# Did Trayvon Martin have the right to stand his own ground? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 18, 2012, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287 "2012-05-18T03:13:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/141 "2012-06-02T02:19:27Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > Can you answer something for me? I’ve asked it on other threads and it’s not addressed: why do you give a free pass to Zimmerman’s past as a living, breathing **adult** compared to Trayvon as a teenager? Zimmerman has had a past, which includes, but not limited to beating women, resisting arrest, impulsiveness, and a psychiatric record. On the other hand, Trayvon is demonized for having 1.5 ng/mL of THC in his blood while Zimmerman was being prescribed both uppers (mixed amphetamine salts) and downers (benzodiapenes)- \*at the same friggin’ time \*! These are controlled substances and are some of the most addictive drugs available, in fact, the legal drugs Zimmerman was taking is [quantitatively more harmful than THC](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg). Where was _his_ blood test? Oh, yeah, I forgot, he didn’t seek hospital care that night. So please, if you would - or anyone for that matter - tell me why a white man with a psychiatric record, who **beats women** , who has been **arrested previously for violence** , as is prescribed addictive controlled substances, gets the benefit of the doubt over the dead 17 year old who smoked pot. Please? Thanks. > > - Honesty Honesty, when a prosecutor makes his case to the jury he is going to have to prove each element of the offense. The questions you raise are rather indirect if relevant to any of the elements to be proved. The rules of evidence are going to prohibit some of what you complain of, and some others may be admissible. Generally, we try to avoid the inflammatory especially when the wrong caused by it outweighs whatever value it purports to have. In this case, (and to specifically address one of your concerns) without any evidence that amphetamine and barbiturates directly cause violence, (especially with a presumption that a doctor is managing the usage of these drugs) raising such spectres before the jury only hopes to take advantage of any prejudice they might have toward drug use. The rules aren’t perfect, some are roundly criticized, sometimes the practice of them gets intricate and to be honest sometimes puzzling. But whether he’s got drugs in his system is not an element of battery or murder, nor is it relevant to any element of a defense. If you want laws about beating people up with doctor prescribed drugs in your system, contact your legislators. I’d advise against that one. The questions you raise, or some of them, are more suited for the judge to consider if he sentences Zimmerman. However, none of that is really on the O.P. of whether Martin can stand his ground. The Stand Your Ground Law does not make provisions for prior convictions that would have a bearing on the activities permitted. Thus, your concerns are of no concern to the O.P. It is irrelevant whether your attacker is high, or attacked someone else in the past. You can fight back. Don’t think I’m saying there are drug crazed loonies out there that become violent at the drop of the hat, or that you can’t take it into account in a matter where someone is behaving threatingly. If you know that your neighbor got in three fights the last time he was up on meth for four days, well, please do consider that if there’s a negative situation going on. But how much will the prosecutor/defense attorney be able to use? A difficult question sometimes. Simpler cases that are more cut and dried are more likely to convict than complex ones. Even though I tend to like people who smoke pot and dislike those on uppers/downers, I’m not going to pretend that I haven’t seen people get violent on pot. I’ve been around too many gangstas, honey. They usually have some alcohol too, and some cocaine, and can have really bad attitudes. Alcohol and cocaine leave the system relatively quickly. I’m not going to judge either of these guy’s propensity to violence based on what drugs are in their system; not in this instance. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/142 "2012-06-02T05:05:46Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > Here’s what I think. If Martin was confronted by Zimmerman in a hostile manner, then he had “no duty to retreat” and had a “right to stand his ground”. Now if Zimmerman approached Martin in a non-hostile manner, and Martin just physically attacked him, then Zimmerman had a right to defend himself. However, I believe that the onerous \*should \* fall on Zimmerman because he failed to the directions of the dispatcher. Do you believe this is how the law will act as well, or are you just sharing your personal opinions and beliefs of how you’d do thing if you were in charge of the judicial system? > [@](#): > > I also don’t buy the argument that “talking” doesn’t matter. Yelling “Fire!” in the amphitheater is a crime (as it should be): People ought not not to be able to use words that’ll provoke a physical response and be able to neatly run behind the law with one’s tail tucked between one’s legs when you get hit. I would like to know exactly how Zimmerman approached Martin and exactly what he said. Me, too. Because that’s key. I suspect you may have an expansive personal definition of “words that provoke a physical response,” but even in the actual legal system, anything Zimmerman said that constituted an intentional threat to do violence to Martin, and combined that with some act that created a well-founded fear in Martin that such violence was imminent, would remove Zimmerman’s initial SYG protection and allow Martin to legally defend himself. In other words, if Zimmerman approached Martin and said, “Hey, the cops are on their way, so forget about doing any more stealing tonight, thief!” then Martin has no legal reason to strike Zimmerman. If Zimmerman approached Martin and said, “Hold it right there. Move an inch and I’ll kick your ass,” then Martin is entitled to defend himself. ---
**Author:** ![BlankSlate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blankslate/32/80_2.png) [@BlankSlate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlankSlate)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/143 "2012-06-02T05:19:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > He had a broken nose. How does that fact square with your claim of no serious injuries? > > I don’t agree with you. The prosecutor cannot, as a matter of law, sustain a conviction on the evidence we now know. > > Of course, there is undoubtedly more evidence in the prosecutorial arsenal. But in the final analysis, the jury can’t guess that Zimmerman probably was an aggressor within the meaning of the law. The prosecutor’s “credible scenario” is not enough to convict. > > Why not? Because it can’t simply paint Zimmerman as an aggressor and a liar. It has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. And that means it has to exclude all other reasonable scenarios, except guilt. > > Do you understand that? I’m not sure. Are you saying they won’t attempt to discredit his accounts given to the police? That they won’t portray him as the agressor for leaving his truck and disregarding the dispatcher’s advice? I don’t mean that they will baldly state those things, but won’t that be the insinuation as they present their version through physical evidence and eyewitness/police tedtimony? Did he have a broken nose? The family doctor said so, but whether or not he sustained it in the fight with Martin is open to debate. The EMTs can’t testify that he did, nor can a doctor who examined him while in police custody because he refused treatment. I have been of the opinion for some time that this case would end in the pre-trial hearing. Now I’m starting to wonder if the there is a bombshell in Zimmerman’s text messages. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/144 "2012-06-02T07:27:18Z")
> [@BlankSlate](#): > > I’m not sure. > > Are you saying they won’t attempt to discredit his accounts given to the police? That they won’t portray him as the agressor for leaving his truck and disregarding the dispatcher’s advice? I don’t mean that they will baldly state those things, but won’t that be the insinuation as they present their version through physical evidence and eyewitness/police tedtimony? If they do, and that’s all they do, then they will not sustain their burden of proof as a matter of law. The jury won’t even get a chance to vote. > [@](#): > > Did he have a broken nose? The family doctor said so, but whether or not he sustained it in the fight with Martin is open to debate. The EMTs can’t testify that he did, nor can a doctor who examined him while in police custody because he refused treatment. How does that get you to,beyond a reasonable doubt? > [@](#): > > I have been of the opinion for some time that this case would end in the pre-trial hearing. Now I’m starting to wonder if the there is a bombshell in Zimmerman’s text messages. Or in his statements. There has to be SOMETHING. What I mean is: the prosecutor is a veteran. She knows the law regarding burden of proof just as well as I do. She knows Florida law better than I do. And she knows the saga of Mike Nifong too. So I assume she has no desire to push forward a prosecution that cannot, as a matter of law, result in a conviction. Maybe I am wrong about that. Maybe she’s decided, or been told, to take it as far as the judge will let her. That’s possible, but I doubt it. I strongly doubt it. So the inescapable conclusion is that there is something, unrevealed so far, that at least resembles a smoking gun, unreleased as yet. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/145 "2012-06-02T11:05:05Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Sigh… Do have any evidence that Zimmerman did anything wrong prior to being beaten by Martin? If the police had any indication he was under the influence of harmful drugs he would have been tested. It’s rational to defend yourself and this is what Zimmerman did after an extended period of time. He did not shoot Martin immediately. He pleaded with him. Martin had every chance to walk away and he was close by his house. He chose to continue assaulting Zimmerman. He could have talked with Zimmerman but this did not happen. > > It all comes down to evidence. You can speculate until the Milky Way collides with Andromeda and it won’t affect the trial. What will affect the trial is evidence that contradicts Zimmerman’s version of events. > > Really, what is so hard to understand about this? The fact that you just, once again, took a statement about morality and turned it into one about legality. The question is why you keep giving Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt. The question is why you keep assuming the prosecution doesn’t have anything. The question is not why you think the current evidence is enough that Zimmerman will walk. It’s about why you already seem to believe he isn’t guilty. Note, I don’t think it’s wrong for you to have made up your mind. I’m just saying that the poster wants an explanation. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/146 "2012-06-02T12:22:05Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > Can you answer something for me? I’ve asked it on other threads and it’s not addressed: why do you give a free pass to Zimmerman’s past as a living, breathing **adult** compared to Trayvon as a teenager? I don’t. I was responding to an earlier poster who did what you are doing - present Zimmerman’s past in as inflammatory and pejorative a manner as possible, and gloss over or ignore those parts of Martin’s past that can be painted in the same manner. And we have gone over this in the past - the cite you presented earlier shows that Martin, as a teenager, is **more** likely to have acted impulsively than the adult Zimmerman. > [@](#): > > Here’s what I think. If Martin was confronted by Zimmerman in a hostile manner, then he had “no duty to retreat” and had a “right to stand his ground”. Now if Zimmerman approached Martin in a non-hostile manner, and Martin just physically attacked him, then Zimmerman had a right to defend himself. I agree. > [@](#): > > However, I believe that the onerous \*should \* fall on Zimmerman because he failed to the directions of the dispatcher. Nope - the suggestions of the 911 operator have no legal force. > [@](#): > > I also don’t buy the argument that “talking” doesn’t matter. Yelling “Fire!” in the amphitheater is a crime (as it should be): People ought not not to be able to use words that’ll provoke a physical response and be able to neatly run behind the law with one’s tail tucked between one’s legs when you get hit. To date, there is no evidence that Zimmerman used words that would provoke a physical response. Perhaps some such evidence will be forthcoming later. > [@](#): > > I would like to know exactly how Zimmerman approached Martin and exactly what he said. Indeed, these are key questions. > [@](#): > > I don’t believe for a moment that Martin went on a “rampage” unprovoked. Do you believe Zimmerman shot Martin unprovoked? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/147 "2012-06-02T20:17:21Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > The fact that you just, once again, took a statement about morality and turned it into one about legality. The question is why you keep giving Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt. The question is why you keep assuming the prosecution doesn’t have anything. Well sigh again… I’m not giving him the benefit of the doubt. I’ve pointed out the case based on the information on hand NOW. Apparently you don’t understand the significance of capitalizing a word. Maybe if I made it bigger: I’ve pointed out the case based on the information on hand NOW. When new information becomes available I’ll comment on it. In fact I’ll start NOW. He screwed himself at his bond hearing and deserves to forfeit his bail. > [@BigT](#): > > The question is not why you think the current evidence is enough that Zimmerman will walk. It’s about why you already seem to believe he isn’t guilty. > > Note, I don’t think it’s wrong for you to have made up your mind. I’m just saying that the poster wants an explanation. More sighing. It’s like you haven’t read anything I’ve written. I haven’t made up my mind and I don’t give a rats ass about Zimmerman. It wouldn’t bother me one wit if new information comes out that locks him away forever. All I’ve done is point out that the information about what Zimmerman said is consistent with the evidence at hand. All of that can easily change. ---
**Author:** ![al27052](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/41988e/32.png) [@al27052](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/al27052)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/148 "2012-06-02T23:23:54Z")
To all–I couldn’t care _less_ what Florida law says. I care whether I’m safe or not. If Florida law makes me _less_ safe, then \* FUCK Florida law\*. This is why lawyers worry me so much. They live in nice neighborhoods, and never visit places where this sort of thing even happens. The whole concept of “safety outweighs the law” never even comes into their airy-fairy, ivory tower discussions of legal issues. Things like this don’t happen in their lives pretty much ever, and never will. if the jury has even one whit (and that’s how the word is _spelled_, **Shodan** ) of decency and common sense, they’ll put Zimmerman in jail forever and ever and ever. _Under_ the jail, people. That’s because Zimmerman, guilty of violating the law or not, is not at ALL safe to allow to go free. ---
**Author:** ![Rampant\_Coypu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/439d5e/32.png) [@Rampant\_Coypu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rampant_Coypu)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/149 "2012-06-03T04:18:43Z")
Sholdan. take a long walk on the streets with me following you and I bet you’d shoot me. I know you got one. I don’t think you’re a racist scumbag. I think you are interested in this case only because you fear a challenge to Florida’s SYG laws might restrict your use of your precious gun. You cite doctor’s reports and other documents that have only surfaced recently, yet you have in no way challenged the video evidence I presented from the VERY NIGHT of the alleged attack by Martin on Zimmerman. Where is the blood? And you’re telling me Zimmerman was not hyped for the kill shot. Listen to all these clips in order: Zimmerman was freaked. Listen to every clip in order. [http://freethoughtblogs.com/xblog/2012/03/17/trayvon-martin-911-tapes-shed-light/](http://freethoughtblogs.com/xblog/2012/03/17/trayvon-martin-911-tapes-shed-light/) ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/150 "2012-06-03T12:50:49Z")
> [@Rampant\_Coypu](#): > > I think you are interested in this case only because you fear a challenge to Florida’s SYG laws might restrict your use of your precious gun. Have you read any of his posts? He’s repeatedly said that it’s a bad law, written very poorly, with awful unintended consequences and should be repealed. He’s discussing the law as it is currently written. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/151 "2012-06-03T13:23:33Z")
> [@Rampant\_Coypu](#): > > You cite doctor’s reports and other documents that have only surfaced recently, yet you have in no way challenged the video evidence I presented from the VERY NIGHT of the alleged attack by Martin on Zimmerman. Where is the blood? Will you please answer my question - how did Zimmerman fake this? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/152 "2012-06-03T14:12:15Z")
> [@al27052](#): > > To all–I couldn’t care _less_ what Florida law says. I care whether I’m safe or not. If Florida law makes me _less_ safe, then \* FUCK Florida law\*. > > This is why lawyers worry me so much. They live in nice neighborhoods, and never visit places where this sort of thing even happens. The whole concept of “safety outweighs the law” never even comes into their airy-fairy, ivory tower discussions of legal issues. Things like this don’t happen in their lives pretty much ever, and never will. > > if the jury has even one whit (and that’s how the word is _spelled_, **Shodan** ) of decency and common sense, they’ll put Zimmerman in jail forever and ever and ever. _Under_ the jail, people. > > That’s because Zimmerman, guilty of violating the law or not, is not at ALL safe to allow to go free. And this, ladies and gentleman, is where liberalism goes when it has no constraints. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/153 "2012-06-03T14:17:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And this, ladies and gentleman, is where liberalism goes when it has no constraints. While I agree that the post you are responding to is ridiculous I don’t think it has anything to do with liberalism. It’s just someone taking an unsupportable position who happens to self-describe as liberal. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/154 "2012-06-03T15:26:04Z")
> [@Rampant\_Coypu](#): > > Sholdan. take a long walk on the streets with me following you and I bet you’d shoot me. I know you got one. I don’t think you’re a racist scumbag. I think you are interested in this case only because you fear a challenge to Florida’s SYG laws might restrict your use of your precious gun. > > You cite doctor’s reports and other documents that have only surfaced recently, yet you have in no way challenged the video evidence I presented from the VERY NIGHT of the alleged attack by Martin on Zimmerman. Where is the blood? > > And you’re telling me Zimmerman was not hyped for the kill shot. Listen to all these clips in order: Zimmerman was freaked. Listen to every clip in order. > > [http://freethoughtblogs.com/xblog/2012/03/17/trayvon-martin-911-tapes-shed-light/](http://freethoughtblogs.com/xblog/2012/03/17/trayvon-martin-911-tapes-shed-light/) I’ve been hauled into the cop shop a couple times; once after a fight that had left me kind of muddy. They let me go into the bathroom and clean up. I doubt that they’d just sit there and ignore blood pouring out of zimmerman’s nose. I have no doubt that they’d at least give him some tissues. Does the video at the cop shop cover all activities Zimmerman engaged in while there, or is it only partial? (In my case, a deranged guy had been picking fights and then disappearing when the cops showed up. Finally he picked one with me, I beat him down and made a citizen’s arrest and held him for the cops, I was getting sick of it. As I beat him fairly badly, I had to go down and explain it, as well as several witnesses explaining it. They let me walk on self-defense. The criminal got three counts of battery and two of aggravated battery and one attempted murder, all convictions, out of the deal and sits in prison, the last I knew.) ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/155 "2012-06-03T15:46:08Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > While I agree that the post you are responding to is ridiculous I don’t think it has anything to do with liberalism. It’s just someone taking an unsupportable position who happens to self-describe as liberal. I agree. If we wanted to point to a certain political position taken to an extreme, we could point to the very existence of SYG and decry conservativism because of it. But many conservatives can see the stupidity of the law. So making this a political issue is counter-productive. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/156 "2012-06-03T16:47:34Z")
I hope this isn’t too much of a hijack, but to the conservatives here (especially Bricker and Shodan) what specifically do you not like about Florida’s SYG law? I’ve always felt that a law abiding citizen shouldn’t be required to run squealing into the night when attacked. That gives the streets to the criminals. If I’m minding my own business, and in a place where I have a legal right to be, why should I have to leave that location so that the criminal can continue his malfeasance? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/157 "2012-06-03T17:51:27Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > While I agree that the post you are responding to is ridiculous I don’t think it has anything to do with liberalism. It’s just someone taking an unsupportable position who happens to self-describe as liberal. No. Well, what you say is true: it IS someone taking an unsupportable position who happens to self-describe as liberal. But unfettered by any limits, the desire to regulate people for their own good, regardless of the law or the necessary process, liberalism would lead to similar results. Of course, so would virtually any political theory, and I’m even willing to admit that the current crop of conservatives would get there (“there” being totalitarianism) much quicker than the current crop of liberals. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/158 "2012-06-03T17:57:56Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I hope this isn’t too much of a hijack, but to the conservatives here (especially Bricker and Shodan) what specifically do you not like about Florida’s SYG law? I’ve always felt that a law abiding citizen shouldn’t be required to run squealing into the night when attacked. That gives the streets to the criminals. If I’m minding my own business, and in a place where I have a legal right to be, why should I have to leave that location so that the criminal can continue his malfeasance? I have no heartburn with the basic idea of standing ground. But if you do, the burden should rest on you to prove you acted in accord with the law. So my disagreement with the law in Florida relates to the way it shifts the burden of proof to the state. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/159 "2012-06-03T20:43:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I have no heartburn with the basic idea of standing ground. > > But if you do, the burden should rest on you to prove you acted in accord with the law. So my disagreement with the law in Florida relates to the way it shifts the burden of proof to the state. I hadn’t noticed that. Can you explain further? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/160 "2012-06-03T20:52:10Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I hope this isn’t too much of a hijack, but to the conservatives here (especially Bricker and Shodan) what specifically do you not like about Florida’s SYG law? I haven’t thought about it very much, but at first blush I have no issue with Florida’s SYG law. **Bricker** has noted his objection to the law. I understand it, but (with fear and trembling) I don’t agree. Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287.md?page=9)