Stand Your Ground

[Dwight Schr-ute]

In light of the recent events involving Trayvon Martin, the 17 year old Florida teenager that was shot while walking in his own neighborhood by an overzealous community watch.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/20/trayvon-martin-final-moments_n_1366697.html

George Zimmerman, the shooter, has since used the "Stand Your Ground" defense and argued his actions were in self defense. I From what I know about the stand your ground law, the concept makes a lot of sense and is an improvement over the previous law which required an attempt to flee prior to engagement. Having said that, my interpretation of stand your ground has be believing that there's no justifiable reason for Zimmerman to still be a free man. The facts that we know are:
Zimmerman trailed Martin.
Dispatch encouraged Zimmerman disengage from following the "suspect." Zimmerman ignored this advice and ended up engaging the suspect.
Another innocent black young man is dead.


What I am failing to grasp is the legality of "Stand Your Ground" when you keep imposing "your" ground onto someone else's ground. It seems about as logical as jumping into traffic and then shooting at cars because they were attempting to inflict harm on you. I'm glad to see that this is gaining some national traction and I hope that we see some justice eventually served.

To quote Mr. Zimmerman himself, "These assholes always get away."

On a related note, I appreciated this article. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michae...trayvon-martin

[PaloAltoCougar]

It's a very troubling issue and I hope the Florida courts (or the Supremes) dial it back a bit on how the law is applied. There's another Florida case pending where a a young father was playing basketball with his 8 year-old daughter and a kid was skateboarding around on the other end of the court. An onlooker yelled at the kid, telling him to get off the court. The young father told the onlooker it was cool and to let the kid alone. A heated argument ensued between the dad and the onlooker whipped out a gun and shot the father, dead, in front of the young girl. The shooter is claiming self defense in that, per the Florida law, he had a "reasonable fear of serious harm."

Frankly, this is why I have serious concerns about letting citizens pack heat. The number of reported "justifiable" homicides in Florida has tripled since the Florid Stand Your Ground law was adopted without, I believe, a corresponding decrease in violent crimes. Should one be able to use a .38 if the other side only has, at most, a pair of fists? I think the old law, still followed by most states, that you should retreat first, and that deadly force can only be used if deadly force is threatened against you, is preferable to Stand Your Ground.

But the NRA is pushing for Stand Your Ground laws around the country. This case will have a big say in whether it succeeds.

[byu71]

It's a very troubling issue and I hope the Florida courts (or the Supremes) dial it back a bit on how the law is applied. There's another Florida case pending where a a young father was playing basketball with his 8 year-old daughter and a kid was skateboarding around on the other end of the court. An onlooker yelled at the kid, telling him to get off the court. The young father told the onlooker it was cool and to let the kid alone. A heated argument ensued between the dad and the onlooker whipped out a gun and shot the father, dead, in front of the young girl. The shooter is claiming self defense in that, per the Florida law, he had a "reasonable fear of serious harm."

Frankly, this is why I have serious concerns about letting citizens pack heat. The number of reported "justifiable" homicides in Florida has tripled since the Florid Stand Your Ground law was adopted without, I believe, a corresponding decrease in violent crimes. Should one be able to use a .38 if the other side only has, at most, a pair of fists? I think the old law, still followed by most states, that you should retreat first, and that deadly force can only be used if deadly force is threatened against you, is preferable to Stand Your Ground.

But the NRA is pushing for Stand Your Ground laws around the country. This case will have a big say in whether it succeeds.

Normally I am pro letting one have firearms. However, I think this Stand Your Ground Law is bad law. However, if a couple of these people get sent away for life who claim the law as defense, maybe people will think twice about killing someone just because they piss you off.

[RobinFinderson]

Frankly, this is why I have serious concerns about letting citizens pack heat. The number of reported "justifiable" homicides in Florida has tripled since the Florid Stand Your Ground law was adopted without, I believe, a corresponding decrease in violent crimes. Should one be able to use a .38 if the other side only has, at most, a pair of fists?.

Wow. I've taken heat from some conservatives for claiming to be pro-gun-rights, but not supportive of the NRA, and this situation does a good job of encapsulating why someone might feel as I do.

[byu71]

Wow. I've taken heat from some conservatives for claiming to be pro-gun-rights, but not supportive of the NRA, and this situation does a good job of encapsulating why someone might feel as I do.

I can't pass up this opportunity because it doesn't happen all that often.

I AGREE WITH YOU.

[Uncle Ted]

There is a difference between citizens and responsible citizens. A responsible citizens will take a concealed handgun class that includes a good review of gun laws, firearm safety, instruction on when it is and when it is not justified to use deadly force for personal protection, voluntary fingerprinting, and a demonstration of proficiency in handgun shooting on the range. Note that this is not the concealed handgun class that is taught in places like Utah and Arizona (and I am guessing Florida). Responsible citizens are the only ones, IMHO, that should be allowed to "pack heat" since they have gone through all the trouble of demonstrating they are one of the "good guys". In short, I don't agree with the statement that all citizens should not be allowed to carry guns unless you can somehow completely remove all guns from the Earth.

[Omaha 680]

There is a difference between citizens and responsible citizens. A responsible citizens will take a concealed handgun class that includes a good review of gun laws, firearm safety, instruction on when it is and when it is not justified to use deadly force for personal protection, voluntary fingerprinting, and a demonstration of proficiency in handgun shooting on the range. Note that this is not the concealed handgun class that is taught in places like Utah and Arizona (and I am guessing Florida). Responsible citizens are the only ones, IMHO, that should be allowed to "pack heat" since they have gone through all the trouble of demonstrating they are one of the "good guys". In short, I don't agree with the statement that all citizens should not be allowed to carry guns unless you can somehow completely remove all guns from the Earth.

Spot on. In a properly run conceal/carry class, they don't just teach you gun safety and gun laws for your state. They also go over conflict resolution and de-escalation/escalation scenarios. Our guy taught us very specifically when it is appropriate for you to escalate the conflict and when it is not. It was very helpful. It's impossible to take the emotion entirely out of a possible life-threatening situation, but proper training can help minimize it. It also hammers home the obvious fact that anger should NEVER be a motivation for escalation when you're carrying.

[Omaha 680]

Should one be able to use a .38 if the other side only has, at most, a pair of fists? I think the old law, still followed by most states, that you should retreat first, and that deadly force can only be used if deadly force is threatened against you, is preferable to Stand Your Ground.

What about a baseball bat? How about three pairs of fists? There are lots of situations where at least the threat of deadly force may be appropriate as a defense before you are threatened with obvious deadly force. The key is proper training. Obviously you shouldn't be able to whip out your piece and start blasting during an argument and then claim reasonable fear of significant harm as a defense.

[PaloAltoCougar]

What about a baseball bat? How about three pairs of fists? There are lots of situations where at least the threat of deadly force may be appropriate as a defense before you are threatened with obvious deadly force. The key is proper training. Obviously you shouldn't be able to whip out your piece and start blasting during an argument and then claim reasonable fear of significant harm as a defense.

Baseball bat, yes; fists brandished (if indeed they were) by a kid weighing 100 lbs. less than Zimmerman, probably not. One hopes all the facts of this case will come out, as preliminarily it certainly seems like Zimmerman violated even the very generous standards of Florida's Stand Your Ground law.

And IF a person received a proper training and adhered to it, I'd be fine with the person carrying a piece. But (a) is every class going to truly provide adequate training, (b) is every student going to truly absorb all elements of that training, and (c) will every student apply that knowledge in the heat of battle? Obviously, the answer is no, and so I'm still nervous about the prospect of being surrounded by people carrying guns. I'll admit I'm a wuss.

[LA Ute]

Everyone should have access to one of these, with proper training:

[DU Ute]

Baseball bat, yes; fists brandished (if indeed they were) by a kid weighing 100 lbs. less than Zimmerman, probably not. One hopes all the facts of this case will come out, as preliminarily it certainly seems like Zimmerman violated even the very generous standards of Florida's Stand Your Ground law.

And IF a person received a proper training and adhered to it, I'd be fine with the person carrying a piece. But (a) is every class going to truly provide adequate training, (b) is every student going to truly absorb all elements of that training, and (c) will every student apply that knowledge in the heat of battle? Obviously, the answer is no, and so I'm still nervous about the prospect of being surrounded by people carrying guns. I'll admit I'm a wuss.

I would feel safer walking the streets with 5 criminals carrying guns per every 1000 people than 5 criminals and 100 trained concealed carriers per every 1000 people. Much, much safer.

[LA Ute]

I would feel safer walking the streets with 5 criminals carrying guns per every 1000 people than 5 criminals and 100 trained concealed carriers per every 1000 people. Much, much safer.

So you do not support our divinely inspired Constitution? Another one deceived by the subtle craftiness of men. Sad. Which one are you on The Painting? I see you somewhere in the lower right-hand corner.

[DU Ute]

So you do not support our divinely inspired Constitution? Another one deceived by the subtle craftiness of men. Sad. Which one are you on The Painting? I see you somewhere in the lower right-hand corner.

Is there a Son of Perdition on there? Did I mention I'm going to be a delegate at the Democratic conventions next month? :devil:

[LA Ute]

Is there a Son of Perdition on there? Did I mention I'm going to be a delegate at the Democratic conventions next month? :devil:

[myboynoah]

Baseball bat, yes; fists brandished (if indeed they were) by a kid weighing 100 lbs. less than Zimmerman, probably not. One hopes all the facts of this case will come out, as preliminarily it certainly seems like Zimmerman violated even the very generous standards of Florida's Stand Your Ground law.

And IF a person received a proper training and adhered to it, I'd be fine with the person carrying a piece. But (a) is every class going to truly provide adequate training, (b) is every student going to truly absorb all elements of that training, and (c) will every student apply that knowledge in the heat of battle? Obviously, the answer is no, and so I'm still nervous about the prospect of being surrounded by people carrying guns. I'll admit I'm a wuss.

No, you're not a wuss. Having people walk around "packing heat" is insane. But if we are going to insist on allowing folks to do this, and even make them take "training," then when they screw up, there should be severe consequences. This guy shot and killed an unarmed kid in a public area. It even appears that he sought out the confrontation. Why isn't he even charged with a crime?