Stand Your Ground Law

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

BLADEMDA

Full Member
Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
22,315
Reaction score
8,963
Well,

I'm in the Sunshine State and am a huge supporter of Stand Your Ground.

Zimmerman now has a bounty on his head:

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/ne...rty-offers-10000-bounty-for-george-zimmerman/

I think a Jury will find Zimmerman "not guilty" of all charges if he has to stand trial.

Members don't see this ad.
 
It will be difficult to find him 'not guilty' if he chased and killed an unarmed person after police told him to fall back.
 
Don't agree with the bounty, but in my opinion a crime was committed. That dude needs to be arrested charged and have a trial. There was no reason for him to approach that child and kill him. I also question the police investigation (or lack therof) after the murder. To many holes in this killing for it to be quietly swept under the carpet.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Didn't Trayvon have a right to stand his ground against someone who was following him?
 
It will be difficult to find him 'not guilty' if he chased and killed an unarmed person after police told him to fall back.

Wrong. He did WRONGLY pursue Treyvon but then backed off and went to his SUV.
Treyvon pursued Zimmerman and started beating up on him. Zimmerman was bloody and pinned to the ground while Treyvon pulverized him. Zimmerman was calling for help and not Treyvon. Zimmerman shot Treyvon only as a last ditch effort to keep the teen from literally beating him to death. These facts will come out shortly. The truth will exonerate Zimmerman while the media has already convicted him.
 
A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use deadly force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first. In some cases, a person may use deadly force in public areas without a duty to retreat. Under these legal concepts, a person is justified in using deadly force in certain situations and the "stand your ground" law would be a defense to criminal charges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
 
Wrong. He did WRONGLY pursue Treyvon but then backed off and went to his SUV.
Treyvon pursued Zimmerman and started beating up on him. Zimmerman was bloody and pinned to the ground while Treyvon pulverized him. Zimmerman was calling for help and not Treyvon. Zimmerman shot Treyvon only as a last ditch effort to keep the teen from literally beating him to death. These facts will come out shortly. The truth will exonerate Zimmerman while the media has already convicted him.

Where did you get this narrative from?

It would be somewhat easier to believe this version of events if Zimmerman didn't weigh 100 pounds more than Treyvon, but we'll see what facts emerge. I haven't heard a thing so far that makes Treyvon the aggressor.
 
Wrong. He did WRONGLY pursue Treyvon but then backed off and went to his SUV.
Treyvon pursued Zimmerman and started beating up on him. Zimmerman was bloody and pinned to the ground while Treyvon pulverized him. Zimmerman was calling for help and not Treyvon. Zimmerman shot Treyvon only as a last ditch effort to keep the teen from literally beating him to death. These facts will come out shortly. The truth will exonerate Zimmerman while the media has already convicted him.

How are you so sure this is the way the shooting occurred?
 
This is the trouble when people try to play police officer.

Stand your ground makes alot of sense in the situations it was created for:

Imagine a woman walking to her car in a parking lot and she's attacked. She doesnt have time to attempt to retreat nor the responsibility to try less than lethal force. She is being attacked and now has the right to 'stand her ground'.

To me it falls apart when someone instagates a fight then pulls their gun when they're getting their @ss kicked. If they then pull their gun and shoot the defender they're not only a coward but a criminal on their way to a murder conviction.

This law puts people in a difficult situation because it can be used in the said situation. I guess the lesson is that if you're ever attacked and being stalked - show no mercy - kill the person quickly before the tide turns against them and they have a chance to use their fire arm & claim self defense.
 
Where did you get this narrative from?

It would be somewhat easier to believe this version of events if Zimmerman didn't weigh 100 pounds more than Treyvon, but we'll see what facts emerge. I haven't heard a thing so far that makes Treyvon the aggressor.


I'm a lot closer to ground zero than you and the liberal media. You have NO IDEA about the FACTS behind this case. The Sanford Police did the right thing in not charging Zimmerman. Zimmerman was no saint in this incidence but he did not murder Trayvon and will ultimately be acquited.

My facts are CORRECT as reported by the Sanford Police who actually took the report and saw the evidence. Zimmerman's head was bloody and the crime scene (not really) fit the description of the incident including the gun shot to Trayvon; the wound and the way in which the body fell to the ground are consistent with this scenario. In addition, the police have an unidentified BLACK witness confirming Zimmerman's story.

Again, Zimmerman inflammed Trayvon; he pissed Trayvon off by pursuing him. The kid went to Zimmerman's SUV and started pulverizing him. Zimmerman was bloody and on the ground (back to the grass) while Trayvon continued to beat him. Trayvon could have walked away but continued beating on Zimmerman. Ultimately, Zimmerman pulled his 9mm Kel Tec and fired one round into Trayvon killing him.
 
This is the trouble when people try to play police officer.

Stand your ground makes alot of sense in the situations it was created for:

Imagine a woman walking to her car in a parking lot and she's attacked. She doesnt have time to attempt to retreat nor the responsibility to try less than lethal force. She is being attacked and now has the right to 'stand her ground'.

To me it falls apart when someone instagates a fight then pulls their gun when they're getting their @ss kicked. If they then pull their gun and shoot the defender they're not only a coward but a criminal on their way to a murder conviction.

This law puts people in a difficult situation. To me the lesson is that if you're ever attacked and being stalked - show no mercy - kill the person quickly before the tide turns against them and they have a chance to use their fire arm & claim self defense.

Zimmerman will be acquited the way this law is wriiten here in Florida. Perhaps, it needs a little tweaking? Anyway, I'm sure a jury of 6 hispanics and 6 whites will acquit Zimmerman.
 
if that narrative is correct its a stunning indictment of SYG laws, giving people free reign to incite violence and then end that violence with one shot. but at least its good to know how the FoxNews crowd feels about this - i was wondering how the No Spin zone would spin this, rather than just say Zimmerman was wrong.
 
if i go to the store and start **** with a guy twice my size and he starts to beat the hell out of me i can shoot him and get away with it. PRAISE AMUR-CA!!!
 
Members don't see this ad :)
if that narrative is correct its a stunning indictment of SYG laws, giving people free reign to incite violence and then end that violence with one shot. but at least its good to know how the FoxNews crowd feels about this - i was wondering how the No Spin zone would spin this, rather than just say Zimmerman was wrong.

I'm not spinning anything here. I'm telling you why the Sanford Police didn't charge Zimmerman.

We can disagree about the Stand Your Ground Law. I'm not sure it doesnt need some refinement. I support the Castle Doctrine much more than shoot outs in the public domain.

Zimmerman was WRONG but he didn't commit murder as the Florida Law was written.
 
Maybe it does. I just feel bad for the kid because what chioce did he have in the matter? Didn't dispatch tell Zimmerman to back off and let the police handle it? Assuming the kid was just passing through I dont know how he could have handled things differently when someone is following him looking for trouble.

Maybe the law doesn't need tweaking and they'll consider the spirit of the law. If zimmerman was the aggressor can he claim he was standing his ground? When does one gain ground to stand?.


Zimmerman will be acquited the way this law is wriiten here in Florida. Perhaps, it needs a little tweaking? Anyway, I'm sure a jury of 6 hispanics and 6 whites will acquit Zimmerman.
 
if i go to the store and start **** with a guy twice my size and he starts to beat the hell out of me i can shoot him and get away with it. PRAISE AMUR-CA!!!

Really? How do you know he won't grab your gun and beat you to death with it then claim self-defense? This is a dangerous game that most citizens in Florida don't play.
 
To me it falls apart when someone instagates a fight then pulls their gun when they're getting their @ss kicked. If they then pull their gun and shoot the defender they're not only a coward but a criminal on their way to a murder conviction.

In most states, it is not lawful use of deadly force if the person who used deadly force provoked the altercation and has not tried to break off from the fight.
 
I'm not spinning anything here. I'm telling you why the Sanford Police didn't charge Zimmerman.

We can disagree about the Stand Your Ground Law. I'm not sure it doesnt need some refinement. I support the Castle Doctrine much more than shoot outs in the public domain.

Zimmerman was WRONG but he didn't commit murder as the Florida Law was written.

what if he had been drinking or using substances? too bad he wasnt at least booked to rule that out. i would expect to at least have to surrender my firearm and spend the night talking to someone about the scenario (you know, like a cop would have to do) but I cant even tell you that happened

this law is not designed to protect street vigilantes, and the fact that this guy went "on patrol" with a weapon, following someone he deemed suspicious, causing an altercation, and then shooting said "suspect" to death, is definitely more than SYG allows. i would also like to know where trayvon was shot.
 
Last edited:
I'm a lot closer to ground zero than you and the liberal media. You have NO IDEA about the FACTS behind this case. The Sanford Police did the right thing in not charging Zimmerman. Zimmerman was no saint in this incidence but he did not murder Trayvon and will ultimately be acquited.

My facts are CORRECT as reported by the Sanford Police who actually took the report and saw the evidence. Zimmerman's head was bloody and the crime scene (not really) fit the description of the incident including the gun shot to Trayvon; the wound and the way in which the body fell to the ground are consistent with this scenario. In addition, the police have an unidentified BLACK witness confirming Zimmerman's story.

Again, Zimmerman inflammed Trayvon; he pissed Trayvon off by pursuing him. The kid went to Zimmerman's SUV and started pulverizing him. Zimmerman was bloody and on the ground (back to the grass) while Trayvon continued to beat him. Trayvon could have walked away but continued beating on Zimmerman. Ultimately, Zimmerman pulled his 9mm Kel Tec and fired one round into Trayvon killing him.

sounds like you have seen the police report?

can you post it here? would be very interesting to compare.
 
Maybe it does. I just feel bad for the kid because what chioce did he have in the matter? Didn't dispatch tell Zimmerman to back off and let the police handle it? Assuming the kid was just passing through I dont know how he could have handled things differently when someone is following him looking for trouble.

Maybe the law doesn't need tweaking and when they consider the spirit of the law. If zimmerman was the aggressor can he claim he was standing his ground? When does one gain ground to stand?.

Trayvon was pulverizing Zimmerman. Zimmerman never touched Trayvon. Since when does Physical violence become acceptable because someone was following you? Zimmerman was on "watch" and went too far. However, Trayvon was committing a felony against Zimmerman at the time in which stand your ground law was utilized. Any jury will clearly see that physical act of brutality against Zimmerman as reasonable cause for self-defense. Contrast that with following someone and asking them questions.
 
what if he had been drinking or using substances? too bad he wasnt at least booked to rule that out. i would expect to at least have to surrender my firearm and spend the night talking to someone about the scenario (you know, like a cop would have to do) but I cant even tell you that happened

Zimmerman had his gun confiscated but was not tested for drugs. I think Trayvon's body was tested for drugs. Perhaps, the Sanford police should have taken Zimmerman in to the station for blood work, drug tests and further questioning. Again, the Sanford police do have the Kel Tec 9mm.
 
If that's the case I see your point. I have not kept up on it but what evidence do they have that Trayvon attacked first VS Zimmerman?

I guess that's a key fact that will most likely determine the outcome of the situation.

Trayvon was pulverizing Zimmerman. Zimmerman never touched Trayvon. Since when does Physical violence become acceptable because someone was following you? Zimmerman was on "watch" and went too far. However, Trayvon was committing a felony against Zimmerman at the time in which stand your ground law was utilized. Any jury will clearly see that physical act of brutality against Zimmerman as reasonable cause for self-defense. Contrast that with following someone and asking them questions.
 
In most states, it is not lawful use of deadly force if the person who used deadly force provoked the altercation and has not tried to break off from the fight.

Florida is not most States. The law needs refinement and is asking a few questions "provoking" a teenager to start beating you up? If I go into a gated development and the security guard follows me does this give me the "right" to use physical violence against him? What if he asks me some questions? Should I pulverize him?
 
If that's the case I see your point. I have not kept up on it but what evidence do they have that Trayvon attacked first VS Zimmerman?

I guess that's a key fact that will most likely determine the outcome of the situation.


We can all wait for the facts; but, the police report and facts are known in Sanford.

Do you all remember the Duke Lacrosse Story? Well do you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case
 
florida_stand_your_ground_law_trayvon2012-wide.jpg
 
Florida is not most States. The law needs refinement and is asking a few questions "provoking" a teenager to start beating you up? If I go into a gated development and the security guard follows me does this give me the "right" to use physical violence against him? What if he asks me some questions? Should I pulverize him?

I was more responding to Idiopathic's assertion that you could use this law to start **** with some random dude on the street and then just shoot him.
 
More proof handguns should be illegal. Nobody knows the facts, but there is no need for this kid to be dead. It is too quick and easy for things to escalate when guns are so available.
 
You keep using the word "pulverize." Where is this description coming from? What is the source of this alternative narrative?
 
More proof handguns should be illegal. Nobody knows the facts, but there is no need for this kid to be dead. It is too quick and easy for things to escalate when guns are so available.


Sorry Slim. I don't agree. That's why I live in one of States noted in the previous post.
I have no issues with using my guns to protect the lives of my wife and family. Zimmerman was Wrong here but "little" Trayvon was committing a felony at the time in which he was shot. This will be shown to be factual and I hope George makes a lot of money as an NRA spokesman.;)
 
You keep using the word "pulverize." Where is this description coming from? What is the source of this alternative narrative?


Why are you so quick to believe Rev. Al Sharpton but NOT the Sanford police? Why not wait for the FACTS to come out. Just like in the Duke Lacrosse Case the media wants to acquit the white/hispanic without any evidence. Let the Justice Dept. and FBI do their job. But, I won't expect any kudos for telling you the FACTS here first.

If the shooter was BLACK you'd believe the version I have posted here in a nanosecond. Ask yourself why that is the case.
 
Once again, vastly different pictures painted by the bipartisan media with the truth likely in the middle. Add the racial undertones and it's a volatile situation.

Unless concrete forensic evidence (hard without crimescene isolation) or witness testimony clears the story Zimm will get off as the law is written......

He will get NAILED in civil court though.
 
Once again, vastly different pictures painted by the bipartisan media with the truth likely in the middle. Add the racial undertones and it's a volatile situation.

Unless concrete forensic evidence (hard without crimescene isolation) or witness testimony clears the story Zimm will get off as the law is written......

He will get NAILED in civil court though.


Florida Law protects the "shooter" against Civil Action as well. So, George will keep his NRA and FOX News money.
 
Why are you so quick to believe Rev. Al Sharpton but NOT the Sanford police? Why not wait for the FACTS to come out. Just like in the Duke Lacrosse Case the media wants to acquit the white/hispanic without any evidence. Let the Justice Dept. and FBI do their job. But, I won't expect any kudos for telling you the FACTS here first.

If the shooter was BLACK you'd believe the version I have posted here in a nanosecond. Ask yourself why that is the case.

Why don't you answer the question and post where you're getting your facts from? Cause right now it seems unlikely judging from how they look on TV that some little 17 year old was "pulverizing" some big fat armed guy twice his size.
 
I am sure there is a BIG media bias surrounding this...but was anyones family really threatened? I doubt it. Did anyone need to die? I doubt it. It is much easier to shoot someone than beat them to death.
 
Once again, vastly different pictures painted by the bipartisan media with the truth likely in the middle. Add the racial undertones and it's a volatile situation.

Unless concrete forensic evidence (hard without crimescene isolation) or witness testimony clears the story Zimm will get off as the law is written......

He will get NAILED in civil court though.

The truth is the Sanford Police have a BLACK Witness to this "crime scene" who backs-up Zimmerman's version. The liberal media is full of crap here just as they were in convicting the White Duke Lacrosse Players as RACIST, RICH Rapists.

Justice ultimately prevailed in that case as the truth was told. Zimmerman is telling the truth here.
 
Why don't you answer the question and post where you're getting your facts from? Cause right now it seems unlikely judging from how they look on TV that some little 17 year old was "pulverizing" some big fat armed guy twice his size.

The media is showing you an old photo. Why do you think Zimmerman wasn't charged with a crime Slim? The police aren't total idiots. They did a decent job here.

Trayvon was fully grown and not "little" Trayvon who you see in that picture.
 
Seriously, who says one cannot walk through a neighborhood? I do it all the time as I enjoy going on long walks.

I am sure there is a BIG media bias surrounding this...but was anyones family really threatened? I doubt it. Did anyone need to die? I doubt it. It is much easier to shoot someone than beat them to death.
 
Wrong. He did WRONGLY pursue Treyvon but then backed off and went to his SUV.
Treyvon pursued Zimmerman and started beating up on him. Zimmerman was bloody and pinned to the ground while Treyvon pulverized him. Zimmerman was calling for help and not Treyvon. Zimmerman shot Treyvon only as a last ditch effort to keep the teen from literally beating him to death. These facts will come out shortly. The truth will exonerate Zimmerman while the media has already convicted him.

What is your source for this version of the story? I know you said you're a lot closer to "ground zero" than the rest of us. I don't really know what that means.

Here's what I do know:

Zimmerman was a stupid, irresponsible gun owner. Responsible gun owners with carry permits (the huge overwhelming majority of us) don't go looking for trouble. Having a gun isn't a good reason to go places or do things you wouldn't do otherwise. If anything, you're more careful to avoid any kind of conflict, avoid dangerous situations, and back down or attempt to de-escalate any brewing conflict - even if the other guy is wrong. Simply because I (we) know that any fight we get in is likely going to end up with the other guy dead.

Given that I know Zimmerman was a ***** doing something he shouldn't have been doing, I'm in in no rush to argue his innocence.

He may well have a legal defense under the Florida SYG law, I don't know.



More proof handguns should be illegal. Nobody knows the facts, but there is no need for this kid to be dead. It is too quick and easy for things to escalate when guns are so available.

:rolleyes:

Here's another reason Zimmerman is a tool: of the millions and millions of responsible gun owners and carry permit holders, he's the one that cognitively-challanged anti-gun knuckleheads can point to as a reason to ban them.
 
Why are you so quick to believe Rev. Al Sharpton but NOT the Sanford police? Why not wait for the FACTS to come out. Just like in the Duke Lacrosse Case the media wants to acquit the white/hispanic without any evidence. Let the Justice Dept. and FBI do their job. But, I won't expect any kudos for telling you the FACTS here first.

If the shooter was BLACK you'd believe the version I have posted here in a nanosecond. Ask yourself why that is the case.

I'm quick to believe what is known fact. The known facts are:

1) Martin had left the house during intermission of a basketball game, gone to a convience store, and purchased Skittles and some ice tea, and was walking home.
2) Zimmerman saw Martin in/near the gated community, became suspicious of him, and and called the police. He had done this many times before, largely on black individuals in his neighborhood.
3) Despite the 911 dispatchter's request, Zimmerman exited his car and followed Martin on foot.
4) At some point, Zimmerman and Martin scuffled, with the result being that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.

We also have an as of yet unsubstantiated claim from Martin's girlfriend, that Martin was speaking with her on the cell phone and that he reported a random person was following him. He apparently reported that he believed he'd lost Zimmerman. The girlfriend says she then lost contact with Martin and heard sounds as if his ear piece had been knocked from his ear.

I've also read that Zimmerman is much bigger than Martin, but you've got me questioning that. I don't know for certain their weights.

I honestly don't believe Zimmerman when he says he lost Martin, started to return to his car, and was ambushed. It just doesn't make sense that a kid would have a large, scary dude following him, then decide to jump him as he was walking away. I think Zimmerman attempted to forcably detain Martin, got in a scuffle, and shot Martin when things got hairy. It's the most logical progression of events in my mind. Race has nothing do with this scenario.

The police report is based entirely off of Zimmerman's testimony, so I'm not convinced it's the gospel truth. Zimmerman is well aware of the law and that the shooting needs to be self-defense to keep him out of prison.
 
about to commit a forcible felony, what is your justification for use of deadly force? The dispatcher is not a law enforcement officer. This has been discussed previously.

There is a witness that reported the incident by phone during a 911 call that saw Zimmerman on the ground, on his back (the guy with the red shirt) being beaten by Martin. Zimmerman was screaming for help. Zimmerman states he feared for his life or grave bodily harm. He had injuries and an eye witness. The use of deadly force was because he was being beaten by his statement, injuries and eye witness. There is an "OR" in between the self defense wording and the forcible felony wording. It does not have to be both. It can be either.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. 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 imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
 
I am sure there is a BIG media bias surrounding this...but was anyones family really threatened? I doubt it. Did anyone need to die? I doubt it.

Zimmerman should've stayed in his car or, better yet, gone home after calling the police. No one was in imminent danger. He did his neighborhood watch duty of reporting suspicious activity to people with the training and authority to deal with it.


It is much easier to shoot someone than beat them to death.

No kidding. That's why I carry a .45, because I ain't no kung fu masta. And my 5'0" wife ain't no kung fu masta either, but she's a match for anyone with hers.
 
There is a witness that reported the incident by phone during a 911 call that saw Zimmerman on the ground, on his back (the guy with the red shirt) being beaten by Martin. Zimmerman was screaming for help. Zimmerman states he feared for his life or grave bodily harm. He had injuries and an eye witness. The use of deadly force was because he was being beaten by his statement, injuries and eye witness. There is an "OR" in between the self defense wording and the forcible felony wording. It does not have to be both. It can be either.

Did this witness actually see Martin approach and attack Zimmerman? I still find it a stretch that Martin, after having lost his assailant, would on spotting him again, run up and attack him.

The eyewitness seems to say he did see Martin on top of Zimmerman. It's still very hazy how the fight began.
 
Top