[Vision2020] Idaho 'Stand Your Ground' Law

Tue Oct 1 14:20:10 PDT 2013

It seems to me that Scott is just confused.  He seems to think that because
Zimmerman was acquitted that the jury accepts Scott's personal
interpretation of what happened when all the acquittal means is that the
jury didn't think that the State met its burden of proof.

Of course, it's silly for Scott to take such a stance, but there you have
it.  If anything, the few & far between comments by the jurors seem to
indicate the positions contrary to Scott's interpretation, but Scott seems
to think that if he keeps repeating his personal narrative, people will
accept it as fact, which as you've correctly point out isn't happening  J

Saundra

Moscow, ID

All the beautiful sentiments in the world weigh less than a single lovely
action.

~ James Russell Lowell

From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Donovan Arnold
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 12:01 PM
To: Scott Dredge; viz; Sunil
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Idaho 'Stand Your Ground' Law

 "He'd been jumped, was laid out flat with has back on the ground, and being
struck repeatedly by Trayvon Martin." And you know this to be fact, how?

Donovan J. Arnold

From: Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com>
To: viz <vision2020 at moscow.com>; Sunil <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2013 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Idaho 'Stand Your Ground' Law

No takers on Idaho 'stand your ground' jury instructions that I posed below?
I'm disappointed. It's mighty white of most of you to have concern for
Florida's laws and not Idaho's laws on 'stand your ground'.  And note that
Zimmerman's defense invoked 'self defense' and not 'stand your ground'
probably because Zimmerman wasn't standing.  He'd been jumped, was laid out
flat with has back on the ground, and being struck repeatedly by Trayvon
Martin.

Tom Hansen wrote:
<It's Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law that I furiously believe should be
repealed before the next "Trayvon Martin".>
http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2013-August/092859.html

-Scott

From: scooterd408 at hotmail.com
To: vision2020 at moscow.com; sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:43:09 -0600
Subject: [Vision2020] Idaho 'Stand Your Ground' Law

Tom wrote on Fri Jul 19 13:11:26 2013:
<The way I interpret the Idaho [stand your ground] law is similar to Texas'
law, that the perpetrator must be either on your property or attempting to
enter your property.>

This took me a while to get back to and I talked to one of my UI dorm mates
who was an Idaho prosecutor for many years.  Maybe Sunil who is also a
former prosecutor can confirm, but this is what I've been informed are the
current Idaho jury instructions regarding 'stand your ground':

The jury instruction currently approved by the Idaho Supreme Court, based on
Idaho's common law, is this: "In the exercise of the right of [self defense]
[defense of another], one need not retreat. One may stand one's ground and
defend [oneself] [the other person] by the use of all force and means which
would appear to be necessary to a reasonable person in a similar situation
and with similar knowledge[; and a person may pursue the attacker until [the
person] [the other person] has been secured from danger if that course
likewise appears reasonably necessary]. This law applies even though the
person being [attacked] [defended] might more easily have gained safety by
flight or by withdrawing from the scene."

-Scott

>From thansen at moscow.com  Fri Jul 19 13:11:26 2013
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 13:11:26 -0700
Subject: [Vision2020] Vision2020 Digest, Vol 85, Issue 95

The way I interpret the Idaho law is similar to Texas' law, that the
perpetrator must be either on your property or attempting to enter your
property.

Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .

"Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
http://www.MoscowCares.com

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

"There's room at the top they are telling you still 
But first you must learn how to smile as you kill 
If you want to be like the folks on the hill."

- John Lennon

On Jul 19, 2013, at 1:00 PM, Dan Carscallen <areaman530 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Tom et al,
> 
> While Idaho's law isn't necessarily "stand your ground", I don't think you
have to be on your own property, but I believe you *do* have to prove that
you were in imminent danger of losing your life. 
> 
> DC
> 
> On Jul 19, 2013, at 11:56, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:
> 
>> Exactly, Joe.
>> 
>> The state of Florida has become the venue where the shoot-out at the OK
Corral would be considered legal, provided that each side is in fear for
their lives when they initially meet.  There is no requirement for anybody
to seek alternate actions to "ready-aim(optional)-fire".
>> 
>> At least Idaho requires the threat to take place on your property when
younpull the trigger.
>> 
>> Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .
>> 
>> "Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
>> http://www.MoscowCares.com
>>   
>> Tom Hansen
>> Moscow, Idaho
>> 
>> "There's room at the top they are telling you still 
>> But first you must learn how to smile as you kill 
>> If you want to be like the folks on the hill."
>> 
>> - John Lennon
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 19, 2013, at 11:44 AM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
wrote:
>> 
>>> Gary,
>>> 
>>> I don't want to pick on Zimmerman. Other than some superficial
understanding of the case, I know nothing about Mr. Zimmerman, no reason to
think he's racist or whatever. I also think that, were I a juror, I might
have found him innocent since -- as you note below -- there were no
eyewitnesses and thus reasonable doubt about his guilt. Again, I have only a
superficial understanding of the case.
>>> 
>>> But the real story seems different than the one you tell below and based
on my understanding of the story I would say it sounds as if Mr. Zimmerman
is guilty of negligence leading to the death of a young man, at the very
least. Again, given the stand-your-ground law it is unlikely he can be
charged with anything.
>>> 
>>> But that is what is so disturbing to me about the case. Likely Zimmerman
violated no laws. Maybe Zimmerman is not a racist but of course there are a
lot of racists. Maybe he didn't think Martin was suspicious because he was
black but if you listen to the black men talking to Chris Matthews about
their experiences in the link I posted yesterday stories of black men being
suspected of wrongdoing merely because they are black are all too common. 
>>> 
>>>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/19/chris-matthews-apologizes-black-col
leagues-behalf-white-people_n_3622703.html
>>> 
>>> 
>>> So here is the situation we have now, given the Zimmerman result. A
white man in Florida, armed with a gun, can get into a car and follow any
black kid he wants. If the black kid objects in a threatening way he can
shoot and kill him. Your tendency to disagree with anything that
progressives and liberals say must be pretty strong for you to look at this
story and not think that something is seriously wrong. Zimmerman is guilty
of something, maybe not in the eyes of crazy Florida law but at least in
some common sense moral way.

======================================================= List services made
available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse
since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
              http://www.fsr.net/
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20131001/2a8d46e2/attachment.html>