You’ve just substituted a jogger for a car in the OP. Effectively you’re the one who ran into him, not vice-versa.
This whole debate is silly because people are taking the phrase “Stand Your Ground” literally, like a North-Going Zax meeting a South-Going Zax. The point of the law is so someone going about their lawful business where they have a right to be doesn’t have to prove that they “ran from trouble” to invoke a self-defense claim.
How is it unlawful? Specifically?
Except that yes it does. As I pointed out in the post right above yours.
Only “a person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity” has the right to stand their ground.
By the same token, cars aren’t allowed to just run you over if they can avoid you.
Forget the cars.
What about two armed pedestrians walking directly towards each other?:rolleyes:
What if your dog walks in front of me?
What about if the automatic door at the supermarket is stuck?
SYG doesn’t give you carte blanche to just shoot anyone and anything that gets in your path.
I agree. I think this illustrates the shaky limb you can get out on when you take the principle of “stand your ground” too far.
Stand your ground should include your right to not retreat. But it should not protect your right to put yourself into a situation where you’ve got to use deadly force.
To use your example, if two armed pedestrians are limited to standing their ground then they can glare at each other but nobody’s getting killed. If one armed pedestrian stands his ground and the other armed pedestrian walks up and shoves him out of the way, then regardless of who gets killed, it’s pretty clear who initiated the situation. But if both armed pedestrians have the right to walk wherever they want and they can use force against anyone who tries to make them step aside, then you’re going to end up with a lot of dead idiots.
If some sinister looking guy bashes his grocery cart into mine, clearly preventing me from reaching a jar of peanut butter, can I shoot him? I said he was sinister looking. I felt threatened. Who are you to say I didn’t feel threatened, or shouldn’t have felt threatened? Pushing me out of the way at the grocery store is a physically aggressive act. How do I know he wasn’t going to escalate our conflict until guns were drawn?
I just don’t get these SYG laws. What happened to just “turn the other cheek” and get on with life?
Wow, I obviously don’t have all the facts of this case like you do. Zimmerman was just lying there on the sidewalk minding his own business and Martin walked up and started hitting him? In that case, I agree, Zimmerman had every right to defend himself.
Take a hypothetical situation. Let’s say I’m visiting my family and I decide to take a walk to the local convenience store to buy some candy and a soda. And on the way back to the house, I notice this guy who I think is planning on committing a crime. He’s been following me and acting suspicious. I don’t have any evidence that he’s committed a crime or plans to do so in the near future - but the important thing is I believe he’s going to commit a crime.
So under Florida law, I have every right to stand my ground and use whatever force is necessary to defend myself from this crime that might occur any second. And if I’m unarmed and that guy threatening me has a gun, you can bet I’ll be smacking that guy as hard in the head as I can and hoping I can knock him out before he shoots me.
Clearly most people here don’t.
It’s NOT a right to just start shooting anyone because you THINK you are threatened or they look sketchy.
Here is the FL statute (for those who appear ignorant of the actual law):
Basically all it means is if you are walking down the street and are attacked, you are under no obligation to run away in order to claim self defense. And IMHO that is a good thing as you don’t want a society where criminals can bully people around and they aren’t allowed to defend themselves until they are cornered and have no other choice.
What the trial will likely determine is not so much if Zimmerman was acting in self defense when he shot Trayvon Martin. What they will try to determine is if Zimmerman provoked the situation in the first place.
SYG laws do not cover me picking a fight with you and then shooting you for beating my ass.
How many times are you going to make me clarify this?
First, your subjective belief, alone, is insufficient. Your belief must be objectively reasonable.
But more importantly, a “threat” has a specific meaning. When you say, " I don’t have any evidence that he’s committed a crime or plans to do so in the near future - but the important thing is I believe he’s going to commit a crime," then you acknowledge there is no imminent danger. That means you cannot legally smack the guy in the head.
Is this continued misunderstanding deliberate?
I definitely share the belief that this law is awful, but I don’t feel the need to make up stuff about it to prove the point. The law’s actual ills are quite enough.
What kinds of actions do you believe would qualify as “provoking” under your proposed framework?
Which part of “if Zimmerman’s account is correct” did you not understand?
On what planet did someone tell the story that way?
No, as mentioned before, SYG only applies in situations of self-defense. Thinking someone is going to commit a crime, when there is no evidence of it, is not an attack.
Your belief would have to be reasonable. Since, as you mention, you have no evidence, that is not a reasonable belief.
Regards,
Shodan
So what about my grocery store example. Some sinister looking guy shoves my grocery cart out of the way to get to the peanut butter. Is that an attack? He acted physically aggressive toward property under my control. How am I supposed to know that the aggression won’t escalate beyond my ability to respond? The best defense is a good offense. I am legally allowed to reach for a jar of peanut butter that is offered for sale. No one has the right to shove me or my cart out of the way. Do I get to shoot the guy?
Read the statute again.
All you need to do is to demonstrate that a reasonable person would fear death or great bodily harm from someone pushing your grocery cart, or that pushing your grocery chart is a forcible felony.
Not before the law it isn’t.
Regards,
Shodan
No.
By the way, from which Florida law did you draw the phrase “physically aggressive toward property under my control?” I can’t find it anywhere.
You didn’t… didn’t… make it up, did you? Is this another example of how liberal’s brains are wired differently than conservatives, with liberals using only facts to persuade?
I guess, when this thread was posted, the OP didn’t explictly rule out made-up facts when he spoke in support of how facts animate liberals. Maybe that’s the confusion I’m having.
I agree with what you’re saying. But there are a lot of people (including some in this thread) who are applying a double standard. They fully endorse Zimmerman’s right to defend himself against Martin and bend over backwards to extend that right to the broadest possible limits. But they implicitly deny that Martin had any equivalent right to defend himself against Zimmerman.
If you extend the concept of standing your ground broadly enough to justify Zimmerman shooting Martin then it’s also going to cover Martin beating up Zimmerman.
Of course it does- if Zimmerman did something that gave Martin reasonable cause to fear death or great bodily harm. Following someone down the street or approaching them and asking a question wouldn’t qualify. Now if Zimmerman went cowboy and drew his gun for some instant respect, that probably would.
Maybe. And maybe Zimmerman didn’t have the law’s protection as to Martin.
It all depends on what, specifically, happened. If Zimmerman assaulted Martin first, then he loses the law’s protection.
But you’re wrong to think of it as an automatic “If A, then B,” situation. Zimmerman could have had every right to shoot Martin without Martin having a right to have first hit Zimmerman.
I’m not saying it’s automatic. But there are Zimmerman supporters who are justifying him by saying Martin was acting suspiciously so Zimmerman had reasonable grounds for initiating the situation.
But if you accept “acting suspiciously” as reasonable grounds, then you’re back to justifying Martin. Martin was just walking to the store and back. Zimmerman, by his own admission, was following Martin. So Zimmerman’s actions were a lot more “suspicious” than Martin’s. So if Martin’s actions were enough to justify Zimmerman than Zimmerman’s actions must have been enough to justify Martin.
Now you can argue that regardless of how suspiciously Zimmerman was acting by following Martin around on the street, Martin didn’t have any justification for confronting Zimmerman. He should have just ignored what Zimmerman was doing and walked away.
But if Martin should have just walked away, where does “stand your ground” come in? Aren’t the people who are saying Martin should have walked away arguing for a “duty to flee” principle? And if a “duty to flee” doctrine was in effect, then what justification did Zimmerman have for following Martin?
While you’re undoubtedly right that there are discussions between Zimmerman supporters and opponents that track as you describe, both positions are flawed.
Zimmerman’s “grounds” to report and then follow Martin are not particularly relevant. The only question is whether he was acting legally.
Similarly, Martin may well have felt apprehension or worry or fear when he realized Zimmerman was following him. But the relevant question is: did he act legally?
Martin was entitled to stand his ground, unless he assaulted Zimmerman without being assaulted first.
Zimmerman was entitled to stand his ground, unless he assaulted Martin without being assaulted first.