Supporters of ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws don’t back down [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Supporters of ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws don’t back down


TBO
03-24-2012, 09:59
http://qctimes.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/supporters-of-stand-your-ground-laws-don-t-back-down/article_d7c96230-756e-11e1-8477-0019bb2963f4.html

TBO
03-24-2012, 11:42
Republican leaders express sympathy, support 'stand your ground'


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/24/republican-leaders-express-sympathy-support-stand-your-ground/#ixzz1q3c7BHM4

Patchman
03-24-2012, 12:21
As far as I know, nobody knows exactly what happened (that is, have a very, very detailed timeline of what happened, blow by blow), so how can anyone at this time blame a law one way or another...?

kensteele
03-24-2012, 12:39
Jeb Bush: 'Stand Your Ground' Doesn't Apply in Trayvon Case (http://www.newsmax.com/US/Stand-Your-Ground-Law/2012/03/24/id/433756)

Zimmerman's lawyer: 'Stand your ground' doesn't apply in Trayvon Martin case (http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/24/justice/florida-teen-shooting/?hpt=us_c2)

Gingrich says stand-your-ground law does not apply to Trayvon Martin killing (http://www.examiner.com/democrat-in-national/gingrich-says-stand-your-ground-law-does-not-apply-to-trayvon-martin-killing)

Blaster
03-24-2012, 13:01
Personally I am not following the drama associated with Florida incident. Too much spin.

However it all comes down to the proverbial "Right or Wrong". To think a law that helps protect the innocent somehow can be invoked to protect the Guilty is preposterous.

Will the true facts ever come out? I hope so. Then let the full force of the law fall on the guilty whomever they may be.

Currently everything else happening is opportunistic spin by thug politicians and social engineers to further a left wing agenda.

jdavionic
03-24-2012, 18:55
Republican leaders express sympathy, support 'stand your ground'


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/24/republican-leaders-express-sympathy-support-stand-your-ground/#ixzz1q3c7BHM4



And? So what? Do agree? Disagree? Have no thoughts other than post the opinion of others?

The issue with the Trayvon case is not whether the law is right or wrong. It's an issue of whether Zimmerman's actions were lawful or not.

TBO
03-24-2012, 20:03
And? So what? -Well, if you don't like my posts, you don't have to read them. Simple.


Do agree? Disagree? -Specifically, about what?

Have no thoughts other than post the opinion of others? -I have plenty of thoughts, have shared them for years on hundreds/thousands of threads/posts.

The issue with the Trayvon case is not whether the law is right or wrong. It's an issue of whether Zimmerman's actions were lawful or not. -There are lots of issues/lessons that can be taken out of this incident (without having a judgement of "right/wrong", "lawful/unlawful" on either part of the two involved in this incident.



.....

RussP
03-24-2012, 20:04
TBO just posted, but...And? So what? Do agree? Disagree? Have no thoughts other than post the opinion of others?jdavionic, TBO's posting style has been discussed before. He provides links, mostly without comment. He does sometimes comment later.

The topic is what's important, not the poster.

Let's get back to the topic.

jdavionic
03-24-2012, 20:30
TBO just posted, but...jdavionic, TBO's posting style has been discussed before. He provides links, mostly without comment. He does sometimes comment later.

The topic is what's important, not the poster.

Let's get back to the topic.

Yes, and I commented on the OP and topic.

jdavionic
03-24-2012, 20:41
Responses embedded below

.Well, if you don't like my posts, you don't have to read them. Simple. The point was - what's your point...not that I was suggesting you shouldn't post. However , the offer you made is also valid for you.

I have plenty of thoughts, have shared them for years on hundreds/thousands of threads/posts. I wasn't suggesting you had no thoughts at all. I was simply asking your thoughts on your own OP. Whether you choose to share them or not is certainly your perogative.

The issue with the Trayvon case is not whether the law is right or wrong. It's an issue of whether Zimmerman's actions were lawful or not. -There are lots of issues/lessons that can be taken out of this incident (without having a judgement of "right/wrong", "lawful/unlawful" on either part of the two involved in this incident. I fully agree that there are many issues/lessons regarding the incident. And there is an entire thread that you started which has batted around many of them...which is a good read. However this OP appeared to focus on one aspect of the incident that pertains to the law itself. If that is not the purpose of THIS thread (versus the other one you started), then I must have misunderstood.

.

James Dean
03-24-2012, 20:43
I feel at the end of the day Zimmerman is not going to be able to use Stand You Ground. He was not in his car, or his home, and HE pursued . In the end its going to be up to a court of law.

jdavionic
03-24-2012, 20:53
I feel at the end of the day Zimmerman is not going to be able to use Stand You Ground. He was not in his car, or his home, and HE pursued . In the end its going to be up to a court of law.

I don't believe it's relevant as to whether he was in his car or home. The Florida law also applies to public areas. However your latter point about him pursuing or, in other words, being the aggressor is a major issue as to whether stand your ground even applies here.

plainsman
03-24-2012, 22:36
If Mr. Zimmerman was in a common area, it was not like he didnt belong. Bigger issue is I've yet to see anyone in power state this is a matter for the legal system, and he is entitled to his day in court a trial if necessary by his peers, not some kangeroo jury. I guess innocent until proven guilty applies to some other country.

I have read Gov. Scott form a committee to reinvestigate "stand your ground,"needs to be changed, most all of our Republican Presidental candidates were issuing apoligies, a special prosecutor has been appointed, and the Sanford Sheriff was forced to step aside, and special "handling" was being applied to Mr. Zimmerman. Furthermore Federal agencies are investigating him. I guess seeing his rights being protected are unimportant. Seems overkill being applied to some crime watch volunteer who was out their trying to stem a crime wave in his community

I doubt if any of us would get this level of "concern" if special interests were not interested in making a major issue out of this. This case will probably become a springboard for an all out attack on your rights by zealot antigunners.

Z28ricer
03-24-2012, 23:24
I don't believe it's relevant as to whether he was in his car or home. The Florida law also applies to public areas. However your latter point about him pursuing or, in other words, being the aggressor is a major issue as to whether stand your ground even applies here.



No, it does not, the statutes state that even if he was the aggressor, he was clearly withdrawn from any use of force when the guy was on top of him beating him, he is then again legally justified within the statutes.

NEOH212
03-24-2012, 23:34
Personally I am not following the drama associated with Florida incident. Too much spin.

However it all comes down to the proverbial "Right or Wrong". To think a law that helps protect the innocent somehow can be invoked to protect the Guilty is preposterous.

Will the true facts ever come out? I hope so. Then let the full force of the law fall on the guilty whomever they may be.

Currently everything else happening is opportunistic spin by thug politicians and social engineers to further a left wing agenda.

Exactly. If the shoot was a bad shoot, the stand your ground law doesn't matter since the law in general would have been violated anyhow. There are way too many people looking to blame someone/something with this case and unfortunately, Concealed carry and the Permit Holders are taking the brunt of it.

jdavionic
03-25-2012, 07:44
No, it does not, the statutes state that even if he was the aggressor, he was clearly withdrawn from any use of force when the guy was on top of him beating him, he is then again legally justified within the statutes.

It's not that black & white. Here is the whole and an excerpt. In the second confrontation, did he provoke the guy? Based on what I've read, I think the answer is that it's difficult to tell with the evidence so far. We know the Trayvon was beating Zimmerman based on the witness' report. But that doesn't tell the whole story.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html


776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

smokin762
03-25-2012, 08:53
I support the “Stand Your Ground” law. I wish we had this law in Ohio. The good of the law far outweighs the bad. There will always be people that are liars and cheats that try to take advantage of things. These people just need to be caught in the lie.

If Ohio had the Stand Your Ground law, I would still make every attempt to avoid bad situations when possible nothing would change for me. I can avoid looking for trouble. However, I cannot avoid trouble looking forme. I should not be punished for that.

Z28ricer
03-25-2012, 09:56
Part that is relevant, and my exact point now bold, because it looks like you didnt read it:

It's not that black & white. Here is the whole and an excerpt. In the second confrontation, did he provoke the guy? Based on what I've read, I think the answer is that it's difficult to tell with the evidence so far. We know the Trayvon was beating Zimmerman based on the witness' report. But that doesn't tell the whole story.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html


776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.


Eyewitnesses clearly stating martin was on top of zimmerman beating him with him yelling for help will quickly prove section (b) to be useful and at that point as I said, he's legal.

eracer
03-25-2012, 10:00
Sadly, if the elected officials believed that the Stand Your Ground law didn't apply in this case, Mr. Zipperhead would already be in jail.

I don't believe it applies, since Zipperhead (allegedly) chased the kid. But my opinion doesn't matter.

Z28ricer
03-25-2012, 10:02
So apparently 776.041 just doesnt exist in the statutes to you ?

Or the laws are just whatever you conveniently *think* they should be ?

jdavionic
03-25-2012, 10:05
Part that is relevant, and my exact point now bold, because it looks like you didnt read it:




Eyewitnesses clearly stating martin was on top of zimmerman beating him with him yelling for help will quickly prove section (b) to be useful and at that point as I said, he's legal.

I did read what you wrote. My point was that the part that we both referenced is the part that is what I termed 'a major issue'. I agree with your conclusion. If you look back to the initial reply to James Dean, you will see that I was citing the part that we bolded because the gent was possibly not aware that the law in Florida does not restrict you to your car or home for 'standing your ground.'

trifecta
03-25-2012, 10:13
So apparently 776.041 just doesnt exist in the statutes to you ?

Or the laws are just whatever you conveniently *think* they should be ?

Losing a fist fight you started doesn't automatically give you the right to shoot someone. I think I read that Zimmerman had a significant size advantage. Would Zimmerman have started this.confrontation if the kid had a significant size advantage?

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

CaptJim
03-25-2012, 10:18
It's not that black & white. Here is the whole and an excerpt. In the second confrontation, did he provoke the guy? Based on what I've read, I think the answer is that it's difficult to tell with the evidence so far. We know the Trayvon was beating Zimmerman based on the witness' report. But that doesn't tell the whole story.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html


776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

I'll add one more section to the above:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

To me, 776.012 means that force against a person may be repelled using like force... However, the use of deadly force could be allowed if the person using defensive force fears death or serious bodily injury.

I am not presuming anything in this case, but we know it is definitely possible for a person to kill another with their bare hands.

I just wish Zimmerman had kept his distance and spoken to 911 reporting the "stranger"; Instead of getting close enough to instigate a conflict. He could have asked questions of the person from a distance. From the 911 recording, I did not hear Zimmerman address Travon. Not only this, but confronting suspicious persons at night is a risky proposition - Zimmerman could have been shot on approach.

Z28ricer
03-25-2012, 10:27
Losing a fist fight you started doesn't automatically give you the right to shoot someone. I think I read that Zimmerman had a significant size advantage. Would Zimmerman have started this.confrontation if the kid had a significant size advantage?

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

He had a weight "advantage"

Do you really call a 6' something 160 lb in shape guy vs an overweight older guy a disadvantage for the fit, in shape guy, because he weighs less ?

Are you still completely ignoring the actual eyewitnesses that say martin attacked zimmerman on his way back to his vehicle ?

It really is amazing to see how people will just follow whatever spin and bs the newspapers want to hand out.

The saddest part of all is that they want to attack 2nd amendment rights because of people using legal self defense, meanwhile not being held accountable at all for their blatant disregard for their actions in printing false statements, lies, and spins, because it sells.

jdavionic
03-25-2012, 11:02
I just wish Zimmerman had kept his distance and spoken to 911 reporting the "stranger"; Instead of getting close enough to instigate a conflict. He could have asked questions of the person from a distance. From the 911 recording, I did not hear Zimmerman address Travon. Not only this, but confronting suspicious persons at night is a risky proposition - Zimmerman could have been shot on approach.

Having been involved with a community patrol in a bad area, I can tell that it takes a lot of self discipline. Before sunset, people were relatively nice and thankful. After sunset, people threatened us repeatedly. It was essentially a struggle of citizens to regain control of their city...although I was only visiting and helping a relative.

Some lessons that may or may not be relevant here is that you need to be mindful that you are there for no other reason than to serve as the eyes and ears for the police. It is not your job to enforce laws. If you see a crime, you call 911 and report it. Hopefully your presence will serve as a deterrent and criminals will look elsewhere to commit crimes. However, don't count on it.

As I say, we had people who threatened to beat us, shoot us, etc. We were armed (OCing), patrolling on bikes, and wearing shirts with the organization name that was registered with the local authorities. Virtually all threats were made after we had passed with people shouting after we passed. We didn't say anything back, didn't stop, and didn't even call the cops for those events. We did notify police of drug activity. In the end, we did just as we set out to do...serve as the eyes & ears for LE.

In this case, did Zimmerman take it beyond that? I think it's certainly possible that people blur their level of responsibility when trying to participate in a neighborhood watch or patrol. Not sure that's what happened here or not.

LongGoneDays
03-25-2012, 12:25
Another article with a picture of that punk, how nice.

rjflyn
03-27-2012, 14:16
The other issue everyone has to remember about this is its Florida. Last check there is roughly 17 million people there. Of the populace who always votes, yup retired people and God knows of those 17 million theres a bunch of them. How do you get elected do something that said retired people need or want, but above all #1) dont touch their money, and #2) let keep them safe. Well number 2 is hard to do in this economy and not effect number 1. So what happens you get laws like probably the most use and conservative Stand Your Ground law there is.

I lived in central Fl for about 4 years, during that time there I can recall several shoots, some most were no brainers, some though would make one ask questions but the way the laws a written the burden is on the state, and if I say I was in fear of my life they have to take it as the truth, thought there best be at least minute shred of evidence to go with it.