Statement from District Attorney George Gascón on #Zimmerman verdict: "As the District Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco, I too feel the gravity of the Zimmerman verdict. I have spoken with many in the African American community, and they have expressed a deep feeling of abandonment by the justice system. Sadly, many feel that their lives and the lives of their children are seen as worthless. As your District Attorney, I want to re-affirm my office’s continued commitment to protecting every member of our community regardless of race, gender, religion, national origin or sexual orientation. It is my firm belief that by continuing to work together we will continue on the path of protecting the life and safety of every San Franciscan." https://www.facebook.com/SFDistrictAttorney/posts/493338244080882
"You have a problem?" RETREAT! "You got one now!" RETREAT! And you still have the guy shooting an unarmed kid. Not self defense as 1000 years of common law defines it. To say the case had "nothing" to do with stand your ground is to ignore what's written in the law and the instructions given the jury. They considered the stand your ground provisions. Given the "must retreat" provision, it was doubtful he couldn't have retreated at some point, or that he wouldn't have followed the kid in the first place.
The state DOJ employee who said Corey was withholding exculpatory evidence, and was then fired, is suing the state. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/16/us-usa-florida-shooting-lawsuit-idUSBRE96F1EL20130716
He did retreat. At this point, I have to think you have some sort of social inclusion disease, or the inability to reason when testimony flies in the face of what you post.
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/ccm-columns/its-just-the-law/disparity-of-force/ Deadly force cannot be used unless the victim is in fear of deadly force. This usually requires the presence of a weapon. However, sometimes a significant disparity in the strength or fighting ability between the parties is accepted as a substitute weapon.
We in Oregon do not have a stand your ground law but our self defense satute does not require retreat. It' is logical, it should be viewed as a right from our creator. "Like Florida, Oregon law imposes no duty to retreat when using deadly force in self-defense when outside of the home. Unlike Florida, Oregon’s position on the use of deadly force in selfdefense did not come about through clear legislation. It seems relatively clear what the Florida Legislature had in mind when it passed the “Stand Your Ground” law. However, laws do not always clearly express the intent of the legislature. Oregon passed laws governing the limitations on the use of deadly force in self-defense in 1971. The pertinent section provides: Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209 (Use of physical force in defense of a person), a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is: (1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or (2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or (3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. ORS 161.219. There are obvious differences in the wording of the Oregon law and the Florida law. The Oregon law makes no reference to a “duty to retreat” nor does it use the words: “stand his or her ground.” If just looking at the Oregon statute, knowing when the use of deadly force in self-defense outside of the home is legal does not appear quite as clear compared to the Florida law." " The Oregon Supreme Court says you have no duty to retreat outside of your home."
From the same law firm's www page: It has been 41 years since the Oregon legislature passed ORS 161.219. For at least 25 years it has required a duty to retreat, and for the last seven it has not. Perhaps the Oregon legislature should consider revisiting and clarifying ORS 161.219. It seems all the stand your ground laws and courts reversing their previous rulings occurred after 2005.
Zimmerman is the 'wrong' minority. I think this is going to have some negative blowback for the Dems, outside of their LIVs who don't really care about facts. The half-white Obama and Holder need to keep their other half credibility, though. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/16/Holder-DOJ-witch-hunt Obama needs to keep us all warring with each other, while all of DC continues to get rich on our backs.
