Debate Rages Over 'Stand Your Ground' Law

[SayMyName]

Debate rages over 'Stand Your Ground' law. Who couldn't have predicted this? The Zimmerman case has been used as a tool by the left to further divide races and to dust off the left's favorite project - gun control. If Zimmerman is lying, then he did not follow the law, so why is changing the law being discussed? This strange logic has been used before. Illegal aliens ignore our immigration laws, so the politicians follow suit and even sue states if they dare try adhering to the law. The war on drugs wasn't going well because criminal kept ignoring drug laws, so some want to do away with laws and legalize drugs. Now, they just want to do away with a law that allows people to defend themselves. Of course, they don't want to stop with the law, they just want to take away guns so people won't have the means to defend themselves. The criminals always win when the leftie lawyers (and most Democrat politicians are lawyers) get involved and start making changes.

If they overturn the SYG law, only honest citizens will be affected. I know they are trying to make Zimmerman the criminal here, like they did with AZ for protecting borders and anti-amnesty groups. The left doesn't recognize the enemy as the gangs, drug dealers, illegal aliens or other criminals. They'd sooner convict a tea party member for holding up a sign they don't like than tackle gangs committing drive by shootings.

Some claim that Zimmerman murdered intentionally and is trying to twist the law to his advantage. The left has to push that theory if they are to use this case as an argument for gun control. I don't see any evidence that Zimmerman is using the SYG law. Self defense has been a legitimate defense forever and Zimmerman's lawyer will need to prove that.

I think it's the media and the left twisting this whole story to fit an agenda. Why else did they put out so much false information and continue to do so after they knew they were reporting lies? They had to keep reporting that Zimmerman was white, Martin was just a little kid and that the Florida law allowed Zimmerman to get away with murder. If they had been honest, this case would be the worst example to use for their argument of gun control and white racism.

Y! Big Story: After Zimmerman arrest, questions about

They won't overturn it. After all is said and done, this will be another Tawana Brawley case for Al Sharpton. It will be in fact re-affirmed and more states will rush to pass "Stand Your Ground."

 

[bripat9643]

And cannot be used IMHO.

That is by what we KNOW...and probably why he was charged with 2nd degree murder.

They definitely don't have probably cause for 2nd degree murder, so the indictment was illegal.

2nd degree murder means that you intended to cause harm to the victim before any altercation began. There's no evidence of that.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Florida law is a self-defense, self-protection law. It has four key components:

• It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.
• In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “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 to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
• In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.
• If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.

________________________

Another Link

OK, let's check this out...


1. It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.

Neither Zimmerman or Martin attempted to break into a residence or vehcile so this does not pertain to this case.
​

2. In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “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 to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

So, what you saying here is that Martin had a right to be where he was since he was visiting his father and spending the evening at her home while they went out to dinner. He had a right to walk to 7-11 for some ice tea and Skittles. He had a right to then walk home to where he was staying.

Since Martin had a "right to be" in that location, at that time - then if Zimmerman initiate hostilities then Martin would be justified in standing his ground and attempting to use lethal force against his attacker.

Correct?​

3. In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.

Law enforcement has determined that there was probable cause and submitted an affidavit to the court stating same.​

4. If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.

Can't comment on this one as the ability to file and succeed in a civil suit would need to wait until the court determines if the event resulted in a justifiable homicide or if the homicide was unlawful. We won't know that for some months, maybe a year.​

>>>>

 

[Mustang]

It's amazing to me how you guys manage to blame 'the left' for everything under the sun.

Why is it that YOU guys didn't see this as a case of an unarmed teenage boy getting unjustly shot by an overeager man with a gun while the young boy was minding his business, walking on a public sidewalk?

Why? I think it was because Sharpton was involved, and you just couldn't resist jumping on the other side.

I think you guys didn't care about Tayvon Martin OR George Zimmerman at all. They were completely ancillary to what was YOUR issue. And that issue is opposing 'the Left' no matter what. Right and wrong, and good and bad are lost on you guys too much of the time.

Perhaps it's because we look at all the facts, not just the selectively edited 911 tapes and unsubstantiated harangues of race baiting demagogues.

The facts didn't matter to you unless it fit your narrative. As a result, You guys grasped at every straw that came your way in order to make the narrative work out so that Sharpton and everyone who supported Zimmerman's arrest would have egg on their face. That was the REAL conservative goal. It wasn't defending Zimmerman. And it certainly wasn't justice. It was beating or besting the left. You wanted the left to be wrong SO badly, that it didn't even matter to your if you were right.

You guys have long ago lost sight of the principles you claim to cherish.

 

[Peach]

“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 to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

Which was?

 

[Liability]

There is nothing wrong with the "stand your ground" law.

 

[The T]

The Florida law is a self-defense, self-protection law. It has four key components:

• It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.
• In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “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 to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
• In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.
• If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.

________________________

Another Link

OK, let's check this out...


1. It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.

Neither Zimmerman or Martin attempted to break into a residence or vehcile so this does not pertain to this case.
​

2. In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “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 to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

So, what you saying here is that Martin had a right to be where he was since he was visiting his father and spending the evening at her home while they went out to dinner. He had a right to walk to 7-11 for some ice tea and Skittles. He had a right to then walk home to where he was staying.

Since Martin had a "right to be" in that location, at that time - then if Zimmerman initiate hostilities then Martin would be justified in standing his ground and attempting to use lethal force against his attacker.

Correct?
​

3. In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.

Law enforcement has determined that there was probable cause and submitted an affidavit to the court stating same.
​

4. If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.

Can't comment on this one as the ability to file and succeed in a civil suit would need to wait until the court determines if the event resulted in a justifiable homicide or if the homicide was unlawful. We won't know that for some months, maybe a year.
​

>>>>

And segways to what I said in the outset of this thread...the LAW cannot be used in this case.

 

[Liability]

“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 to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

Which was?

You mis-read it.

Highlight this part: "* * * if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself * * * *"

And the answer then appears to be (assuming it's true) "the guy was slamming my skull onto the concrete leading me to surmise in that instant that I was either gonna die or have my brains splattered in such as a way as to constitute great bodily harm."

 

[SayMyName]

The Florida law is a self-defense, self-protection law. It has four key components:

• It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.
• In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “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 to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
• In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.
• If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.

________________________

Another Link

OK, let's check this out...


1. It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.

Neither Zimmerman or Martin attempted to break into a residence or vehcile so this does not pertain to this case.
​

2. In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “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 to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

So, what you saying here is that Martin had a right to be where he was since he was visiting his father and spending the evening at her home while they went out to dinner. He had a right to walk to 7-11 for some ice tea and Skittles. He had a right to then walk home to where he was staying.

Since Martin had a "right to be" in that location, at that time - then if Zimmerman initiate hostilities then Martin would be justified in standing his ground and attempting to use lethal force against his attacker.

Correct?​

3. In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.

Law enforcement has determined that there was probable cause and submitted an affidavit to the court stating same.​

4. If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.

Can't comment on this one as the ability to file and succeed in a civil suit would need to wait until the court determines if the event resulted in a justifiable homicide or if the homicide was unlawful. We won't know that for some months, maybe a year.​

>>>>

Law enforcement in fact at first issued no affidavit. Only after 45 days, with public preassure from one ethnic group, did the DA present without. The case stands to be thrown out. The DA knows this, and that is why she asked for a 2nd Degree charge. She knows it won't hold, but looks like she went for it. Either way, she gets re-elected.

Zimmerman walks, as he should. Case closed.

Anyone seen or heard about any of these Facebook rants of Tryvon bragging about beating up the bus driver days before this incident. Please share if you find them.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Florida law is a self-defense, self-protection law. It has four key components:

• It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.
• In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “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 to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
• In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.
• If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.

________________________

Another Link

OK, let's check this out...


1. It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.

Neither Zimmerman or Martin attempted to break into a residence or vehcile so this does not pertain to this case.
​

2. In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “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 to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

So, what you saying here is that Martin had a right to be where he was since he was visiting his father and spending the evening at her home while they went out to dinner. He had a right to walk to 7-11 for some ice tea and Skittles. He had a right to then walk home to where he was staying.

Since Martin had a "right to be" in that location, at that time - then if Zimmerman initiate hostilities then Martin would be justified in standing his ground and attempting to use lethal force against his attacker.

Correct?
​

3. In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.

Law enforcement has determined that there was probable cause and submitted an affidavit to the court stating same.
​

4. If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.

Can't comment on this one as the ability to file and succeed in a civil suit would need to wait until the court determines if the event resulted in a justifiable homicide or if the homicide was unlawful. We won't know that for some months, maybe a year.
​

>>>>

And segways to what I said in the outset of this thread...the LAW cannot be used in this case.

I was responding to the post you made, is there anything specific you disagree with from a logic standpoint or you do you just have a need to hem, haw, and rant?


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Florida law is a self-defense, self-protection law. It has four key components:

• It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.
• In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “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 to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
• In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.
• If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.

________________________

Another Link

OK, let's check this out...


1. It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.

Neither Zimmerman or Martin attempted to break into a residence or vehcile so this does not pertain to this case.
​

2. In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “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 to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

So, what you saying here is that Martin had a right to be where he was since he was visiting his father and spending the evening at her home while they went out to dinner. He had a right to walk to 7-11 for some ice tea and Skittles. He had a right to then walk home to where he was staying.

Since Martin had a "right to be" in that location, at that time - then if Zimmerman initiate hostilities then Martin would be justified in standing his ground and attempting to use lethal force against his attacker.

Correct?​

3. In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.

Law enforcement has determined that there was probable cause and submitted an affidavit to the court stating same.​

4. If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.

Can't comment on this one as the ability to file and succeed in a civil suit would need to wait until the court determines if the event resulted in a justifiable homicide or if the homicide was unlawful. We won't know that for some months, maybe a year.​

>>>>

Law enforcement in fact at first issued no affidavit. Only after 45 days, with public preassure from one ethnic group, did the DA present without. The case stands to be thrown out. The DA knows this, and that is why she asked for a 2nd Degree charge. She knows it won't hold, but looks like she went for it. Either way, she gets re-elected.

Zimmerman walks, as he should. Case closed.

Anyone seen or heard about any of these Facebook rants of Tryvon bragging about beating up the bus driver days before this incident. Please share if you find them.

Let's get back to the event, if Zimmerman attacked Martin - would the Stand Your Ground Law under the conditions posted by "T" apply to Martin, could he defend himself?


>>>>

 

[Peach]

“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 to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

Which was?

You mis-read it.

Highlight this part: "* * * if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself * * * *"

And the answer then appears to be (assuming it's true) "the guy was slamming my skull onto the concrete leading me to surmise in that instant that I was either gonna die or have my brains splattered in such as a way as to constitute great bodily harm."

After I followed him with a gun, and.........................................

 

[Peach]

"the guy was slamming my skull onto the concrete leading me to surmise in that instant that I was either gonna die or have my brains splattered in such as a way as to constitute great bodily

But the police decided he didn't need medical care, does not sound like DEADLY FORCE............................

 

[WorldWatcher]

“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 to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

Which was?

You mis-read it.

Highlight this part: "* * * if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself * * * *"

And the answer then appears to be (assuming it's true) "the guy was slamming my skull onto the concrete leading me to surmise in that instant that I was either gonna die or have my brains splattered in such as a way as to constitute great bodily harm."

Serious question...

**IF** Zimmerman attacked Martin and Martin was in fear of imminent death or great bodily injury - would he be justified in the use of force and even lethal force under FL Statute 776.012 to defend himself?



>>>>

 

[initforme]

I will wait for the facts to be presented. However, if I am walking through a neighborhood and someone is following me, do I not have the right to "Stand my ground"? Can I use a gun at that point? I'm a 74 year old white male. I have a conceal carry license in the state I live in which I believe was a good piece of legislation. Now, if I'm walking down the sidewalk, and I know or believe someone is following me. 1) Is this not an invasion of my rights? 2) At that point, according to the law, can I use legal force like a gun?

Again, I will wait for the facts to be presented. But if I am being followed because I am in someones neighborhood, I do have the right to stand my ground correct? Just wondering.

 

[The T]

OK, let's check this out...


1. It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.

Neither Zimmerman or Martin attempted to break into a residence or vehcile so this does not pertain to this case.
​

2. In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “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 to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

So, what you saying here is that Martin had a right to be where he was since he was visiting his father and spending the evening at her home while they went out to dinner. He had a right to walk to 7-11 for some ice tea and Skittles. He had a right to then walk home to where he was staying.

Since Martin had a "right to be" in that location, at that time - then if Zimmerman initiate hostilities then Martin would be justified in standing his ground and attempting to use lethal force against his attacker.

Correct?
​

3. In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.

Law enforcement has determined that there was probable cause and submitted an affidavit to the court stating same.
​

4. If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.

Can't comment on this one as the ability to file and succeed in a civil suit would need to wait until the court determines if the event resulted in a justifiable homicide or if the homicide was unlawful. We won't know that for some months, maybe a year.
​

>>>>

And segways to what I said in the outset of this thread...the LAW cannot be used in this case.

I was responding to the post you made, is there anything specific you disagree with from a logic standpoint or you do you just have a need to hem, haw, and rant?


>>>>

Forget *I* ever spoke to YOU.

>>>>

 

[The T]

“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 to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

Which was?

You mis-read it.

Highlight this part: "* * * if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself * * * *"

And the answer then appears to be (assuming it's true) "the guy was slamming my skull onto the concrete leading me to surmise in that instant that I was either gonna die or have my brains splattered in such as a way as to constitute great bodily harm."

So why the 2nd Degree Murder charge?

 

[WorldWatcher]

And segways to what I said in the outset of this thread...the LAW cannot be used in this case.

I was responding to the post you made, is there anything specific you disagree with from a logic standpoint or you do you just have a need to hem, haw, and rant?


>>>>

Froget *I* ever spoke to YOU.

>>>>

Ah, I see, a question you don't want to answer because it appears to not conform to your preconceived bias in the case.

Having a hard time thinking in terms of Martin being the one exercising his right to self-defense under Stand Your Ground?


>>>>

 

[Peach]

I will wait for the facts to be presented. However, if I am walking through a neighborhood and someone is following me, do I not have the right to "Stand my ground"? Can I use a gun at that point? I'm a 74 year old white male. I have a conceal carry license in the state I live in which I believe was a good piece of legislation. Now, if I'm walking down the sidewalk, and I know or believe someone is following me. 1) Is this not an invasion of my rights? 2) At that point, according to the law, can I use legal force like a gun?

Again, I will wait for the facts to be presented. But if I am being followed because I am in someones neighborhood, I do have the right to stand my ground correct? Just wondering.

As Martin did not use deadly force, and he was the person followed, not applicable here. though I think Zimmerman supporters would say yes, IF the two involved were reversed.

 

[Liability]

“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 to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

Which was?

You mis-read it.

Highlight this part: "* * * if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself * * * *"

And the answer then appears to be (assuming it's true) "the guy was slamming my skull onto the concrete leading me to surmise in that instant that I was either gonna die or have my brains splattered in such as a way as to constitute great bodily harm."

Serious question...

**IF** Zimmerman attacked Martin and Martin was in fear of imminent death or great bodily injury - would he be justified in the use of force and even lethal force under FL Statute 776.012 to defend himself?



>>>>

Serious answer:

I see zero evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin (except for the final shot).

But, as a purely hypothetical question, IF Zimmerman had attacked Martin, according to the Florida Law it sure appears that YES he would have been within his legal right to stand his ground and meet the use or threatened us of force with a forceful response. Indeed, if the fear of death or great bodily injury reasonably existed, the right to use force in response would have included the use of deadly force.

It would be (in most cases) for a judge and or a jury to determine whether or not the justification defense was warranted, though.