Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Carry Issues' started by TBO, Mar 24, 2012.
Republican leaders express sympathy, support 'stand your ground'
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...athy-support-stand-your-ground/#ixzz1q3c7BHM4
As far as I know, nobody knows exactly what happened (that is, have a very, very detailed timeline of what happened, blow by blow), so how can anyone at this time blame a law one way or another...?
Jeb Bush: 'Stand Your Ground' Doesn't Apply in Trayvon Case
Zimmerman's lawyer: 'Stand your ground' doesn't apply in Trayvon Martin case
Gingrich says stand-your-ground law does not apply to Trayvon Martin killing
Personally I am not following the drama associated with Florida incident. Too much spin.
However it all comes down to the proverbial "Right or Wrong". To think a law that helps protect the innocent somehow can be invoked to protect the Guilty is preposterous.
Will the true facts ever come out? I hope so. Then let the full force of the law fall on the guilty whomever they may be.
Currently everything else happening is opportunistic spin by thug politicians and social engineers to further a left wing agenda.
And? So what? Do agree? Disagree? Have no thoughts other than post the opinion of others?
The issue with the Trayvon case is not whether the law is right or wrong. It's an issue of whether Zimmerman's actions were lawful or not.
TBO just posted, but...
jdavionic, TBO's posting style has been discussed before. He provides links, mostly without comment. He does sometimes comment later.
The topic is what's important, not the poster.
Let's get back to the topic.
Yes, and I commented on the OP and topic.
Responses embedded below
I feel at the end of the day Zimmerman is not going to be able to use Stand You Ground. He was not in his car, or his home, and HE pursued . In the end its going to be up to a court of law.
I don't believe it's relevant as to whether he was in his car or home. The Florida law also applies to public areas. However your latter point about him pursuing or, in other words, being the aggressor is a major issue as to whether stand your ground even applies here.
If Mr. Zimmerman was in a common area, it was not like he didnt belong. Bigger issue is I've yet to see anyone in power state this is a matter for the legal system, and he is entitled to his day in court a trial if necessary by his peers, not some kangeroo jury. I guess innocent until proven guilty applies to some other country.
I have read Gov. Scott form a committee to reinvestigate "stand your ground,"needs to be changed, most all of our Republican Presidental candidates were issuing apoligies, a special prosecutor has been appointed, and the Sanford Sheriff was forced to step aside, and special "handling" was being applied to Mr. Zimmerman. Furthermore Federal agencies are investigating him. I guess seeing his rights being protected are unimportant. Seems overkill being applied to some crime watch volunteer who was out their trying to stem a crime wave in his community
I doubt if any of us would get this level of "concern" if special interests were not interested in making a major issue out of this. This case will probably become a springboard for an all out attack on your rights by zealot antigunners.
No, it does not, the statutes state that even if he was the aggressor, he was clearly withdrawn from any use of force when the guy was on top of him beating him, he is then again legally justified within the statutes.
Exactly. If the shoot was a bad shoot, the stand your ground law doesn't matter since the law in general would have been violated anyhow. There are way too many people looking to blame someone/something with this case and unfortunately, Concealed carry and the Permit Holders are taking the brunt of it.
It's not that black & white. Here is the whole and an excerpt. In the second confrontation, did he provoke the guy? Based on what I've read, I think the answer is that it's difficult to tell with the evidence so far. We know the Trayvon was beating Zimmerman based on the witness' report. But that doesn't tell the whole story.
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, unlessa) 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.
I support the “Stand Your Ground” law. I wish we had this law in Ohio. The good of the law far outweighs the bad. There will always be people that are liars and cheats that try to take advantage of things. These people just need to be caught in the lie.
If Ohio had the Stand Your Ground law, I would still make every attempt to avoid bad situations when possible nothing would change for me. I can avoid looking for trouble. However, I cannot avoid trouble looking forme. I should not be punished for that.
Part that is relevant, and my exact point now bold, because it looks like you didnt read it:
Eyewitnesses clearly stating martin was on top of zimmerman beating him with him yelling for help will quickly prove section (b) to be useful and at that point as I said, he's legal.
Sadly, if the elected officials believed that the Stand Your Ground law didn't apply in this case, Mr. Zipperhead would already be in jail.
I don't believe it applies, since Zipperhead (allegedly) chased the kid. But my opinion doesn't matter.
So apparently 776.041 just doesnt exist in the statutes to you ?
Or the laws are just whatever you conveniently *think* they should be ?