pellet, Daisy Red Ryder, Crossman Wrist Rocket, 14 Steak Knives, 3 Fillet Knives, Rolling Pin-14", Various Hunting Knives, 2 Baseball Bats, 3 Big Dogs and a big American Flag flying in the yard. I have no firearms; Try the next house.
The Zimmerman case as a SYG example, the Marissa Alexander case as someone who was wronged. Its all there in its ignorant goodness with absolutely no relevance to SYG laws. I'm starting to wonder if people just don't care about facts as long as the story pushes their agenda, or they really are just that freaking dumb.
Didn't the rest of the Jury come out and refute her claims and her version of the story? At least 4 of them that is? Seem to recall them doing so.