Does 'Stand Your Ground' Law Need to Be Amended?
SodaHead News
2012/03/20 23:29:30
|
|
|||||
|
501 votes
|
|
40% | |||
|
749 votes
|
|
60% | |||
George Zimmerman, 28, shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in a gated community on February 26. The details of the shooting are vague and more than a little suspicious, but the case was thrust into the public forum when Zimmerman called upon Florida's 2005 "Stand Your Ground" law, claiming he shot the boy in self-defense. Now the case is going before a grand jury, and Zimmerman is still a free man.
Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer, and had called the police several times over the last few months to complain about break-ins and kids playing in the street. In a police recording from the day of the shooting, Zimmerman reported a "suspicious black male" whom he was following. Police told him not to follow, to which Zimmerman replied, "These a------s always get away." A lawyer for the Martin family says there was a 16-year-old girl on the phone with Martin just before the shooting, and claims the boy expressed concern about being followed.
Jeffrey Bellin, who teaches law at Southern Methodist University, described the "Stand Your Ground" law to NPR: "As long as you are somewhere you have a lawful right to be, if someone attacks you, the words of the statute are you can meet force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe that that is necessary." What do you think about the "Stand Your Ground" law?
Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer, and had called the police several times over the last few months to complain about break-ins and kids playing in the street. In a police recording from the day of the shooting, Zimmerman reported a "suspicious black male" whom he was following. Police told him not to follow, to which Zimmerman replied, "These a------s always get away." A lawyer for the Martin family says there was a 16-year-old girl on the phone with Martin just before the shooting, and claims the boy expressed concern about being followed.
Jeffrey Bellin, who teaches law at Southern Methodist University, described the "Stand Your Ground" law to NPR: "As long as you are somewhere you have a lawful right to be, if someone attacks you, the words of the statute are you can meet force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe that that is necessary." What do you think about the "Stand Your Ground" law?
Does that mean I could get away with murdering everyone I see wearing a suit and shades in Florida?
I guess some people think it means you can follow around a kid that looks suspicious, then shoot him to death as he's begging you not to.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons soug...
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
It is a very bad, unconstitutional, and irresponsible, dangerous, highly expensive law that means nothing but trouble for everyone that lives in a "Stand Your Ground" State, including the victim, killer, police department, local and State politicians, and the State's "Stand Your Ground" law itself. Is it any wonder that the ones who lobbied for it were the NRA?
a. Let yourself be killed
b. Protect yourself, and in doing so, possibly kill your assailant knowing you'll be tried for murder
Please explain.
And you didn't answer my question.
If your life was threatened would you;
a. Let yourself be killed
b. Protect yourself, and in doing so, possibly kill your assailant (knowing you'll be tried for murder if you had your way)
Precisely why you are too unstable to own a gun.