Although I’m not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, this “Stand Your Ground” law seems insane to me.
“If you FEEL your life is threatened”
Well WTF does THAT mean? “Feel” is subjective.
I live in New York city, and every other person I meet is completely insane (no, seriously). So if someone who has a fear of clowns sees Bozo, they can blow him away?
For example I’m a big guy, 6’4” tall, bald with tattoos a beard, and one night at 2am I went to a Chase ATM on Broadway and 64th (approx. street) and used my card to open the door. And when I walked in this girl was there who just went ape sh*t when she saw me and screamed and ran out. Much like the “normal people” did on that old `60s show “The Munsters” when they saw Herman Munster. You know, screamed and crashed through a door.
Well what if she had a gun and used this law? I didn’t do ANYTHING to her, yet she can blow my brains out? WTF?
“Although I’m not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, this “Stand Your Ground” law seems insane to me.”
The stand your ground law had nothing to do with this case. And anyone saying so is just using this to further their agenda for gun control. According to Zimmerman he was punched and being held on the ground while being beaten.
Stand your ground is good because: People that were assaulted or mugged or had their house broken into, if they shot the perp, would be tried and conviced of homicide. Why? Cause if there were any way to retreat, or if the prosecution could convince a jury that there might have been any way to retreat, then you’re up the proverbial creek.
BTW, you being in NY you shouldn’t have anything to worry about. Aren’t guns banned there?
Three points:
(1) Your characterization of the “stand your ground” law is 100% wrong. Ignorant even.
(2) That law doesn’t even apply in this situation — plain old self-defense does.
(3) Are you a troll, or just having a bad day? Seem to remember some of your posts being pretty good. Just don’t feel like checking right now. Will check back to see if the kitties pounce...
(http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html)
puts the lie to every word uttered in this article and should ease your anxieties.
My thanks to scoutmaster for initially bringing the link to the statute to my attention.
That’s not the stand your ground law. You have a reasonable fear (in the eyes of the jury, and preferably the cops and prosecutor as well) of your life and/or great bodily harm. All that the stand your ground law removes is the initial duty to retreat.
OK, I bothered to look. You seem to be a solid freeper, so I’ll spend a little time educating you about “stand your ground.” Short version: It simply means you don’t have a duty to retreat if you REASONABLY believe that you are in danger of serious bodily injury or death. Rather, you can stand your ground and defend yourself. It’s an affirmative defense, and if push comes to shove, you must prove the REASONABLENESS of your belief in the threat. Just like with plain old self-defense, you must REASONABLY believe that your are in danger before defending yourself.
I’d say Zimmerman getting his head bounced off the cement ground like a basketball means he was actually in the process of getting his azz kicked and he couldn’t have retreated if he wanted to, hence “stand your ground” doesn’t even come into it.
/THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. I’m not a lawyer, I’m just up to speed on 2A issues. The entire point of the LSM and race pimps bringing “stand your ground” into this is so they can attack our rights. See my tag...
Long term residence in the Big Sh*tty, amongst all those crazed Libroids, can make one paranoid. After all, in the Big Sh*tty, they ARE out to get you. If Mugger doesn’t, some bureaucrap will attack your pocket.
However, imagine if NYC did not have the Sullivan Law, all citizens could be armed.
As Samuel Clements observed, a mining town in the gold rush period of the West had ONE QUARTER of the crime of a comparable size city back east. Clements attributed this to the fact that all citizens were armed.
I'm sorry, but that imagery was funny as hell!
Have you seen the movie "Tucker and Dale vs. Evil"? The plot is very similar. A bunch of college kids in the woods keep accidently killing themselves trying to run away from these two hillbillies who appear scary but are just very nice guys. It's a hysterical movie.
Having said that, this case has nothing to do with stand your ground. This situation is strictly self defense. In my opinion two different issues. Stand you ground means you do not have to run from a threat. Self defense is stopping someone from beating your head on a sidewalk.
Martin had a choice in handling the situation; he could have simply said what I'm doing here is none of your business and walked away. Someone asking you a question, no matter how offensive, does not give you the right to beat the crap out them. Trayvon chose poorly.
Sorry for the long post. I got carried away.
You've never touched a gun, have you?
You've have no training in how to handle an assault, have you?
I can't believe I'm reading you bleatings on FR. This is a pro-2nd, pro-self-defense forum.
Would a reasonable person have believed that they were in imminent death or great bodily harm by you walking in the door? (The answer is no, by the way) If not, then the Stand Your Ground law of Florida would not apply. The girl's personal view is also filtered through what a reasonable person would have believed under the circumstances; it's not an 'what did this extremely sensitive idiot believe" law.
However, if you didn't know she was there and you were screaming, at the top of your lungs in time with your iPod, a song with the lyrics "I'M GONNA KILL YOU!" as you swung a 34" Louisville Slugger baseball bat that you just purchased from the memorabilia store (it was signed by Will Clark), and you lunged into the ATM, then a reasonable person, given your height and appearance, may have reasonably believed she was in danger of imminent death or great bodily harm. In that case, she could have shot you and then pleaded the Stand Your Ground law.
Yeah, I set up a Parade of Horribles, but it was necessary to make a point.
By the way, in law school, they teach you about gentle giants - and how a 6'10" 400 lb. man may cause a reasonable fear in people even though he would never harm anyone. You've given me no reason to believe you are violent, but given your size, and being bald with a beard and tattoos, you have to accept how people view you. They are going to be more afraid that you could do great bodily harm to them than a 5'6" guy with glasses, a short-sleeve shirt, and a clip-on tie.
That's all part of what a 'reasonable man' (which includes a woman) would think. There's a consequence to tattooing "DIE YOU MOTHERF***ER!" across your forehead (again, an extreme example) and wearing a t-shirt from county correctional if you're 6'8" and work out. And consequences to winning the genetic lottery and simply being born huge. People are going to be more likely to be thinking you mean them harm as you move toward them, and a jury is going to judge that belief as more likely to be reasonable than if it's directed to a 72-year-old guy in a wheelchair.
It's the law. And if you don't like it, remember Dickens: "If the law supposes that, the law is an ass."