Did Florida's stand your ground law reduce violent crime? (PolitiFact)

[gejohnston]

20. not at all

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.