Stand Your Ground It is a highly controversial law that since 2005 has left a string of incidents throughout Florida and the invocation of “stand your ground” as a shield of immunity from prosecution. There is now a lot of confusion on the part of the public, law enforcement and our judicial system, and the haphazard interpretation and application of the law. This movement is an attempt to clarify the parameters of the law and set the tone for our civilized society. Please post your comments.
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force. Stand Your Ground does not apply to those who place themselves in situations like those Dr. Scott! mentioned unless that person has no choice in order to survive. It may be frustrating but I believe everyone must have the right to defend themselves without prosecution (or persecution) but common sense needs to prevail,too. If someone creates the environment whereby a shooting or death occurs, they should not have legal protection even if it is to save their own life. However, the consequence should be less than manslaughter. SYG should be kept in tact but it needs to be better defined and additional training needs to be required.
ReplyDeleteJust how do you keep SYG in tact [sic], but redefine it?
DeleteIf you believe the media reports, and I realize that takes a leap of faith, the police wanted to charge Zimmerman with a misdemeanor that after collecting all the evidence and interviewing him for hours. Obviously, I don't I know for certain but I have to believe that it was based on your reasoning here. He shot to save his life, but he put himself in the situation. Again, according to media reports it wasn't the police but rather the State Attorney's Office who declined to prosecute.
DeleteConsidering the facts have shown that Zimmerman was pinned to the ground and had absolutely no opportunity to retreat, how is Stand Your Ground even relevant here? How can you avail yourself of a law that does not impose a duty to retreat when there is no opportunity to do so? This Stand Your Ground issue shows how hateful and ignorant the media, politicians, and much of the liberal community really is. If there is no opportunity to retreat, then Stand Your Ground does not even come into play. Just admit it liberals, this is all propaganda to impose more gun control.
ReplyDeleteSubmitted by: Anonymous
This is horrible for the State of Florida. A state that relies on tourist money and not a state income tax should be protecting people not allowing a stupid law to allow anybody to claim self defense. I would not bring my family to Florida for vacation because there is not safety when guns are allowed to be used when emotions are high or for that matter just because somebody doesn't like you. To be able to kill somebody when you are the agrressor and then be able to claim self defense is no place I would visit. I think all there should be a camping to boycott Florida as a tourist or citizen due to safety concerns.
ReplyDeleteReally..........I guess there's about 20 other states you won't be visiting either. Why don't you try Detroit, D.C. or NYC......real strict gun control laws there. I'm sure you would be muuuuuuch safer
DeleteYes, please don't visit here. I rather pay state income tax then have another ignorant snowbird.
Delete@Big Reece, LOL. So true. Yeah stay away from Florida, the state in which I raise my two children and have never felt the need to "stand my ground". It's so unsafe here, I wouldn't recommend coming here.
DeleteI don't think the problem is in the law itself. The law clearly doesn't support Zimmerman's actions.....He or some slick defense attorney is trying to wrongly use this law to save his a--. There's hundreds of laws in our country that have been twisted to be used for reasons other than what the were created for. This is nothing different.
ReplyDeleteThere was no defense attorney involved in this decision making on this, the police wanted to charge him (with a misdemeanor) and the State Attorney's Office declined.
DeleteI do not think that the law should be repealed,but I do think that the law should be amended, and the language made clearer. The law is too vague, and people have probably misused the contents of the law.
ReplyDeleteYou obviously haven't read the law.
DeleteI agree that it appears that this situation could have been avoided had both sides of the altercation acted in a more reasonable fashion. That being said does one incident warrant changing a law that has otherwise not caused any problems. As of last year there were over 800,000 people in the state of Florida that had concealed carry permits. I just don't think there should be a knee jerk reaction to isolated incidents that would deprive all of those people the right to defend themselves.
ReplyDeleteThis is hardly an isolated incident. The handling of the matter was isolated for several weeks.
DeleteAs a retired Iowan who vacations in Florida, stand your ground laws are a positive when I select vacation locations. I would not worry that this law will drive away tourism. Your problem is your high violent crime rates in some of your Florida cities that drive away tourism. Around Orlando it is now ranked one of the worst violent crime areas in the nation. You diminish the legal means of vacationers self defense and shift the burden of protection to your law enforcement and you will see many of us vacation elsewhere. As a CCW permit holder I would not be any where near Orlando with out my own means of self protection. As for making this stand your ground law an issue now due to the Martin case. It appears that you are in rush to judgment the same as most of the media and protesters. Based on the list of task force members and their titles, I would have expected restraint do to the current investigation.
ReplyDeleteThe Florida Stand Your Ground Law is the cornerstone for protecting ourselves and our loved ones.
ReplyDeleteI DO NOT WANT THE LAW CHANGED. I pray that you never have your home invaded or your car jacked or your
loved ones assalted without the opportunity to defend yourselves.
I urge you to take the required gun safety course and get your Concealed Carry Permit and join the thousands
of law-abiding citizens who want to defend themselves and their families against the criminals we see in the news
every day.
I agree with Anonymous #6. We have a RIGHT to protect ourselves from criminals! You, Dems, always try to disarm the citizens of this great country, so you can get full control of us. It will never happen. We have a WONDERFUL Governor who will never let this happen. Soon, we'll have a new President,too!
ReplyDeleteThis will be a landslide election!! GOD BLESS OUR COUNTRY!!
You couldn't have put it better. I carry and the Constitution gives me that right.
DeleteI also pray tht God will bless our country...especially with a governor and legislature that will do a much better job promoting education so the citizens can begin to think more critically and behave more reasonably.
DeleteAnd no...the teachers don't need to carry guns.
Inalienable rights ain't inalienable! When the state executes a convict, he/she dies. When anyone kills anyone else, that person dies. Who speaks for the dead, if not the courts.
Check on the meaning of "Ipso facto."
The death of any person at the hands of another must receive the same thorough investigation and adjudication irregardless of the apparent circumstances. That it required a lawsuit, national media coverage, and intervention by the USDOJ to have the killing of an unarmed individual competently investigated and seriously reviewed by a prosecutor due to the state's stand your ground law is an outrageous travesty of justice. Stand your ground is an unneeded, bad law that will only serve to contribute to more killings in the future. As it is: Stand your ground + no witnesses = a state approved human hunting permit. The NRA lobby be damned; this law needs to be repealed.
ReplyDeleteSo where do you stand on the 49 innocent people shot on St. Patty's Day on the South side of Chicago? Why no media coverage or task force on that?? Gang violence+ no concealed carry = 49 dead, including 1 beautiful little girl.
DeleteThis law seems to be a way to murder someone and get away with it. Some of the cases I am aware of the individuals who killed someone were the ones who brought the so called danger on themselves. The law needs to be reviewed and rewritten or sadly there will be more Trayvon Martins.
ReplyDeleteI think we should get all the facts of the case before jumping to conclusions and thinking about changing any laws. I believe you are presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty, not guilty until proven innocent when politicians or celebrities say so. I feel the Stand your Ground law is fine the way it is.
ReplyDeleteFirst let me say that I am deeply saddened by the death Trayvone Martin. I am sure he was an innocent young man. I pray that his Parents get justice for their son. No parent should have to deal with this kind of tragedy! Please do something to get rid of this terrible law! There are so many crazy people out there that think it's okay to use their weapons for any reason they see fit. We all need to stand together and change this once and for all!
ReplyDeleteKeep the law as is. If the law is abused then prosecute. Why should invaders be able to sue homeowners for being shot inside the home? This has happened many times that home invaders have sued homeowners for being shot and disabled for loss of income - in other words not being able to steal...
ReplyDeleteI am a registered CCW here in the state of Florida. Although I do believe we need a stand your ground law I also believe it should not be within the law to instigate an altercation, whether it's with words, or actions and then still be able to claim self defense when you discover you've made the wrong choices. The law was put in place with good intentions and it's there for law abiding people to defend themselves if they are involved in an UNPROVOKED attack. Until our legal systems starts issuing real punishments to criminals rather than a slap on the wrist there is nothing to stop them from attacking us and we need to be able to defend ourselves without a fear of prison or lawsuits.
ReplyDeleteThe law should stand. There is no language in this law that would allow you to pursue someone then kill them. I wish the media would take the time to show how many times this law saved law abiding citizens of Florida from the lawless people that live in our society. Certainly no one really believes you could get ride of guns. You ban guns and only the criminals will be the ones with them. Check out Chicago, some of the strongest gun laws in the country and they have the WORST gun crime statistics.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing wrong with the current law. Leave it alone.
ReplyDeleteThis has NOTHING to do with the Stand Your Ground Law!! Once Zimmerman left his own property, the Stand Your Ground Law, was abandoned!!!
ReplyDeleteRead the law. That's not what it says!
DeleteThis tragic event occurred outdoors in a neighborhood. But the Stand your ground law has to do with someone(s) specifically trying to forcibly enter someone's residence, dwelling. or vehicle. What does one have to do with the other? Leave the current law alone. I'm so tired of everything a tragic event like this happens the liberal media tries to take everyone else's right to defend their home and property away.
ReplyDeleteRead the law. That's not what it says.
Deletethe Stand your Ground was intended to protect Law abiding citizens Defending themselves from overt criminal actions, or assaults upon their person that may or is intended to inflict death or great bodily harm. It protects them from law suits while defending themselves from immediate threat to their person or someone else's from an aggressor. If you take away this protection you allow those who are law abiding to be victimized from an out of control criminal element who doesn't care about gun permits, the law or their fellow human being. As far as the young person refereed to is concerned, you can seriously injure or kill another human with your bare hands. It is irresponsible for anyone to take action before ALL the Truthful evidence is in!
ReplyDeleteI believe the law needs to be amended to include wording that makes it clear you can not follow someone, get into an altercation with them and then shoot them and claim self defense. If you are not following someone and causing the situation yourself then there is no need for self defense. Simply because you put yourself in a situation where you have to use deadly force to protect yourself doesn't mean that you should be permitted to get away with it.
ReplyDeleteSo if you saw someone come out of your house after they just burglarized you, you wouldn't try to follow them while calling the police? Good for you!!!
DeleteWhen an unarmed person is dead, the person with the weapon that caused that death should be held accountable in front of a grand jury.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I`d like to thank Mr. Smith and the committee for forming this committee to address this horrible law. 1. If this law is to be modified in any way, it is MANDATORY to completely remove the immunity clause. The persuasive argument could be that the only way, again the only way to determine guilt or innocence with any degree of accuracy is in a court of law where there is testimony,witnesses, a judge and a jury.2.It would be wise to declare that the old self defense laws have served this nation well for a 100 years, despite the occasion bumps in the road. Any radical departure carries risk .3. The best approach if it`s feasible (???) is to remove the law completely as you already know.4.A premise for your recommendations could be as follows: A history of this law shows that cases(often involving death) are dismissed , and dismissed , and dismissed month after month after month. Is it possible that individuals that might have committed manslaug!hter/homicde are walking free. ANY POLICY THAT BYPASSES A COURT OF LAW WHERE DEATH HAS OCCURRED IN AN ALLEDGED SELF DEFENSE SITUATION IS THE ANTITHESIS OF PROPER JUSTICE AND IS AN ACT OF INJUSTICE BY IT`S VERY NATURE.5. I believe committee members have to meet privately with Gov. Scott ,present the recommendations, and aske for his support. He can be told that we are looking for a yes or no answer and any waffling will be seen as a lack of support. Again, THANK YOU FOR MAKING FLORIDA A BETTER PLACE TO LIVE.
ReplyDeleteMr. Smith you are wasting taxpayers money.
ReplyDeleteRemember, dead folks don't pay taxes...ever!
DeleteThe gun law works fine. This particular incident is tragic, but very isolated. Masses of people are NOT being gunned down because of this law. PLease leave it alone. I ask the task force to NOT take away our right to defend ourselves. Law Enforcement cannot protect us, only pick up the pieces after we are victims of crime..
ReplyDeleteI just read an article that led me to your site. I'm happy to hear a task force has been set to review the Stand Your Ground law. I think it is important to review the law based on the amount of protest and public concern that has arisen since the killing. In the article i read that Rep. Smith did not think politics was a concern when creating the task force. In an election year when politics are so in our face whether we like it or not and the country is so divided it stood out to me when i read the list of people on the task force and before i even read the line that Smith did not think politics mattered. i said to myself, "there are no R's on the list of people". I immediately felt that could be a significant problem in how this plays out. I might add that i am a pretty hard line D and i think this could ruffle feathers in what is a well intentioned motion. I'm just one of the 99%. One of 300 million. but we really need to start considering those differences! that keep us divided so that maybe we can find center ground in the persuit of happiness and life and liberty and all that. inclusiveness, not divisiveness.
ReplyDeleteYour task force is ridiculous. Another burden on the Tax Payers of the state of Florida. I am certain you can find something much more productive to spend your time on. If you cant find something more constructive to work call me and I will be happy to point you in the right direction. Let Sanford, Seminole county and the Govenor sort this out. You have no business in this matter!
ReplyDeleteSince Zimmerman has not even been brought up on charges yet, we are all jumping to conclusions. We are arm-chair judges, juries, and some even executioners. The evidence has not yet been presented. The media has mislead (that is putting is lightly) the public on many levels: NBC's edited 911 tape, photos of both Zimmerman and Martin, and the list seems to be growing. This case does not even relate to the "Stand Your Ground" law according to what we have heard. If Zimmerman's account is true and Martin attacked from behind, knocked him down and was on top of him, then retreat was not an option, so this law is irrelevant. If that is not true and there is evidence that contradicts it, then Zimmerman has a lot of explaining that no law will "help" with. The only way the law may remotely be related to this case, is if ZImmerman had cornered, threatened, or assaulted Martin. Then Martin, not ZImmerman, would have been protected in using force. If anything needs to be!e uncovered in this case, it would be why did the Sanford police even refer to the law. Did Zimmerman have a different story originally? Did they not do a thorough investigation and used the law as an excuse? We should all want justice, but justice involves first getting to the truth, something that many want to bypass. If this is about justice, I stand with you. If this is about reversing a law that protects those who act in defense of themselves against violent criminal behavior and diminishing my right to self-defense and life and liberty itself, then I wholeheartedly stand against you.
ReplyDeleteLeave SYG alone. The only portion that has been abused is gang violence. Gang members have used self defense as a means of defense. If Zimmerman was attacked the SYG is not relevant. Ages old self defense laws grant us the right to protect ourselves. This campaign is an insult to our State. Stop knee-jerking and let the investigation run its course. Where are the quick actions from lawmakers when we need something done quickly? Each day of session costs tax payers over $50,000. Where is the fiscal responsibility shown by lawmakers. You are embarrassing us with your wastefulness. Think before you act. SYG must be left alone.
ReplyDeleteStand Your Ground is GREAT and I approve of it. If I am somewhere that I can legally be and somebody attacks me, I should have the right to defend myself! DO NOT CHANGE THIS LAW!
ReplyDeleteI support your right to self-defense. Killing someone because you "reasonably feel yourself threatened"... maybe not!
DeleteWould you tell your children to carry a baseball bat and use in on anyone who threatens them?
My condolences to the Trayvon family. This is truly a tragedy on many levels. I would ask that people dutifully consider how 'Stand Your Ground' became law in the first place. This law is INTENDED to protect the law abiding citizen from prosecution when RIGHTFULLY defending themselves (judicious use of force). Imagine your the victim of a home invasion or carjacking, you defend yourself and family with justifiable use of force only to be sued in a civil suit by the criminal or their surviving family members. Before this law was enacted this scenario played out time and time again. This was truly a tragedy as well. That is just one crude example of why this law exists. Laws are put in place for a reason. Is this law perfect? apparently not. Amend the law if need be, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water. I do find the selected 'Task Force' on this website suspect, knowing that Christopher Smith voted against the law originally and most members appear to be! of the democrat persuasion (typically gun grabbers). Note: most gun control laws are nothing more than OSHA (occupational safety and health act) for criminals. As for the Trayvon case, the 1st amendment has won out here: the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Let the prosecutors finish their SECOND investigation. Let's refrain from the lynch mob mentality and race baiting. Truly a tragedy!
ReplyDeleteThe stand your ground is a good piece of legislation. It was designed to protect he rights of law abiding people to defend themselves when they are under attack or assault. That’s all it does. It keeps law abiding people who choose to defend themselves from having to retreat in the face of attack and make themselves more vulnerable to criminals. That’s what the law is all about. The is nothing in the law that states you can follow and attack. The law is for your protection and the protection of others if needed when attacked or assulted.
ReplyDeleteThis is coming under fire because someone is taking this to the next level and following someone and then getting into a altercation. The law is clear "stand your ground" nothing about persuing anyone.
I have studied the FL SYG statutes in their entirety, and they are riddled with absurd and terrible language that should make every LE officer, lawyer and prosecutor afraid of its consequences. Example: "However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary ... to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony" There are so many other flaws it would take an hour to explore so let's just look at the above issue. Do you know what constitutes "imminent" under Florida law? How about the list of 15+ "forcible felonies" under which this law allows you to use deadly force if "imminent"? Can you name and define 10? Can you do so under the high stress of a potential crime in progress? I can't and it's highly unlikely that any non-LE person can.
ReplyDeleteDid you know that a person can shoot to kill in the state of Florida if the imminent forcible felony they believe they!
are witnessing is "Aggravated Stalking" ? So, I am LEGALLY entitled to use deadly force and potentially KILL another human being because I BELIEVE that he/she is about to stalk someone? Does it really take a legal expert to understand how insane this is?? Police are highly trained in the law, rapid assessment of criminal activity/danger situations, dealing with high stress conditions and how/ when to use their weapons - and they will admit that they themselves some times get the above wrong. and god bless them, this is their job!
Florida SYG law as it is written gives Joe Public (who has NO legal or LE training in any of the above subjects) the right to make a split-second judgment under extreme duress about what is "Imminent"; what the applicable law is; who may be breaking that law and in what degree - then based on that, pull a weapon and kill someone. Florida Statute 776.012 et al gives police powers to average untrained and armed citizens. This is a mistake which empowers citizens to act as sheriff/judge/jury/executioner in! seconds without any training whatsoever - it is dangerous and the statutes need to be repealed/rewritten immediately.
I completely support this law and all 2nd amendment rights and will defend my home and family even if it means taking the life of another. As a homeowner and crime victim I would like to be part of the task force to strengthen the law and give victims greater rights with regard to defending themselves and their family.
ReplyDeleteI pray that some night you don't defend yourself against the person who is trying to break in...and your only son has forgotten his key...
Deletereally, first of all no one who knows anything about gun safety would fire before postively identifying thier target. you see a few years back they invented these things called lightbulbs. as for SYG leave it alone the media has spread so many lies about this case it isnt even funny.
DeleteThis is NOT a "Stand your Ground Law" issue. This is a case of was the law broken. I am so tired just because Jessee Jackson and Al Sharpton are jumping up and down that you feel you have to form a committee to challenge a law. Be honest to everyone, a Black Male was shot by a White Male. That is the whole issue. Quit making Florida a "Race" state. Let the legal system do it's job and handle yourselves accordingly. Where was everyone when Governor Scott cut $3 Billion from Education? This is taking $3 Billion from our children. If we don't educate our children you are going to see more crime, Black and White. Where was Jessee and Al then? Oh that's right, there was not enough spotlight on that issue. It still had the same cause and affect. People are going to die without the proper education. If they can't read, they can't read laws. If they can't read about laws, they're going to break them. Parents- Teach your children right from wrong, old and young. Know where they are at, what they are doing, don't let them be out wandering malls, make them do their homework, spend time with them and things like this will stop. Restore the morals in this great country and these types of crimes will stop. If you are going to form a committee, form one that figures out how to hold parents accountable for their children's actions until they turn 16-18. If you can do that, there will not be a need for a "Stand your Ground Law". You will see more people in church instead of the malls. Kids won't be out getting into trouble because their parents will be forced to get off their lazy butts and start spending time with their children.
ReplyDeleteQuit making this a Race Issue and let the legal system prevail. Quntify this one single action for what it is and stop all of this madness. It is people like this Senator that is causing this problem by turning it into a race issue. I don't like Governor Scott but at least he is letting the investigation be completed before moving forward causing additional issues. Trayvon and Zimmerman have no place in the political arena.
Stand your ground is not the problem, the full details of the event that has caused this subject to become under scrutiny are not even completed. If one shows to be an aggressor, under Florida Statute 776.041. That section of the law says a person acting illegally (an “aggressor”) must, before using self defense, either clearly surrender, or in good faith withdraw from physical contact with the other, and clearly indicate to the other person that he desires to withdraw and terminate any use of force. Next, The law prior to the “Stand Your Ground” law basically stated that before you could use deadly force you had to have a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm from a person acting illegally or a reasonable belief that a forcible felony (the real serious stuff) was taking place or was imminent (in the sense of immediate and unavoidable). On top of this your use of deadly force needed to be reasonable. And you had to retreat if by retreating you could avoid the need to use deadly force and you could retreat with safety. With Stand Your Ground, We also did away with the “retreat rule” almost completely. Now – if you are not committing a crime, and are not in a place you are forbidden to be in – you do not have to retreat if you are faced with a situation where you are being attacked, or if you are attempting to stop the commission of a forcible felony. you are now presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm ONLY if someone is using or has used force to break into your residence, or a vehicle occupied by persons, or is attempting to abduct a person from a residence against that person’s will. (Situations that have nothing to do with the death of Trayvon Martin, and will have no application to it.) Why . . . you ask was doing away with the retreat rule a good idea? Well . . . think of the various scenarios. Someone else is attacking you – they have a firearm, or you have a reasonable belief they have one. Qute frankly, anyone who knows anything will tell you there’s no safe way of retreating in that situation. Someone is breaking into your home, boat, whatever – and knows you’re inside. Same situation – in most such cases – they are armed – and ready to do whatever they need to do to you or your family to accomplish their illegal goals. If killing you is involved in that – no problem. What about someone with another type deadly weapon? What about someone who wants to kidnap your infant, rape your wife, rob you, etc. Do you really want an anti-gun jury who have no idea of how it “really was” to decide whether you could have retreated safely, or not? Do you really want them to hash out if you should have retreated rather than stop the armed robbery, or beating of some homeless guy on the side of the road? You are attacking a good law that may need some better clarification, but never a repeal of the law itself. Learn the facts, read the law, and stop blaming a law for ignorant people
ReplyDeleteIt seems that so many commenters here have already found George Zimmerman GUILTY in the court of public opinion without knowing all of the FACTS. Remember innocent until proven guilty. Let the legal process take it's course. Regarding "Stand Your Ground", it does NOT provide a defense to the agressor in a crime, leave Stand Your Ground alone. With all the break-ins and attacks occuring these days, who knows you may need the protection of Stand Your Ground yourself one day.
ReplyDeleteAs the Miami Attorney related to Trayvon Martin, I would recommend the following inital changes:
ReplyDelete1. Fla. Stat. 776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.
Section (1) . Delete "civil action"
Section (2). Eliminate
Section (3). Eliminate
2. 776.041 Use of force by aggressor.
Section (2)(a). Eliminate
Section( 2)(b). Eliminate
Dear Mr. Smith and Task Force Members
ReplyDeleteLet me start off by saying that what happened on 2/26/12 was a very tragic event that we all hope does not happen again and can't possibly know what families are feeling.
There are so many direction for finger pointing when events like this happens. The Media starts to salivate, untrue information surfaces, he said , she said this list goes on and on, but the truth of the matter is we need to stop a take a good hard look at our social decay and the behavior that is taking place all around us.
I started this morning by reading the article about the repeal of Stand Your Ground , I am flbbergasted that we are now ready to throw the baby out with the wash so to speak.
Do you really think that if you repeal this law , that will stop what had happened on 2/26/12, if so we are really in trouble. We as tax payers will again FOOT the BILL for all of this back and forth political positioning and really not change the real problem !
no matter which way the the Stand Your Gound Bill takes shape. There are senior citizens that are frightened and do take up for themselves by having a firearm and now feel that if they need to protect themselves they can.
The subject of the "state tourism industry will suffer" another to soon to call, from what I hear from out of state visitors is that they are not afraid of being here because of the Stand Your Ground , they are more afraid of the crime that happens here in Florida let spend our time and resources doing some in that area.
I believe that this tasks force should insitute a good quality GUN CONTROL LAW that will take the GUNS from the BAD GUYS and leave the good citizens keep their right to bear arms if they choose. It always seems we THE GOOD PEOPLE pay for others mistakes and we are tired of it and the rubber band is getting real tight.
In closing ,there have been other cases that have had the opportunity for challange recently but there was not the Media Frenz we see today, Why is that ???? I hope we are not stepping back 30 Yrs. and driving a wedge between the Florida Citizens, our state or country can not afford this. DO the right things !!! SO I ask you as goverment leaders Please START leading us forward into the future not backward.
I agree that it appears that this situation could have been avoided had both sides of the altercation acted in a more reasonable fashion. That being said does one incident warrant changing a law that has otherwise not caused any problems. As of last year there were over 800,000 people in the state of Florida that had concealed carry permits. I just don't think there should be a knee jerk reaction to isolated incidents that would deprive all of those people the right to defend themselves.
ReplyDeleteAlthough we have vacationed in Florida many times in the past, my family will not be visiting Florida so long as the Stand Your Ground law is in effect. When any ignorant, gun-toting vigilante can kill people with governmental blessing, it simply doesn't seem prudent to go there.
ReplyDeleteCheck when you get home. There are over 30 other states that have the same law.
DeleteIt's certainly within your right to vacation somewhere where anyone can rape and/or kill you because they're armed and you're not. SYG is in place to give a would-be victim a fighting chance against a criminal who could care less about the law. Enjoy vacationing outside of Florida. I hear Somalia is nice this time of year.
DeleteIf the person on the receiving end of that "justice" is unarmed and you outweigh them by 110 lbs....then you should be held responsible for your actions. This law needs to be changed and waiting just allows this situation to happen again.
ReplyDeleteGov. Scott is correct. Wait until a verdict is reached by the courts, not by the media, not by a knee jerk reaction, not by sensational personalities looking for fame and recognition to their agenda.
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid this is a case that simply would have died, had the media not become involved.
Deleteyou really think that forcing someone to flee from an assault is wise? I don't, retreat will only cause more casualties. You do realize that there are almost one million concealed weapons permit holders in FLA and millions more who keep guns in their homes and cars and the number of defensive shooting incidents by these two classes is statistically insignificant. this idea of changing a law that works well is just a simplistic half baked reaction to an incident that has been exploited by some for their own gains
ReplyDeleteThank you for giving us a place to learn about the law.
ReplyDeleteI FORGOT SOMETHING IN MY PREVIOUS COMMENT. I SAY IT IS POLITICAL, AND I BELIEVE MOST AFRO-AMERICANS WILL AGREE WITH ME. BLACK ON BLACK HOMICIDES ARE OUT OF CONTROL, AND WE DON'T EVEN HEAR ABOUT FROM DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE COUNTRY. BUT, NOW YOU HAVE WHITE MAN KILLS BLACK BOY. MY SINCERE CONDOLENCES TO THE FAMILY. TRAGIC YES, DON'T RUSH TO JUDGEMENT. ALL OF A SUDDEN THIS IS WORLDWIDE NEWS, ANYTHING TO DIS-CREDIT THIS COUNTRY
ReplyDeleteAfter reviewing all of the information on the town of Sanford's web site; video, audio, and press releases, it is so obvious to me that Mr. Zimmerman was never in a position to stand his ground because he was in active pursuit of Mr. Martin from the time Mr. Zimmerman noticed him. Mr. Martin was the individual in this instance who had a right to stand his ground, and no matter how badly Mr. Zimmerman was being beaten, he was required to extricate himself from the confrontation by the same means he entered into it without the use of his gun. It is Mr. Martin who is protected by the "stand your ground" law, and he could use whatever force he thought was necessary against Mr. Zimmerman. This makes Mr. Zimmerman's wounds irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteBy defending himself against Mr. Zimmerman's pursuit, Mr. Martin had the right to stand his ground and defend himself when confronted by Mr. Zimmerman. That being the case, Mr. Zimmerman broke every concealed c!arry law by starting an altercation, and then ending it with his gun. If you diagram this out, including the fact that Mr. Martin was going in the direction of where his father was staying, and not "trying to get away," and match the actual physical movements against the state of Florida laws, you will see that Mr. Zimmerman has no legal defense of his actions, and that only obfuscation of the pertinent facts is driving this case away from justice being done.
As someone who has a CWL and carries, i make this observation based on my reading of all Florida laws, and Jon H. Gutmacher, Esq's. book "FLORIDA FIREARMS Law, Use & Ownership - Seventh Edition," and no others, especially Civil Rights laws because they cloud the waters of what to me is an obvious case of manslaughter, regardless of the race of the people involved.
An aside here: My wife and i have been conducting an informal survey of people walking thru our neighborhood, culling out the couples. Better than half of the individuals, especially without pets, could be construed to be "casing the neighborhood." Mr Zimmerman was specifically looking for "suspicious people and suspicious behavior" as a participant in his Neighborhood Watch program. I conclude that he projected his thoughts onto the situation Thank you for creating this site.
It seems to me that the stand your ground law overrides the right to trial by jury. So, if someone murders me and just one person decides that this law applies here then the murderer gets to go free. Only in Florida!
ReplyDeleteclarification...it is the court that would determine whether the crime is "murder." Until the matter goes to court and a verdict is rendered, a young man is dead and buried. [period]
DeleteWhat would you have citizens do? Are you suggesting that we allow ourselves to just be beaten to death? Perhaps your efforts would make more sense and be more rational if you pushed for heavy mandatory punishment for commiting a felony with a firearm or even carrying a firearm with intent to commit a felony. All your efforts are currently being motivated by the Martin incident without the benefit of full disclosure of evidence. There is a distinct possibility that you may be making fools of yourselves by jumping to judgement. Personally, if proven evidence shows that Zimmerman shot Martin and was not being attacked, I would consider the situation to be murder and not fall under the "Stand your ground" law.....which would be the case as the law currently requires. I cannot help but feel that you have a double hidden agenda:
ReplyDelete1. Cause racial division
2. Challenge a just law while encouraging criminals to attack and mame without fear of being shot.
I would be in full l support of your efforts if you sponsored legislation that punished criminals for even having guns, but don't attempt to punish law abiding citizens for defending themselves, family or those around them.
Only the Crooks and Thug's fear SYG! Everyone has a right to defend themself's from harm. If you really care about Justice then let the courts decide the issue of Martin Vs. Zimmerman. This whole thing is being overdone by the lying laimstream media and racebatters along with political fools with an agenda who don't even give a crap about Black on Black violence that's comitted by the gangsters in the hood. Clean up your own house and leave the good citizens of Florida alone.
ReplyDeleteI am not a crook or a thug. I'm not afraid of SYG. I'm afraid of those who have a gun and believe the right to use it goes with the permit. Even law-enforcement officers aren't allowed to kill those who "threaten" them...
DeleteIn the pursuit of the truth America needs to look at itself in depth to realize what the real problems are. Perhaps if you were to make the spread sheets mentioned below the truth wold come to the top and then we could as a united people make a decision on what do we need to do to stop and race related, income related, or mentally ill related crime from happening. During my time in the service in Vietnam I learned the soldiers serving with me all bleed bright red when shot. So until the government can truthfully tell the citizens of this great country there is never going to be another instance of innocent people getting shot, beaten, or sexualy attacked and killed leave the law alone. And know this, I have friends who happen to have darker skin than I do that carry a firearm with a legal license here in the great State of Florida that stand with me and others like us because it does not make a hill of beans of a difference what the race of a criminal is they needto be able to defend themselves. Those signs that warn not to bring a firearm into/onto the private property of a store owner are not working just like the law you could pass making firearms illegal. The crooks do not read the sign and go away because they are prohibited by a sign.
ReplyDeleteOkay. Lets make a spread sheet with the names of people killed or permanently injured in the first column. In the second column place the person(s) charged with the crime. In the third place the people/persons convicted in a court of law of the crime. In the next place the race of the person(s) convicted. In the last column place the victim's race.
Those would be just facts and only facts. After we create this document it would be decided who was doing the most crime involving death or permanent injuries to others. Once this is completed then we could develop programs to remove the things from people's lives that turn them into killers. Would it reflect that the entire United States of America and its legal system is racist were one race above another become evident as the one committing the most crime?
Or we could just out law all firearms and weapons of any kind. Then we could do a new spreadsheet with the same information. The weapons would change to wooden spears of course because we outlawed all those bad weapons and firearms.
Now depending on who you are this will be either a good idea or a bad idea. Any bets which is which? Safe speak, or politically correct speech has got to stop. when the real issues are hidden under the cloak of what I call, "Kissy Face Speak" we cover up the real problems so they can never be solved. Then we can repeal all the laws that protect private citizens from people who could care less if we live or die.
You write: "So until the government can truthfully tell the citizens of this great country there is never going to be another instance of innocent people getting shot, beaten, or sexualy attacked and killed leave the law alone."
DeletePlease note that none of the items you list are crimes--they are "charges." We have a practice in this country of charging those who commit crimes, before we execute them.
Reasonable people cannot always avoid harm to themselves, but they can minize it by reasonable precautions.
Is the phone number or your local police department programmed in your cell phone--or is it better to have your clip in your Glock?
There were laws that allowed legal self defense before stand your ground became law. The right to defend yourself will never go away.
ReplyDeleteStand your ground is and will be maligned and assailed in the coming months. This media assault on it is every bit as ridiculous as their pre-mature assault on Zimmerman and I think will be seen that way in the end. The anti-gun lobby has been looking for a good case to tarnish this law and they think they have one now. If the opponents are able to carry the discussion to the legislature and they open the hood on stand your ground, people will be forced to look at the details and identify the parts that are a problem. Isn't it reasonable that in a self defense situation that you are immune from any arrest without probable cause? Is it unreasonable that if not prosecuted then you are immune from civil lawsuits? Is it unreasonable that you can protect yourself in public when attacked? Is it unreasonable to say that you don't have a duty to retreat if under attack and risk a shot in the back? I don't know how the anti-gun lobby can defend their position.
In this upcoming debate the opposition will not be able to demonstrate how stand your ground applies to the Sanford case other than possibly not arrresting him immediately. But, there was no probable cause. One can make the case that this is exactly what stand your ground was meant to do as under the media and civil rights pressure they probably would have arrested Zimmerman without probable cause. They will also look like fools suggesting that self defense rights be tamped down in favor of the assailant.
People who are proposing changes to stand your ground are ill-informed and misguided. There is nothing bad about the law. It's common sense.
You write: This media assault on it is every bit as ridiculous as their pre-mature assault on Zimmerman.
DeleteCheck the meaning of "premature." The young man was dead for weeks before anything unusual happened in the media.
I live in New York, so I'm certainly familiar with the challenges associated with crime and violent gangs. I'm not, however, used to the practice such as the one in Florida where someone can shoot another person in a public setting just because the shooter thinks that the person looks suspicious. Worse yet, the local police don't even seem to care enough to investigate what really happened when this type of situation occurs. I respect your right to pass whatever laws you want, but there's no way I'd visit Florida under these conditions. Until things change, I'll be spending my tourist dollars in a state with different values.
ReplyDeleteIf you read Florida law, nowhere in the Stand Your Ground law says you can shoot someone because they look suspicious. Which person has the better chance of being a murderer, a licensed background checked resident of Florida, or a thug with a stolen gun?
DeleteIt is quite obvious (considering the makeup of the so called impartial Task Force Members and Presenters), that the deck is stacked against a fair hearing on "Stand Your Ground" (SYG). Nowhere in the aforementioned 18 invitees did I see any mention of any Pro-Firearm/Stand Your Ground representatives, let alone including former State Sen. Durell Peaden (R-FL), or Marion P. Hammer of Florida as speakers. How then can one NOT consider the task force as being biased against "SYG" when the opposing Pro-view of the law is kept silent?
ReplyDeleteAs far as Florida's "SYG" law and how it relates to the Trayvon Martin situation.. I believe it doesn't. Formally being in "Law Enforcement" (but retired now), I question several things (even though NOT against the law) that Zimmerman did that should bring into question as to the validity of his "self defense" under Florida's "SYG".. and thus his arrested and being brought up on charges.
No where in the law says GO OUT and look for trouble. This law was pass for all law ividing citizens to safeguard there safety anywhere in the state of Florida. Since you are making mention of the TRAYVON case we can agree that the media ,with there lack of honesty has been the biggest law breaker here, shame on them. A 17 yr old losing his life is a tragedy. But also is a tragedy when the media lied to the people and create problems. And lest remember that another 17 yrs old shoot and killed two tourist in Miami and now is going to jail for life. If we had God back in public sector many of this tragedies will be lesser........
ReplyDeleteI as a private security officer am paid to investigate suspicious activity and on property I am hired to protect. If I talk to someone who is acting suspicious or breaking the rules and they get violent I should still be a able to defend myself.
ReplyDeleteI killing a violent person a balanced response?
DeleteCan you imagine that "talking to someone who is acting suspicious or breaking the rules" might make them violent? So, you shoot them?
I believe the Florida "Stand your Ground " law is one of the best in the country, and has prevented several murders, robberies and breakins by those who fear they might get shot or whatever by those they intend to do physical or mental harm to. We need to keep this law just as it is, and not give in to those who want the citizens to be vulnerable to any kind of attack what so ever. Of course there will be instances where there is questionable circumstances and they can be solved by authorities. I believe this law has done good ten to one over the very few instances of questionable circumstances. The record proves the drop in crime in states and other countries where its citizens can legally defend themselves. It also shows that crime has increased where the citizens can no longer defend themselves. Florida has a very good law. Let's keep it that way, and not sucumb to certain individuals who come in from other states demanding justice, promoting rewards on their s!
ReplyDeleteupposed offenders without facts being presented. Keep the law as it is. for the good of us citizens.
Let's pray that you change your mind before someone shoots one of your children.
DeleteHow exactly do you determine someone's intention or motivation by looking at them or watching them. Now if they clearly have the potential for lethal force--they point a real gun at you--then what? It happens in bars, in kitchens, in bedrooms, in parking lots, in schools, in churches...
I would like to see the 911 operators be given the same authority as police when it comes to giving orders like "Don't follow"
ReplyDeleteIf it is possible let it be a type of authority they can only use on their job while they are conducting their job.
It should not be the type of authority they can carry with them in the public once they are off work.
This ties into the Stand Your Ground Law in the way that most of the time when a person "thinks" they are being threatened they usually call 911 first.
911 is the first line of defense.
I also would like to say that there is no way to determine what an individual will "perceive" as a threat. This Stand Your Ground Law relies on individual perception which can be flawed. It is for this reason this law needs to be reviewed, and repealed or rewritten. Each individual perceives things differently.
After reading and re-reading the "Stand Your Ground" Statutes, I am very surprised to find that each one of them lack of clarity, or “plain meaning”.
ReplyDeleteLegislative intent controls the construction of statutes. That intent, however, is determined primarily from the language of the statute; thus, the plain meaning of the language used in the statute is the first consideration in the interpretation of a statute. However, the Statutes which make up the "Stand Your Ground" laws are highly ambiguous and could easy be misused to justify, even if through ignorance, any number of positions that either a defendant or the State may take using the back and forth language contained in these Statutes.
There are other, more appropriate applicable Florida Criminal Statutes to deal with any type of situation that these laws were created to address. Plus, if anyone remembers the period when the "Stand Your Ground" laws were passed, the legislators who initially approved the lang!
uage contained in these Statutes were highly focused on creating an increasingly "tough" image on crime for the State of Florida. The initial message was meant to warn criminals that if they broke into a home, they could legally be killed by its resident. And then it seems, the message got lost and confused as it was extended further to other situations.
The days of the Wild West no longer apply. As a citizen of Florida, I think it's necessary to repeal these Statutes in whole.
The Trayvon Martin case is inapplicable for the Stand your Ground , if there was one covered by such law it would be Trayvon Martin. The kid was walking home, for heaven sake, was in his own neighborood, and this wanabe watchman came up and freaked the kid! Then he went further killing him in cold blood! Probably without even identify himself . This Zimmerman with a light finger on the gun, and an attitude of shoot first and ask questions later, should have his license to kill revoked!
ReplyDeleteI have family that lives in Florida, but I have resolved not to visit the state until 'stand your ground' is repealed. As a citizen opposed to extra-judicial killing, I find such laws morally offensive, and what's more I would not feel safe walking the streets of Florida. Hasn't the rate of gun homicide spiked dramatically since this law was enacted? (Note that I'm using the literal definition, which is 'killing a human'.)
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that violence can ever be condoned, even in self defense, unless there was no other choice.
Hastily enacted laws (or repeal and/or amendments thereto) in response to unique emotional events, make for bad law affecting all citizens. Please wait until all the facts are known before holding hearings, proposing repeal or amendments, etc. Some have suggested that the SYG law does not even apply to the Sanford shooting. Some have suggested those opposed to the SYG for political or philosophical reasons are simply using the Mr. Martin's death as an excuse to push their agenda. The local authorities, FDLE, FBI and (I believe) even the US Attorney General's office are invetigating. Let the facts come out, before jumping to self-serving conclusions; or taking hasty unwarranted action. It is the only reasonable course, act based on facts, not supposition, propaganda, political spin, etc. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
ReplyDeleteI live in Vermont, which has no requirement for firearm permits or registration and allows carrying open or concealed, but has the 48th lowest violent crime rate in the nation. That's because we are a rural state with a long tradition of hunting and an equally long tradition of common sense. We do not tolerate laws like Florida's Stand Your Ground statute, which merely legalize vigilante justice and handcuff law enforcement and the courts from prosecuting unjustified homicide. The old English Castle Doctrine, allowing people to defend their homes is reasonable. But extending "self-defense" to every public place, even for those who initiate conflict, is tantamount to madness.
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect, to compare S. FL to Vermont is beyond ridiculous. I am a single female in my late 40's and after multiple reports of burglaries, home invasion robberies, car jackings etc...I am cautious even walking my dog after dark, especially after having been burglarized twice and stopping two other attempts. We have had three robberies in my neighborhood just in the past two weeks. The criminals are no longer satisfied just taking things, they enjoy hurting others. 92 year old beaten for 20 bucks a couple of months ago. 70 year old robbed at the ATM and knocked to the ground last month. It is open season down here...but not by the law abiding concealed carry folks.
DeleteThere is nothing wrong with these laws!
ReplyDeleteChanging the statues only limits the rights of law abiding citizens.
Complete the investigation.
Present the facts to the Grand Jury.
Justice will prevail!
There is nothing wrong with the current law. It helps protect the innocent, honest, law abiding citizen regardless of which side of the confrontation you are on. It's a shame that so many posting their opinions haven't a clue what it says or have even read it.
ReplyDeleteAs to the efforts to overturn it based on assumptions, politics, and inuendo instead of facts: to do so would be foolish and mark those elected representatives who attempt to do so for being ousted come next election time. The vast majority of innocent law abiding Florida citizens support the law as do 20 some other states.
Criminals couldnt care less what the law says, they will always be armed if they choose to be and don't pay any attention at all to grandstanding politicians. They don't need any more help, the law abiding citizens do. Unless of course, your agenda has nothing to do with protection of innocents.
The legal system has perverted this from the get go. They argue that it is the state of mind in the seconds before the use of deadly force that is the only criteria for the act to be justifable, even though the shooter creates the situation in the first place. Could someone please show where in the statute that it says a person can persue a person and create a confrontation or altercation that leads to the use of deadly force. Common sense is down and out on the mat today.
ReplyDeleteDo you know what the problem is if you have 100 lawyers buried up to their necks in sand? Not enough sand. Given the arguement that they are presenting that one has the right to make themselves vigilanties ursurping legal channels and argueing that a person has the right to persue and apprehend what they consider a suspicious person is beyond belief.
There's nothing wrong with the SYG Law. Those who are sworen to protect us, should have the proper training in how the law is to be interpreted, and enforced. Zimmerman should not be protected under the provisions of this law. He clearly was the aggressor in this case. It would be interesting to see what the findings would be if Trayvon had been of legal age, and in possession of a CCW, when Zimmerman exited his car, in fact exhibiting the actions of someone with unlawful intent.
ReplyDeleteThe CSI unit would have found Zimmerman shot, and in possession of a firearm, stalking someone with a legal right to be in the area, and capable of defending himself to the legal limit of the law. In this case, a 200 lb man stalk a 140 lb kid, and found what? His size was not sufficient to subdue a kid that did not require subduing in the frst place.
There is nothing wrong with the SYG law. The problem you need to address is one of judges refusing to put criminals behind bars. (Or perhaps DA's making deals to keep criminals out of jail.) You are hell bent on making sure a bad guy has nothing to fear if he/she is determined to commit a violent act. As long as the SYG law exists, victims of crime have a fighting chance to stay alive and hopefully remain undamaged. Why would you be against that? Why would you want to give a criminal the upper hand? Before you rush to make criminals out of victims, you would be doing all people in Florida, citizens and visitors alike, a greater service by going after the bad guys and ridding society of their kind.
ReplyDeletemany years ago I was driving through the a bad area in Sarasota Florida (wihout realizing) with my passengers window open (I didn't have A/C). This was the same area where two British tourists were receently murdered because they were lost. I had stopped at a traffic light and next thing a black guy was reaching in trying to open the passenger door. I reached for a knife and he immediately said that "I don't want no trouble. I just got out of prison". I so wish I had my gun that day but that was even before the Concealed Carry law was in effect. I was carrying a black powder muzzle loading rifle at the time on my way to the shooting range. This 'stand your ground law is a life saver. Was I supposed to evacuate from and surrender my car to a potential car thief?
ReplyDeleteI have pulled my gun twice in Charlotte, NC at 5 AM while on my way to work and am convinced I stopped carjackings each time. I will give more details if you wish, like being a hospital employee and how the!
dubious individuals Drug and alcohol abusers hung around the Emergency Room, and how physicians even looked into buying bullet proof jackets if they were called in during the night. I remember a neurosurgeon being killed by a patient's family member who had been stalking him and shot him during the night in Sarasota, Florida in 1980 (?). The physician died about three days later.
We all need to be able to protect ourselves. 'Stand Your Ground Law' is a good law. I don't want to hurt anyone but I don't want anyone to hurt me or, more importantly, someone I love and to be rendered vulnerable and unable to protect myself by law. You would be wise to let this situation work its way through the courts and then decide from there. Keep politics out of it!
The Stand Your Ground law here in Florida needs to be reviewed and either re-written or repealed. How can a person who is the aggressor in a situation turn around and claim self defense? With a law like this on the books, people are given the legal right to turn a minor dispute into murder. Also, the fact that under this law an individual doesn't have a duty to retreat is rather disturbing. What's even more disturbing is that this law presumes that the individual that pulls the trigger is really acting in self defense and that the deceased individual was the aggressor. Basically, a law that allows an individual to be immune from arrest or a trial after they've murdered someone is an invitation to kill.
ReplyDeleteThan k you for lokkjin g inot this. Please check for these issues:
ReplyDeleteHow many people and used this law.
What was the reason given for the sholoting
Why did they say they felt threatened
Did the victim ahve a weapon
Race of the victim and the shooter
Age of the victim and the shooters
Although what occurred is still vague and all of the facts in the case are not known, the rush to judgement is shameful on the part of the media and politicians. The law is just and protects the honest citizen in his home or car, not walking down the street or confronting people. I believe it is comparable to the "castle doctrine" whereby you are not expected to retreat from your home. Every case should be examined and judged individually, I wonder in the 30 some cases that this justifiable use of force was used how many of the assailants had lengthy criminal records and what great harm they may have caused if not stopped.
ReplyDeleteSadly, in this recent case Mr. Zimmerman should not have engaged in police work, he should have left it up to the police. Also maybe the police should not have empowered him by using citizens for a crime watch program as some agencis train them in minor citizens on patrol type academies. This does not sound like a good practice and may hav!
e led to this incident.
Another point may be that if he had prior convictions, he should not have had the CCF license, and the state should have revoked it if applicable. The police cannot always protect the citizens, therefore the laws are there to protect us. If your rush to judgement is to remove the laws that protect us, then feel free to expand the prison system to lock up criminals to keep us safe. Budgetarily this would not be feasable unless you use the Maricopa County model, TENTS.
I am a concerned citizen that feels that this is a rush to judgement, hyped by the media before all the facts are clear. I think that the number one question is that the police were willing to arrest, but the State Attorneys Office would not allow it. Look into that and see if they did or did not do their job! That is the mystery that no one seems to want to address, task force that!
Try to imagine America without the media. We would not know about the Martin shooting.
DeleteThe danger in this country is that folks often jump to conclusions long before they have been presented with the facts. Facts about crimes usually are uncovered by testimony in court--so far, we haven't even reached that point.
The issue should not be getting rid of the law. The law was passed for people to protect their life and not have to figure out where they can run and hide while possibly getting shot in the back. The shooter "MUST" be able to "PROVE" his life was in danger. This was a very tragic event and should be investigated to the "T" by the Police. The media has gone crazy with this story only for the ratings. That in itself is pathetic. I heard on the news that the Award Winning Director Spike Lee Tweeted the address of the shooter. Ends up it was the wrong address and the people can't even live in their own home.Why are we not protesting that? Why has no one testified in front of Congress ?... Puzzling.. Why are the "concerned " politicians not trying to press charges on him. Do you think maybe its not in the best interest of the politicians, you know, for ratings and such. Maybe they see the chance for all the publicity, gotta get on the band wagon and ride as long as you!
ReplyDeletecan. That too is "PATHETIC". I have a Concealed Carry Permit , if you don't like guns or don't want to visit Florida because some of us do carry guns for the protection of ourselves and our family, then feel free to hang a sign around your neck stating so, and I promise not to use mine to defend you.
Between this law and the conceal/ carry law I don't feel anyone is safe anywhere.
ReplyDeleteI am more interested in my consttutional right to not get shot than anyones right to be armed.
I am a former Law Enforcement Officer from the Great state of Texas and the Florida Stand your Ground Act is one of the best in the country. It gives the individual the right to stand his or her ground and not have to try to retreate or get away for the evil dooer like befor the bill was passed. I am handicapt and can not move as fast as I could in my youth and this law has helped us to not have to try to get away and not have to worry about being charged with any crime if we do not run or get away.
ReplyDeleteThe residents of Florida are lucky to have this law since there are many older and handicapt people in this state. My wife and I are moving back to Texas in June and thankfully we have this same law in Texas. I only hope that the political aspect is left out of this inquirey and the people doing it will use comon sense and keep the law as it is written.
Thank you
Sincerly Ben Champion
As a former law enforcement officer, did you have the right and impunity to act as we now have under SYG? Should law enforcement officers have that right now?
DeleteI bet not!
I hope your study takes a good look at the number of crimes on innocent people ,reported & not reported,that were stopped by the stand your ground law .There's two sides to every story you know.Enough of the media hype & publicity stunts.Get rid of the liberal judges that let criminals go & there would be no need for us to protect ourselves from them.Let the
ReplyDeleteSYG law alone!
I did not know that if you are afraid of someone you would follow them. This is something that he zimmerman wanted to do so the ripe time came. please do away with the law.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing wrong with the law as it is written. No one should be required to run away from a life threatening situation. This committee, while rediculous as it will have no weight on the real committe that will be formed by the state, should look to if the law covered this particuliar situation. If it did not, then the law does not apply and should not be attacked. If it did than the was a proper outcome to the situation.
ReplyDeleteLike most other laws there is nothing wrong with the law. The problem is how the law is enforced, and interpreted by liberal judges. If it were true that the alleged culprit was involved in domestic batteries and other crimes that he has been accused of by the media, the question is why did he still hold a permit to carry. Enforce the laws as they were written and the problem is solved. Keep the media and professional agitators out of the picture.
ReplyDeleteMay I remind you that you are living in Florida where there is a conservative legislature, a conservative governor, and the conservative NRA that motivates many of the leaders to pass legislation with money.
DeleteLaws typically have punishments spelled out. Judges have some discretion, but voters have the discretion to vote judges out of office.
The Martin shooting so far is no where near to a court.
If you want to get rid of the media, turn off your TV.
As a life-long Floridian, I can't help but wonder how the State decided that preventing the possible theft of someone's flat screen TV or other consumer product, in the absence of the owner, was more important than protecting the rights of Florida residents to go out in public safely and not worry that an idiot vigilante with a gun will exercise poor judgment and kill them.
ReplyDeleteFloridians have always been protected from criminal prosecution for justifiable acts of homicide during a home invasion. At the time Stand Your Ground was enacted, violent crimes had been trending downward and there was no data that indicated citizens were under any greater threat in public places than they had been in prior years.
In other words, Florida lawmakers decided that it would be a good idea to literally throw gunpowder on a problem that was steadily decreasing in size and intensity. And while they were at it, they threw the rest of us Floridians under the bus.
But, hey, the NRA made money!
Dear Carole,
DeleteI am also a life-lomg Floridian and since you like to cite trends, you may be interested to know that just the past two weeks we have had 3 robberies in my lovely East Hollywood neighborhood. This after a 92 year old was beaten last month by a perpetrator and hospitalized as a result. We also had the man in his 70's beaten by a group of teens on the beach late last year. If you want to be a victim, I totally support your right to do so. However, do not tell me that I must be a victim. Not too long ago, I greeted a man trying to enter my back door after cutting the screen at 4am. If I had not awakened, he would have greeted me in my bedroom. I want the right to defend myself not only in my home, but when I am getting money from an ATM, gassing up my car or loading my groceries. All scenarios in which "idiot" criminals take advantage of.
Stand Your Ground is a proactive piece of legislation that all of us should embrace...We need laws like this. I would personally vote against any law maker that would try change the Stand Your Ground law in any way. I may have only one vote but I will use it if anyone tries to change this law in any way.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if you have taught your children to carry a ball bat and wallop anyone who threatens them. Why should children be forced to flee when their parents are allowed to kill those who they "reasonably believe" have threatened them.
DeleteLet's take a vote: how many folks reading this have ever told their parents the were unreasonable?
I am a citizen here in the UK and this law and the controversy surrounding it have persueded myself, as well as many of my friends, family and colleagues to not vacation to Florida this year. We had planned on landing in Miami, and renting a vehicle to drive up the coast of the state visiting Daytona, St Augustine, etc finishing it off with a visit to the Orlando area and the various theme parks (disney, sea world, universal, etc). My wife, and children are now far too frightened to even visit the State of Florida. My little one even asked "papa, if we go to the Florida, is someone going to kill you or momma?" She was visibly upset and since then we have changed our plans and no longer mention our Florida dream vacation, as it was causing so much stress, and anxiety to the point of her throwing up at the thought of visiting your state.
ReplyDeleteIn all, until there are changes in the State of Florida, nearly everyone I know will avoid it as they do not feel that a holi!
day is worth the risking of the lives of themselves, friends, and family. We had planned on spending 3 weeks in Florida, a family of 5 people. That is 3 weeks worth of hotel, a rental car, gas for that vehicle, and at least 3 meals per day for those 3 weeks. In additional to souveniers, theme park tickets, and numerous other items we would have purchased. I would estimate that we would have spent well over $10,000 USD while in your state, that will now go elsewhere.
I hope that your politicians realize that the world is not ignorant, and we watch and know what happens, and it is a deciding factor in the decisions of many who make holiday plans.
Quite the contrary, the framers of our constitution realized the rest of the world is inhabited by slaves which is why the founds gave Americans the 2nd Amendment. You might take the time to read our Declaration of Independence and Constitution before you put on "I'm smarter than you hat." Need I remind you that American common law flows from the Magna Carta, a document you Brits forgot about and have lost since Mr. Brown spold your rights to the EU?
DeletePlease do keep your money and in the UK. We don't need your money or your ideology in America.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." --Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishment, quoted by Thomas Jefferson in Commonplace Book'
“Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man, which is not warranted by law, or necessary for the public safety. A people can never be deprived of their liberties, while they retain in their own hands, a power sufficient to any other power in the state.” Noah Webster
“The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – James Madison
“The ultimate authority … resides in the people alone … The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.” James Madison - Federalist 46
“The right of citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of the Republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” - Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story in his Commentaries on the Constitution
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” – James Madison – Federalist 46
Amen!!! he also forgot to mention the rampant crime problem in the urban areas of the UK where strict gun control laws are in place. Some of those places would make a DC thug blush.
DeleteBecause of what has happened to Trayvon Martin, this law has become notorious and the public has been made aware of it . I, for one, was not aware of it prior to this case. This notoriety has a double-edge in that, while it is good that I am now familiar with the law, it can be a dangerous thing for those inidviduals who own guns and are trigger happy. These types of individuals who use anything as an "excuse" to shoot someone, will more than likely stand behind this law and use it as a means to get away with their actions. We need to either revise the law and include more "specifics" with regard to how this law can be applied, or do away with the law altogether. With a self-defense law already in practise, I don't see the need for this Stand Your Ground law.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, there are too many individuals in this State that are just looking for excuses to harm anyone. These excuses can range from: fear of the unknown, someone looking and acting differently, !
having different beliefs &or faith, etc. In other words, hate crimes will reek havoc with this crime. I say let's get rid of it!!!
I must fully support the stand your ground law. People mistakenly assume it is only meant to protect people defending themselves with guns from liability. They fail to realize it, just as importantly, protects people defending themselves with knives, bats, canes, tire irons, etc. I refuse to let the poor judgement of some people strip away the right to self preservation - the core of our existence. The only controversy is created by fearful people who don't truly understand what it protects. The skinny weakling now can defend himself/herself without being beaten to a pulp if threatened by a muscular thug. They no longer have to fear prosecution which, even if resulting in an acquittal, will cost him/her a HUGE amount of lawyer fees, and drag them through the horrible memory over and over in court. You want to go back to the days of living in fear and being forced to cower in fear? Come on! These flames atre only being fanned by gun fearing extremists. The !
ReplyDeleteentire amount of self-defense claims in this ENTIRE STATE don't even amount to many, and most are well justified, in spite of the media claims highlighting the more questionable few. Support the Stand Your Ground Law? You bet I do! P.S. You showing inflamatory one-sided pictures and making questionalble leaning comments on these pages tells me where this is "supposed" to go... I bet my comments never see the light of day...
It sadden me so say I'm from florida. To have this law on the books is sad, when I was growing up we confronted one another with our voice or had a fist fight now we are living like we are in the wild wild west. Please please take this law off the books. I want to see my Grandchildren grow up
ReplyDeleteTeach your grandchildren respect for the law and respect for others. If you just do these two things, your grandchildren will grow old. If on the other hand you do not teach them these things and they break into someone's home or aggressively attack another person, then your grandchildren will face a much harsher life that very well may be cut short. This law will protect your grandchildren and their rights as much as it protects my rights, as long as we respect each other and the law.
DeleteDo you want to be sued by an armed aggressor who has broken into your residence, just because you defended your self and shot them?
ReplyDeleteDo you want to be arrested because you shot and killed an armed aggressor, in your home; just so you can sit in jail until the courts sort it out?
Do you want to be sued by the family of a career criminal who died while they were trying to kill you or a member of your family?
All of the above are possible and probable without a “Stand Your Ground” law!
You can still be arrested, with PROBABLE CAUSE, for a SYG shooting.
“…A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is PROBABLE CAUSE that the force that was used was unlawful….”
The Courts’ have not been removed from the system, under SYG.
“… The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court !
costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff IF THE COURT FINDS that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1)….”
Be careful what you wish for and do not support, the actions of, someone who desires to pander to the desires of their political base.
As for the potential tourist who is concerned by “ignorant, gun-toting vigilante’s; ignorant sounds “cute” but not necessarily accurate, vigilante’s are not covered under the law and as for “gun-toting” only three types of people carry guns in Florida: 1) Criminals, 2) Law Enforcement Officers and 3) Citizens who have been vetted and issued concealed carry licenses by the State of Florida. Open carry of weapons is not permitted in Florida, except under special circumstances (fishing, hunting, camping).
Americans in the 1980s and ’90s were killed by guns at a rate of 5.66 per every 100,00!
0 of population. Since 2000, or ever since the increase in ope!
n-carry
and concealed-carry statutes, this rate has fallen 28 percent to 4.07 per 100,000.(MSNBC Report)
The potential tourist also needs to add to her list of states to avoid: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington.
But, by all means add Washington D.C. to the top of your list of places to go. With the most restrictive gun laws, in the United States, D.C. has a violent crime rate three times the natonal average.
Florida resident and CWFL holder.
I support STG!!
ReplyDeleteThis whole issue is a contrived effort to institute gun control. If someone can explain to me how "stand your ground" applies in this unfortunate situation I'd be happy to listen.
ReplyDeleteHow do I know it’s contrived, well for starters there was no immediate out cry on this, it took weeks for the race card magicians to hone their illusion that this was a racially motivated attack. Of course they relied heavily on their buddies in the media to pump out completely fabricated stories to aid the myth.
The 911 tape shows he was profiling by race, oh wait no it didn't. The video doesn't show that there's a gash on his head, oh wait yes it does. We enhanced the tape it sounds like he used a racial epithet, well we enhanced some more and it looks like he didn't.
Then we have the magicians themselves, Jesse and Al. How many more shows do we have to live through with these numbskulls before we dismiss them out of hand? Shall I go through the list of “injustices” that these two have championed, only to find out at the end of the movie that the cause they were shouting through the bullhorns about was wholly and completely, 100% fabricated? Duke Lacrosse anyone? Tawana Brawley ring a bell? These two have made careers prolonging race issues that don’t exist while lining their pockets doing so.
How much more of this do we have to put up with! I'm sorry this happened the way it did. Zimmerman probably shouldn't have been following him, based on what we've heard so far. However, so much of what we've heard so far has been wrong that no one can really make that judgment. Maybe there was some compelling reason for him to pursue Trayvon after the dispatcher told him not to.
Now, right or wrong, Trayvon is being pursued. There's no clear evidence that I've seen in the public forum to determine how that went down. Was he following at a considerable distance or was Zimmerman pursuing Trayvon in a menacing manner.
If it was the latter Trayvon would clearly be justified in launching a counter-attack, which it appears is what happened. Then after Trayvon dropped Zimmerman with the first punch, per statements by Zimmerman, is he justified continuing his assault. I don’t know. It sound like an awful a lot facts to sort through and weigh. Maybe, just maybe we should let the process of criminal justice take its course.
This idea that we can’t let a good crisis go to waste, even if we have to invent it has got to stop. Again, I’m sorry Trayvon was killed, but this exploitation to gain a political goal is intolerable. Let the criminal justice system sort this out. And as for Senator Chris Smith, you can have your meeting and the local media will give you your fifteen minutes of fame, but that fifteen minutes is up. This is going nowhere. At the end of day when ALL the facts have been investigated there will be no evidence of any racially motivated actions and there will be no justification to repeal or alter the Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground.
Oh yeah, and for the people who don’t want to come to Florida now, good stay home.
This isn't really about the SYG law. This is about a guy who thought he was a cop and he wasn't. And this is about not only a victimization mentality and sub-culture in our society, but the notion that victimization is more important than the due process of the law. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of emotions and grief. We are governed by laws (right or wrong) and those laws dictate the perimeters of our society. So when we start discarding laws because they interfere with our notion of emotional satisfaction or how we perceive social justice, what's the point in having laws at all?
ReplyDeleteIf the situation were different. If Martin had struggled with Zimmerman, got Zimmerman's gun from him, and shot and killed Zimmerman, the police would not prosecute Martin either since the gun was clearly Zimmerman's and Zimmerman was the clear aggressor (for argument's sake). Treyvon Martin would be alive and Zimmerman would be dead. However, given the above scenario, suppose SYG was still in place, as it is now, and the police DID arrest and charge Martin with murder. Martin would have (according to current law) used deadly force against Zimmerman to defend himself, and as a result would have been justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. Yet what if Martin were arrested in spite of the law? I guarantee that the same exact people that talk about how unfair, unjust and "wild west" the Florida SYG law is, they would be the exact same people that would advocate that Martin is protected by the law and should be freed and immune from prosecution and Martin would once again be the victim of another tragedy. What's worse, is they would be quoting the exact same Florida Statue that they now condemn. This isn't about Stand Your Ground, this argument is about one guy who thought he was a cop and he wasn't. This is about another young man who, in one way or another, for one reason or another, presumably got into some sort of altercation with Zimmerman--regardless of who was the agressor. This is about Zimmerman using deadly force in a situation that only two people (Martin and Zimmerman) know what truly happened. What people need to keep in mind is FL Statute 776.041 that stated immunity does NOT apply to a person who:
776.041--Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is NOT AVAILABLE to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
As a concealed carry holder here in Florida, I strongly support the Florida statutes, as written, concerning stand your ground. However, I think that Zimmerman is an idiot who went looking for a fight, disobeyed dispatch, and created a situation that never should have existed in the first place. Does the law protect him from prosecution? Only if he is found to NOT be the instigator of the confrontation and only if he was acting in self defense WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE SATUTE. Without independent witnesses, this will be a difficulty truth to reveal, but the legal process needs to work. Arrest him? Charge him? Not without probable cause and not without a thorough investigation deciding if the Stand Your Ground law actually applies to his affirmative defense. It's just unfortunate that our legal system in our state is actively being usurped by a mob-mentality bent of twisting public opinion with the help of the media, high profile personalities and knee-jerk state politicians. The law presumes innocence until FOUND guilty--not automatically guilty because an immediate arrest, and subsequent prosecution, would provide a "sense" of moral and social justice.
ReplyDeleteVictims of crime are not black or white--they are all victims. The problem with the Martin case is related to which of the two involved is the victim. The police department looked at the case and put the matter to rest early in March, shortly after the event. Without the media, this matter would still be buried.
ReplyDeleteReasonable people are outraged because of the brutality done to all victims--the issue is never who is black and who is white. Reasonable people who are threatened do not shoot first--unless that defense is equal to the threat.
Leave the SYG law ALONE! I have the right to protect my life,family and property! besides a fellow human being!!
ReplyDeleteI do not want you to change anything about this law. Its the only reason I feel safe on the street. It is clear that the police cannot protect us. The law is completely adequate and it is crystal clear. Leave this law as it stands. Remember this, I vote. CML
ReplyDeleteIn Putnam County Florida Pit Bull Dogs are given greater rights than Disabled Veterans whom they attack on live digital recording and repeated attack. Where is the stand your ground law and protection of law there? And if you point out that the public servants may be jeopardizing innocent peoples lives, like Mr. McSweeney who was torn apart just after this in putnam county, then you may be sent for mental evaluations for daring to seek justice and benefit of law, so come on down and visit florida, bring your elderly, bring your disabled, bring your veterans, the pit bulls need new targets to build up their confidance and the courts need more illegal prosecutions to spend your money on and you really dont need rights, freedom or the pursuit of happiness anyway, you need to pay for services, protection and law that never protects you only acts against you, right?
ReplyDeleteI support SYG 100%. Zimmerman was a wannabe cop, looking for action. He should be arrested.
ReplyDeleteLeave the STAND YOUR GROUND law alone. Is a good law. Let the lawyers and the system gather all the evidence, information and facts and then determined the outcome. It will always go back to the individual, his/her reasons and in a case by case basis. Also, it troubles me that everytime something like this happens the politicians comne out and jump into conclusions publicly for political gain. They should stop roughing up the public until they get all the facts. They should also stop getting the Martin's family involved in public views at this moment of grief unless is going to help them to deal with this trajedy. My heart goes to the Martin's family for their loss.
ReplyDeleteOne bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch...this is purely political grandstanding to elevate their self-importance in the public eye.
ReplyDeleteThe Stand Your Ground Law is a great law, as is the Castle Doctrine law. The proof is in the states that have adopted similar laws. The FBI stats show that "Violent Crimes" have decreased in these states. If this law were to be repealed, the criminals will love it. The end result will be that good citizens will be shot in the back while trying to retreat, and the criminals will have a field day. We have many older and disabled citizens living here. This law is one of the reasons that I feel safe to go out at night. Please don't do away with a great law because it may have been abused by one individual. Please deal with the abuse of this law on a case by case basis, and take the appropriate action against that person if needed. Thanks for this input opportunity...
ReplyDeleteLeave Stand Your Ground alone. Start enforcing the laws against those who are using guns for crimes and murder of innocent people.
ReplyDeleteOh, we know. It's a whole lot easier and safer to go after Law Abiding citizens than it is to go after dangerous drug dealers, rapists, theives and murderers.
I love how out Politicians only pass laws that are safe to enforce.
People who visit the State of Florida should be thankful that we have law-abiding citizens who can carry concelled weapons. This makes it much safer for both the Residents and Tourists. Hoodie clad perps will think twice about confronting you because they will not know if you are armed or not.
ReplyDeleteHowever, when you go to a place like New York City or Chicago, the criminals know that you won't have a weapon to defend yourself with so they will feel much more confident in attacking you.
Tourists should thank the Citizens of the State of Florida for making their vist more safe.
If the media championed the deaths of violent attackers where the law worked as it should, instead of a hypothesized exception of abuse, the coverage would serve as a clear message and deterrant, and said coverage would be more effective than the actual deed of self defense
ReplyDeleteI believe this is n isolated incident and should not have anything to do with the stand your ground law, if someone is shot in the back it is not self defense but if someone is a threat to ones life than the stand your ground law should uphold. Please dont take our rights to protect ourselves away, Im a law abiding citizen and its not fare to us who just want to protect ourselves and loved ones.
ReplyDeleteThe Martin case has nothing to do with Stand Your Ground. Martin was shot when he was on top of Zimmerman. There was no possibility of retreat even if it had been required. This case is about the use of deadly force and whether or not it was justified. Faulty, misleading and incomplete reporting, and in the case of one network outright tampering with recordings, has given anyone who hasn't spent a good deal of time tracking down facts a great many incomplete or incorrect notions.
ReplyDeleteThe problems with stand your ground seem to be that police and possibly prosecutors, are unsure how the law applies and are inconsistently using it. That is what needs to be remedied, not the law itself. In addition, guidlines should be drawn up, and followed uniformly throughout the state, for how data is collected and reporting is done on what is a case of justifiable homicide, and whether or not that case was a SYG case or something else. There is no such delineation now, and no way t!
o accurately judge the impact of SYG.
A person fighting for their life should have no duty to flee before fighting back. And that's all that SYG is...the right to defend yourself. What should be examined in every case is the laws regarding the justifiable use of force. These are what are at issue in a self defense case where deadly force is used. Whether you stood your ground or tried to flee is immaterial. What is relevant is whether or not the force that was used was justified or not.
For every case you examine where Stand Your Ground immunity was given improperly, you can certainly find a case where someone was improperly prosecuted for defending themselves, before the Stand Your Ground law was enacted. Our legal system is predicated upon the belief that you are innocent until proven guilty. That belief should extend to those defending themselves as well. Before SYG, the burden of proof was on the person defening themselves, and not on law enforcement. The reverse ne!
eds to be true to protect the rights of the individual.
FYI: I am a concealed weapon permit holder in Florida. The law is the law. It isn't a law for white people, and its not a law for black people, it is for everyone. If someone mis-uses a law, he or she pays for it. To those who say they want this law repealed I say this: Who the hell do you think you are? I carry to protect myself and family and I will do whatever is needed to do so. If my famnily is in a life or death scenerio, I will not try to run away. I will protect them at all costs. Very few laws actually put rights back in your hands, and the right to protect your loved ones is universal.
ReplyDeleteRepealing a law as a knee jerk reaction to an incident that has not even been completely investigated nevermind allowed due process in a court of law where he will be judged by a jury of his peers and then decided whether or not the stand your ground law is applicable to this case is wrong. I cannot figure out what this has to do with tourism. Trayvon was not a tourist. I can't think of an instance where a tourist has been shot and justified with this law.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing wrong with the law. It simply enumerates the rights that we have already been granted. The right to protect sef and property. It's basis goes back to common law. This analysis does not occurr without the Trayvon incident. I think it is simply difficult for some people to swallow that justice already MAY have been done to Trayvon, who it is now revealed was killed while he was committing a felony battery upon Mr. Zimmerman.
ReplyDeleteThe bigger question is this: just how much longer does anybody suggest that Mr. Zimmerman wait before being able to defend himself? He had been knocked down and been subsequently mountd (UFC fighting style) by Trayvon. It would be very difficult to articulate this as a 'defensive' posture on Trayvon's part. Trayvon then continued to batter Mr. Zimmerman. Then Trayvon was shot. by Mr. Zimmerman.
For all you folks who would rather have this law repealed, if the tables were turned (and Trayvon were 21 yoa and CCW w/ a permit)....!
how can you tell me that Trayvon would not have been justified in using deadly force to protect himself?
I have a few questions for the Task Force.
ReplyDeleteSo if the grand jury indicts, and Zimmerman is convicted, what purpose does this "task force" serve? At that point, SYG will be irrelevant and the system will have been proven to work as intended.
Wouldn't it have made sense to wait to convene such an august body as this unil after the grand jury has at least had time to meet?
also...
When has a knee jerk reaction to a terrible event EVER resulted in a good law or good change to an existing law? Is there any example of such a law that wasn't hastily constructed, poorly reviewed, poorly written and fraught with inconsistencies, poorly defined objectives, and even occasionaly infringements on civil liberties?
Trying to hide behind the statement that this task force is only about the Stand Your Ground Law is a load of garbage. This is a politically driven and racially motivated group. Just look at the picture that is displayed while I am writing my comments, a picture of a protest involving the Trayvon Martin case. Shame on you.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing wrong with this law. It addresses overzealous prosecutors who subscribe to the "charge 'em all and let a jury sort it out" mindset, which is anathema to our liberty. In this country, one is to be presumed innocent by the prosecutor unless there are articulable facts supporting an indictment. Unfortunately, this has not alwasy been the case in practice. Since this is a general discussion, I will only refer to its prgenitor briefly - There is no evidence in the Martin case that a "fight" occurred. THe autoopsy showed that Martin had sustained no injuries except the signle gunshot would to his chest. The police and paramedic reports document that Zimmerman had sustianed injuries consistent with his version of events. If one is to take the evidence at face value (which we are SUPPOSED to do), nothing (including an eyewitness statement) contradicts Zimmerman's story.
ReplyDeleteNow, on to the general subject. If the evidence on the ground substantiates a claim of!
self-defense, the prosecutor has no business charging the claimant. This has been codified into law in the "Stand Your Ground" statute, and it is not only entirely proper, it is a critical remedy to the prosecutorial destruction of people who should never have been charged.
Case closed.
The Florida Stand Your Ground Law is the cornerstone for protecting ourselves and our loved ones.
ReplyDeleteI DO NOT WANT THE LAW CHANGED. I pray that you never have your home invaded or your car jacked or your
loved ones assalted without the opportunity to defend yourselves.
I urge you to take the required gun safety course and get your Concealed Carry Permit and join the thousands
of law-abiding citizens who want to defend themselves and their families against the criminals we see in the news
every day.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I was born and have lived in South Florida my entire life. I have loved Florida and to some degree still do. However, I grew up in a farming community and can clearly remember that everyone could walk the streets without concern. Over the years, it appears that this country's morals and values are changing to the point that a decent and rational person is now concerened for what might happen when he / she falls asleep in their home, steps outside, drives to the store, makes a wrong turn on the highway, etc.. We are becoming faced with dangers that none of us ever would have imagined in the Sunsine State. Yet here we are and the dangers cannot be denied or ignored. To that extent, some of us have chosen to add a tool of self defense to our lives. I assure you, that the people who carry a legal concealed weapon have no other concern than to avoid becoming a victim of violence. When this law was introduced, it is my belief that it was was well thought out and well written. My rational is that it is highly unlikely that any law enforcement officer will ever be available to me at the moment that I may be attacked. It is not a question of whether I should have a right to defend mysel as I have a natural, God given right to do so. The questions that the stand your ground law finally addresses is that now, the obvious has been stated. This law clarifies that I do have a right to defend myself from death or serious bodily injury at any time that I am where it is legal for me to be, It now states the obvious that I have the right to be considered innocent unless I am proved to be guilty and not the other way around. If you would leave this alone and let law enforcement and the prosecutors do their jobs, you would save the tax payer a lot of money. Also, Tourists would be very happy to know that legal, responsible and good citizens are around. You however, are not promoting the fact that we are not interested in killing people, we are only interested in protecting ourselves and unless a tourist is trying to kill us, they are perfectly safe. I would love the opportunity to discuss further either via e-mail of in person as this review you have initiated shows the perception of a witch hunt and not what Governor Scott has proposed. Sincerely, Robert Weber
ReplyDeleteleave the law alone focus on finding evidence to either support or disprove self defense claims but dont touch SYG
ReplyDeleteI agree.
DeleteI think the entire law needs to be repealed because the general public does not understand the law and there are far too many people itching to shoot someone else and call it self defense
ReplyDeleteAre you for real? I can assure you that most people who carry legally for self-defense have no "itching to shoot someone else and call it self defense."
Deletei agree with this law, it's not a race thing but. everytime there is a shooting or stabbing near my town never fails. it's not a white person.. now a days most criminals carry weapons of some sort. what gives them the idea that this country is like the "wild wild west" i don't get it. we all should have the right to protect ourselves from low lifes like that. stand your ground baby!!!! you worked for it, protect it!!!!!
ReplyDeleteFirst, let me say this web site and “Your Investigation” is an affront to me and should be to every elected official and to every voter.
ReplyDeleteA criminal investigation, followed by an indictment and then a jury of the defendant’s peers should ALWAYS precede ANY political action. Make no mistake about it; this is politics at its lowest.
You have no authority to conduct an investigation, You are simply a member of a elected body. If the elected body so desires to have an investigation, then great. Again, after the justice system has run its course.
Second, if someone attacks me, my family, my friends and neighbor, in our own neighborhood, rest assured, that person will regret their decision. It may be with a nine iron, baseball bat, berri gun, or my 44 (will require an extra minute because it is kept secured, but the assault will be stopped.
It is time for the criminals to understand that the law-abiding citizens of Florida will no longer standby and be victimized by them.
It is time for ALL law-abiding citizens of Florida to stand up against the criminals and to assess our elected leaders to see if they stand with us or if they appose us.
Everybody is jumping in to repeal this law now that the thugs are getting what they deserve. Before the law the thugs had the upper hand and nobody gave a crap when they killed or beat people. Now they have to think twice that someone will be packing. I am a law abiding citizen and nobody has to worry about me assaulting them but beware about assaulting me!!
ReplyDeleteI COMPLETELY AND ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT "STAND YOUR GROUND"....AND BY THE WAY I VOTE!! I FELL SAFE WHEN I CAN CARRY AND DON'T HAVE TO BE AFRAID OF SOME PUNK THUG ASSAULTING ME...RATHER, HE NEEDS TO BE AFRAID OF ME!
ReplyDeleteAfrican Americans: Please stand up now for your rights. Some of those among you are working today to restrict or eliminate your rights to self defense. How many of us have millions to post bonds,hire lawyers, etc. only to defend ourselves if attacked. YOU HAVE RIGHTS. Do not let them take your rights away. The Florida Gun Laws are good and workable and do not need changes. Please work in other states to pass like laws.
ReplyDeleteStand Your Ground is not new law in Florida or anywhere else in the country. The 2005 change did nothing more than explicitly codify what has always been the law in Florida and the vast majority of the rest of the United States. In fact, until just a few decades ago, it was the law in the entire US. Since then, though, 6 states have passed some version of a "Duty to Retreat" law. It is that law, not SYG, that is the recent perversion of self-defense laws in the US. Florida, and virtually all the rest of the US, has never had a legal requirement to retreat in the face of a criminal attack, even in public. In fact, there is already a Supreme Court ruling on the matter - Brown v. US. The Court, at the time made up of some of the most prominent and famous LIBERAL justices to ever hold the position, unanimously ruled that there is not and never has been a legal duty to retreat in the face of a violent attack from any place you have a right to be in the US. So all the 2005 change did was to put that into explicit language. Even before the change, prosecutors, judges, and juries were legally obligated to follow the same standard in reviewing self-defense cases. The problem was that, out of either ignorance of the law, a desire to push a political agenda, or an attempt to further political ambition on the back of crime victims, some of these people would ignore the law and try to impose an artificial duty to retreat in court. The reason why we need the 2005 change is to ensure that these ignorant/unethical people can no longer use to the criminal justice system to re-victimize crime victims who have done nothing but successfully protect their own lives from criminal attack. And even if we repealed the 2005 change, Florida would still be Stand Your Ground, by binding Supreme Court precedent. It's just that people without good lawyers would be more likely to fall victim to ignorant juries and unethical prosecutors.
ReplyDeletestand your groung is a great law enstead of seeing the bad see the good/ crime has went down since it was enacted iam all for it .any politian that trys to change it needs to look for a new job most people agree it should stand .
ReplyDeleteSo.. Someone breaks into your home and you HAVE to leave and let them in.. Not very well thought through folks.. WISE UP..!!! Hate that the kid got shot and killed.. But if someone approaches me in the same manner that it was reported, same end result.. I carry, I vote..
ReplyDelete1 out of every 17 Florida residents has a concealed firearms permit. These permits are obtained to protect the person carrying or others in harms way. If you believed the press with the Stand Your Ground Law as a way to get away with murder, there would be almost 900,000 murders a day in Florida.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to carjack or invade my home, I will protect my family and self, I am 1 out of 17.
Boy, talk about censorship, most of my post waschange or deleted. I did say Liberal Press.
DeleteI am a 52 year old Florida resident. If there is a home invasion and I am killed by an African-American, will the Rev. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson come to MY defense? I posted as an anonymous person and color.
ReplyDeleteThe Stand Your Ground law is a good and necessary law.The previous "must retreat" law was also confusing and dangerous which is why it was changed.
ReplyDeleteI am a Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom veteran and I have seen the ugly side of humanity during those two combat tours. Sure, this is not Iraq but I am not blind to the massive drug trade here in Florida primarily being run by the street gangs and all the violence that breeds. Do you really think the gang bangers or the drug addicts are committing crimes between or just killing themselves? The Stand Your Ground Law is not the problem, it allows the law abiding citizen to protect themselves from these violent offenders. What you should focus on is your inability to deal with the real problems. You are focusing on this one shooting that has not been fully investigated yet. Why am I not seeing you or the Nation focusing on incidents like the 2 killed and 12 wounded outside the funeral home in North Miami where one victim of the shooting was a 5 year old little girl who was hit in the leg. Stop trying to score political points and do what you were put in office to do. Focus on real issues like drugs, illegal immigration, gangs (many are illegal immigrants) and all of the violence and crime bread from these type issues. You are making me sick and making me regret my service to this country with your obvious attempts at political point scoring with this issue. You should know we have extreme problems here in Florida that affects our tourism, since tourism and the revenue generated seems to be what you are really worried about. Again these are problems like drugs and gangs but I guess you are not worried about that are you?
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, the task force that you have appointed does not reflect Florida as a whole. Task force is made up of Broward county area members only and none from all areas of Florida, therefore representative of a single mindset and not one of general concern. In the sase in Sanford both individuals had a right to be where they were plain and simple. Under a duty to retreat guideline Mr. Martin would have been under law being in concern for his safety, been compelled to run back to his Fathers house and notify authorities he was being followed and feared for his safety. But he did not do this did he! No he called his girlfriend and then confronted Mr. Zimmerman which resulted in physical confrontation. Why did he not call 911 if he felt in danger? Did Mr. Zimmerman threaten bodily harm? The location of the physical altercation would not place Mr. Martin at his residence or in his conveyance. Appears that Mr. Martin did not continue to his residence after he was in fear due to being followed. All of this led to physical contact and according to witnessed physical altercation places Mr. Zimmerman in the victim role on his back and under physical attack from Mr. Martin . You can dispute theory of the events upon initial contact between these two indiduals all you want, it is still theory. The fact remains that you have a witness statement of Mr. Zimmerman in the victim role on bottom being struck by Mr Martin, at which time time you revert to a matter of self defense law. The "Stand your ground law" is a precursor law that states, if you are in fear of your safety and have a right to be where you are that you are not compelled to run away to just die tired.
ReplyDeleteThe Stand your ground law should not be on trial here. Zimmermon did not stand his ground, he pursued Treyvon and aggravated the attack. Try the case and leave the law alone, it is a good law to protect law abiding citizens.
ReplyDeleteStand Your Ground is exactly what is needed. What does a sign or law do for those who intend to break the law and harm us? You think a criminal pays any attention to a sign that asks them not to carry a weapon? The law is a warning sign to criminals. Law abiding citizens understand SYG and understand the implications. Do not allow one outlier to change your minds and the laws. We need Stand Your Ground. I do not want to worry about trying to retreat when faced with danger. I do not want to worry about arguing with the police about whether or not I could actually retreat or not. SYG stand for protection. Please leave it unchanged.
ReplyDeleteIt’s unfortunate that we must to write laws like, Stand your Ground; however, if one looks to the left – The Task Force Members – are the reason the citizens of Florida need it.
ReplyDeleteI will give those members recognition of having the courage of putting their name and a face to this rush to judgment, kneejerk reaction, even if that is a career limiting move for them.
I am a 47 year old single female that wants the right to defend myself. I am a Hollywood Florida Native and have been burglarized-cleaned out of precious sentimental items twice. Two other occasions I was home when attempts were made to enter my property. One occurred at 4am and was a single male attempting to enter my home-God only knows what his intentions were and luckily I awakened and was able to scare him off. However, had he gained entry into my home, I will use my Constitutional right to LIFE and defend myself. I am sure you are aware of the amount of crime and violence committed particularly against women in our society and sadly, the perpetrators are often back on the streets the same day. The amount of crime coupled with budgetary shortfalls leave honest hard working taxpaying citizens vulnerable. We are the ones in prison, living in our gated communities, paying for our monitored alarm systems with burglar bars on our windows while the criminals (of all races) run the streets freely…often after early release. Police are only minutes away when seconds count. We have had three robberies in my neighborhood in just the past two weeks. DO NOT tell me I have to be a victim by changing the Stand your ground law. Once again, our legislators are reacting to something before all the facts are in. Tread carefully as your decisions will be remembered come Election Day. I also want to know what task force will be looking into the threats made by the New Black Panther Party in Florida this past week, the ones threatening to incite violence and cause bloodshed in our streets?
ReplyDeleteStand Your Ground Laws in Florida, where I live, and in other states is the NRA & ALEC's version of "shoot first and ask questions later". Since national violent crime rates have declined in recent years, there is no reasonable expectation crime rates would decline further by the hands of armed, non-professional, vigilante types like George Zimmerman. These wanna-be-police-officers have found a refuge in these laws which should be closed to them forever and thus help prevent killings like that of Trayvon Martin and many others. Let's not forget this law also helps shield racist and ku kluk klan members under an aura of legality for their actions. Ask those two young shooters in Oklahoma. Lastly, WHERE IS ZIMMERMAN'S GUN?! It's an outrage this killer is walking around who-knows-where with his gun while Trayvon Martin he killed has been in a grave all this time. I commend Senator Smith and Mayor Bloomberg for shedding light on this issue. Stand Your Ground Laws must go now!
ReplyDeleteDo not leave me and my family defenseless by changing the so-called stand your ground law. You cannot protect me, only I can protect myself.
ReplyDeleteYou will find yourself on the side of vicious criminals if you attempt to endanger me with weak self-defense laws.
Imagine that, you have a lot of prosecutors want to change the law so that they have to WORK to prove someone is guilty. Can't have the burden of proof be on the prosecutors now can we?
ReplyDeleteStand your ground provides the citizens of this state the right to defend themselves. Unless we are willing, both politically and financially, to have a cop in front of every house, the citizens must be responsible for their own safety and well being. We cannot afford to hire that many officers, nor should we become a police state. The law is good as it is written and should not be repealed, modified or amended.
ReplyDeleteThe issue is crime watch. A person who is part of a crime watch has every right to monitor a neighborhood for suspicious activity.
ReplyDeleteWhat are crime watch members required to do when confronting someone? Should they be allowed to carry firearms? Even if a member has a permit? What are members required to do when witnessing suspicous activity?
These are the problems with the this case, not SYG. However, just was with other laws, this one will be misused in attempts to avoid arrest and prosecution... however, it does appear that there will be an arrest warrant issued for Zimmerman today.
All the facts are being distorted in the reporting of the media. If SYG case are reviewed most cases are attributed to police officers. There has not ben many cases were this law been in court cases. This case in itself has been made out to be a race issue as is clearly not.
ReplyDeleteI am very relieved to see that the vast majority of comments here recognize that SYG is not a problem. What is a problem is a small vocal minority of mostly elected office holders who would do anything to get advance their own agenda. After resding most of the comments posted I believe that alot of the members of this psuedo task force are regreting their involvement. As far as those tourists who claim they won't be visiitng Florida as long as SYG is law, I respect your right to make such a decision. I myself have decided not to visit any states that do not respect my right to defend myself or exercise my 2nd Amendment rights.
ReplyDeleteYou want to change the "Shoot first Law" to "Get shot at first law", how stupid. Without a doubt the wording of the law should be looked at but you have to keep the right to defend yourself without first suffering physical harm.
ReplyDeleteI am a law abiding citizen, taxpayer & voter in the State of Florida. I have the right to protect myself in a life threatening situation. This whole Tryvon Martin case is just an excuse for the gun control supporters to sink their teeth into taking away more of our rights. If the courts find Mr. Zimmerman guilty then he should be punished but lets not change a law over this. Lets also not forget all the innocent law abiding citizens this law has protected. As a voter I will rally against any supporter of changing this law to see they are voted out of office. We must keep our constitutional rights.
ReplyDeletePeople should ask themselves why the National Rifle Association has vested interest in the Stand Your Ground law. The more people buy guns, the more their members make money. What happens after that is only collateral damage to them.
ReplyDeleteA balanced task force would have been nice. Instead, I only see South Florida politicans and personalities who have previously expressed their opposition to private gun ownership and concealed carry.
ReplyDeleteI don't have a problem with tweaking the law to correct any ambiguities, but I wholeheartedly support the law and its intent.
Why blame the law for Mr. Zimmerman's actions and the Sanford Police's susequent cover up? The law was designed to protect Trayvon from stalking bullys such as the "Mr. Self Appointed Neighborhood God" If Sanford Police thought they could have shielded Mr. Zimmerman using an EPA or Zoning law they would have made the stretch. This law clearly does not protect Mr. Zimmerman and never will.
ReplyDeleteA year or two ago in south Florida, a white passenger left his vehicle to start trouble with a black motorist who he thought was following too close. The passenger even reached into the motorist's truck to tussle with him. The motorist who stayed in the truck had a concealed weapon defended himself and was not charged because of this law. If not for the law he may have hesitated and might be dead now.
I believe that law should be repeal but it goes back to protection for your car and house or other places that you feel like fear will be affect for your protection but add on the second chance shot first to be applied with you are the aggressor as well as the victim too. Many people don't think about the consequences before it happens. We have to go on impulsive because of the factor if you back are against the wall then you are thinking on how you will protect yourself or your family by the any forces from others. But, you are told to stop by the authorities by phone or contact with them then you should make a law that could affect that individual(s) or people in general should be charge with that and uphold the justice and law with an addition to all our laws too.
ReplyDeleteI think it is time to abolish this law. We are loosing too many loved ones due to this. Yes, keep it for our homes, but not on the streets. What is to stop anyone from walking up to someone and stating they feared them. This to me is what I think is the trend we are starting to see. Someone gets into a verbal disagreement, pulls out a gun and kills them, Stand Your Ground is claimed. Why, because they feared they would get shot first, person was unarmed. NO, this must stop now. We are allowing our State to kill first, ask questions later. WE allow citizens to kill more freely than we allow officers or military to.
ReplyDeleteI'm a 44 year old woman with a husband that travels quite often. My home was burglarized 10/2011, and the most precious item they took from me that can never be replaced is my sense of freedom and security IN MY OWN HOME!!! The crime was committed by 3 males one leaving DNA evidence in my home. Do you know where they are right now, they are out on the street probably robbing your home, assaulting your neighbor, buying drugs, raping your women! Do you know why they are on the street, I've been told by my city Mayor budget cuts. Two of the men have been in trouble with the law more than a decade and arrested for both felonies and misdemeanors and between the two served only a total of two years in prison. If the Stand Your Ground Law was a license to kill, I'm pretty sure those men would not be on the street walking freely amongst us. If you have ever had the misfortune of having something like this happen you know that the local police can not help you. I respect those Officers so this is not a comment to bad mouth them because I feel they really care it's the politics behind it that hinders them. I've been a gun owner for almost 5 years now and I'm very clear that with that you must exercise great restraint and be very clear on when you have found yourself in imminent danger. Please let me legally protect my family and myself at all times because if you don't and danger crosses my path you will be putting me in jail. I'm going to protect my family and myself.
ReplyDeleteRespectfully, Please",.. Everyone must realise this simple fact of life.
ReplyDelete"Your life is yours to protect",
You must be your own Personal security guard,
24 hours of everyday,.
You are perfectly secure,and completely safe...." No Where"
Not home, not in your car, not at your work, not on a sidewalk in NYC"
or there elevators.
No Where are you safe from Criminals masquerading as simple Innocent citizens
until they choose you and instantly attack!
Remember this fact,...
"No One" else is 'Required" by any law to risk being killed to save you from any attack!
most likely they will not get involved, and you are on your own"
Like While you are being murdered at your car door,
or rapped in your break room,
or kidnapped from your job site,
or robbed and
shot at the gas station,
or stabbed while using the ATM,
or your children are being taken from you while strapped in their child seats, so thugs can use your SUV to ram threw a store front,..
or you are being threatened by all the felons the system lets loose everyday that hate the police and shoot them in the back of the head.
Please Remember,..
The Police will not save anyone from being killed or seriously injured".
That is not there job!
Police are paid to enforce the "Law of the State"
They want to go home safe every day,
Police carry there sidearms for there own self defense!
Not yours!
You didn't know that? just ask them?
Please ask these politicians if they will personally stand guard at your back everywhere you are, all day,and all night putting their greedy lives on the line to keep all the evil criminals from taking your life from you.
Or you could just make the law of the land
Say this,...
-"If you try and hurt someone? you might get shot dead by your intended victim",...
So don't risk it,"...
and you could Call that simple common since law,
"Stand your Ground"
Please" Think on this ,.... before you put your families life in the hands of these Career Politicians that wont be at your Murder.
God Help us ,..
"Stand Your Ground" does not mean "Stalk, follow, or pursue". Those activities are relegated to the Police. The law is in place to prevent the necessity of turning your back to flee (maybe successfully, maybe not) from an assailant. In my humble opinion, it's never a good idea to turn your back on someone who is attacking you.
ReplyDeleteWhile I don't pretend to know all the facts, from what I've heard, Mr. Zimmerman actively followed and engaged Martin. That places his actions in the offensive category, not defensive, which is the intent of "Stand Your Ground".
The wording needs clarification, but the intent of the law is rock-solid; don't let a misinterpretation of the law remove it from the books.
Dear Chris,
ReplyDeletePlease ask the quesiton how many citizens who are members of minority groups have been shielded from prosecution by this good, though not perfect law. There is a perception that only white folks are going scott free under this law, but I'm pretty sure the reality shows a different picture.
The defense lawyers understand this. but the press is oblivious to this important fact. You are smart enough to know this should be looked at.
I'm one who belives the 2nd amendment is one of the best protections minority citizens have against the oppressive, and often biased cops and prosecutors.
Think about it.
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 2012
ReplyDeleteStand Your Ground is Needed
Respectfully, Please",.. Everyone must realise this simple fact of life.
"Your life is yours to protect",
You must be your own Personal security guard,
24 hours of everyday,.
You are perfectly secure,and completely safe...." No Where"
Not home, not in your car, not at your work, not on a sidewalk in NYC"
or there elevators.
No Where are you safe from Criminals masquerading as simple Innocent citizens
until they choose you and instantly attack!
Remember this fact,...
"No One" else is 'Required" by any law to risk being killed to save you from any attack!
most likely they will not get involved, and you are on your own"
Like While you are being murdered at your car door,
or rapped in your break room,
or kidnapped from your job site,
or robbed and
shot at the gas station,
or stabbed while using the ATM,
or your children are being taken from you while strapped in their child seats, so thugs can use your SUV to ram threw a store front,..
or you are being threatened by all the felons the system lets loose everyday that hate the police and shoot them in the back of the head.
Please Remember,..
The Police will not save anyone from being killed or seriously injured".
That is not there job!
Police are paid to enforce the "Law of the State"
They want to go home safe every day,
Police carry there sidearms for there own self defense!
Not yours!
You didn't know that? just ask them?
Please ask these politicians if they will personally stand guard at your back everywhere you are, all day,and all night putting their greedy lives on the line to keep all the evil criminals from taking your life from you.
Or you could just make the law of the land
Say this,...
-"If you try and hurt someone? you might get shot dead by your intended victim",...
So don't risk it,"...
and you could Call that simple common since law,
"Stand your Ground"
Please" Think on this ,.... before you put your families life in the hands of these Career Politicians that wont be at your Murder.
God Help us ,..
I don't understand why one case changes anything if the stand your ground law is repealed expect more innocent people to become victims if they can't protect themselves. How about we leave the law alone and look at the case itself did the deceased get chased down if that was the case then the stand your ground law should not apply to the shooter. As soon as a certain group gets together all the politicians want to jump through hoops to appease them I suggest that the law be left alone. If I or my family are attacked I will fight back with whatever I have I refuse to sit there and become a victim or have my family harmed as soon as you repeal the law all the criminals will have a GREEN light to terrorize without any fear of getting killed and that is not right.
ReplyDeleteThe stand your ground law is just fine. What isn't fine is the political tone this situation is taking. You've got Angela Corey as a special prosecutor that most likely see's this as a stepping stone to something bigger and better, and you've got politicians that want to use a tragedy to help fight for their political agenda. We don't even know all the facts of this case yet, and already people are trying to fix something that isn't broken. People are shot and killed every day, and it isn't because of the stand your ground law. It's because criminals use guns. Which means if they use them, we should use them. Fight fire with fire. (I know I'm full of cliches here but they fit.) Stop trying to pander to your base and get out there and do what you were elected to do. Stop the corruption in Washington, fight illegal immigration, stop the outrageous spending, work to fight gangs, and drugs, get this country back on track. Stand your ground gives people the ability to protect themselves. Running away doesn't solve anything. If you actually get away the criminals is still out there waiting for someone else to rob, or rape, or kill. If a person is bold enough to try and harm another person, be it physical or monetary harm, that person deserves what ever they get. Don't mess with this law if you want my vote.
ReplyDeleteI'm a bit confused as to to why the Florida "Stand your Ground" law is coming under scrutiny in light of the Martin shooting case, since the whole business of "retreating" vs. "standing one's ground" actually has nothing to do with what transpired there. But I digress...
ReplyDeleteEliminating the so-called "duty to retreat" was entirely appropriate, and many states have followed suit in the past few years. I fail to see how a person facing hostile circumstances that may result in his or her death should be forced to try and retreat in lieu of defending themselves, all in the name of "well, bad people might try to exploit it".
Furthermore, I fail to see how Florida experiencing 100 "justifiable homicides" a year qualifies as an epidemic, considering recent rates of homicide in Florida. Your website also (wrongfully) assumes every last one of these cases represents a murder gone unpunished, perhaps reviewing these cases ought to be a priority for this "task force" first, demanding the resurrection of an archaic legal doctrine second.
Look at the Task Force Members, not any regular citizens. Bet they would all like to get rid of the Stand Your Ground Law. Remember come election time who keeps taking your rights away.
ReplyDeleteAt what point do law abiding citizens give up their God given right to defend themselves from unlawful violent and criminal attacks? The "Stand Your Ground" statute only allows an individual to defend themselves when they are the victim of an unlawful attack; it does not condone unwarranted violence; nor does it allow people to be the aggressor in an attack. If you repeal this law, you are all but leaving law abiding citizens helpless.
ReplyDeleteSecond, if this law is repealed you are unnecessarily putting law abiding citizens at risk in two other areas: 1) If you arrest someone for defending themselves, they still will suffer no matter what the outcome of any trial. For, even if a victim were to be found innocent at trial they will still have an arrest record that will follow them the rest of their lives; making it harder for them to obtain employment, housing, etc. 2) Many times, trials involving the loss of life will run costs upwards of $50,000 dollars (or more); and your average citizen not only cannot afford this but may also be financially ruined as a result. That will lead to many innocent people pleading guilty to lesser crimes in order to avoid financial hardship for their families. Sure, this will make prosecutors win records more impressive; but is that really justice?
Lastly, there are two other points I wish to make. The object of our judicial system has two major purposes. The first is the punishment of criminals and the second is a deterrent to illegal activity. Our judicial system has become increasingly weak as a deterrent, increasing the need for people to be more prepared to protect themselves in the case of unlawful attack. If you wish to fix something, fix that- don't touch Stand Your Ground. And I am a law abiding citizen who has never committed a crime, a veteran who almost died defending this great nation and our way of life. I work hard every day to provide for myself and my family. My family is the most important thing in my life, and if threatened, I will take whatever means necessary to defend them. No government or official or task force has the ability to deny me that right. Thank you for your time.
I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. When deadly force is used "duty to retreat" says you are guilty until proven innocent. "Stand your ground" says you are innocent until proven guilty.
ReplyDeleteThe Stand your Ground Law is a good law that I'm sure has saved many lifes. If the law is read the way it is written it becomes clear.
ReplyDelete"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." What this means is if you are attacked while walking home and someone tries to assault you or rob you and has a weapon you can use your gun to prevent becoming a victim. That is not a bad thing, just ask people who have been the victims of a rape or robbery. Common sense must always be used. If someone has a knife and means to harm you chances are when you pull out a gun they will turn and run. Than it can be turned over to the police to persuse. But if they continune to attack, you have every right to defend your life by taking theirs. It is not nor has it ever been the right to go out looking for trouble and kill someone. Your life should not depend how how strong you are or how fast you can run from an attack. I believe the law should stand. People talk about how many homicides there have been since the law went into effect, but has anyone ever done a study on how many assaults, rapes, robberies and murders have been prevented as a result of the law. That needs to be done to clearly see both sides and its impact on crime before a decision is made.
Stand Your Ground is a good law giving citizens criminal - and just as importantly, civil - protections for doing what should be natural and a given: defending oneself where you have a legal right to be.
ReplyDeleteTo remove those protections will be to cause unnecessary loss of life by those who debate the repercussions of defending oneself.
Why is the Stand Your Ground Law on trial???
ReplyDeleteIt is a terrible situation when anyone this young dies but it happens all the time in our society. Not sure why this case was blown so far out of proportion. Just two miles down the road from where I sit now, in a predominantly black neighborhood we have kids being shot and murdered every year by their next door neighbors. When you ask why, it's always the same excuse, "because the disrespected me".
It's a terrible situation of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Perhaps Treyvon shouldn't have been carrying the empty bag of marijauna at school then he would have still been in Miami. Maybe Zimmerman shouldn't have followed the 911 operators instructions and stayed in the car, there is a reason why they said to stay in the car.
The problem is not the law people.
I for one is all for the law, and working on the OPEN CARRY law, it's laws like this that help us all sleep @ night with my fire arm right by my side, after the law passed in 2005 crime has gone down so you do the numbers not people running around killing because they can,so lets keep Florida safe and keep this law and build on it,
ReplyDeleteI have a slogan for your effort - Shoot second, die first.
ReplyDelete