have also seen decrease in crime. Just another excuse to murder people.

Take your time...

is dead. "I felt threatened" is impossible to prove.

Before you do post anything, remember, *this* jerk didn't get away with his SYG claim:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172202729

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141725251

(a proper ruling, IMO)

and George Zimmerman never attempted such a claim

I don't keep tabs on every SYG shooting that occurs, but I bet I could find a ton of SYG shootings where there were no living witnesses and the shooter's excuse was "I felt threatened." You want just one? Easy. I have time for that. Stand by.

there has to be physical evidence to back it up. If the prosecution pokes a hole in any of the five elements, the defendant loses.
http://lawofselfdefense.com/the-five-principles-of-the-law-of-self-defense-in-a-nutshell/

Are you opposed to SYG in favor of DTR, or simply don't believe people should have the right to defend themselves from violent attackers?
Honest question because it really sounds like the latter.

There does NOT have to be physical evidence in either case. Especially, if there is no arrest due to the authorities believing they have no case BECAUSE OF THE LAW. I was shocked at how many of these cases are not even 'cases' because there is no arrest.

yes, there is always evidence. In Zimmerman's case, there was forensics as well as eye witnesses.

and yes, it is an honest question because you called it a "way to get away with murder". That implies that you don't believe that self defense is a right.

Show one case of successful self-defense because of no evidence or witnesses. Remember in all criminal cases, without exception, the burden of proof is on the State. The State has to prove BARD that it wasn't self-defense in every state except Ohio.

I never indicated self-defense isn't a right. You are making that up. You are jumping to conclusions. You are putting words in my mouth. What I said was, when you allow someone to follow someone down the street and shoot them as they are running away because you think they might come back and shoot you when there was no indication they were armed, you are allowing them to get away with murder. Welcome to the Wild West. Just my opinion, just like your opinion is that I don't believe in self-defense. Oh wait, there's a difference. I actually showed cases where people were found not guilty or never even charged in really suspicious circumstances, because of the law. You just made a wild accusation based on "duh, gun grabbers think like this-".

Evidence doesn't always solve the case. In the Zimmerman case, the so-called eyewitnesses couldn't really see anything, could they? It was dark and they were too far away. They heard more than they saw and they couldn't really determine whose voice they were hearing.

We will never know all of the details of the killing of Trayvon Martin. However, we do know that Zimmerman was hunting, stalking him. He was told by the police to back off. The kid was on the phone with his friend and she said he was trying to shoo the guy off. Zimmerman was the aggressor. The kid had a right to defend himself, right? Gun "enthusiasts" seem to forget that part. I guess only the armed are allowed to defend themselves.

You are clearly ignorant of self-defense law. BTW, disparity of force counts when it comes to reasonableness. The scenario is not legal under any theory. The fact that the entrance wounds are in the back, it doesn't matter if the dead guy is armed or not. What you described is not immediate nor does it meet the reasonable person standard. I don't know where you read it did, but the source was feeding you a line of shit.

They were sworn in as prosecution witnesses. They identified the two by the color of clothing. Martin was in dark gray, Zimmerman was in Orange. Eye witness John Good said it was Zimmerman screaming for help. Good also yelled at Martin to stop and that he was calling the cops, which was ignored. Also, Zimmerman's face and back of the head was bloodied and, since it was raining, the back of his clothing was wetter and mud stained.

None of that is true and proven to be false at trial. Martin was casing windows and cars in a high crime area and ran when he saw Zimmerman on the phone. Zimmerman did not see him after the attack, where Martin ambushed him after talking on the phone and hiding behind another witness' window. A burglary tool commonly known as a "slim jim" was found there. The police never told him to do anything. The civilian dispatcher testified that they are not allowed to order anyone to do anything. When the operator asked if he was running he said, "we don't need you do do that". Prior to that, the operator asked Zimmerman which way he was running. The background noise changed and Zimmerman said to have the cops meet him nearby. Best evidence is that he was walking back to his car when he was attacked.
Last I checked, there is a complete archive of the trial and the side hearings that the jury was not present. Watch the whole thing with an open mind and let me know what you think. However, if ever in the closing arguments that prosecutor fails to show or say the words "we proved" you can guess how it is going to go. I saw aquittal as soon as the State rested their case.

This is one of the reasons why I turned against the progressive pundits and media sources, along with anti-Mormon bigotry, they fucking lie as much as the right wing. Everything we read and heard was part of a false narrative for various reasons. When the Hobby Lobby and Citizens United cases came down, I went to the SCOUTUS website and read the decisions for myself.

And by the way, SYG was included in the jury instructions in the Trayvon Martin case. So, to act like it didn't count or have an effect is wrong. Jury members said it did have an effect.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/08/14/stand-your-ground-laws-linked-rise-homicides-extreme-racial-bias-study

http://www.houmatoday.com/news/20120223/case-closed-on-teens-shooting-death

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-27/stand-your-ground-law-trayvon-martin/55208980/1

I could keep going.

when you safely can. Other than that, there is no difference from duty to retreat. That is simply the standard. There is no claiming "SYG", just the legal standard of the jurisdiction. IOW, SYG is relevant only when the defender can safely retreat and chooses not to. I watched the entire Zimmerman trial. The outcome would have been the same even under duty to retreat. Forensics and eye witnesses proved that Martin was sitting on Zimmerman pounding his head on the sidewalk and punching him in the face.
Most states are SYG as is the federal level, way before Florida put it in statute. Most of them are common law, jury instructions, but still SYG.
One thing I learned about the case, never believe the media or partisans. Go to the primary source and draw your own conclusions.
This guy explains it very well. A few things I disagree with him on. I don't know how a working class mixed race Hispanic renting a house in a failing development in a high crime area is "privileged", but I frankly think intersectionality and postmodernism is illiberal horse shit that the party needs to repudiate before being spanked at the polls again.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/7/17/1224515/-5-Myths-about-Stand-Your-Ground-Debunked

Often, the shooter is not arrested because the police figure they have no case BECAUSE OF THE LAW. I could have found 10 more cases like this if I had the time. It's all there, you just have to look for it.

And the one case you did cite, SYG was not invoked and was instead found to be self-defense.
From the link you provided:

So, he shoots into a car that's moving away from him? That's
SYG. Sorry, you can deny it all you want. No duty to escape, no immediate danger, they were not approaching him, they were moving away. Under the old law, he would have been put on trial. Why are gun nuts so angry all the time?

One case??? There are at least 3 in the links I provided.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/07/louisiana_stand_your_ground_zi.html



Which is what the grand jury found to be the case, your assertions to the contrary aside.
SYG was not mentioned.

As for your question...



Who are these 'gun nuts' that you claim are angry?

It was intended to limit any advantage a criminal might gain over a victim when the victim was forced to retreat.

So both sides are gagging on knats w/regard to the crime reduction issue, and this is one of those situations where both sides are likely full of shit.

The journal JAMA Internal Medicine published a study in November 2016 that found that firearm homicides increased after the 2005 passage of the law in Florida. That’s a narrower measurement than violent crimes overall, but the findings shed some light on the issue.

They looked at trends for firearm homicides in Florida between 1999 and 2014.
It found that after the "stand your ground" law took effect in October 2005, rates of homicide by firearm in the state significantly increased.
"These increases appear to have occurred despite a general decline in homicide in the United States since the early 1990s," the authors wrote. And states without a "stand your ground" law that were studied — New York, New Jersey, Ohio, and Virginia — saw no such uptick.

"Our findings support the hypothesis that increases in the homicide and homicide by firearm rates in Florida are related to the ‘stand your ground’ law,"

Our (Politifact) ruling: Referring to the year that the "stand your ground" law passed, Baxley said, "What has happened since 2005? We’ve seen violent crime continuously go down."
Crime has gone down significantly since 2005, though "continuously" is overstated. Moreover, it is hard to pin the cause of the decline on the passage of the "stand your ground" law, since the decline in Florida has been mirrored on the national level. If anything, firearm-related homicides may have increased after the law’s passage, according to one peer-reviewed study.
We rate the statement Mostly False.

and "violent crime going down". The 2 are mutually exclusive if you decide that a percentage of the "homicides by firearm" are not crimes.

Homicide, while always violent, isn't always a crime. If a SWAT sniper is ordered to shoot to save a hostage, the incident will likely be investigated but isn't a crime. If a former boyfriend breaks into a house and attempts to rape his ex and is killed for his trouble, this is not a crime. The term homicide distinguishes between killings which are accidental or suicides and those where violent intent is present.