Does "stand your ground" stand a chance?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
G

Guns Guns Guns

Guest
03-22_Chan_Lowe_t607.jpg


​

The shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin highlights ambiguity and the potential unintended consequences of Florida's controversial "Stand Your Ground" law, according to a lawyer speaking to a task force examining Florida's investigation of the legislation.

Buddy Jacobs, general counsel for the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association, told the 18-member panel "Our conclusion is that this law ought to be repealed. We don't think it's a thing we can tweak."

The 2005 law is under nationwide scrutiny following the Feb. 26 shooting in Sanford of the unarmed, 17-year-old Martin by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman.

Martin's family and supporters want Zimmerman arrested, but police say they were prevented from doing so because of the law.

The task force organizer, state Sen. Chris Smith of Fort Lauderdale, said the 7-year-old law has been controversial in past cases and likely will be again long after the Martin case has faded from national attention.

At least 20 other states have similar Stand Your Ground laws.




 
The task force — which includes prosecutors, defense attorneys, police executives and politicians — could advocate or repeal specific changes or decide not to make recommendations, Smith said.

It's unclear whether the Republican-controlled Legislature would consider any of its proposals, particularly since Gov. Rick Scott has pledged to appoint his own task force after the Martin investigation is complete.

Scott has appointed a special prosecutor to determine whether to bring charges in the case, which has become a racial flashpoint.

The law allows use of deadly force to prevent "imminent death or great bodily harm," and it removed a person's duty to retreat in the face of such peril that was required in a previous self-defense law.

The change was strongly backed by the National Rifle Association, which has been pushing similar legislation in other states.

In Florida, police on the scene must decide whether there's sufficient evidence not to make an arrest when a person claims self-defense under the Stand Your Ground law, which is why Zimmerman has not been charged in the Martin case.

If a person claiming self-defense is charged, there's a hearing before a judge, not a jury, to decide whether the case goes forward.

Michael Satz, chief prosecutor in Broward County, said most instances cited by the law's proponents — such as an armed carjacking or home invasion — were covered by older self-defense laws.

"No one is trying to take self-defense away from anyone," Satz said. "I don't think it was necessary to pass 'Stand Your Ground.'"

 
The law as written cannot be salvaged as the prosecutor alleges. It should be completely overturned and the sooner the better.
 
Martin, a 17-year-old kid in a hoodie, was shot dead by Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain, following what might have been a scuffle.

How the event actually played out is not yet known, and might never be known completely.

Zimmerman says he was involved in a fight with Martin and that Martin had slammed his head onto a concrete sidewalk several times.

Zimmerman says he had to shoot Martin in self defense.

Even if Martin "attacked" Zimmerman, might not he have been justified under the Florida stand your ground law?

After all, Zimmerman had the gun.

If Martin feared for his life was he not legally free to defend himself from a man with a gun?

Does the law apply only to the person with the gun?

One of the weaknesses of this law is that usually only one person remains to tell the story.

In this case, it's Zimmerman.

We will never know if Martin felt threatened.

We're not likely to find out if Zimmerman threatened Martin or if Martin threatened Zimmerman.

There are only two witnesses and one of them is dead.

This is not "he said, he said," it's simply "he said."

One thing is sure, Zimmerman had the upper hand.

He had the gun.

Florida is one of 25 states with some form of stand your ground.

Most states have based their laws on the 2005 Florida law.

Here, however, is an odd catch to the laws.

In Florida, a person receives a mandatory three years in prison for pointing a weapon.

In Oklahoma, the punishment is no less than one year in prison and no more than 10.

If the person pointing the weapon has a concealed carry license, the punishment is a $1,000 fine and the revocation of the license.

In Florida and Oklahoma, if you shoot and kill someone and claim it as self-defense, you can walk away.

The punishment for killing someone can be less severe than pointing a weapon.

How does that make any sense?



http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectid=213&articleid=20120408_213_G6_IfFlor145573
 
\\(())// said:
Martin, a 17-year-old kid in a hoodie, was shot dead by Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain, following what might have been a scuffle.

How the event actually played out is not yet known, and might never be known completely.

Zimmerman says he was involved in a fight with Martin and that Martin had slammed his head onto a concrete sidewalk several times.

Zimmerman says he had to shoot Martin in self defense.

Even if Martin "attacked" Zimmerman, might not he have been justified under the Florida stand your ground law?

After all, Zimmerman had the gun.

If Martin feared for his life was he not legally free to defend himself from a man with a gun?

Does the law apply only to the person with the gun?

One of the weaknesses of this law is that usually only one person remains to tell the story.

In this case, it's Zimmerman.

We will never know if Martin felt threatened.

We're not likely to find out if Zimmerman threatened Martin or if Martin threatened Zimmerman.

There are only two witnesses and one of them is dead.

This is not "he said, he said," it's simply "he said."

One thing is sure, Zimmerman had the upper hand.

He had the gun.

Florida is one of 25 states with some form of stand your ground.

Most states have based their laws on the 2005 Florida law.

Here, however, is an odd catch to the laws.

In Florida, a person receives a mandatory three years in prison for pointing a weapon.

In Oklahoma, the punishment is no less than one year in prison and no more than 10.

If the person pointing the weapon has a concealed carry license, the punishment is a $1,000 fine and the revocation of the license.

In Florida and Oklahoma, if you shoot and kill someone and claim it as self-defense, you can walk away.

The punishment for killing someone can be less severe than pointing a weapon.

How does that make any sense?



http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectid=213&articleid=20120408_213_G6_IfFlor145573
Click to expand...

I'd like to see the proponents of gun violence spin this for you. :)
 
\\(())// said:
I am a proponent of guns, just not violence.
Click to expand...

No need to explain, //. I am also a proponent of guns as I own and shoot many of them. Like you, I am no proponent of gun violence outside war. But, that opens an even larger can of worms, doesn't it?
 
The Tampa Bay Times newspaper found 132 cases in Florida where the law has been invoked; 74 defendants were cleared.
For some of those who have dealt with the law before, the Trayvon Martin case brings back a lot of memories.


"It brought back a lot of bad memories," said Sharon Bostic.


Bostic's 16-year-old son Traveres was sitting in his car in a Sanford parking lot when he was surprised by private armed guards in 2005.


The teen pulled away in his car.


The guards shot him in the back and killed him.


A Judge dismissed manslaughter charges after the guards claimed Traveres was trying to run them over.


"They should never have passed a law like that. This is not Jesse James and Doc Holliday time," Bostic said.




http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57401955/fla--stand-your-ground-author-may-seek-changes/
 
\\(())// said:
The Tampa Bay Times newspaper found 132 cases in Florida where the law has been invoked; 74 defendants were cleared.
For some of those who have dealt with the law before, the Trayvon Martin case brings back a lot of memories.


"It brought back a lot of bad memories," said Sharon Bostic.


Bostic's 16-year-old son Traveres was sitting in his car in a Sanford parking lot when he was surprised by private armed guards in 2005.


The teen pulled away in his car.


The guards shot him in the back and killed him.


A Judge dismissed manslaughter charges after the guards claimed Traveres was trying to run them over.


"They should never have passed a law like that. This is not Jesse James and Doc Holliday time," Bostic said.




http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57401955/fla--stand-your-ground-author-may-seek-changes/
Click to expand...


Can someone explain how you can shoot someone in the back if they're trying to run over you?

Was the car in reverse?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top