Standing Her Ground Against Stand Your Ground
NEW YORK,NY – Trayvon Martin‘s mother Sybrina Fulton appeared on Al Sharpton‘s MSNBC program to defend her testimony in the Senate today. She believes that Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) doesn’t understand the stand your ground laws. She says that Cruz is, “not aware of the real law and how it affects us as a community.” She added, “I have a real problem when teenagers are supposed to walk to the store for a drink and candy.” Fulton believes that, “something needs to be fixed.”
[contextly_sidebar id=”fc3e9b6d725d174aec03b35427fa530e”]
Cruz had disputed today that “stand your ground” was relevant to the Martin case, because it was not ultimately used by the defense to clear George Zimmerman in the shooting death of Trayvon.
Fulton stated that indeed the case was a “stand your ground” case until the defense dropped that tactic. She talked about how the jury was given instructions about how “stand your ground” works.
“The subject of this hearing, the stand your ground laws… was not a defense that Mr. Zimmerman raised, so this entire hearing, the topic of this hearing is not the issue on which that trial turned,” Cruz said.
The Texas senator also refuted charges that the laws were racist when he pointed out pointed to how then state senator Barack Obama (D-IL) co-sponsored an expansion of Illinois law providing civil immunity for those who use justifiable force to those who defend themselves.
‘Stand your ground’ exists in 22 states and generally provides citizens the right to use deadly force if deadly force is being brought against them, rather than retreating. Forty-six states have adopted the castle doctrine, which covers home invasions and claims that a person has no duty to retreat whatsoever if their home is under siege.
74 comments
is it just me or did that graph show exactly what Cruz said?
you are correct.
Okay just making sure, I was all “am i dumb or is the Reverend of ‘I must yell all things I say’ dumb.” I was pretty sure I wasn’t dumb.
People must have their side right and the other side wrong..even when they say the exact same thing… these days are completely warped.
True…Sharpton is using that family though and that is sad.
Wanna know what is even sadder? Well, you of course already know. 🙂
I know what’s “even sadder”… People like you commenting on something that’s outside of your scope of experience/knowledge. Or, more specifically, people putting out bum scoop/information as if it were fact. Or, better yet, people putting forth an emotional argument/appeal on a topic that can more adequately be framed/viewed through a logical view.
If you want to debate the merits of the case or why Martin was in the wrong, regardless, I’m happy to oblige.
You wanna know what is even sadder? How much you seem to think I give a sh*t. A quick review of your 49 posts reveal you for the troll you are. I don’t feed trolls, so run along and find someone that will.
The troll accusing someone else of being a troll, the epitome of irony. Congratulations, you win the internet.
Secondly, you are under the misconception that I actually care what YOU think. No, I care what impression other people get from ignorant people, such as yourself, and the ignorant statements they make. I chose to correct misinformation/disinformation when appropriate, which leads me to my final point.
And finally, simply because I choose when or how much I decide to post on “Disqus”-enabled sites somehow qualifies or disqualifies my postings? Congratulations again! You seem to lack the fundamental critical thinking that’s required for an intelligent debate. Good day…
Trolling troll keeps on trolling…I refer you to the section above about not being fed. Toodleloo…
Couldn’t have said it better myself
No, what the chart showed was that SYG is deemed a valid defense 78% of the time when the person killed was a “person of color”, and 56% of the time when the person killed was white.
Also Zimmerman used straight self defense for his plea, not stand your ground. That is where the rubber meets the road. Had he used that, the argument might have some merit.
Tina always getting it wrong. Despite what Zim’s team presented as his defense, the Juror that came on to speak about the deliberations made it perfectly clear that the jurors all considered Stand Your Ground as what allowed Zim to kill Trayvon and not be convicted of a crime. It was Stand Your Ground that they kept sending questions to the judge about and it was on this rule that they rested their acquittal.
You obviously don’t know the parties involved as “Martin” is Trayvon’s last name and was never the defending party in the trial. Mark always getting it wrong.
Thanks for indicating the typo. It happens occasionally, but hardly qualifies as “always getting it wrong”. Blanket statements like that reveal the workings of an underutilized mind. Thanks for trying though.
Actually, none of what you wrote is fact. First off, it was Zimmerman’s team that presented a defense, not Martin’s. Any questions for the Judge that related to Stand Your Ground, would have been bounced back, since they were instructed to simply look at the case and evidence through the lens of the trial (which didn’t include any SYG defense). I don’t know where you get your information, but you might want to review your sources or at the very least, consider your critical thinking process before putting thoughts into words.
Thank you for indicating the typo. It happens. I corrected it. And regardless of what you claim “would have been bounced back”, the fact is that it was widely reported that they asked questions of the judge. When asked about them, the juror indicated that they were asking about the timing considerations for stand your ground. She claimed the response from the judge was less than helpful. Then, the Juror CLEARLY indicated that Zim’s ability to “stand his ground” was the determining factor in acquitting him. So, I kind of got my information from what was reported by an actual juror in the trial and not just based on my own opinion about what a judge would and wouldn’t “bounce back”.
Which clearly highlights that the jury can’t follow simple directions, since SYG was never part of the defense nor was it supposed to be considered. Additionally, they did discuss SYG, but that doesn’t matter a hoot. Regardless, SYG or not, the jury reached the correct verdict. If SYG was in play, verdict was correct. If simple defense and SYG not used, still correct verdict. As noted by multiple reports, simply because the jury discussed SYG, does not mean that it was a deciding factor. There have been plenty of discussions on the matter and one or two jurors talking about SYG and the verdict, does not mean they speak for all the jurors. But, seeing as you’ve done a bang-up job with logic so far, I’m not surprised this simple logic eluded you.
Trolling troll keeps on trolling…not gonna feed ya…
You can’t refute the argument, so you act like a child, got it. FYI, by responding, that’s the opposite of ignoring. Thanks for proving my point that you can’t debate the position. I’ll chalk this up as a win.
Still not gonna feed ya….but did notice that you took your troll posts private…I’ll chalk that up as a win…
That is not true. SYG was NOT used in the Zimmerman trial. I watched ever moment of that trial and it NEVER came up. He planned on having a SYG hearing AFTER the trial to immunize himself from civil liability.
You have missed my point in your zeal to assert your incredible TV-based knowledge. I didn’t say that Zim used it as a defense. I said that the jury used it in their deliberations based upon the statements made by a juror after the acquittal. You wouldn’t have been able to see the jury use it in deliberations as that part wasn’t televised.
They may have, perhaps out of confusion or “media contamination”, but it would have been improper of them to base their verdict on SYG, as it was not brought up in court, and the circumstances of the case fell under conventional self defense laws.
You are correct, it shouldn’t have been considered. Unfortunately, according to the juror it was the basis of their acquittal. What is done is done now though.
From my reading on the case, this isn’t true. It would appear the jury believed Zimmerman’s claim that Martin had knocked Z to the ground, climbed on top of him, and was continuing the attack. SYG wouldn’t apply, because Zimmerman had no ability to retreat, and was therefor legally justified in the use of deadly force to cease the attack on his person. Under these circumstances, Zimmerman could have been found not guilty of manslaughter in any state, SYG or not.
Your reading of the case? You mean despite what Juror B37 indicated when she mentioned that they kept asking the judge for clarification around Zim’s ability to stand his ground? And despite the fact that she claimed they were both in the wrong but that Zim didn’t need to retreat due to SYG? I don’t suppose you have links to all this case material you researched that contradicts what an actual juror claimed? I’d love to see it.
I read the testimony of the witnesses, the arguments from each side, and the judge’s instructions for the jury. You can use google to find this information, many transcripts and videos were posted at a blog called Legal Insurrection. Sorry for the caps, Disqus doesn’t allow bold for emphasis.
Zimmerman COULD NOT RETREAT, therefor the SYG law NEVER APPLIED. Even if the SYG law didn’t exist, he would have mounted a successful self defense case, based on the circumstances. He would have been found not guilty in any state. These were the circumstances, as related by Zimmerman:
After telling the police dispatcher that Martin ran, Zimmerman left his vehicle to determine his location and ascertain in which direction Martin had fled. The dispatcher asked if Zimmerman was following Martin, and Zimmerman replied “Yeah.” Then the dispatcher said, “OK, we don’t need you to do that.” Zimmerman replied with “OK” and stated that Martin got away. After a discussion about where Zimmerman would meet police, the call ended, and Zimmerman told investigators he was returning to his vehicle when Martin approached him from his left rear and confronted him. According to Zimmerman, Martin then punched him in the face, knocking him down, and began beating his head against the sidewalk. Zimmerman said he called out for help while being beaten, and at one point Martin covered his mouth to muffle the screams. According to Zimmerman’s father, during the struggle while Martin was on top of Zimmerman, Martin saw the gun Zimmerman was carrying and said something to the effect of “You’re gonna die now” or “You’re gonna die tonight” and continued to beat Zimmerman. Zimmerman and Martin struggled over the gun, and Zimmerman shot Martin once in the chest at close range. Zimmerman told police he shot Martin in self-defense.
There was no /specific/ mention of the SYG law in the jury instructions, although there was this one paragraph:
“If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
“Although there was this one paragraph.” Oh you mean the one describing the stand your ground law? Oh my bad, I can see where one might be confused. Thanks for the clarification. I asked for where there was case material that contradicts the juror’s claim that they acquitted using stand your ground as the basis. What you have posted only supports a reason why the jurors might have been confused about whether they could use stand your ground.
As to your assertion that he would be found not guilty in any state, that amounts to nothing but your opinion and not an opinion that is based on anything in reality. In fact, most attorneys will tell you that many cases can go either way. If you repeated this entire trial in each state, even the differences in the jurors selected can be enough to change the outcome even if everything else played out exactly as in FL.
Now, go back and read all that you posted. Tell me where there was independent corroboration of these statements by Zim? So, we have a living guy who gets to make statements about what went down. And a dead guy who can’t tell his side of the story. The living guy has studied the law because he was a wannabe cop. There is no chance he might possibly have told his story in a light most favorable to his position? I think it is possible. I don’t know that it happened, but neither do you. We only have his word. None of this really matters though. Your opinions are useless. My opinions are useless. This was decided and it can’t be undone. c’est la vie
what it showed was victims, not shooters, which means it is misleading. More people of color are shot by people of color than by white people, and more white people are shot by people of color than by white people, therefore, the stand your ground is likely sustained in an equal percentage of cases where the shooter is of color or white. This does not tell a story of racism, so it was not the statistic used by the reverend racebaiter.
So basically what it’s saying is that people of color should have greater restrictions for owning firearms than white people……
No, it doesn’t show that at all. Frankly, if that statistic is true, that SYG is used more successfully against Black and Hispanic people, that may indeed show that the law is not being applied equally. Or, perhaps there is some unseen factor at work, such as false SYG claims are used more frequently against whites? There just isn’t enough information available to me to determine that.
His analysis was flawed.
You are completely mistaken in your analysis. You have half of the equation correct, more black people are murdered by black people (average of black on black homicides is 45% vs. 3% for white on black homicides). However, your second “statistic” is made up of whole cloth. The average for black on white homicide is 7%, while the average for white on white homicide is 42%. Thus, the correct analysis of the chart is that SYG is better at keeping white people out of jail for murdering other white people than it is at keeping black people out of jail for murdering other black people. These averages are from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and are averaged from data from 1980 through 2008. You can find them here: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2221 the data is in Figure 19 of the report and you can download the actual figures in excel format to calculate averages if you wish.
Your assertion that more black people murder white people is rather striking given the numbers above and the common knowledge that people most often murder those they associate with. While it proves nothing, it does smack of a certain racial stereotyping. Only you know for sure.
You’re correct.
No, he isn’t. And as usual, neither are you.
Troll much?
He looks like a douche…one I’d punch in the face were he here.
Invisible tough guy threatens to do imaginary things in response to someone who holds a differing view supported by facts.
Whether he is a douche or not, why threaten violence or sink to his level? It’s the left that ALWAYS resorts to violence, mass murder, and genocide. No matter how much they push and troll and thump their chests, let them keep that distinction.
Oh my! Another interwebs keyboard tough guy. You do realize you’d have to leave your mama’s basement to try it right? smh…
Not much. I work to strike just the right balance.
Mr Cohen, are you this much of a jack ass in real life?
Yep, but only when it comes to Tina. Apparently I need to work harder at it. I see you have me beat soundly in the jack@ss department.
you’re confused,,I am a died in the wool asshole…and proud of it..
Then apparently I am not confused…
Rev Al just feeds on racial inequality,, It might be true that blacks end up in prison more often for standing their ground.. As wrong a that may be,, isn’t that better than being INTHE GROUND ??
no it literly says the opisite, white people more often go to prison in stand your ground cases. In a stand your ground case the killer would be the person defening themselves.
whatever color people are for going to prison for standing their ground,, prison is a much better choice than being IN THE GROUND .. FYI,, I have been to several prisons in California as part of an Community Outreach and whites are , or were when I went years ago, a minority
Al, you’re an idiot. Sybrina is pretty stupid as well. But, if she had been a more involved parent maybe little trayvon wouldn’t be dead.
err right Ted Cruz doesn’t understand….mmm someone needs to explain to her hoe she us being used It is a shame Al Sharpton is a racebaiter and user.
lol at this. Just lol.
And she’s on MSNBC.. should I be surprised?
what all these people just don’t an i mean black an white or any other color,if the
Constitution an the bill of rights was in foced then we would not have . i say 85% of these problems, his mom should be fighting for Constitution an the bill of rights, if they want to see things better,but many many people are just so blined
Y’all can dispute all you want. For some reason 12 dispassionate jurors found Zimmerman innocent according to the law and judicial instruction. Move on. If the law needs fixing, do it. A lot of lives were changed forever. May all be blessed.
12? I only counted 6, not including everyone else on the planet.
Oops. My bad. Otherwise what I said still goes.
Is the “victim” the one who is shot or the one who stood their ground (The victim of the initial crime)?
Sharpton’s presentation of crime stats is confusing to say the least – perhaps purposely so.
The question is who benefits / suffers from these stats he presents? Is it “good” when the accused is convicted regardless of a SYG defense? Or is it “good” that the accused successfully invokes SYG? Does this depend on the race of the victim and accused? Should one’s pleasure or displeasure with the verdict depend on the race of the victim or accused?
While we have the percentages here for trial outcome by race when invoking SYG, the question is also one of volume of incidences. How many times total was SYG invoked to defend people of color and how many times total have whites attempted this defense? What is the raw number of cases of the use of SYG by race?
Is the sample too small for one or both groups for the conclusions to be useful?
Uniform Crime Statistics show crime is almost entirely intra-racial, meaning whites murder whites and blacks murder blacks almost all of the time.
How many incidences are there of a inter-racial killing like the one we saw with Zimmerman / Martin versus intra-racial crime? How many times is the killing justified in an inter-racial crime by use of SYG when the victim is a person of color? What about when the victim is white?
I suppose Sharpton is saying it’s bad the accused walked when invoking SYG when the victim is a person of color? What if the accused in this case was also a person of color?
Maybe Sharpton is misleading his audience by referencing Zimmerman / Martin, a “white on black” crime (likely his description of the case), and then transitioning in to what are undoubtedly and almost entirely intra-racial crime stats.
This would further the lib meme / myth that blacks murder whites and go to jail, while whites murder blacks and are set free; and that this happens all the time.
I’m sure a very large portion of the 78% of people of color accused of killing another person of color were very happy they successfully used a SYG defense.
Is Sharpton sad that whites have been less successful than blacks when they attempt a SYG defense?
Shouldn’t Sharpton be happy that black accused have walked using SYG more often than whites?
if someone makes a threat aganst you .you have a right to protect yourself and if you go to a gun fight with a knife WELL YOU ARE S.O.L.
on a side note i have had a case where i was drving through a parking lot and someone turned in off the street almost hitting me and the decided to follow me to the gas pumps and then threaten me which i just STOOD MY GROUND and dished back the racist crap i was handed and from a person of color how whitey cant drive and i just called him out , out load for being a racist pig , and they backed down . my point is some people act like ANIMALS AND THEY SHOULD THEN BE TREATED LIKE ANIMALS !
Ted Cruz has been called one of the most brilliant legal minds in generations by his Harvard professors, so I’m sure that Stand Your Ground laws are incomprehensible to him while a person with no legal training of any sort is an expert on the subject. Not!
Blacks benefit from Florida ‘Stand Your Ground’ law at disproportionate rate http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/16/blacks-benefit-from-florida-stand-your-ground-law-at-disproportionate-rate/ via @dailycaller
If they made a law, making it illegal, to punch someone in the face and pounding their head into a concrete sidewalk, maybe her little druggie angel would still be alive?
I prefer to call him “saint skittles”
Race shouldn’t be a Libertarian issue since all it does is divide people further as being one. Sharpton can’t get passed the 40’s and 50’s. Race is all he talks about.
Race can be an issue regardless of your political views. You just choose to ignore it because it has never been a problem that concerns you. You’re probably some white guy unaware of their privilege.
The only issue of race I’m concerned about is the human race, but that race is constantly divided by those who choose to get stuck with subdivided race. What does subdividing do? It will make us categorize another into multiple formats. Let’s say, “ah, she’s a half white half black, racist sexist, religious lesbian who happens to be emo but dresses like a hipster.” <—- Was categorized 7 times. Divided into 7 different social formats.
Race, sexuality, religion, etc. should not be the main concern of political views, because all of that can be automatically fix if the economy is fixed. There's a saying that the "economy is organic", and the result of an economy is what shapes and determines the society and the well being of individuals living within that society.
That is the main objective to a Libertarian's concern.
Yet another stab at making $$$ from her THUG Sons death.. Maybe the next thug will think twice before attacking someone in Florida. Glad the State has the Stand Your Ground Law.. Glad Trayvon is dead..!
Tell me how you retreat when someone is on top of you pounding your head into the pavement, reigning blows down upon you, and then reaches for the sidearm you are carrying? Where was George supposed to retreat?
Al, Al, Al…….. what color were the killers in your graph?
Ted Cruz was talking about the killers, you are talking about the victims…
Tipical Al, If you compare apples to oranges, loud enogh, they will become same fruit. ….
Maybe some one should ask her about “lean”, it’s ingredients, and its effects. Her kid was “buying candy” that is used to make a drug that is known to cause serious aggressiveness. His autopsy even showed damage to his liver from the usage of “lean”. people need to see more of his FB photos. Stand your ground laws need to exist in case some teenage aggressive drug addict jumps you.
Martin made mistakes. Should have stayed in his car, but this was no ‘innocent’ child either.
Maybe someone can help me here. How is standing my ground while being attacked racist?