A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use deadly force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first. In some cases, a person may use deadly force in public areas without a duty to retreat. Under these legal concepts, a person is justified in using deadly force in certain situations and the "stand your ground" law would be a defense to criminal charges.
Originally posted by AaronWilson
Ill sit in on this case. Then when people give convincing evidence that sways opinion Ill stand up and be all like "Dammn, no you di ' nt!"
Originally posted by watchitburn
I volunteer to be a juror.
I have no vested interest in the case, and I could not care less about the outcome.
Originally posted by TheOneElectric
reply to post by beezzer
Eh, I don't really want to participate in the argument. I just wanted an alternative perspective to be observed and considered before anyone in the thread made any decision either way. Call me a party pooper, but I'm just here to drop an alternative point of view and watch how this goes. I do want everyone to consider the aspect of personal sovereignty and the right to privacy that was definitely infringed upon.
EDIT: You know what, I don't care. I'll be part of the prosecution team.edit on 25-3-2012 by TheOneElectric because: (no reason given)
Report: Jeb Bush says 'stand your ground' law doesn't apply in Trayvon Martin shooting 11:40 p.m. EST, March 24, 2012 The death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin has put Florida's "stand your ground" law under scrutiny after police cited it as one reason they did not arrest George Zimmerman, the 28-year-old Neighborhood Watch volunteer who said he shot Trayvon in self-defense. But the man who signed "stand your ground" into law says officials have it wrong. Speaking Friday in Texas, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said "stand your ground" doesn't apply to this case."Stand your ground means stand your ground. It doesn't mean chase after somebody who's turned their back," Bush told The Dallas Morning News.
Originally posted by Shadowalker
Does the mock trial change in every aspect when a grand jury is convened?
There are dirty histories of both the dead and the living that will come out. Significant monies have been spent to conceal aggression records on both sides.
Hearsay is that the dead was jumped in and banging. Hearsay is also that the aggressor that caused the death had slanted views on race and possibly had interaction with others that had the same views.
Beezzer's Court is a mock trial that will try to cut through all the rhetoric and just make judgement based on facts. Instead of emotions being used to validate opinion, common sense, reason and fact will be into the fore.
Unless all attempted suppression/sealing is lifted for the GJ then it is only a theater and script media trial based on which side invested the heaviest.
How close to real is Beezzers court?