Does anyone else out there think the "Stand Your Ground" law is stupid?

[deen_ad]

I agree, but Mr. Zimmerman made choices that made him appear to be a vigilante, who pursued the young man.

Well, the court case is proving differently!

 

[deen_ad]

my thoughts are that you don't understand the concept of SYG laws ... or you wouldn't be suggesting that it allows people to indiscriminately shoot people "on a whim" .....

And GZ getting out of his car really has absolutely nothing to do with his ability to use deadly force if the standards of such force are met ... and doubtful that this law or even the possession of his firearm "motivated" him to get out of the car.

Nor did his injuries (as documented in pictures by the police) enter into it. There is no requirement to be injured by your attacker before you use deadly force to protect yourself or others.

 

[deen_ad]

Now what is basically up for argument is the intent of the law and who it incompasses. Can I patrol outside a bar, following and profiling suspected DUIs? No? Then how can Zimmerman patrol a neighborhood and follow someone he thinks is going to commit a crime?

I think, legally, we're going to find out that Zimmerman did everything right until he got out of the car and followed Martin. If Martin would have attacked Zimmerman in his car, yanked him out and started beating Zimmerman up the ground- then got shot there would be no debate at all.

But Z WAS doing something he was allowed to do in a place and at a time he was legally allowed to be. He was watching the neighborhood, he was NOT confined to his vehicle by any constraints (the dispatcher (who was not a sworn officer) told him "You don't have to do that") so there was no "order" keeping him from watching someone doing something suspicious.

 

[orygunmike]

Nor did his injuries (as documented in pictures by the police) enter into it. There is no requirement to be injured by your attacker before you use deadly force to protect yourself or others.

I have no clue as to why you replied to my statement with that statement.

 

[unklekippy]

If you "flashmob" for the purpose of doing harm to others, you deserve what you get.

I thought the sarcasm was more than obvious in my post. Since it was taken literally, it should also be noted that I have no "homies".

 

[U201491]

Maybe time to use the syg here.

http://mobile.wnd.com/2013/07/4th-of-july-done-for-thanks-to-black-mobs/

 

[U201491]

What they are afraid of is "little man syndrom." That I am going to be more aggressive because I have a gun in my pocket

Actually it has just the opposite effect on MOST people.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

A person claiming self defense/SYG must past the test: Was their use of deadly force justifiable -- were they in *immediate*, *unavoidable* danger of *grave bodily harm* or *death*.

TM was not being faced with such a threat, and therefore the SYG does not apply. If he was, you have to ask why he didn't just run away ... I assume that TM could easily out run GZ.
On the otherhand, because GZ believed that his life was in immediate danger, and, being pinned beneath TM while having his head beat against the sidewalk didn't afford him the reasonable opportunity to escape, his claim of self defense likely meets that standard.

You can't use the ability to retreat to overcome the STAND YOUR GROUND law since SYG in itself means you have no obligation to retreat.

As far as the law applying to Zimmerman, I think the authors of this particular law would be a good authority on the spirit and breadth of the law as it applies to him.

It is the fact that Zimmerman ignored the 911 operator's advice not to follow Martin that former Sen. Peaden says disqualifies him from claiming self-defense under the law.

"The guy lost his defense right then," Peaden told the Miami Herald. "When he said 'I'm following him,' he lost his defense."

Rep. Dennis Baxley, Peaden's co-sponsor in the Florida House, agrees with his former colleague, telling the newspaper that the law does not license neighborhood watch or others who feel "like they have the authority to pursue and confront people. That is aggravating an incident right there."

Both co-sponsors told the newspaper, however, that they did not think the law needed to be re-examined.

"If you want to pass something, pass something that limits their ability to pursue and confront people," Baxley said. "It's about crime watch," he said. "What are the limitations of crime watch? Are you allowed to jump out and follow people and confront them? What do you think is going to happen? That's where it starts."

 

[44mag2ndamend]

A simple rule. Know when to hold em know when to fold em,
but the real stand your ground law comes from a source far
more powerful than any state or federal legislature.

Any idea the source, yea I know, need to look it up, any assistance would be nice.

 

[pokerace]

[QUODoes anyone else out there think the "Stand Your Ground" law is stupid? TE][/QUOTE]


NO

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

Any idea the source, yea I know, need to look it up, any assistance would be nice.

It is a universally accepted principle that all men have a right to defend their life, whether that is from a Judeo-Christian God, or the Deist "Creator". Several philosophers have written about this..

JJ Rousseau said "This common liberty results from the nature of man. His first law is to provide for his own preservation, his first cares are those which he owes to himself; and, as soon as he reaches years of discretion, he is the sole judge of the proper means of preserving himself, and consequently becomes his own master." (The Social Contract, JJ Rousseau, 1762 <broken link removed> )

In fact, in the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote that all men had a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."

You'd have to read Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Jefferson and others to get the whole idea, but it boils down to the fact that Man, by existing, owes it to himself to always do that which is in his own best interest to survive. Killing a man who is trying to take your life is a moral responsibility. For the religious, it can be said that your life is a gift from God. Allowing another man to take your life is saying that God's gift to your isn't worth protecting...(paraphrasing either Hobbes or Locke, can't remember right off the top of my head which).

 

[SilentShooter]

I stopped worrying about the laws, here, Russia, China, where ever....point of fact, anywhere you go, if someone tries to or actually assaults you, you can defend yourself. If you are so past it that you have to shoot some punk because you are so out of shape, you are so retarded in your martial arts skills, then you shouldn't be a cop, security, or on the watch. I'll go to guns when the weapons come out, prior to that, it's a good reason to stomp some guy's head into the ground.

Case closed.

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

Ah...Leviathan, by Hobbes: "A law of nature, lex naturalis, is a precept, or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same, and to omit that by which he thinketh it may be best preserved."

<broken link removed>

This is a heavy read, and all too often forgotten by people. This is regrettable, since Locke, Hobbes, Calvin, Rousseau and other had a great impact on Jefferson et al.

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

I stopped worrying about the laws, here, Russia, China, where ever....point of fact, anywhere you go, if someone tries to or actually assaults you, you can defend yourself. If you are so past it that you have to shoot some punk because you are so out of shape, you are so retarded in your martial arts skills, then you shouldn't be a cop, security, or on the watch. I'll go to guns when the weapons come out, prior to that, it's a good reason to stomp some guy's head into the ground.

Case closed.

You must not be over 50 with a bad back....

 

[U201491]

You must not be over 50 with a bad back....

I was thinking the same thing

 

[Stomper]

You must not be over 50 with a bad back....

I was thinking the same thing

Or just under 50 with a "quirky" back.

 

[timac]

[QUODoes anyone else out there think the "Stand Your Ground" law is stupid? TE]

NO[/QUOTE]

I'll second the NO!

 

[44mag2ndamend]

Ah...Leviathan, by Hobbes: "A law of nature, lex naturalis, is a precept, or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same, and to omit that by which he thinketh it may be best preserved."

<broken link removed>




This is a heavy read, and all too often forgotten by people. This is regrettable, since Locke, Hobbes, Calvin, Rousseau and other had a great impact on Jefferson et al.

The mind is the protector first, well thought and appreciated.

Na, on KWANDO man.

 

[Phillyfan]

my thoughts are that you don't understand the concept of SYG laws ... or you wouldn't be suggesting that it allows people to indiscriminately shoot people "on a whim" .....

And GZ getting out of his car really has absolutely nothing to do with his ability to use deadly force if the standards of such force are met ... and doubtful that this law or even the possession of his firearm "motivated" him to get out of the car.[/QUOTE

Have to disagree with this one. I don't think this guy would've gotten out of his car and followed in such a way without knowing he had an ace in the pocket. Total congecture, of course.

 

[Phillyfan]

Stand your ground laws aren't stupid, they're designed to protect you (someone defending themselves) and your loved ones.

States without Stand Your Ground (SYG) laws leave a lot up to interpretation.

For example, you and your wife decide to go out for a night on the town. You decide to go to the mall to catch a movie and a bite to eat when someone pulls out a gun and comes toward you.

States without SYG laws basically would have you run from the situation...and if your wife/kids happens to be taken hostage or raped from the encounter then oh well- that's what the police are for. It's their job to deal with bad guys, not yours.

Now states with SYG laws protect you for using force on this individual instead of retreating. So basically you can't be found negligent for shooting a guy presenting a deadly threat as long as you were in an area you were allowed to be and there for a lawful purpose.

Now what is basically up for argument is the intent of the law and who it incompasses. Can I patrol outside a bar, following and profiling suspected DUIs? No? Then how can Zimmerman patrol a neighborhood and follow someone he thinks is going to commit a crime?

I think, legally, we're going to find out that Zimmerman did everything right until he got out of the car and followed Martin. If Martin would have attacked Zimmerman in his car, yanked him out and started beating Zimmerman up the ground- then got shot there would be no debate at all.

I think you all are placing yourselves in Zimmerman's shoes but not Martin's shoes. If you were walking home and being followed by a car, then that person got out and started following you on foot- what would you do? Doesn't SYG apply to Martin, as well as Zimmerman?

Little too lopsided on this one. He pulls a gun we are able to shoot with the law we have. What if he came up and picked a fight? Pushed you in the chest? Can you then fight with him and then shoot him if he starts to win? Say good-bye to everything you own in that scenario.

Or, should you try to back off, call the authorities, and wait until they arrive?

When I say, "try to back off" I am talking about at the very beginning of the encounter. If someone comes up swinging that is a different matter.