Repeal the "Stand Your Ground" Laws

[Teatownclown]

Repeal the "Stand Your Ground" Laws
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/8139-repeal-the-stand-your-ground-laws
Washington - The "Stand Your Ground" laws in Florida and other states should all be repealed. At best, they are redundant. At worst, as in the Trayvon Martin killing, they are nothing but a license to kill.
Police in Sanford, Fla., cited the statute as grounds for their decision not to file charges against Martin's killer, George Zimmerman. Martin, 17, was strolling home from a convenience store, armed with an iced tea and a bag of Skittles, when Zimmerman -- a Neighborhood Watch volunteer and wannabe police officer -- spotted him and decided he looked suspicious.
Zimmerman, who is 28, happened to be armed with a handgun. He followed Martin, despite instructions from a 911 operator not to do so. They had an encounter that left Zimmerman suffering from minor injuries and Martin dead on the ground from a gunshot wound. While we don't know exactly what happened, we know that Zimmerman initiated the contact by stalking a young man who had done nothing more sinister than walk down the street wearing a hooded sweatshirt.
Police decided to release Zimmerman without charges because of the Stand Your Ground law. The relevant part of the statute says that "a person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked ... has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm."
Zimmerman claimed self-defense, was given the benefit of the doubt required by law and released.
This was a shocking travesty, as we now know. The "person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked" was Martin. Under the Florida law, as I read it, he had every right to feel he was in "imminent peril of death or great bodily harm" from the stranger who was following him. He had every right to confront Zimmerman -- to stand his ground -- and even to use deadly force, if necessary, to defend himself.
Imagine that Martin, not Zimmerman, had been carrying a legal handgun -- and that it was Zimmerman who ended up dead. It seems to be that the law should have compelled police to release Martin, a young African-American in a hoodie, without charges.
Somehow, I doubt that would have happened.
The consensus view, which I've heard expressed by supporters of Stand Your Ground, is that police were wrong to extend the law's self-defense immunity to Zimmerman so quickly without a more thorough investigation -- and that given what we have learned about Zimmerman's pursuit of Martin, the law does not seem to apply.
But then why does Florida, or any other state, need this statute? State laws already allowed the use of deadly force in self-defense. By making explicit that the person who feels threatened has no obligation to retreat, all the state Legislature accomplished was to lessen the odds that a hot-tempered confrontation would be allowed to cool down without violence.
The Florida law took effect in 2005. Five years later, the Tampa Bay Times said that reports of justifiable homicide across the state had tripled. The newspaper found cases in which the protection of Stand Your Ground had been invoked by persons who felt -- perhaps with good reason, perhaps not -- that they faced imminent attack in their homes. Those incidents were at least in keeping with the intent of the legislation. But the paper also found the law being used to excuse violence committed during fights at house parties, disputes between neighbors and disagreements in public parks.
"Gangsters are using this law to have gunfights," Tallahassee state's attorney Willie Meggs told the Times.
Following Florida's lead, about 20 states have enacted similar legislation. I doubt you will be surprised to hear that the National Rifle Association has lobbied hard to get these dangerous and unnecessary statutes approved.
These laws encourage hotheads to go into potential confrontations with loaded firearms. They give permission to shoot first and ask questions later. This may be good for gun manufacturers, funeral homes and the NRA, but it's tragic for justice in America.
© 2012, Washington Post Writers Group

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QDq-fUrpI8&feature=related[/youtube]

"Man thinks 'cause he rules the earth, he can do with it as he pleases
And if things don't change soon, he will
Man has invented his doom" ZimmermanDYLAN


OKLAHOMA'S NEW LAW IS AN EXACT DUPLICATE OF FLORIDUH'S LAW!

[Conan71]

Knee-jerk much?

There’s not enough known at this point to say for certain the SYG law was abused or misinterpreted in this case.  If it were, it’s still no reason to repeal it.  In spite of such legislation, there are notable cases in Oklahoma where the shooter was convicted (or pled out).  Jerome Ersland and Kenneth Gumm (shot the tweaker at the RiverParks parking lot) both know that there are limitations to the law.

I want the right to be able to protect myself without fear of prosecution for attempting to save my life or someone who is with me at the time if I’m attacked.

[Teatownclown]

Knee-jerk much?

There’s not enough known at this point to say for certain the SYG law was abused or misinterpreted in this case.  If it were, it’s still no reason to repeal it.  In spite of such legislation, there are notable cases in Oklahoma where the shooter was convicted (or pled out).  Jerome Ersland and Kenneth Gumm (shot the tweaker at the RiverParks parking lot) both know that there are limitations to the law.

I want the right to be able to protect myself without fear of prosecution for attempting to save my life or someone who is with me at the time if I’m attacked.

Law hasn't even been enacted here yet...has it?

[Conan71]

Law hasn't even been enacted here yet...has it?

Brad Henry signed it back in ’06 I think.

[Teatownclown]

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?citeid=69782 looks that way....


"Opposition to the laws has gone beyond gun-control activists. Some of the staunchest critics the NRA has faced while promoting "stand your ground" laws have been state police chief's and sheriffs' associations and district attorneys' groups."
http://www.kansascity.com/2012/03/27/3517168/nra-helped-spread-stand-your-ground.html

[nathanm]

I want the right to be able to protect myself without fear of prosecution for attempting to save my life or someone who is with me at the time if I’m attacked.

I think clarification is necessary, but I am supportive of the general idea behind the law.

[Gaspar]

It has saved several people from facing manslaughter charges for simply protecting themselves from robbery, rape or murder.  You shouldn't fear defending yourself.

In conceal training they spend a great deal of time covering the parameters of Stand Your Ground.  As with all laws, it will become more complex over time until it is no longer of any use.

[Quinton]

It falls under legal self defense laws.

[Gaspar]

It's a rather sensible law. 

In states with Stand Your Ground laws, you have three options when your life is threatened:
1. Defend yourself.
2. Run away.
3. Die.

In states without Stand Your Ground laws, you have two options when your life is threatened:
1. Run away.
2. Die.

I appreciate Stand Your Ground, because I'm not a very fast runner.

 

[nathanm]

In states without Stand Your Ground laws, you have two options when your life is threatened:
1. Run away.
2. Die.

That is absolutely false. The duty to retreat only extends as far as it is possible to safely retreat. But yes, if you can run away and you choose to kill someone instead, a self defense defense wouldn't be available to you. Nor should it be.

[Teatownclown]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM-DGaNmtA0&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]


guns beget more gunz....I don't know what's more shocking: The fact that this was invented at all, or the fact that it wasn't invented in America.

[Ed W]

guns beget more gunz....I don't know what's more shocking: The fact that this was invented at all, or the fact that it wasn't invented in America.

For most shooters, this represents an opportunity to miss twice as much.  It's no more than a novelty, but expect it to show up in the hands of some television or movie villain in the near future.  It's a Big. Scary. Gun.

[Red Arrow]

I'm not a very fast runner.

Are you a half fast runner?
 
 

[heironymouspasparagus]

guns beget more gunz....I don't know what's more shocking: The fact that this was invented at all, or the fact that it wasn't invented in America.

I gotta get one of those....that looks like as much fun as a machine gun!


And now that the anti-gun crazies are crawling out of their walls and from under their cardboard boxes, the whole point to this case so far is that it has nothing to do with self-defense OR stand your ground on Zimmerman's behalf.  It is absolutely obvious by the 911 call that he was explicitly told by the police NOT to follow the kid.  And if 911 had known he was gonna get out of his car, after following him - like he was told NOT to - they would probably have told him NOT to get out of the car.  And then, I would even go so far as to guess - and it would be an excellent chance of being true - that 911 would have told him again NOT to follow and confront the kid once he did get out of the car that he was following the kid in, after he was told NOT to follow.

He was specifically told during the 911 call that police were on the way.  The only thing he did was to escalate a situation until he created a violent confrontation.  No matter what the kid was wearing, or what he was doing, or any way he "looked" to this clown - the kid was confronted by someone he did not know.  Who had NO law enforcement credentials or ID.  Who was at the very least aggressively butting into the kids private business.  And is somehow surprised when the kid tells him to screw off.  I heard that one witness (and who knows how that is gonna work out) said that Zimmerman put his hand on the kids arm to perhaps stop him??  If that turns out to be true, then it is no surprise the kid started hitting.  I would too - as a matter of self-defense.  Even if no hand was put on the kid, the ongoing 'stalking' by this guy could easily be seen, at the very least, to be a provocation.  How would you react if this guy had been following you, then came up to you and confronted you?  Would you feel threatened and in a frame of mind to defend yourself?

So, what has any of this got to do with stand your ground?  Nothing.  If anything, it might - and there isn't enough valid information yet to be sure - be a case of self-defense that ended up being unsuccessful - on behalf of the kid.  Otherwise, it's just another LWRE attempt to use a sad situation to advance a radical agenda.

Florida law text;
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

Section 3 would seem to be applicable - the kid was; a person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

[Conan71]

That is absolutely false. The duty to retreat only extends as far as it is possible to safely retreat. But yes, if you can run away and you choose to kill someone instead, a self defense defense wouldn't be available to you. Nor should it be.

Don’t know about you, but I can’t run at 1700 to 3400 FPS, so out-running a bullet is pretty much an impossibility.

Heir- sad reality here, if it went down as you said, is all this kid really had to do was tell Barney Fife he was walking to his dad’s fiancee’s house and perhaps the oaf would have backed off with a “have a nice evening”.  If he decided to ambush or charge Zimmerman, he effed up.