Latest Headlines
- ECFR Says McDavid Mobile Home Fire Was Sparked By Trash Fire; Firefighters Respond To Ascend
- Few Showers Today; Rainy Pattern Beginning Friday
- First Responders Put On Christmas Light Show For Children’s Hospital Patients (With Gallery)
- Santa And Mrs. Claus Take Last Minute Trip Through Century, Byrneville
- ‘Shop With A Cop’ Brings Holiday Cheer to Local Children
- Ice Flyers Create Special Moment In ‘My Wish’ Day for Young Boy
- George Stone Students Fabricate Unique Christmas Tree
- House Ethics Releases Scathing Report On Matt Gaetz
- Photos: Christmas Activities At Jim Allen Elementary
- Here’s The Christmas Closure And Trash Schedule You Need To Know
Stand Your Ground Remains Under Fire
April 2, 2012
The National Rifle Association has long been a powerful force in Tallahassee. But as the Sanford shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin continues to create a national furor, NRA lobbyist Marion Hammer and her legislative allies face growing pressure to revamp the state’s “stand your ground” law.
“There’s a critical and urgent need to look at the law, and at least clarify it, or explain it,” said Rep. Darryl Rouson, D-St. Petersburg.
Some black lawmakers have called for holding a special legislative session to deal with the law. While that appears unlikely, Rep. Dennis Baxley, an Ocala Republican who was an original sponsor of stand your ground in 2005, acknowledged that it might need to be clarified.
“There’s nothing in the statute that provides for any kind of aggressive action, in terms of pursuit and confront,” Baxley said. “So I think that’s been some misapplication of this statute. If anything could come out of this very tragic circumstance, it could be some clarification of when this applies and how.”
Stand your ground, which was backed by the NRA, has drawn widespread attention since neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman shot and killed Martin last month. Zimmerman, who has not been charged in the death, contends that he fired in self-defense.
The law allows people who feel threatened in public to stand their ground and use force to defend themselves, eliminating a prior responsibility to try to retreat. Questions in the Martin case center, at least in part, on whether Zimmerman pursued the teen before shooting him.
Gov. Rick Scott wants to wait until the conclusion of the Martin investigation before addressing the stand-your-ground law. He has appointed an outside prosecutor, Angela Corey, to head the investigation and also has announced that a task force will later look at issues such as stand your ground.
“We still don’t know the effect the stand-your-ground law might have in this case, so it would be premature to begin evaluating facts when more facts are yet to emerge,” Scott spokesman Lane Wright said. “Gov. Scott believes we need to be thoughtful and thorough as we deal with this awful tragedy, and for those reasons he will not interfere with the investigation or prematurely expedite the work of the task force.”
By the News Service of Florida
Comments
28 Responses to “Stand Your Ground Remains Under Fire”
Ha the roles been reversed in this shooting you would not have heard anything more than an individual had been shot. The press would not even identify the race of the shooter. Isn’t it amazing how biased the press is.
It’s amazing to me how one bad thing becomes the main eye opener. How many times has this law actually helped other people from harm ? I don’t know, but then again why would we? That’ doesn’t work in favor of the press or Congress.
Now it seems that there are those in government,who do not live in MY state of Fla. that wish to make us change OUR law. So, to all you outsiders, GO AWAY and let us settle this our way. I like this law and it makes perfect sense. We approved it, we like it, and until it is proven dangerous to the 99% of us who like it , then it is no one else’s business. To all those Persons, in government, that do not live here. BUTT OUT! We do not tell you how to live in your back yard! Well you sure are not going to tell us how to live in ours!!!!!
Wow, and now NBC is apologizing for not airing the whole tape. Yes they tried to make it look racist. Imagine that! And he really does have injuries to his head! And now Chris Brown, Sen. democrat of Florida, wants to revise the law before Gov.Scott can appoint a team to look in to it? So, it is becoming apparent that we can not trust the main stream media. So what good are they? I can say the best reason for this web site is it reports only the facts. Thank you Sir, it is refreshing.The main stream media kick over a bucket of —- , and now we deal with the panic they started. Since when does the media have the right to do that? So lets look at those who spread this . ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, .And many other liberal own news groups . Make’s you ask? Can I trust any thing they say at all? Well I do not , If they report it , you might wish to get “the other side of the story” It seems that most of us can use the internet now. Read it for your self, before you judge.By the way, I only have public TV, but the way the news is presented is sicking. But you can believe that I read a lot.
Now that it has been brought out that certain news organizations have edited 911 call recordings from Mr. Zimmerman to the police before his confrontation with Mr. Martin, the truth will be allowed to come out. The vidio of Mr. Zimmerman at the police statiion also shows signs of physical confrontation on the back of his head as well a grass trimmings on his jacket. Is it really so hard to believe Mr. Zimmerman actually felt threatened and was within his rights to defend himself? Afterall, the only defense put forward for Mr. Martin is that he was black. Please consider the consequenses the news media could bring about by misrepresenting facts to meet their agenda. I’m sorry for Mr. Martins’ family in their loss, but consider Mr. Zimmerman and his familys’ situation in this matter with false information being purposfully released to the public because they disagree with a law legally passed by a state legislature.
Hello Jimbo, you do not need to have been an eye witness, to see where this is heading.
Why would a law be questioned? The Stand Your Ground Law is a good one. It allows you and me to protect ourselves. Whether Mr.. Zimmerman was within thiis law is the only question here.
I, personally, will not give anyone an excuse to shoot me. I don’t wrong anybody, I don’t intimidate or insult anyone. I don’t lay a hand on anyone. I will not have these things done to me. I am armed and will stand my ground. I don’t see any problem with that.
You should do the same.
Remember, if guns are outlawed, then only the outlaws will have guns. Ask our friends in Canada how gun control is working for them.
REGARDING:
“why is it taking so long for the conclusions of the investigators to be announced?”
As opposed to government’s normal lighting speed?
Two possible answers come to mind:
They are carefully weighing all physical evidence to be completely fair to all people.
or
The answers they have gotten aren’t acceptable, so they’re trying to refigure the facts or their interpretations. After all, the results of the first study weren’t acceptable which is why they’re having one or more follow-ups to see why the first was wrong (or maybe to see if it was right, but there’s much political pressure to reject that outlandish thought).
There’s lots of things I’ve wondered:
- Did the incident lie on a reasonable path between home and store?
- How far from vehicle did incident occur? How far from home?
- What was the trajectory of the slug?
- What do powder burns show regarding proximity?
- Does the investigation include people who’ve doctored tapes and photos?
- When did the father report his son missing? How far was he from the shooting? (This wouldn’t affect the case, I just wonder.)
- How do so many people know exactly what happened from thousands of miles away and why do their exact “knowledges” disagree with each other?
- Does GPS on either cell phone track either person’s movements?
- Does “Stand Your Ground” apply here?
David for facts prior to punishment
(but that’s just me)
Since noone can go back and actually alter the facts of this case in Sanford, why is it taking so long for the conclusions of the investigators to be announced?
Every day that passes, people are more and more skeptical. I emailed our Attny.
General’s office and said as much. Are they afraid of revealing the truth? The investigation has been underway for more than 10 days. It’s high time they told us their conclusions.
@ 429 SCJ, Since you obviously were there, would you care to elaborate on your statement?
Perhaps having an armed citizenry is a bad idea. I look at the tiny nation of Israel. Many citizens carry automatic weapons and still, there is much violence.
Oil and water.
There is no reason to change anything…it is crazy to think so..he used the law correctly or maybe he didnt.let the judge make that call.no need to take my freedom away.i have had a ccw for six years now and use it everyday and never one time did anyone in the public know i had it.i never needed it thank god but i want to have it when i do!!
I am beginning to get tired of all the mixing stories and emotional explosions. It just keeps growing and snow-balling, dragging one issue after another into it.
The law should probably be considered again, espically if it doesn’t work well now. I admit, I am not very familiar with the law. However, we should not mix stories together regarding the Trayvon upset. (The word upset is not being used to sound unsympathetic at all.) But most good decisions are made when people are not so emotional. It can be difficult, but necessary to have the best end results.
Plus, even in THIS story it was stated, ” Some black lawmakers have called for holding a special legislative session to deal with the law. ” Why can’t we say some lawmakers? Afterall, that is their positions, right? Read the information reagrding the link provided by AC.
I truly hope this tragedy has a happy ending without adding more restrictions for the masses.
To Andrew K. it sounds like you know more than the officers that were there. Why was Zimmerman yelling for help if he was not losing the fight. You might get one cop to over look something, but when someone gets shot there are many cops on the scene along with the captain. You should become a detective since you have it all box up and never step on the scene.
I have been assaulted in a circle K by a bum wanting money, while carrying my fire arm LEGALLY. I had to pull my gun to stop the individual, its not a good feeling knowing that you are about to take another persons life. All I could think about is what if it was my wife or one of my sons, Could they have stopped him? The answer to that is NO they could not have stopped him as he was about 6′ 4″ and 225 pounds. The sight of a gun damn sure did though. These days with the way people are getting, A gun is part of my wardrobe and an accessory for each vehicle. That was the only time I have ever felt the need to use my gun in 4 years of carrying my fire arm, Glad i had it though.
@David Huie Green :
The old west, contrary to what many think, was rife with strict gun-control laws. many of the most infamous towns (ie. Dodge City, Tombstone, etc.) had very strict gun laws forbidding the possession of any firearm within the town. Notorious outlaws, like the James Gang (and MANY others) would routinely target towns that had the strictest gun laws because they knew they could get in and out quick without much confrontation after robbing the banks and others there.
I find it amusing when people use the example of “The Old West” to support their argument for stricter gun laws. When in fact, it really serves as an example of why laws are needed to allow for an armed citizenry.
Far from being a lawless place, the real old west had many laws, especially concerning weapons. The problem was that, like today, only some adhere to the laws that disarm them; the “outlaws” prey on the defenseless. For every Trayvon Martin story that gets sensationalized by the media, there are hundreds of others where someone was saved from a violent attack because they were armed. The differenceis that these rarely get reported by the liberal news media.
REGARDING:
“Their ultimate vision is everyone walking around like the old west on steroids carrying weapons to school, church and the laundry mat 24/7 and it will be a disaster.”
People carry weapons if they don’t feel safe otherwise for themselves or those they hold dear. Despite what we see on assorted Westerns, everybody being ready to blast away at a moment’s notice was not the way of the West, or so my expert, Louis L’Amour, assures me.
You are more likely to have people carrying weapons if you act like you want to disarm them because they distrust those who try to make others helpless.
David for a world without reason to fear
There is no need to modify the Stand Your Ground Law – it in itself was a clarification of ages old self-defense principles and statutes. What happened in Sanford wasn’t an application of Stand Your Ground, and it shouldn’t have even been referenced in this case. Those who are using this tragedy as an excuse to have their own agendas addressed (and there are a whole lot of those folks coming to the surface now with various personal causes overflowing their lips and protest placards) are (intentionally) clouding the central issues of the Martin case and the Stand Your Ground laws. I find it scary that in our country, with its foundations in law and due process, that “justice” by protest and media slant has been given such merit.
In the world we live in there are gangs, muggers, drug dealers, robbers, people with a deep seeded hatred for people different from themselves, etc. There is very little respect for human life. A person, minding their own business is often killed for no more than an “offinsive look”. Perhaps this young man would still be alive if, he smiled and spoke kindly to Mr. Zimmerman and did not try to hide his face under a hood. Isn’t it against the law for a “KKK” member to wear a cover in public? Maybe the same should apply in this case. If a “clan” member can be profiled as a criminal, why not hoodie wearers on warm nights in protected areas? Afertall, this would be sufficient cause to investigate if the police came along. It could be, the young man felt is right to be where he was was being violated and he “stood HIS ground”.
Then again, he could have been white and and it wouldn’t have been newsworthy, so it wouldn’t have made the news.
To ET if you listen to the 911 recordings which were available for the public to hear; Zimmerman put himself in that situation after the police dispatcher told him not to confront that guy. Zimmerman ignored it and put himself in that situation. He wanted to play police, bit off more he could chew and shot the kid and now trying to claim self defense. Zimmerman should be charged with murder. If this kid walked into his yard and refused to leave it may have been a different story, but Zimmerman put himself in that situation. From what I have been watching Zimmerman did not have any injuries to support his story that he was beaten as bad as he claims. Hell his clothing wasent even torn or soiled. Zimmerman only thought were after he killed this kid were’ dead men don’t tell no tales’. Justice hopefully will be served.
Love this law,do not mess with a good thing, until the true is known. Buy the way why is some one wearing a hoodie in Miami ? And do not try to tell me its cold down there. This is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction, that the media has blown out of control , since when did the media be come judge and jury? They will not even report all the facts. Got to love his face book page.
I caution anyone from kneeejerk reactions in reference to this case. Like so many times before, the news media has sensationalized this story and is spoon-feeding the public bits and pieces to keep the story alive. They are even admitting it:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/trayvon-martin-case-exposes-worst-media-210020839.html
It is not like Zimmerman run up and shot Martin in the back. Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating the fire out of him. I am sure this was not Martin first time of taking this way to the store and I am sure he knew this neighborhood has securty watch and with him walking in the rain he was probably was up to no good.
its not this hard to do.hes guilty or not.dont change the law over one thing.if he did act in self defence then good.if it didnt charge him with murder.simple as that
It’s “Stand Your Ground”, not Chase Them Down…….Nothing difficult here.
There are times when there is no place to retreat. This law allows you to protect yourself in those cicumstances. It does not allow you to pusue someone or shoot someone when the option to retreat is available. Any reasonable person will try to remove themselves from the threat first, but failing that they should be allowed to protect themselves/their family.
This idiot Zimmermann, has caused a lot of pain and trouble. Tough guy.
Of course its a bad law. Before the NRA got a hold of it, it was clear you didnt mess with anyone on your property or in your car, that’s it . . . . . . now you can basically kill anyone anywhere and claim self defense.
At a baseball game . . . he was carrying a bat and moving toward me, in the super market . . . he was holding a can of Spinach that looked like it could smash my brains in. In a restaurant . . . he was holding a steak knife over his steak but it was also at the table next to me and I felt in danger. Even though she invited me over to her house, she made me afraid and since i had no obligation to retreat, I shot her in her living room because she picked up a screw driver and kept walking toward me.
Their ultimate vison is everyone walking around like the old west on steroids carrying weapons to school, church and the laundy mat 24/7 and it will be a disaster.