"Stand Your Ground"

[Earthsick]

Reading the discussions on Zimmerman, and seeing the ubiquitous use of this term as the litmus test (by the MSM mostly) for whether he was justified (excepting of course the recent revelation of self defence, now that the police report pdf is readily available and it's debatable whether the voice on the tape calling for help was Martin or Zimmermarn), and given that this should be considered a case of self-defense and not standing your ground (the opportunity for egress already having been eliminated, if he were on his back getting has face punched in), and knowing that the case has become a potential crucible for the stand your ground laws, I have never seen it answered:

How did the relevance of this law, "Stand your ground" become synonymous with the outcome? Was it latched onto by the media and it became a running talking point that some felt obligated to refute? What makes this a test of the law, aside from a few people uttering it within the same breath as the case within the reach of a few microphones?

[Green Man]

Reading the discussions on Zimmerman, and seeing the ubiquitous use of this term as the litmus test (by the MSM mostly) for whether he was justified (excepting of course the recent revelation of self defence, now that the police report pdf is readily available and it's debatable whether the voice on the tape calling for help was Martin or Zimmermarn), and given that this should be considered a case of self-defense and not standing your ground (the opportunity for egress already having been eliminated, if he were on his back getting has face punched in), and knowing that the case has become a potential crucible for the stand your ground laws, I have never seen it answered:

It has not been answered to date whether either the shooter or the shootee in the Zimmerman-Martin case was covered by Florida's Stand-Your-Ground law.

We don't yet know what transpired at the critical moments as Martin was killed; we may never know. We do know that Martin was being followed by Zimmerman; if Martin had been of legal age to carry and had been licensed to do so he might have killed Zimmerman and been protected by Florida's law. If he was protecting himself by other means he would still have enjoyed the law's protection.

This incident illustrates the primary weakness of Stand-Your-Ground laws in general: when both parties are "standing their ground" what does the law say about who's at fault when one guns down the other?

[Desertrat]

"How did the relevance of this law, "Stand your ground" become synonymous with the outcome?"

It's mostly a made-up thing. Diversionary. Same as the racial nonsense. Mediahcrities selling advertising by creating excitement.

[rlm1966]

It has not been answered to date whether either the shooter or the shootee in the Zimmerman-Martin case was covered by Florida's Stand-Your-Ground law.

We don't yet know what transpired at the critical moments as Martin was killed; we may never know. We do know that Martin was being followed by Zimmerman; if Martin had been of legal age to carry and had been licensed to do so he might have killed Zimmerman and been protected by Florida's law. If he was protecting himself by other means he would still have enjoyed the law's protection.

This incident illustrates the primary weakness of Stand-Your-Ground laws in general: when both parties are "standing their ground" what does the law say about who's at fault when one guns down the other?

It may be a weakness but it is better than the alternative of "Bad Guy Always Wins". Nobody should have to flee in the face of a bad guy. What needs to happen is a serious change in the laws of who we prosecute, how long they are jailed and how unfriendly the jail/prison is. Remove the TV and radio, no more weights, you can work in the fields for the food you will be eating or you can spend you day in a sweat box. Make jail a real unfriendly environment and perhaps it will scare a few people straight. On the other hand those currently incarcerated for non-violent victimless crimes should be released.

[Green Man]

Nobody should have to flee in the face of a bad guy.

How do you decide who is the bad guy? Is it the guy who disregards police reccomendations and chases down the kid? Or is it the kid with the skittles that flees and is interrogated in the dark rainy night? Neither? Both? One (which one).

Hypothetically, if the shootee had been a few years older, had his permit and had been carrying, he might be alive today and have Florida's law on his side.

[saulteux]

How do you decide who is the bad guy? Is it the guy who disregards police reccomendations and chases down the kid? Or is it the kid with the skittles that flees and is interrogated in the dark rainy night? Neither? Both? One (which one).

Hypothetically, if the shootee had been a few years older, had his permit and had been carrying, he might be alive today and have Florida's law on his side.

Or better yet, if justice was actually SERVED, e.g. violent offenders were actually fried in the electric chair, thieves actually paid back what was stolen, etc, there wouldn't be a perceived need for vigilantism.

[rlm1966]

How do you decide who is the bad guy? Is it the guy who disregards police reccomendations and chases down the kid? Or is it the kid with the skittles that flees and is interrogated in the dark rainy night? Neither? Both? One (which one).

Hypothetically, if the shootee had been a few years older, had his permit and had been carrying, he might be alive today and have Florida's law on his side.

First the guy showed a serious lack of judgement in following the kid after being told not to, going alone and leaving the truck. That being said this isn't the angelic little kid that the media is portraying him to be. I just love how he is being portrayed as a sweet little kid when he was there because he had been suspended from school for 10 days. But I digress. In this case the guy should a serious lack of judgement and in my opinion should have his CW permit revoked and he should never be allowed to be a police officer.

All that being said the bad guy is the guy who tries through force or intimidation tries to relieve you of life, liberty or property. We have these bodies called juries that preform trials to determine your guilt or innocence if there is question about who the bad guy is. I gather from the stance you are taking you feel that there should be bad guys and victims not self reliant individuals and dead bad guys. Will things go wrong, probably but at a far lessor pace than if we all walk around with a rob/rape/kill me sign because we think you should always give ground to those that ignore the rules.

True fact, look it up if you like. There is a town in Georgia the by ordinance requires all citizens to own a gun. Then they posted signs at the edge of town so all can see. Their crime rate is very very small. Bad guys don't like going to a place where they do not have all the power, they hunt for weaker prey. So I firmly believe in standing your ground.

When all of the facts in this story come out is when we should be passing judgement but this guy has been tried, found guilty and basically sentenced by the media already. In the coming days as more comes out perhaps the media will quit playing judge and jury and will instead start doing their jobs and reporting the fact and just the facts.

[Green Man]

There is a town in Georgia the by ordinance requires all citizens to own a gun. Then they posted signs at the edge of town so all can see

Assuming you support the mandate of this town in Georgia (Kennesaw, if I remember correctly), I assume that this means that you support the concept of government mandates generally?

Lately the 'mandate' concept, widely credited to the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation, has conservatives backpedaling quite rapidly....

[naturallysweet]

How do you decide who is the bad guy? Is it the guy who disregards police reccomendations and chases down the kid? Or is it the kid with the skittles that flees and is interrogated in the dark rainy night? Neither? Both? One (which one).

Hypothetically, if the shootee had been a few years older, had his permit and had been carrying, he might be alive today and have Florida's law on his side.

Where did you get the idea that the boy was chased down? (A high school football player being chased down by a 220-250 pound fat man a decade older, I don't think so.)

Where did you get the idea that he was interrogated? Since when is asking why your in the neighborhood an interrogation?

Why do the skittles matter? The picture that the media keeps showing is from his middle school days. He was a 6'3" man in everything but legalities. If he wanted to be treated as a child, then he should have been in bed at 3 am on a school night. instead of roaming the streets.

If a 6'3'" person punched you to the ground and was beating on you, then would you have the right to self defense? Or do you lose all rights because you dared to ask a question?

I ask these questions in all sincerity. Because the very idea that offending someone by asking them a question, takes away our right to self defense, pi$$es me off.

[Green Man]

Because the very idea that offending someone by asking them a question, takes away our right to self defense, pi$$es me off.

So when Martin asked "why are you following me?" of Zimmerman, was he not entitled to an answer?