Skip to comments.Trayvon Martin family attorney to speak out against 'stand your ground' law
Posted on 07/26/2018 7:29:55 AM PDT by rarestia
click here to read article
pretty sure you’re right. MLO likes the thug and thinks he’s innocent.
Family attorney? What family? Had he been in a real family he may not have become a criminal and attempted to murder an armed citizen.
Go ban Skittles .and leave well enough alone.
If you don’t want to be shot by your victim, then don’t be a criminal.
Criminals disproportionately affected.
Boo hoo, said no one.
Discriminatory law? You mean the law states that there is no duty to retreat if the assailant is a negro, Hispanic or other "minority"? It doesn't apply to white felons?
Lefty doctrine: When you know you're wrong, yell "RACIST" loud and often!
This is one of the reasons why I didn’t back Drejka for shooting McGlockton. He seemed to be a guy looking for a reason to use his CCW.
He was causing problems on that parking lot for months. He had already been involved in one fight on the lot, and the police were called.
If I’m carrying with a CCW permit, I’m not taking actions to offend others. I’m minding my own business. If something comes up I didn’t egg on, I’ll use my weapon to save lives if I can. It won’t have been something I played a contributing factor to cause.
Drejka was a potential flashpoint for the anti stand your ground folks and also those who wail again CCW permits.
He did none of us who support the Second Amendment any favors.
I am one of them, but only because the second amendment should be the only permit I need. If you (not YOU you) can't be trusted to be armed you should not be running around loose.
Felon journeyman Saint Trayvon of the Order of the Purple Drank got hisself dead because he attacked Zimmerman, and Zimmerman acted in self defense. Stand your ground was not used as a defense at trial.
Crumplestiltson is a racist ...
My philosophy on my CCW is that my gun is the last line of defense. If I can get out of/away from the problem, I'm gone.
If I'm caught up in something or some one else is in serious jeopardy, then the CCW is in play. But only as a last resort.
Bullies don’t like it when they know they can be shot for shoving someone to the ground making that person extra vulnerable unless they have a firearm to even the odds.
Cry me a river bullies.
Plus they are crying tears as they champion Obummer is no longer in the White house bashing cops and with the racist Eric Holder threatening to nationalize all local & state police under DC rules.
These people have the gravest mis-knowledge of “Stand your Ground” and “Castle Doctrine”.
Neither allows anyone to shoot another human being. There is NO LAW that allows someone to shoot another person.
The difference is that the person who is viewed as acting in self defense will be free until their court date. Their court date they will have to defend their killing of another human being just like a criminal.
I opened eyes with this statement a long time ago on Facebook (when I was a fool and still a member there). If someone breaks into your house without Castle Doctrine, you as the defending homeowner will have your guns taken from you, and very likely spend a night in jail. You may even need to post an expensive bond to be free until your court date. With Castle Doctrine you still have a court date to defend your actions, but in the meantime you will not be in jail and you will not have your weapons taken from you.
Stand your Ground extends the decision to outside of the home with a few exceptions. First of all, the murder weapon WILL be taken into evidence. That’s going to happen. And if you use something exotic like a flintlock pistol or a DE 50 cal or an AR pistol you will have to answer a LOT more questions. You by yourself will be allowed to go home after filing a statement and awaiting your court trial.
Neither of these laws “allow someone to kill someone”. It just adjusts you jailtime accordingly.
I’ll never let anyone forget that in the Zimmerman/Martin case, the judge .. on the final day .. introduced new charges for the jury to deliberate on.
This action is unconstitutional. Any legal aggression against George Zimmerman should be nullified.
You have a decent point there.
I believe that there are some people who don’t have the temperament to carry though.
How you sort that out, I don’t know. I think we’ve all known people who have a hair trigger or simply terrible judgement.
I know that I have known some people I’d never want to have a gun on them.
Thugs dont like their victims to have the capability or right to defend themselves....
There was no change to SYG last year, as SYG only refers to not having a duty to retreat. That's been the same in Florida for years, as it is in most states.
What changed last year was related to self defense immunity. That had to do with the self defense immunity hearing. Florida has a law that prohibits you from being arrested or tried for exercising your right to self defense. That's why the shooter in this case has not been arrested yet. But if the cops don't agree that it's self defense then at some point the system has to make that determination. So to avoid trial a defendant can request a self defense immunity hearing.
In that hearing the state has to prove that it was not self defense by "clear and convincing evidence". The change is that prior, the defender had to prove it was self defense by "a preponderance of the evidence". The burden was on the defense with a lower threshold and now it's on the state with a higher threshold.
But that's only for the immunity hearing, which is optional. Zimmerman for example, chose not to request an immunity hearing and to go straight to trial. Whether or not there is an immunity hearing, if it goes to trial the state has the burden of proving a crime "beyond a reasonable" doubt, as always. The same as is true in any criminal case.
That standard, the standard for conviction in a self defense case, is much higher than the standard in the hearing. The state could prove their case in the hearing, proceed to trial, and fail to meet the higher burden at trial. That's the one that matters, and it has not changed.
It's not that it wasn't used, it's that it didn't apply. Zimmerman didn't have an opportunity to retreat when he was attacked, so no duty to retreat could have applied to him.
The Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground are both principles related to having a duty to retreat before using force.
In some jurisdictions you have a duty to retreat from a threat, if it's safely possible, before using force against the threat.
With the Castle Doctrine, any duty to retreat you have ends in your home. You don't have to retreat from your own home.
Stand Your Ground takes that idea and expands to any place you have a right to be.
Neither justifies the use of force on their own. There are other elements involved than just the duty to retreat. And neither has anything to do with taking your weapons or reducing your jail time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.