Florida "Stand Your Ground" Law May Be Changed

Sig229 said:

...how How many discussions have been on this forum about when you should use your firearm for a defensive situation? Far too many t count, right?

Click to expand...

I think you have that reversed; People have over-and-over stated if someone is kicking their ass and feel their life is at risk would use deadly force. Far too many to count!

Sig229 said:

Following some kid around the neighborhood, no matter menacing he looked is not a valid reason to use a firearm in self defense. Especially when dispatch tells you not to.

Click to expand...

When looking past media and community fabricated racial hype, you can see that regardless of how dumb anyone thinks Zimmerman was he did nothing that was against the law. His following a suspicious kid in the neighborhood even when dispatcher advised against violated no laws. People need to start refocusing on fact, and not color.

Jojo712 said:

Not just that. Being beaten to death is not unheard of: it is a very real possibility regardless of the age/weight differential (especially if one knew how to scrap and the other one didn't). If the eyewitnesses reports are true that TM was on top of Zimmerman, and was pounding him (to the point of bloody injuries on his face and the back of his head) before Zimmerman pulled out his gun, it's clearly justifiable homicide: self-defense. Because of the fact, however, that Zimmerman pursued TM against police orders, he assumed the risk of what might happen, and may have been negligent in his refusal to obey police orders. Negligence is not murder.

The fact remains, though, that a reasonable person with a CCL would not have placed him/herself in this type of position. We would not pursue after being told not to, and we wouldn't've taken a neighborhood watch job seriously enough to land ourselves in this kind of mess. A reasonable person would know where neighborhood watch stops and law enforcement begins. Zimmerman's pursuit, objectively, seems like outright vigilantism, and it has made law-abiding gun owners look like Nazis. If steps are taken to repeal SYG because of something that seems to have landed outside of SYG's scope, then this Zipperhead character will have placed our most basic right, self-defense, in jeopardy: he will have f**ked it up for the rest of us.

Click to expand...

I agree that it would probably have been best not to approach the 6'2'' 240 lb "kid". That's beyond the scope of neighborhood watch. However, the cops always say not to do anything. In South Africa, they even advised women to insert condoms with razors into their vaginas in case they are raped.

I take the position that every citizen has the same power as cops. It's just that in theory, we pay cops to be professional, full time watchers with extra training, experience, tactics, etc. As such, I don't condemn Zimmerman for approaching. I see a responsible citizen, pending reception of all the facts.

jbone said:

No one in their right mind would change law before this case's investigation is done, right? Yah right!


The anti-guns nuts will start going into overtime on this one since the facts are starting to emerge that the kid was the attacker, yes the sweet little kid who was kicked out of school for POT. The sweet little boy is beginning to be seen as the 6' 3" 150 pound adult attacker.

Click to expand...

The "diversity" in the Fl legislature will surely attempt to get rid of as much self defense protection as they can. It's important to them that only police and abortionists kill black people, and lots of them.

The media treatment of this case is truly frightening. Having a "free press" is really a sick joke.

HankT said:

Uh-oh. Looks like the game is on.

Chris Smith, a black Florida state senator, announced on Wednesday he is drafting new legislation to "drastically" change that law, which he said has increased deaths in the state due to "self-defense" by more than 250 percent. The law originally was promoted by the National Rifle Association, the nation's leading gun rights group, and opposed by many in law enforcement.

"We can't keep turning a blind eye to the number of lives this law has claimed," Smith said in a statement. "'Stand Your Ground' in its present form continues to endanger Floridians by not only giving someone the right to shoot first, but immunity for their actions, whether justified or not."

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuter...olice_chief_under_fire_in_case_of_slain_teen/

Click to expand...

Laws don't claim lives (although the enforcement of them can be said to, thanks to out of control police), and they don't dictate individual behavior.

Not that you can expect a statist to understand that.

BTW I love the way their little maps never show CA or VA as being stand your ground states, due to neither state having recently passed such legislation since the birth of the "stand your ground" moniker. But both states are, quite unambiguously, states which require no retreat for a nonaggressive individual to defend themselves with deadly force (although of course in CA one might not actually be permitted to possess the means of self-defense in many areas). I'm sure there are other states where the same is true.

Jojo712 said:

The great Bob Dylan said: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."

This is not the time for OC. We will be lucky if we keep SYG.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. Florida's criminally insane requirement to CC doubtless precipitates many deaths in altercations which would be preemptively defused by OC.

Now is precisely the time for OC.

77zach said:

The "diversity" in the Fl legislature will surely attempt to get rid of as much self defense protection as they can. It's important to them that only police and abortionists kill black people, and lots of them.

Click to expand...

I don't care much for the "abortionists" rhetoric, but I do find the remaining irony intensely amusing.

One of the primary reasons I advocate civilian self-defense is because out of control legislating and concomitantly out of control law enforcement leads to the deaths of so many innocents, most of whom will never see their murderers prosecuted. It also happens that many of these murdered innocents are minorities.

Citizens are never allowed to get away with killing if it isn't justified. Yet, police do it all the time.

The irony of reversing the transfer of responsibility from the police to the citizenry in the name of protecting, well, anyone -- but especially minorities -- is plain to see.

Unless, of course, you're a statist.

77zach said:

The "diversity" in the Fl legislature will surely attempt to get rid of as much self defense protection as they can. It's important to them that only police and abortionists kill black people, and lots of them.

Click to expand...

It's ok for black people to kill blacks too. This case doesn't get more than local attention if Zimmerman were black.

marshaul said:

Nonsense. Florida's criminally insane requirement to CC doubtless precipitates many deaths in altercations which would be preemptively defused by OC.

Now is precisely the time for OC.

Click to expand...

I agree completely; however, the issue is getting the legislature to look at OC laws at the same time when the media's spotlight, and by extension the legislature's, will be on repealing a law as fundamental as SYG.

State Rep. Dwayne Taylor, D-Daytona Beach, told the crowd that the "Stand Your Ground" law, which some law-enforcement officials have said protects Zimmerman, was not intended to protect an aggressor. The law states that a person who has a right to be in a particular location can use deadly force instead of retreating if the person believes the force is necessary to prevent serious injury or death.

"I intend to introduce a bill to repeal this law," Taylor said.

http://www.the33tv.com/news/os-trayvon-martin-roland-martin-20120326,0,1947820.story


Great. Just great.

How could one measly goof with a gun cause this much trouble???

HankT said:

State Rep. Dwayne Taylor, D-Daytona Beach, told the crowd that the "Stand Your Ground" law, which some law-enforcement officials have said protects Zimmerman, was not intended to protect an aggressor. The law states that a person who has a right to be in a particular location can use deadly force instead of retreating if the person believes the force is necessary to prevent serious injury or death.

"I intend to introduce a bill to repeal this law," Taylor said.

http://www.the33tv.com/news/os-trayvon-martin-roland-martin-20120326,0,1947820.story


Great. Just great.

How could one measly goof with a gun cause this much trouble???

Click to expand...

I'm not really concerned about this changing our self defense rights for the worse. Kiss OC goodbye.

HankT said:

Great. Just great. How could one measly goof with a gun cause this much trouble???

Click to expand...

Self defense makes a person a measly bum? Your statement seems to imply the gun is also part of the problem. Remember people kill and guns save lives. Zimmerman may have saved his own life that day. It's not the “measly goof” with the gun that caused this trouble; it’s the dirty bums using a dead kid as a platform to promote agenda, and the killing of others.

This death has morphed into a ugly sideshow of race, revenge, gun control, and election votes.

The New Black Panthers put out a $10,000 bounty on his head after its leader Mikhail Muhammed told a rally on Saturday “He should be fearful for his life.

Movie director Spike Lee revealed Zimmerman’s home address in a Twitter message he retweeted to his quarter of a million followers at the weekend.

Click to expand...

http://www.newsmax.com/US/trayvon-m...g/2012/03/26/id/433912?s=al&promo_code=E854-1

marshaul said:

BTW I love the way their little maps never show CA or VA as being stand your ground states, due to neither state having recently passed such legislation since the birth of the "stand your ground" moniker. But both states are, quite unambiguously, states which require no retreat for a nonaggressive individual to defend themselves with deadly force (although of course in CA one might not actually be permitted to possess the means of self-defense in many areas). I'm sure there are other states where the same is true.

Click to expand...

I can't say for CA but the only reason I can see VA as not being listed on a map like that is because SYG is not codified in VA. It is embedded in years of case law.

MagiK_SacK said:

I can't say for CA but the only reason I can see VA as not being listed on a map like that is because SYG is not codified in VA. It is embedded in years of case law.

Click to expand...

Make that "several centuries" and I'll agree with you.

Just as "castle doctrine" bills were beaten back this year - none offered anywhere near the protections available from case law.

Now if we could just get folks to understand that "civil immunity" has nothing to do with SYG or castle doctrine.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

Make that "several centuries" and I'll agree with you.

Just as "castle doctrine" bills were beaten back this year - none offered anywhere near the protections available from case law.

Now if we could just get folks to understand that "civil immunity" has nothing to do with SYG or castle doctrine.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

+1

I do no think I would base my decision on who was the aggressor based on who was on top. If they were both armed would the stand your ground protection go to the one on the bottom that gets the shot off first?

It seems like the totality of the entire situation is not yet Ben revealed and new information is revealed daily. Regardless of my views, I still will say innocent until proven guilty. That is one aspect of the stand your ground I fully agree with is the prohibition of arrest without the state providing evidence it was not self defense as opposed to mere speculation or opinion.

MagiK_SacK said:

I can't say for CA but the only reason I can see VA as not being listed on a map like that is because SYG is not codified in VA. It is embedded in years of case law.

Click to expand...

Virginia doesn't need such a law, because that's been the common law for centuries. (CA does have explicit self-defense statutes, not being a common law state. Those are themselves nothing new, although of course they lack centuries of precedent.)

It's disingenuous to leave out states which are, in effect, "stand your ground states", and have been so since before any of us were born, simply because those states didn't have to pass laws, or didn't bother to refer to them as "stand your ground" laws when they were passed. It gives the impression that "Stand your ground" is a new concept, when in fact it's older than the United States itself. It also under represents the number of states where one may "stand his ground".

The unintended consequences of your actions

77zach said:

I don't get it. The law says you may me "meet force with force". If what the media says is true, then "no force was met with deadly force" and Zimmerman has no protection under the law.

Click to expand...

As citizen patrol - Zimm was likely expected to act as "Eyes & Ears" only -

If they had any instruction there - it would have been the most repeated phrase - calling the police was where Zimm's duty ended.

Zimm is likely a volunteer - and is not legally bound to pursue or not to pursue (& is not breaking the law for doing so)

Legally carrying a weapon is not breaking the law and therefore is irrelevant.

************
Zimm was NOT reported to be brandishing the weapon during any pursuit but only after the situation escalated -

This entire matter & the fate of Zimm will come down to - was Zimm in a situation that meets the reason SYG exists?

2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[17]

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

************

I don't know either of the individuals, their families, friends or neighbors - i feel sorry for all involved except those who rushed into making this a racial matter - the unintended consequences of that - may be far worse - and unfortunately worse - bring embarrassment to those grieving.

If the feds determine that the 2 words in the 911 call are enough to make it a race generated hate crime - your guess is as good as mine as to what to expect next.

Be well.

I'm still trying to figure out how SYG became the buzzword for this story in the media. From what I've read, despite following a stranger, we don't know how GZ came to be on the ground getting his ass kicked, but that is the point that he defended himself with deadly force. How exactly did he (AT THIS POINT) have even a window to retreat?

Let's assume GZ assaulted TM, maybe grabbing or pushing him, maybe worse. Next thing we do know is that TM had him on the ground getting beaten badly. Just as when we must shoot to STOP, not kill, when we shoot for defense, TM had a duty to stop hitting an attacker when the threat was over. If we were to assume GZ was the initial assaulter, TM continued any force well beyond self-defense, from what I have read.

I'm sorry that the witness left the scene while making the phone call and missed the turning point that provides all the details that really matter.