Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by Mushinto, May 1, 2012.
We are not winning, yet.
BTW I have no idea how the "stand your ground law" got involved here at all. That law had nothing to do with the Martin shooting - regardless of what version of the story you believe. They may as well be calling for a review of DUI laws.
60% say harmful!
It's harmful if you intend to harm someone. As it should be.
How do you figure that?
Chapter 776 - Justifiable Use of Force - has to be read as an entirety. The so called "stand your ground" statute doesn't even have the words "stand your ground" in its title at all. Rather it's merely a clause within the greater statute governing defense of person and the home.
I think it does apply here because you have a case of a man who used his gun to meet force with force. If it were not for the law, Zimmerman would of had a duty to retreat. There used to be no duty to retreat at work, in the car, or in the home. Now, you don't have to retreat so long as you're someplace where you have a legal right to be, and you aren't committing a crime.
I'm just curious. It's always good to get someone else's perspective. But, it is my understanding that this definitely does involve the statute.
No. You don't have a duty to retreat under prior Florida law or any other state's law, unless you (1) can do it (2) without further endangering yourself.
Unless I missed something, I believe it is undisputed that Zimmerman was on the ground and martin was on top of him when he fired.
There was never a duty to retreat in those circumstances, so "stand your ground" had nothing to do with the Zimmerman case.
Why does anyone pay attention to what CNN has to say?
That's not news- that's entertainment.
I voted, but honestly I still hold to my conspiracy theory that this case was cherry picked from the start by the government and government controled media, to try to repeal all the Stand your Ground laws.
I think you're off base on this. Here's a link to the entire chapter governing justifiable use of force.
Here's the general defense of person statute.
I understand that this statute seems to cover every type of self defense against a person. The fact of the matter is that it didn't. The jurisprudence did not comport with a clear reading of the statute. That is why the Florida legislature in 2005 added § 776.013(3), Fla. Stat. Why would they even bother adding that statute otherwise?
If you look, 776.012 incorporates 776.013 expressly. By modifying 776.013 in 2005 they also modified 776.012 to include stand your ground. The two statutes work together and are inextricably linked IMO.
Without that statute there would be a legitimate issue of whether Zimmerman could have retreated between the moment the attack began (an initial shove or punch) and when he ended up in a position where he reasonably believed the gun was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm (when his head was being smashed into the concrete).
We're just gonna have to differ on whether stand your ground matters in this case.
I should add that I support the statute 100%. I think it's a good law. I think it's helpful. However, I also think it applies in Zimmerman's case. I don't want to see it touched.
I want people to see this thread and hit this poll, rather than it being closed because we are talking about the Martin homicide which we can't.
Voted. It's still 60 / 40, not in our favor. I would hate to think CNN would alter the results of the poll...but it seems like it.
Still 60 / 40 against. I doubt it will change, being CNN and all.
I suspect that 99% of the people voting against it haven't a clue what the law actually is.
Not going to change but I voted.
YES to both...harmful to the criminals or people with bad intentions...