7
7
0
Interesting research from a reasonably neutral source (JAMA not the WP)
stand-your-ground-research-homicides
Posted from washingtonpost.com
People
Living
Firearms and Guns
Self Defense
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
6
6
0
"not the only factor at play" - even though that seems to be what they're pushing.
And using Trayvon Martin as the example in the article? The 17 year old who attacked someone? But you gotta love how the author puts it..."Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain who followed and shot Martin..." Like Zimmerman was stalking him. I'm surprised the author didn't call Zimmerman a white supremacist, like they kept doing in the news.
Dumb.
And using Trayvon Martin as the example in the article? The 17 year old who attacked someone? But you gotta love how the author puts it..."Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain who followed and shot Martin..." Like Zimmerman was stalking him. I'm surprised the author didn't call Zimmerman a white supremacist, like they kept doing in the news.
Dumb.
(6)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
Sgt (Join to see) The article specifically says that the Martin case didn't hinge on stand your ground, only that it brought it to the national spotlight (which it did). The Zimmerman/Martin case didn't turn out to be a stand your ground case as you say, but at the start a lot of people were claiming it was and that is what originally brought that kind of law to the forefront of public attention.
(1)
(0)
PO2 Marco Monsalve
I agree that the Wash Post writer does put a spin on this that I don't like. I am going to try to get the actual JAMA research paper. Reading between the lines I don't think they put as much of an anti spin as the writer did. JAMA's peer review is pretty stringent and they don't typically play political games.
(2)
(0)
Sgt (Join to see)
SPC Kevin Ford - The author brought up the Zimmerman case only because he wanted to put a racial angle on his article. There would be no other reason to do so. "Look, more blacks are being killed in stand your ground states." Well, that may be so. But why is that? Maybe because people are fighting back so more perpetrators are being killed by their intended victims?
Irregardless of race, is that a bad thing?
Irregardless of race, is that a bad thing?
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
Why is stand your ground even controversial? Should we go full pajama clad soy boy and play 'possum?
(5)
(0)
3
3
0
The article gets the Martin case right that is wan't a stand your ground case.
"Zimmerman’s trial hinged on self-defense, not stand-your-ground specifically — but his case still pushed Florida’s early removal of “duty to retreat” into the spotlight."
In the early news reporting around the incident there was speculation that it was a stand your ground case. As facts were released it was revealed that it was not.
a few here have focused on the shooting after the fight started. For the actual case, it swung on Martin's and Zimmerman's actions that started the fight. If Zimmerman attacked Martin, ended up getting his butt beat and then shot Martin, we'd be looking at felony murder. If Martin attacked Zimmerman (as Zimmerman testified) then it was legitimate self defense. With Zimmerman being the only witness to the start of the fight we'll never know exactly how it started and that's why no conviction occurred. There was, and still is, reasonable doubt about who started that fight. Regardless, in the final analysis that case did not hinge on stand your ground.
"Zimmerman’s trial hinged on self-defense, not stand-your-ground specifically — but his case still pushed Florida’s early removal of “duty to retreat” into the spotlight."
In the early news reporting around the incident there was speculation that it was a stand your ground case. As facts were released it was revealed that it was not.
a few here have focused on the shooting after the fight started. For the actual case, it swung on Martin's and Zimmerman's actions that started the fight. If Zimmerman attacked Martin, ended up getting his butt beat and then shot Martin, we'd be looking at felony murder. If Martin attacked Zimmerman (as Zimmerman testified) then it was legitimate self defense. With Zimmerman being the only witness to the start of the fight we'll never know exactly how it started and that's why no conviction occurred. There was, and still is, reasonable doubt about who started that fight. Regardless, in the final analysis that case did not hinge on stand your ground.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google