Skip to comments.KOPEL: Debunking the ‘stand your ground’ myth
Posted on 04/03/2012 6:42:40 AM PDT by marktwain
The assertion that Florida law allows shooting whenever someone believes it to be necessary is a flat-out lie. The actual law of Florida is that a person is justified in the use of deadly force 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 (Florida Statutes, Section 776.012).
The second part of the law provides special provisions for self-defense against violent home invaders or carjackers. Neither of those is relevant to the Zimmerman case.
If the factual claims of Trayvons supporters are true, Mr. Zimmerman criminally attacked Trayvon and killed him, while having no reasonable belief that Trayvon was perpetrating a forcible felony, or imminently about to kill or gravely wound Mr. Zimmerman. So Floridas self-defense laws simply would not apply, since Mr. Zimmerman would have no right under Florida law to use deadly force.
Floridas rule that deadly force may be used to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm or the imminent commission of a forcible felony is the norm throughout the United States.
Like the majority of American states, Florida does not mandate that victims of a violent crime attempt to retreat before they defend themselves. The retreat rule is irrelevant, regardless of whether you believe Trayvons advocates or Mr. Zimmermans advocates.
According to one side, Mr. Zimmerman was the criminal aggressor. Thus, he would have no self-defense rights at all. According to the other side, Trayvon attacked Mr. Zimmerman, knocked him to the ground, got on top of him and continued the attack. So Mr. Zimmerman would have had no ability to retreat. Either way, the retreat rules for lawful defenders have nothing to do with this case.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Finally someone addresses this obvious issue.
One can argue about whether this should be ruled self-defense or not. But the SYG law isn’t relevant either way.
Self defense is a fundamental right. Given to all by their first breathe. The right to god damn breathe is being questioned.?
Florida is on the right path, and that path leads directly to the law that Texas has.
You can use deadly force to protect yourself, or someone else, or your property, or someone eles’s property.
A well-armed society, is a polite society.
Yep. When your back in on the ground and someone is smashing your head into the concrete there’s pretty much no place to retreat to. There are only two options: kill or be killed.
I can't out run a 14 to 30 year old youth so I have two choices.
1. Stand and let him/her kill me.
2. Defend my self.
As the election of 2008 proved, millions, in fact, the majority of those that voted, said, via their votes, that they wished to be wholly owned property of the Government. They demanded to be allowed to sell their God ordained right to freedom and responsibility for 30 pieces of Federal gold. Their souls? They gave them away long ago. If they still had a soul, they would desire to be free.
Zimmerman wasn’t standing his ground. He was on his back getting his ass kicked.
Why do you think the left is trying so hard to 'prove' that Zimmerman was not injured in the altercation?
Mr Zimmerman may have exceeded whatever ethical behavior is incumbent upon a neighborhood watchman in performing his duties, but he, like any other man has that right to defend his own life... no I don't know the facts yet, just arguing the hypothetical. Now if it turns out that Zimmerman had mal-intent toward Mr Martin, and is found guilty, (not by a kangaroo court) then all reasonable minds agree he should pay whatever the penalty...
“Self defense is a fundamental right”
Even anti-gun liberal columnist Carl Rowan found a need to claim this right:
Trial Opens for Rowan in Shooting of Trespasser
By WILLIAM K. STEVENS, Special to the New York Times
Published: September 27, 1988
Carl T. Rowan, the columnist and outspoken advocate of gun control, went on trial here today for possessing the unregistered pistol with which he shot a teen-age intruder at his home June 14. ...
The 63-year-old Mr. Rowan, who has said that his life had been threatened in the past, has also said that he was confronted by Mr. Smith. He said that he warned the youth that he had a gun, but that the youth lunged at him. He fired what he said was a warning shot, which struck Mr. Smith in the wrist.
The elimination that particular right, as what we understand to be a "right" (God given and unalienable), is the ultimate objective. Examine their chosen list of "causes". Abortion (too many people taking breath), AGW (too much exhaling of CO2), Political Correctness (too much thinking the wrong thoughts and breathing the wrong words). If they believed they could do it without risk to their own precious hides they'd murder us all. As an intermediate step they want it to be mandated that in the face of their aggression we must retreat and cower.
Yeah, I understand. Crystal. Need more jerry springer to balance out the, what do you call that?
You seem to be hell bent on some sort of allergy.