"Stand Your Ground" Law: Yay or Nay?

Categories: Morning Poll
gunpoint-top.jpg
7homblr via Flickr


There appears to be some debate about "stand your ground" laws around the country, including in Arizona, after George Zimmerman was found not-guilty of charges related to killing Florida teenager Trayvon Martin.

Democratic State Representative Martin Quezada said he'll sponsor a repeal of Arizona's law next legislative session. It was signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer in 2010.

See also:
-Breitbart Myth: Janet Napolitano Signed Arizona's "Stand Your Ground" Law

In the meantime, the conservative news-opinion website Breitbart is attempting to convince its readers that such laws are big with lefties, too, as it falsely claims that former Governor Janet Napolitano was the one who signed Arizona's "stand your ground" law.

Arizona's law says using deadly force, or threatening to use deadly force, is justified when "a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force."

A subsection of the law adds, "A person has no duty to retreat before threatening or using deadly physical force pursuant to this section if the person is in a place where the person may legally be and is not engaged in an unlawful act."

If you've paid attention to the Legislature, you'll know that Quezada's repeal probably won't have a shot in hell at become law. But what do you think -- do you support Arizona's "stand your ground" law?

Cast your vote below:



Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
170 comments
sirandyinga
sirandyinga

Is there a big Nascar event going on? I see a bunch of black folks on TV saying "Races, Races!".

robert_graham
robert_graham

Every state, city and community across the country should pass similar Stand Your Ground laws.  Truth is, if Trayvon Martin had been white, the anarchist protesters would have welcomed the law.

And is it any wonder why white people click their car doors locked when they see see a black man approaching them?  It's because they don't want to get mugged or robbed.

In case you didn't know it, Trayvon was no innocent kid.  He was a thug out looking for trouble when he attacked Zimmerman.  Zimmerman had the legitimate right to protect himself.  The case was never even about Stand your Ground - it was about self defense!  Had Trayvon been any other race other than black, he would have been shot too.

And neither was the case ever about race.  At no time was it ever said that Zimmerman used the "N" word.  It can however be noted that Trayvon had used the slur "creepy little cracker" several times which means that Trayvon was a racist.  And Trayvon's witness Jontel or Jantel, also used that slang so how about if the DOJ looks into charges of Civil Rights violations against her? 

The jury made the right decision when they found Zimmerman not guilty.  Anarchists who protest the legitimate verdict by rioting, looting and causing chaos should be shot.  Nobody is saying that anybody cannot protest, just not with civbil disobediance or mayhem.  The police will not let this turn into another three-ring circus like what happened in the OJ Simpson aftetrmath.  The police, will be nipping this one in the bud.

TaxpayingVoter
TaxpayingVoter

I don't have a problem with Stand Your Ground provided the person who used it actually had to show they didn't initiate the confrontation and that it really was a last resort action.

The laws need to be more carefully written so a person can't just start something and freely shoot the other person without any consequence.

I understand this could be difficult in some situations but I don't really have all the answers.  I don't believe one should have to go to prison for shooting someone who was an actual danger or vice versa.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@JoeArpaioFan ... so you support Blacks and Hispanics being able to "Stand Their Ground" ... shooting first and executing any/every White Cracker like you that "scares them", eh chump?


sirandyinga
sirandyinga

@TaxpayingVoter No proof GZ "started" a thing. These days Rachel Jeantel is saying Trayvon threw the first punch.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@TaxpayingVoter  

If I tell somebody that he needs to learn to use his turn signal, and he gets out of his car with a tire iron and seems to want to use it to kill me, so I shoot him, did I "initiate the confrontation" and if so should I have taken the tire iron to the head like a man?

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@sirandyinga = supports KILLING anyone who throws a punch ... even at an armed stalker.


JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@valleynative That's an interesting question - when does a confrontation begin.  If you look at the Trayvon Martin case, which started this conversation, when did the confrontation start.  It seems to me in that case the confrontation could be seen to have started when Zimmerman started to stalk Martin.  Under AZ's law, Martin probably could have used physical or deadly force against Zimmerman and claimed that he reasonably believed that the physical force was immediately necessary to prevent Zimmerman from kidnapping, assaulting or murdering him because at that point he had no idea what Zimmerman's intentions were.  In fact, I'm surprised that the prosecutor didn't argue that Zimmerman started the altercation long before one party was on top of the other.

sirandyinga
sirandyinga

@DonkeyHotay @sirandyinga  Ahhh so you add final arbiter now. Of course it never gets to that level if police/D.A. decide not to press charges.

You lose again buffoon.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@sirandyinga = has no clue regarding the definition of Subjective, nor any legal comprehension as to who is the final arbiter of the subjective "reasonable person" standard.


DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@sirandyinga @DonkeyHotay @JoeArpaioFan

"EXTENT OF A REASONABLE PERSON"

Entirely SUBJECTIVE, ipso facto.

It might as well say, to the "Extent of a MORAL Person" ... or to the Extent of a Religious Person ... to the the Extent of a Happy Person ...


DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@sirandyinga @DonkeyHotay @JoeArpaioFan

"You fail idiot. The shooter can not decide what a reasonable person is moron. "

You have no comprehension as to the meaning of SUBJECTIVE, do you?

Perhaps English isn't your primary language.

sirandyinga
sirandyinga

@DonkeyHotay @sirandyinga @JoeArpaioFan 

You fail idiot. The shooter can not decide what a reasonable person is moron.

Are you drunk, high, or just stupid?

SYG law prevents arrest so it is the police/D.A. who decides if you acted reasonable . Not very bright are you...

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@sirandyinga You're wrong - both the statute and Arizona case law create a presumption that if the shooter states that he or she reasonably believed that the shooting was justified then that belief was justified.  The prosecutor then has to prove otherwise and the jury, if it goes to trial, will make a factual determination of reasonableness.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@sirandyinga @DonkeyHotay @JoeArpaioFan

"The police/D.A determine what the extent of a reasonable person is"

1) false

2) entirely SUBJECTIVE depending upon in your erroneous example the cop/DA is at the time.

You fail.

ps: THE JURY determines -- subjectively -- what THEY believe is "reasonable". And each and every jury is DIFFERENT -- SUBJECTIVE -- ipso facto.




sirandyinga
sirandyinga

@DonkeyHotay@sirandyinga@JoeArpaioFan

Not subjective:

13-404. Justification; self-defense

A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the EXTENT OF A REASONABLE PERSON would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.

B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:

1. In response to verbal provocation alone; or

2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or

3. If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless:

(a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and

(b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person.


jonnyquest
jonnyquest topcommenter

Good one. Very true.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@sirandyinga ... says the Reichtard who invoked this ditty -- "Any place cure libtardism yet?"

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@sirandyinga  libtardism - that is so awesome.  Did you come up with that all by yourself or did you need a 6th grader to help you.  See, most of us adults stopped calling people silly names somewhere around the 6th grade but hey, if that's all you got then go with it.  I mean your comments have demonstrated that you really don't have the reading comprehension skills to engage the other adults on this site in a reasonable conversation so by all means, go with the name calling because that appears to be all you've got going in your favor.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@sirandyinga

Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate.

Similar criticisms of the "law" (or "at least the distorted version which purports to prohibit all comparisons to German crimes") have been made by Glenn Greenwald.

sirandyinga
sirandyinga

@DonkeyHotay@sirandyinga

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogiesis an assertion made by Mike Godwin in 1990] that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches In other words, Godwin said that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis.

Although in one of its early forms Godwin's law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions,the law is now often applied to any threaded online discussion, such as forums, chat rooms and blog comment threads, and has been invoked for the inappropriate use of Nazi analogies in articles or speeches.The law is sometimes invoked prescriptively to mark the end of a discussion when a Nazi analogy is made, with the writer who made the analogy being considered to have lost the argument.

Is it time to try the race card next by calling me a racist libtard?


DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@sirandyinga = dumber than a box of rocks

You asserted that "following someone for 11 seconds IS NOT AN ENCOUNTER" ... so GZ could NOT have withdrawn from an encounter that never happened you stump-stupid stammering simpleton.

You = FAIL AGAIN!


DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@sirandyinga ...

SYG applies to Trayvon upon his return to Zimmerman, no matter how many yards or minutes have transpired.


sirandyinga
sirandyinga

@DonkeyHotay @sirandyinga  No but coming back 70-100 yards 4 minutes later and breaking someone's nose, pounding their head into the ground and trying to take their legal gun is.

Pretty obvious you are an idiot who knows nothing about this case but runs their mouth anyway.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@sirandyinga ... buying Skittles and Ice Tea is not against the law, idiot ... even if you're Black.

sirandyinga
sirandyinga

@DonkeyHotay @sirandyinga  Think much? Following someone for 11 seconds is not against the law you idiot.

Encounter?! Damn are you a fool.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@sirandyinga "Following someone for 11 seconds IS NOT AN ENCOUNTER you idiot. "

LOL! ... fabricate BULLSHIT much?

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@sirandyinga

So you're asserting that ZImmerman WITHDREW from the encounter?

Or that he merely lost sight of an encounter he had every intend of pursuing?

sirandyinga
sirandyinga

@DonkeyHotay@sirandyinga

Didn't you read the law I posted? it had :

a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and


This in it

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@sirandyinga "If you withdraw and come back you are not covered by SYG."

Where -- exactly -- is this hypothetical exclusion in the SYG statutes?

If you retreat 5 yards for 1 minute, are you not covered?

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@sirandyinga

... so how may yards and minutes can someone come back and still cower under SYG?


sirandyinga
sirandyinga

@valleynative@JohnQ.Public

Juror E-54:

At that point, Trayvon said he had lost the man and he was at this -- this -- where his father was staying. He was at that place. At the same time of that -- that happening, George Zimmerman had only just gotten out of his car about 25, 30 seconds. So he was still up at the T.

And Trayvon, according to Jeantel's -- or Rachel's testimony, would have been down the other end of the buildings at that point. So somehow, those two got back together up at the top of the T.

And you know, we don't know how that happened but -- and in all likelihood, in my mind, you know, even if George Zimmerman had walked down to where Trayvon was, they both walked back up to the T. So that would have implied that Trayvon had followed George Zimmerman back up.

If George Zimmerman didn't walk down there, then Trayvon walked up, back up to the T somehow because then the earwitnesses heard the noises up there, most of the earwitnesses, I believe. One of them said the noises went the other direction. But the majority of them had the noises coming from the top of the T down to the truck where -- where John Good saw him laying on the ground, or Trayvon on top of George Zimmerman.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2013/07/18/record-legal-panel-breakdown-zimmerman-alernate-juror-speaks-out#ixzz2ZcWCmMiL


valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@JohnQ.Public

Yes, I realized after posting that I should have mentioned that I'm assuming the facts as determined by the jury, which may not match reality.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@sirandyinga

2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law;

Was Zimmerman a cop?

Was Zimmerman acting in a Cop's presence and under the direction of that cop?

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@sirandyinga ... so you admit that section 2 of subchapter B of the statute you posted has absolutely NO BEARING upon the FACTS of the Zimmerman/Martin case under discussion.

Noted.

sirandyinga
sirandyinga

@DonkeyHotay @sirandyinga 

Sorry as I'm not used to communicating with mentally defunct person such as you. The disorganized though process is not conducive to communications.

Are you to stupid I gave you that portion of the law in entirety imbecile?

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@sirandyinga ... it's clear that English isn't your first language, as your comprehension is daft.

Exactly what part of the facts under discussion above would this apply?

2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law;

Was Zimmerman a cop?

Was Zimmerman acting in a Cop's presense and under the direction of that cop?


sirandyinga
sirandyinga

@DonkeyHotay @sirandyinga 

Only a true buffoon says the law is not applicable. Since when is following someone for 11 seconds provoking you nut job. Show us the laws against following idiot!


DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@sirandyinga ... let's review --

#1 = not applicable to the current fact pattern under discussion

#2 = not applicable

#3 = if Zimmerman provoked Travon's use of force, did Zimmerman, a) WITHDRAW from the encounter or communicate to Trayvon that he wanted to withdraw?


JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@DonkeyHotay Dude, I'm not telling you whether it is right or wrong.  Personally, I think that apply ARS 14-411 to burglary is wrong because no property is worth a person's life.  When it comes to threat to life, I feel that ARS 14-411 is reasonable when an innocent life is at stake.  You feel different - I get it.  That doesn't make me stupid or evil, it is a difference of opinion.  Once you get past the name calling we can have a civil conversation about the reason for and roots of our difference of opinions.  But the statute says what the statutes says and your comments on this blog this morning have been obnoxious, ill-informed and unreasonable.

sirandyinga
sirandyinga

@DonkeyHotay@sirandyinga

Are you blind? See 3 (a)

B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:

1. In response to verbal provocation alone; or

2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or

3. If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless:

(a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and

(b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person.



DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@sirandyinga "Only a real idiot can try to argue that a thug has the right to come back 70-100 yards away 4 minutes later and attack Zimmerman. "

Translation = you've got NO statute or law to back up your blind assertion that SYG does not cover someone who RETURNS to the scene of, or person of, the initial confrontation.

There is NO DUTY TO RETREAT, there is also NO PROHIBITION of Return.


sirandyinga
sirandyinga

@DonkeyHotay@sirandyinga

Trayvon ran and Zimmerman followed all of about 11 seconds.

Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Ok

Zimmerman complied. He did not know where TM was.

Dispatcher: What’s your apartment number?
Zimmerman: It’s a home it’s 1950, oh crap I don’t want to give it all out, I don’t know where this kid is.


Only a real idiot can try to argue that a thug has the right to come back 70-100 yards away 4 minutes later and attack Zimmerman.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@sirandyinga ... absent a WITHDRAW *by Zimmerman* ... or communication of his intent to withdraw from the confrontation...  Trayvon would have be covered by SYG in killing Zimmerman even after Trayvon returned to the scene.


sirandyinga
sirandyinga

@DonkeyHotay @sirandyinga 

Here is the entire context:

B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:

1. In response to verbal provocation alone; or

2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or

3. If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless:

(a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and

(b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person.


DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@sirandyinga ... so how may yards and minutes can someone come back and still cower under SYG?


sirandyinga
sirandyinga

@DonkeyHotayZimmerman never advanced. Trayvon came back 4 minutes later from 70-100 yards away and attacked him:


According to Rachel Jeantel in sworn testimony pretrial, Trayvon made it to the place he was staying at:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfVTM8sqz4k about 9:19 

#Zimmerman Trial Day 4: Jeantel: When phone reconnect, TM said he was in back of his father fiance's home.

Sybrina Fulton on Good MorningAmerica:
“…Trayvon as an average teenager that was minding his own business, that wasn’t committing any crime, that was coming home from the store and was feet away from where he was actually going,”


How come Trayvon died 70-100 yards away if he was just FEET AWAY like Sybrina Fulton claimed?

The fight scene was 70 -100 yards from the place Trayvon was staying at and 25 -35 yards from where GZ's car was at.

This proves Trayvon came back 210 -300 feet (70 -100 yards) 4 minutes after he ran off, and attacked GZ.



DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@sirandyinga "You can not come back 70-100 yards away 4 minutes later and attack someone and be covered by SYG."

Where in the SYG laws does it prohibit ADVANCING upon those you FEAR ?

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@sirandyinga "Coming back 70-100 yards 4 minutes later , like Trayvon did, is not covered by SYG. "

... "no duty to retreat" does NOT proscribe or prohibit one from ADVANCING upon the person(s) who are causing them to "fear for their life/safety".


DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@JohnQ.Public "Yes, but under Arizona law he has no obligation to call police or retreat"

Just because the law supports and allows amoral cowardice and homicide doesn't mean that honorable sane moral citizens *must* engage in that depraved behavior.

Hope that helps.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@valleynative Yes, but under Arizona law he has no obligation to call police or retreat - hence the phrase stand your ground.  He was an invitee of his father and thus legally entitled to be where he was so if he reasonably believed that he was in danger of being assaulted or worse, it appears that he would have had the right to attack Zimmerman under AZ law.   AZ SYG law allows for physical or deadly force so shooting isn't required.  I don't believe that you can read into it what you are trying to read into it.  My theory is that Zimmerman confronted him face to face and that is when the physical altercation started so using his phone may not have been an option, but neither of us were there, one party is dead so we are only getting one side of the story  and both of us are just guessing.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@JohnQ.Public ... exactly!

These Cowardly "Stand Your Ground" laws REDUCE and LOWER the standards of "justifiable" homicide to that of THE MOST FEARFUL and COWARDLY gun owner who's afraid of his own shadow.

They reward and encourage COWARDICE and FEAR, and disadvantage those who would be more moral, sand and circumspect before they killed another human being.


valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@JohnQ.Public

Possibly, if he'd turned around and shot Zimmerman, he could have tried to convince a jury that he was in fear of being killed or kidnapped, but since he turned and attacked unarmed, rather than using his phone to call for help or running, yelling, etc, it appears that he was confident that he could take Zimmerman physically, and so did not believe he was in real danger.

Now Trending

Phoenix Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...