I don’t think sending a murderer home with a pat on the head just because he is old is the answer. It will be interesting to see if they try to present medical evidence of diminished capacity. Anything undocumented prior to the incident would be less believable but you never know what a jury will do. Its my hunch (and it is strictly a hunch) is that he will eventually plead guilty to a lesser charge which would give him the possibility of getting out of prison before he dies.
Pretty sure you’d have to throw a whole fistful of gravel for it to count as aggregate assault. A single rock just isn’t going to be sufficient. 
I blame it on a small phone screen, old eyes and late hour. But damn I couldn’t have planned it better.
I hope this comment avoids the Zimmerman case and focuses on SYG. From the referenced paper above:
“In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.
If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place 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.”
For SYG in Florida, does the individual have to be a “reasonably cautious and prudent person” as in paragraph (a) or does he have to simply “reasonably believe” as in (b) above? It seems to me to be a significant difference. A reasonably cautious and prudent person will be more likely to defuse a confrontation than an aggressive and assertive person. The other person involved will react to the two people differently and an aggressive person will have a reasonably greater fear of attack. Both types of people have equal rights and responsibilities under SYG, but the instructions seem to describe two different outcomes. How are the requirements of SYG to be applied-“reasonably cautious and prudent person” or “reasonable person”?
In Minnesota, its pretty universal to have those signs. There may not be such signs out in front of Gander Mountain or the local “Ammo R Us” - but schools, malls, workplaces, movie theatres - I can’t think of anywhere I go regularly that doesn’t have the sign.
And the legal department will freely admit that it isn’t because they don’t think its going to keep some nutcase from bringing in a gun - its because in Minnesota its legal to carry UNLESS the sign has been posted - so if you want to reduce your liability, you post the sign.
(My understanding is that the necessity of this depends on how the concealed carry laws were written in the state in question.)
I’m a little confused about what you are asking. The reasonable person standard is a legal construct that comes out of common law. “Reasonably cautious and prudent person” is just another more specific way of saying “reasonable person.” It is not a higher standard. The legal “reasonable person” is reasonably cautious and reasonably prudent. Its how the hypothetically standard person in society would act. There is no bright line as to what the definition of reasonableness is legally.
I hope that’s what you are asking.
From an article
Maybe someone can help me out with the logic here. The shooter is a good “Christian” man and the world is getting more and more evil.
This makes so little sense, I think the only answer is to carry more guns.
Perhaps she meant that you never know when a a good Christian man and a loving grandfather will go nuts and shoot someone.
No, the shooter is a good Christian man and the victim was evil for having his cell phone out during an advertisement.
I read that as meaning that the world has sunk so far that “evil” comes from the people you least expect (good Christian grandfathers).
Kids, don’t do drugs.
If he walks then the other 49 states should eject Florida from the union.
You’re all looking for logical consistency in an emotional reaction. You’re not gonna find it.
That’s what they wanted all along. 
Everyone is ignoring that these disparate observations came from two different people.
I don’t know what to hope for. If he’s convicted, people might say, “See? SYG actually works. It’s just that Trayvon kid was scary to a reasonable person,” which is not what the takeaway should be. Zimmerman shouldn’t have been allowed to start a fight and use “stand your ground” as an excuse.
On the other hand, if he walks (which I really doubt - no reasonable person would fear for his life out of picking a fight with a popcorn-wielding texter), self-righteous maniacs will be all smug and shooty in Florida.
Not really comparable at all. For one, even though the instructions used some SYG language the Zimmerman case was argued as a straight self defense case. It was not a matter of the jury thinking he was justified in killing Martin. It’s that they felt there wasn’t enough evidence to convict. This case has 25 eyewitnesses. What happened will be pretty apparent to anyone.
I don’t think what I wrote is much different than what you wrote. I just chose to focus on the fact that the danger need not be real; the defendant only need think it was real, because, if the Theater shooter uses this as a defense, that is what will be relevant.
I was definitely not precise but I don’t think “extraordinarily inaccurate” is fair either in the context of a discussion on a message board. I do appreciate the link to the actual text though.
That’s why I think the environment is very important. Just as an example, Zimmerman was by himself on a dark rainy night and in a green space behind the condo building. Anyone would feel much more vulnerable and frightened in that situation. A person would have a sense of danger even before getting jumped and beaten.
A guy sitting in a movie theater with 20 other people just doesn’t have that same fear. Somebody could jump you but there’s plenty of people to drag him off.
Of course that feeling of safety is only illusionary. I’ve read news reports of people buying stuff off Craigs List. They met the person in a shopping center parking lot because it seems safer. Those people still got robbed. Criminals don’t care anymore. They’ll commit crimes even when witnesses are around.
I post on a site that has a small but very militant group of extremely paranoid, right-wing people, and some of them think this was totally justified, because people have no regard for the rules any more, and it’s because parents and teachers can’t beat children when they misbehave.
Really.
:smack: