Hello:

It USED to be, that self defense meant that you could use deadly force only IF you had NO means of escape. It was simple. It made sense. And, it was universally accepted. Then, at the urging of the NRA, SOME states passed laws that said you can kill somebody if he's attacking you by "standing your ground". Being able to AVOID a confrontation is NO longer the issue. The issue is, you can now kill somebody if you have a chip on your shoulder.

Of course, by trying to change a basic law that everybody understood, they muddled it up. The obvious question pops up, as to exactly WHO has the right to "stand your ground". If you're being pursued, don't YOU have a right to "stand your ground" at some point? What if BOTH people are "standing their ground", and one shoots the other??

Trayvon Martin didn't have that right, apparently. Do we need to go back to a saner period?

excon

PS> I misspelled Trayvons name in my title. My apologies to his parents, but I can't edit it.
Pps> No worries I did, CB..

Ex, my heart goes out to Trayvon's family and friends. This was a senseless tragedy and if the investigation reveals what is being said about it I hope that obviously paranoid piece of human waste that shot him gets his due.

On the other hand, I'm not going to let one idiot's senseless stupidity turn this into a new race war as Leonard Pitts would like. And standing your ground is one thing, stalking the kid instead of letting the cops do their job is another.

Hello Steve:

You'll note that I didn't mention race. I don't know whether race had anything to do with the killing or not.. But, in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary, when the cops say the shooter IS the victim, their racism is obvious. Now, they're INVESTED in that theory, so we'll NEVER get the truth from them. That's why the feds need to take over the investigation..

But, the particulars of that case, as tragic as they are, aren't really the basis for my question.. I'm going straight for the idiotic LAW that allows murderer's to go free.

You DO understand that I'm COOL will killing somebody if you CAN'T escape. But, I'm NOT cool with killing somebody because you decided to "stand your ground"... It just looks like MURDER to me, like abortion looks like MURDER to you.

excon

I mentioned race because that's how I first heard of it, Pitts made it about race."He existed while black," was his crime according to the race baiters such as him so I launched a preemptive strike. One idiot's actions don't speak for the rest of us.

Now, I know you don't like this "stand your ground" stuff but the fact is many of us are going to do just that if attacked regardless of the law. If I'm attacked and believe I am in danger and I'm carrying you shouldn't have attacked me because given the chance, I will shoot you in self defense. Period.

You'll also notice I distinguished between standing your ground which I believe is justified, and stalking a kid then attacking him which is not justified. If that's what the guy did and it appears to be so, then throw the book at him.

I'm opposed to neighborhood watch groups being armed . The Guardian Angels aren't and they are arguably the most effective group in the country .

"Watch" being the operative word here.

I for one don't believe Zimmerman . Even if he got in the scuffle with the kid... Think about it... someone who isn't a cop confronts you with a gun in his hand . It's likely the kid was acting in self defense by attacking .

I don't know about the Florida law... but a similar law in Nevada makes it clear that you can't manufacture the circumstances to use deadly force as a self defense.

They can try to make it a racial case. The fact that Zimmerman is a mixed race Hispanic should not deter them. I think this is more like a Paul Kersey (Charles Bronson character ) wannabee.

Hello again, tom:

After a close examination of the law, he's going to get away with it.. Absent evidence that the shooter was NOT acting in self defense, and there's NONE, HIS word is all they've got. According to the Florida "stand your ground and murder who you please as long as you don't shoot him in the back", law, he'll get away with it.

excon

I don't know that and that is only a presumption . Doubt if a jury will agree.

They have the 9-1-1 call . There was no need for him to get out of the truck after that . He provoked the confrontation .

I think Zimmerman is in a whole lot of trouble . The big problem I see is foot dragging on the investigation. If the Feds need to come in ,then so be it.

Hello again, tom:

I HATE defending this guy. But it's absolutely true, he pursued him and provoked him, and he GOT attacked as a result. At the most, he'll be convicted of reckless endangerment.

Because of the Florida "stand your ground and make sure you KILL the guy, so you're the only one left to say what happened", law, he WON'T be convicted of murder OR manslaughter.

He'll do 6 months.

excon

Well I'm not so willing to assume a sentence . Let's see what the Grand Jury comes up with 1st . Or let's put it this way. Without witnesses ;he could plea a self defense with or without the Fla law. Zimmerman had a legit concealed carry permit . So without a witness ,all that is known is that he called in a 9-1-1 ;got out of his truck ;scuffled with the kid ,and shot him. We are only guessing who initiated the violence that preceded the killing.

Interesting laws you have there, but then with gun culture you have too

I hate the idea of getting involved in political discussions because frankly, I don't have the brain power for it. Too often, I know what I want to say but wind up saying something that later gets twisted around as me meaning something else.

With that said...

I live in a state with the "stand your ground" law. Nowhere in this law does it say that you can cause a problem and kill someone simply because you "have a chip on your shoulder". The actual intention of the law was to allow you to use deadly force within reason... it is not a license to kill.

The way the law was (here anyway), if you were sitting in your home and someone broke in, you were required to get to another room or out of the house if possible. You could only defend yourself if you had nowhere else to get to. Really? Whether I would have done that or not doesn't matter. By law, I was required to. Never mind that the guy kicking in my door obviously didn't have good intentions. Never mind I have a wife and child to protect. I was required to first attempt to retreat to somewhere else. The law now says that if this happens, I am allowed to "stand my ground" and defend myself right there. It also allows me to defend myself on my property or in my car if I am in fear of my life or someone else's.

The law still maintains that I have to do whatever I can to avoid confrontation. I can't incite someone to kick my door in, you know? I am not allowed to simply shoot an unarmed person because I fear him. I still am required to have a reason for it... and I need a good reason or I can, and probably will be prosecuted.

Now... after all that... what happened in this case is terrible. I could be wrong but from the sounds of it, I think the kid was murdered. Just my opinion. On the other hand, I can't blame the "stand your ground" law for this. I blame the police that are handling it. This situation would have most likely happened anyway with or without the law. Before the law, you were still allowed to defend yourself with deadly force... if you were in danger. The police blew it. Plain and simple. They would have blown it before the law. Zimmerman said he was attacked, giving them reason to believe he was in fear for his life. They didn't bother to actually consider, or maybe they didn't care, that he may have caused this whole situation to escalate to the point that it did. That is where the blame lies... with the cops... with Zimmerman... not with the specific law that allows law abiding citizens to defend themselves in the face of danger.

I do hope that somehow this investigation gets turned in the right direction and Zimmerman pays for doing this. He could have avoided all of it by simply not getting out of the truck.


Let me also add that I have never had to shoot anyone. I am a responsible gun owner with a license to carry concealed. I have had 2 instances where it was possible the situation could have escalated. The one time, I simply took a different route and got away from the situation. The other time, I was surrounded (2 in front and 1 in back) so I had nowhere to go. I lifted my shirt, put my hand on the grip of my gun and undid the thumb snap. They quickly left. I mention this only to point out that not all of us that own and carry guns are maniacal killers just looking to pop someone. Most of us would rather not have to ever pull the gun from the holster.

I just know that if this happened where I live there would be riots in the streets

They use to riot here too, but getting action by peaceful means is a better way of bringing it to national attention, and get the proper results, JUSTICE!

So how does a nut case get a gun permit, and allowed to be in the neighborhood watch? Seems like the cops should know him well after 46 calls to 911. And why was he not detained and questioned to verify his story? That's what's more disturbing to me, the way the cops handled it from the time they arrived on the scene.

I think after proper questioning it would have given them probable cause for an arrest, given he was the aggressor, and instigated the encounter. Law or no law, the cops dropped the ball!

Two factors Tal who you know and who you are

Bottom line is that Zimmerman cannot use the law as a defense, because he was not standing his ground... he was pursuing .So the law does not apply.

Good answer odinn7. By the way, like baseball?