Maybe this IS how Stand Your Ground works

[Guest profgunner]

Contrary to what many in the media want us to believe, Stand Your Ground (SYG) laws are not a "license to kill". Rather, they permit law abiding citizens to defend themselves against criminals who, in the pursuit of their trade, have proved themselves willing to deprive others of the most basic of human rights - the right to life. None of us yet knows all the facts surrounding the Florida case, but I can see no evidence that SYG had anything to do with what happened. [NOTE: I am not saying that Zimmerman was wrong or right. I'm just saying that SYG was not the cause of the conflict]. The statute is crystal clear as to what conditions must be satisfied and, should any one of them be found lacking, the law simply does not apply. Hence, it does not give blanket protection to people who just want to go out and "start a gunfight". Most on this forum already know this to be true. But the anti's are going to do everything in their power to convince the less informed members of our society that SYG is simply a license to kill. We must remain vigilant.

Edited March 27, 2012 by profgunner

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Yep this case doesn't seem especially relevant to stand your ground. It is most prudent to avoid conflict. I think stand yer ground mainly reinforces that if you happen to be cornered in the bedroom by a home invader, than you are legally entitled to shoot and you are not legally required to attempt escape thru the bedroom window.

[mikegideon]

Yep this case doesn't seem especially relevant to stand your ground. It is most prudent to avoid conflict. I think stand yer ground mainly reinforces that if you happen to be cornered in the bedroom by a home invader, than you are legally entitled to shoot and you are not legally required to attempt escape thru the bedroom window.

I think it's just the way the law is written. "stand your ground" and "in fear for your life" is in the same section. Maybe I'm full of crap too. The text is somewhere in this thread.

Edited March 27, 2012 by mikegideon

[mikegideon]

Well damn. The text is in the other thread with almost the same name.

[daddyo]

It's not enough for the antis to go after the lawful gun owner; they will ALWAYS try to implicate the law as being at fault (when they don't like the law).

[mikegideon]

Yeah. They're just gonna lose again.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well, if for no other reason than he might not have been able to retreat. I doubt SYG, which is now a

slur on a legitimate piece of law to the anti's, had anything to do with it. The hooded guy was on top

of him according to a witness.

[personDJ]

HE was hit in the face knocking him to the ground then the kid jumped on him and started slaming his head on the concrete. when police arrived he was bleeding from the face and the back of his head where he had several open wounds. A neighbor heard him calling out for help before the gun shots. He was on his way back and the kid doubled back on him saying you got a problem now and attacked.

This is according to the police report released today. I read the news on AOL

[JAB]

HE was hit in the face knocking him to the ground then the kid jumped on him and started slaming his head on the concrete. when police arrived he was bleeding from the face and the back of his head where he had several open wounds. A neighbor heard him calling out for help before the gun shots. He was on his way back and the kid doubled back on him saying you got a problem now and attacked.

This is according to the police report released today. I read the news on AOL

All this was only after Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed the kid on foot. I don't know about Florida law but TN law (the same part that contains our version of 'stand your ground') states that lethal force is not justified to defend against violence if the person using said lethal force provoked the other party into the use of violence. If I am just walking along, minding my own business - say walking back from the store - in a place where I am legally allowed to be and some stupid SOB I don't know gets out of his vehicle and starts following me then I am going to feel pretty darned 'provoked'. In fact, if I see that he is armed (as Zimmerman was) I am going to start feeling a reasonable fear of death or serious, bodily injury. Eventually, I would feel the need to 'stand my ground' against my pursuer.

Regardless of what Martin did, the conflict would never have happened if the Zimmerman hadn't, without any justification or authority to do so, gotten out of his SUV and started following an unarmed teen who was doing nothing wrong. My stance is that, by so doing, Zimmerman became the 'aggressor' and provoked Martin to attack him out of fear for his own (Martin's) safety. Further, my stance is that - put in Martin's position, i.e. being followed by an armed stranger - I would be in fear for my life. I believe such fear would be reasonable. Were it me that Zimmerman was following, I would call 911 and inform the police that I was being chased by an unknown individual, especially if I ascertained that said individual was armed. I would probably try and keep the 911 operator on the line and would take whatever action I felt the situation and my safety warranted, believing my actions to be justifiable self defense.

Edited March 27, 2012 by JAB

[dats82]

All this was only after Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed the kid on foot. I don't know about Florida law but TN law (the same part that contains our version of 'stand your ground') states that lethal force is not justified to defend against violence if the person using said lethal force provoked the other party into the use of violence. If I am just walking along, minding my own business - say walking back from the store - in a place where I am legally allowed to be and some stupid SOB I don't know gets out of his vehicle and starts following me then I am going to feel pretty darned 'provoked'. In fact, if I see that he is armed (as Zimmerman was) I am going to start feeling a reasonable fear of death or serious, bodily injury. Eventually, I would feel the need to 'stand my ground' against my pursuer.

Regardless of what Martin did, the conflict would never have happened if the Zimmerman hadn't, without any justification or authority to do so, gotten out of his SUV and started following an unarmed teen who was doing nothing wrong. My stance is that, by so doing, Zimmerman became the 'aggressor' and provoked Martin to attack him out of fear for his own (Martin's) safety. Further, my stance is that - put in Martin's position, i.e. being followed by an armed stranger - I would be in fear for my life. I believe such fear would be reasonable. Were it me that Zimmerman was following, I would call 911 and inform the police that I was being chased by an unknown individual, especially if I ascertained that said individual was armed. I would probably try and keep the 911 operator on the line and would take whatever action I felt the situation and my safety warranted, believing my actions to be justifiable self defense.

So you're saying that if someone was following you and you knew them to be armed, you would attack them, being unarmed yourself. This makes no sense.

If I am in a neighborhood, where I do not live I might add, and someone starts following me, my first thought is get the hell out; armed or not. If infact this kid was on top of this man beating him, it is rather obvious that he did not try real hard to leave. That coupled with the witness saying he heard Zimmerman calling for help leads me to believe there is something more than just this kid is on his way home minding his own business.

But regardless, who gives a damn what I think? The fact of it is that none of us know what happened.

Edited March 28, 2012 by dats82

[Guest lostpass]

Yep this case doesn't seem especially relevant to stand your ground. It is most prudent to avoid conflict. I think stand yer ground mainly reinforces that if you happen to be cornered in the bedroom by a home invader, than you are legally entitled to shoot and you are not legally required to attempt escape thru the bedroom window.

I think SYG goes a bit further since you are already entitled to shoot someone in your home because of the castle doctrine.

I'm no expert, but to me SYG means that if someone starts threatening me with, say a bat, I don't have to run away first. I can construe the threat as a serious problem and protect myself.

As far as the Zimmerman case goes I think you can make excellent arguments that both parties were invoking SYG arguments. I'd feel threatened, extremely threatened if someone was following me for no real reason. If they then accosted me I would tend to retaliate with force. On the other hand, were I Zimmerman once I was getting beaten I would be in fear for my life and shoot.

But the forensics aren't out yet. So no one really knows anything except there's a dead guy who probably didn't need to be dead.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

So you're saying that if someone was following you and you knew them to be armed, you would attack them, being unarmed yourself. This makes no sense.

If I am in a neighborhood, where I do not live I might add, and someone starts following me, my first thought is get the hell out; armed or not. If infact this kid was on top of this man beating him, it is rather obvious that he did not try real hard to leave. That coupled with the witness saying he heard Zimmerman calling for help leads me to believe there is something more than just this kid is on his way home minding his own business.

But regardless, who gives a damn what I think? The fact of it is that none of us know what happened.

Hi dats82

I agree that none of us know what happened. I don't pretend to know what happened.

AFAIK, Martin DID belong in the neighborhood and was almost home. He was "visiting" but until going back to mom, that WAS his home.

It is difficult to second-guess anyone's judgement. For instance at Luby's restaurant or Columbine or Va Tech, the "rational" thing for any individual in the crowd was to run away from the dude with the gun, which got lots of people shot. The "irrational" thing would be for all the victims to rush the shooter and bring him down, which would have also resulted in casualties, but would have resulted in fewer casualties. That is like the joke, "how fast do you have to run to get away from a bear?" Answer-- Faster than the slowest hiker in your group.

After consideration, I decided years ago if caught in such situation, then odds of survivability may be arguably better to go TOWARD the man with the gun rather than AWAY from the man with a gun. I'm as cowardly as they come, but when yer number's up, then it is up! Just make the best of the hand dealt.

If I pick a fight with Bubba and then Bubba starts slapping me around, then I'll probably start yelling for help as well.

I think SYG goes a bit further since you are already entitled to shoot someone in your home because of the castle doctrine.

Thanks lostpass. That may be so.

Am not certain that "castle doctrine" is universal in the usa. AFAIK some states require that if you are trapped by a home invader in the bedroom, then if you can get out the window it is your duty to do so, rather than make a stand in the bedroom.

Agreed that SYG would be equally applicable to both people in the zimmerman/martin affair.

If zimmerman had been a hired security guard and wearing a uniform, then zimmerman would not be in quite as much legal hazard. In that case, he could have argued that it was his business to hassle martin. It would also have been easier for martin to identify zimmerman as a hired meddler and not just some random nut case stalker.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Hey Lester,

We don't really know if Zimmerman was actually hassling Martin, do we? I think it's been assumed

he was, but not necessarily the case. When I listened to the audio, I could imagine the aggressor being

Martin, since on the audio Zimmerman said he lost eye contact with Martin. Zimmerman could have

very well been ambushed by Martin. Zimmerman said it occured on the way back to his vehicle, didn't

he? Of course I may be speculating, too.

I really think SYG is misused, since the evidence, from one person's account shows Martin on top of

Zimmerman at the end. Zimmerman was already stuck and had to do something.

I wouldn't want to be getting the pulp beat out of me and have to do what Zimmerman did, but he may

have been left with no other option.

[mikegideon]

We don't need to forget that Zimmerman was getting his head slammed on the concrete, and had the injuries to back up that story. I would be in fear for my life at that point.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Me, too.

[Guest profgunner]

This from Nashville's News Channel 5 "supporters of Tennessee's law and others like it say the statute is necessary so law-abiding citizens can defend themselves when confronted by criminals. Opponents of the law said it gives the legal blessing to commit murder and innocent people, like the teen in Florida, are often the ones who wind up dead." Most in the press continue to refer to Martin as "innocent". Maybe he is, but we don't know and probably never will know with certainty. I also read ( http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/police-investigated-trayvon-martin-jewelry-16015168#.T3LzLI5Gg-c ) a report that he was busted at school with a backpack full of jewelry and a screwdriver that may have been used as a burglary tool. Depending what you want to believe, you can use either one of these narratives to construct the scenario that fits your world view. This is exactly what most of the press and race-baiters like Sharpton are doing. Their sole intent is to ratchet up public anger in hopes that the authorities will arrest and convict Zimmerman no matter what actually happened. Remember the Rodney King incident and the riots that followed? I think this is exactly the outcome that Sharpton and quite a few others hope for. If it does, they may getting a much clearer picture of what SYG actually means.

[tnhawk]

Our legal system was founded on the belief that one is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law ( not media ). I've heard it said many times, it was better to let a guilty man walk, than to convict an innocent man. Why is the mob in a rush to punish Zimmerman before he's shown to be guilty?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Because they seemed to have believed the initial broken media accounts. The MSM have destroyed

this whole situation.

[mikegideon]

Looks like the MSM is backing down, so they don't look like complete fools. Al, Jesse, and the Martin family may be on their own.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Hey Lester,

We don't really know if Zimmerman was actually hassling Martin, do we?

Hi 6.8

Everybody sees things differently. I don't want to come off sounding neurotic, but if I was walking down the street and some unknown civilian followed me in a pickup truck, then I would consider that a hassle even if the stranger never got out of his truck and he eventually drove off after a few blocks. I would even consider it a hassle being tailed by uniformed security or police, but in that case would be better able to guess the intent and not inclined to consider it a possible threat. Not that I'd draw down on some fellow following in a truck, but would definitely get my attention. That scenario wouldn't bug you?

In fact, depending on the situation-- It may be different nowadays but long ago when I was doing social work out in rural parts of the county. There were certain regions that had a mix of law-abiding middle-class folk, honest po folk, plus moonshiners and car thieves. The criminal element didn't usually go out of their way to mess with strangers. It wasn't full-blown deliverance territory.

On the other hand they knew who was in their territory and I would not have wanted to make a routine practice of driving those roads in a white car with government plates. Usually drove my own car. Wouldn't have considered it a good idea to drive out there after dark. If the natives concluded you are a law dog then it could be bad depending on who took a dislike to you. Just sayin, if I happened to be walking out in those parts and some dude in a truck tails me, gets out and asks what I'm doing, then gets back in his truck and drives off-- I'd be concerned that I hadn't seen the last of the feller and he might be back with his buddies. Just sayin, it can be situation-dependent.

I really think SYG is misused, since the evidence, from one person's account shows Martin on top of

Zimmerman at the end. Zimmerman was already stuck and had to do something.

I wouldn't want to be getting the pulp beat out of me and have to do what Zimmerman did, but he may

have been left with no other option.

Agreed. I don't care what race the guys were. The case would be equally interesting regardless of race. Guilt or innocence ought to be identical regardless of race.

Once zimmerman got himself in that situation and if crying "uncle" didn't get the kid to lay off, then at some point he would have to do something. Though he most likely is not guilty of premeditated murder, the whole thang would not have happened if zimmerman had minded his own biz.

There is such a thing as blaming the victim. When people justify that it is OK because Martin was a thug anyway, it is blaming the victim. Charging Zimmerman with premeditated murder would also be blaming the victim. But I suspect he may be guilty of something more than bad judgement. There have been many folk put in jail for manslaughter when they were mainly guilty of seriously bad judgement.

It is a "sliding scale". If you have to shoot a mugger at the ATM, then we could "blame the victim" and say the shooting would never have occurred if you never went to the ATM, so it is the shooter's fault. Maybe Zimmerman didn't display enough bad judgment to be charged with any crime, but IMO he seems culpable for SOMETHING. It is not because I'm "out to get" the guy. Just the fact that somebody is dead directly resulting from Zimmerman displaying bad judgement.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Neighborhood watch groups are concerned about the increase in crime in their neighborhoods. If someone

who doesn't appear right to them, they notify the police. I don't know what, other than that, happened. Sure,

I would be a bit mad if I was misunderstood to be one of those elements, but I wouldn't start a fight to solve

the problem. It appears that this is what happened however it went down. I think we are allowing this to become

a reason for crime to escalate instead of trying to stop it.

Things have not always been this way. We used to not have the gang problem we have now. What do we do?

Get another federal task force involved to solve it? This is about lawlessness gaining control over society.

Where is it that when the courts have said it is not a duty for the police to protect, that we can't group together

and protect ourselves? It may not be the best example of neighborhood watch, but it is an indictment of how

we let criminals get away with whatever they want, and other forces are willing to erode our rights by claiming

racism to further a goal. Namely totalitarianism government.

It doesn't have to be this way and we are boxing ourselves in to losing all our liberties because of the way we

accept a new lower level in society every time something like this happens.

[mikegideon]

Damn. That was almost a Leroy quality post. Uncle Whitey for president!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Flattery... I ain't a Leroy. That guy is intelligent. Where is he, anyway?

Well, it's the truth, isn't it? Or, at least the way I remember it.

[mikegideon]

Leroy has spurts of productivity. I figure he's in one of those.

[Mike.357]

You two oughta get a room