Latest Headlines
- Cat Country 98.7 Is The 2024 CMA Radio Station Of The Year (With Gallery)
- Gonzalez Man Gets Two Life Sentences For Abusing Children
- One Airlifted After Highway 97 Rear End Crash
- Semi, Pickup Crash Closes Highway 29 For Hours In Cantonment
- Now That Matt Gaetz Has Resigned After Being Picked For Trump’s AG, Who Will Seek His Seat?
- Learn How To Break Down A Chicken At The Molino Library
- Escambia Man Dies In Two Vehicle Crash
- Flomaton Man Arrested In Atmore For Possession of Fentanyl, Cocaine
- Escambia Man Sentenced to 25 Years for Fentanyl Trafficking
- Tate High Softball’s Kara Wine Signs With The University of South Alabama
Trayvon Martin’s Mother Calls For ‘Stand Your Ground’ Repeal
January 17, 2013
With lawmakers taking a new look at Florida’s “stand your ground” law, the mother of the young man whose death brought the law back into focus urged lawmakers Wednesday to repeal it.
“How many lives do we have to lose?” Sybrina Fulton, mother of Trayvon Martin, asked outside the legislative chambers. “How many children have to be killed? How many times are we going to bury our loved ones and not do anything about it?”
The law – passed in 2005 – allows people who feel threatened to shoot their assailants in public.
Martin, who was 17, was shot and killed by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in Sanford on Feb. 26 of last year. Martin was walking through a gated neighborhood where his father lived and was unarmed. Zimmerman was following him because there had been lots of burglaries in the neighborhood.
Zimmerman wasn’t arrested for 44 days following Martin’s death, until protest rallies were held nationwide. Now he faces a second-degree murder charge and a June trial. He plans to use the “stand your ground” defense, saying he felt threatened.
Fulton said the law had protected her son’s killer.
“I just don’t quite understand how someone can be a make-believe cop, pursue my son who had every right to be in that neighborhood, chase him, get in a confrontation with him, shoot and kill him and not be arrested. Something has to be done.”
Rep. Alan Williams, D-Tallahassee, has filed a bill (HB 4009, ) to repeal the law. Sen. Dwight Bullard, D-Miami, who called the law “legalized vigilantism,” has said he’ll sponsor it in the Senate.
An analysis of FBI homicide data by the office of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg , co-chair of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, found that states that passed “stand your ground” laws saw a 53.5 percent increase in justifiable homicides in the three years after enactment, while states without such laws saw a 4.2 percent rise.
“Every Tom, Dick and Harry who kills somebody is saying ‘I was standing my ground,’” said Fulton’s lawyer, Benjamin Crump, of Tallahassee.
Gov. Rick Scott appointed a Safety and Security Task Force in the wake of Martin’s killing to study the “stand your ground” law and make recommendations to the governor and Legislature.
Black lawmakers were irate that none of them, including Sen. Oscar Braynon, who represents Miami Gardens, where Martin lived with his mother, was appointed to the panel.
“The only people put on there were people that were proponents,” said Braynon, a Democrat. “So we’ll be just as bold in our response as they were bold in their response to us…when they put none of us on the committee, when they refused to come to our community, and when they gave us recommendations that amounted to nothing.”
Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala and the House sponsor of “stand your ground” in 2005, took issue with that. He was one of four lawmakers tapped for the task force.
“The Safety and Security Task Force did an extensive review, heard a lot of testimony, weighed all the evidence, and decided that the overall evidence was that we had some pretty effective legislation going,” he said. “People that say we didn’t do anything, they just don’t like the outcome.”
Baxley said the law is depicted as controversial, but in fact passed the Senate unanimously and the House 94-20.
“I think most people understand it, that we want to stand beside law-abiding citizens,” he said. “And if they stand their ground and stop a violent act from occurring and prevent people from being harmed, that’s the right thing for them to do, and we should stand with them.”
Asked whether the repeal bill wasn’t “pie in the sky,” given the strength of support for the law, Williams replied: “If we didn’t file it at all, the opportunity to do anything would have been zero. You lose nothing by having an honest debate.”
By The News Service of Florida
Comments
23 Responses to “Trayvon Martin’s Mother Calls For ‘Stand Your Ground’ Repeal”
If the media had done its job, and reported what really happen, with out injecting their hype, or opinion, then none of this would have happened, We would know the truth,
Get rid of the law . . . Floridians were already protected in their homes and cars with the Castle Doctrine before it was changed by the gun lobby . . . . if you entered someone’s home or attacked them in their car, they could use deadly force and no one could argue with it. What they did by changing the law is move the boundary where “standing your ground” is applied . . . . so that no its not ONLY in the safety of your own home or car but everywhere you walk where the law exists. That means someone can be at your home and claim they were standing their ground when they kill you . . . . lets pull the law back and have it apply to only your homes and cars once again and we won’t have so many of these incidents with people being murdered just because someone feels “threatened” on the streets. This case is not just about Trayvon, there are lots of regular people gunned down in the streets because where you can claim self defense is in a gray area now.
CONSIDERING:
“I agree you are for the “truth” and have indeed revealed your inner thoughts.”
If I have revealed my inner thoughts by stating a fact, then you would probably conclude if I say Aristotle was a Greek that must reveal I am secretly a Lithuanian dwarf. If the analogy doesn’t make sense to you, go back and consider your initial conditions and the conclusion you reached from them.
AND
“- – - if I were walking home from the grocery store wearing my hood, (because it’s cold, or I if just liked to wear it) and David Huie Green pulled up beside me in his “Big Shiny Yellow School Bus” and began to question me “in plain clothes”. – - – he does not have a right to then continue to pursue and follow me to my home.”
Very good example.
You believe school buses are yellow because you’ve been told they’re yellow. If you were to put a yellow object and an orange object up beside one of them, you’d discover they aren’t yellow but are orange. But you won’t do that because you already know they’re yellow.
Similarly, you have the culprit stalking and challenging the innocent child. You didn’t see it happen but you KNOW it happened exactly that way.
AND
“ If people could put their biases aside and think if the tables were turned, I think they would be able to see things a little bit differently.”
I agree with that too. But then, I’m not the one who KNOWS exactly what happened without being there.
David for true knowledge
Don’t forget that it was the news media, NBC, who edited that 911 tape to make it sound like Zimmerman was targeting Martin’s race. Also the defense team for weeks (months?) tried to get photographs taken by the police of Zimmerman’s injuries and they were finally given black-and-white copies of the pictures. Well, later when the color versions were relased we could see the blood on Zimmerman’s face and head that were not visible in the black-and-white photos. So to hide evidence and to edit evidence are signs of unethical tampering to me. Common sense? Unfortunately, common sense is not so common anymore. And that’s a fact. I do sympathize with Ms. Fulton, but facts are facts (as long as they are not tamptered with by those pushing their own agendas). Have a nice day.
Great points @Michael Murph! I agree totally.
@ David Huie Green. This is funny.. Uhh… I didn’t bring “race up” but YOU did. It would be kind of hard for me to, considering my own race. In any case, I agree you are for the “truth” and have indeed revealed your inner thoughts. Now read this as I do NOW consider race: As a white woman, if I were walking home from the grocery store wearing my hood, (because it’s cold, or I if just liked to wear it) and David Hue Green pulled up beside me in his “Big Shiny Yellow School Bus” and began to question me “in plain clothes”. First, I would think, this guy is really creepy. Second, I may choose to answer him or I may not, and that’s my prerogative. If I chose not to answer this man following me, (because he’s creepy and a stranger), he does not have a right to then continue to pursue and follow me to my home. So, if he did continue, and if I had just ONE of MY GUNS that Obama didn’t take, I would have shot this unidentified creepy stalker, FIRST! Aside from the media, the FACT remains that Trayvon was unarmed while he was being followed. In my opinion, that may have been his first mistake more than anything. Really. If people could put their biases aside and think if the tables were turned, I think they would be able to see things a little bit differently. Really.
Well said DJS !!!! Well said.
I can’t stand it when the news media doesn’t report the entire ordeal. I support Zimmerman, he would not have shot poor little trayvon if he was not beating his face in and slamming his head in the concrete. If this was done more we wouldn’t have problems like this because the criminals would be scared to do something wrong!! As always the “Democrats” have to throw that special card down to get attention for their biased opinions.
Ms.Fulton’s cause is misguided by her emotions. According to the press in August, Mr. Zimmerman’s defense stated that they will not use a “Stand Your Ground” defense but standard self defense. Stand Your Ground only applies if you have an opportunity to retreat. You can’t retreat when someone is on top of you beating your face in. If Mr. Zimmerman’s story is true, the use of deadly force was justified.
The court must examine the facts and come to the best logical conclusion. Just because Mr. Martin was unarmed does not mean that he was not the aggressor, nor does it meant that he was. Hopefully there will be enough facts in the case that justice will prevail what ever that is.
Ms. Fulton fails to see that she could benefit from Stand Your Ground were she ever attacked by a man, God forbid. Without the law, she could be prosecuted for using deadly force against an unarmed attacker. This seems unreasonable to most of us around here, but it certainly happens in other states where people are prosecuted for defending themselves.
@ Jewel…..What IF it was your child? Would you say that then.
To answer your question…..NO I wouldn’t call for a repeal on the law! The law has been passed for a reason, which I support 110%. Each case is different, period and it’s for the court system to decide.
Remember……Martin didn’t live in Sanford, a central Florida city of about 53,000 people. Yet by that winter night, he’d been there for seven days, after being suspended for the third time from Dr. Michael M. Krop High School in Miami, in this instance, for 10 days after drug residue was found in his backpack, according to records obtained by the Miami Herald.
So, please tell me how Trayvon had every right to be in that neighborhood? He didn’t even live in Sanford. His father and mother took him {4} hours away from home after he continued to cause trouble in high school. His father Tracy had taken his son four hours away from home because neither he or Trayvon Martin’s mother wanted the teen to stay in his hometown. Why is that?
But, if Trayvon was 100% INNOCENT why didn’t he just stop and talk to Zimmerman and explain why he was in the neighborhood? Either way a life was taken. Now it’s up to the court system to do their job and do what is right. Bashing the “stand your ground” law without educating yourself further is ignorant any people’s part. It was put into place for a reason…..do some research!
One person, does not justify the denial of the right for us to protect our selves, old saying , it happens, this is not a perfect world, keep this law and contact those who stand up for us to make it so.
REGARDING:
“he was targeted by a fake Barney Fife because he dressed like a character that most people, including me, are used to seeing in the media “doing bad””
Note here how you are certain he was “targeted” because of his clothing. The call told of peculiar behavior and clothing was mentioned only when a physical description was requested by the operator. Of course, you may have heard the edited tape which was made to look like he was calling in to say Trayvon Martin was suspicious looking because he was black. In fact, the tape shows he wasn’t sure what his race was, just how he was acting.
You even pick a comedic character to compare him to because you have already made up your mind he stalked and murdered an innocent child. (Maybe he did, but unless we actually saw it, we can only surmise and your prejudices are clouding your vision.)
David for truth
CONSIDERING:
“What IF it was your child? would you say that then.”
The same reasoning applies if your child were the person who killed Trayvon Martin.
You would think it was justified because your child could do no wrong.
David considering viewpoints
What IF it was your child? would you say that then.
Keep the law, it protects innocent lives, is it perfect?, No, but no law ever is. this is the real world. I will protect what I own and my love ones by any means .
First, the guy didn’t just walk up and shoot him, he as neighborhood watchman would do in any subdivision would ask do you live around here and/ or what are you doing in this subdivision. the kid didn’t respond in an appropriate way to a person of authority(yea he is not a cop but still doing what he suppose to do). If the kid would have said im staying with so and so at 1111 this street it my insert relative/friend name here, im sure he would have told the kid ok have a good night and all would be peachy. BUT he decided to be hard like his daddy and all his other mentors, then he start beating the crap out of the old guy and the old guy feared for his life as he was slamming his head into the ground….guess what yea it sucks but he got what he deserved!! the whole issue is kids need to be taught to respect the authority and there elders, and a lot of the stupid crap wouldnt happen!!!!!
@kathy, I cannot understand why you feel that this young man had no right to be out at night in his own neighborhood or act strange (as teenagers seem to do ALOT). Nor do I think if this was your son or daughter that you would have appreciated it if someone came up to them while they are on their way home from the store and gave them the third degree about why they are there and what they are doing. I don’t mean to pick at you but that young man had every right to be where he was and not be harrassed.
First, this case is overblown! But, let’s not ignore the fact that he was targeted by a fake Barney Fife because he dressed like a character that most people, including me, are used to seeing in the media “doing bad”. These may include: rappers, dealers, gang bangers. robbers.etc.. Not to mention, the neighbors had enough of the dumb hoodlums creating havoc. But let’s be honest, he would have only gotten a pass to wear his hood in public ONLY if he were able to provide entertainment to the same “God-fearing” people that typically judge LOCAL teenagers that look and dress just like him. If Lebron wears it – “fine”. But Darrell down the street – “he must be up to something” Simply put, I own guns, and WILL stand my ground if threatened; regardless of what Obama says! But to shoot an unarmed man? Really? I respect God too much for that AND I haven’t been programmed to be scared of a character that I see in movies. Really.
I wish that some of the ones that oppose the “Stand Your Ground Law” would actually do some research. Just because someone claims that they were justified based on this statute does not automatically mean that they will be given immunity under the law. I feel that it is unfortunate that in our society people are considered GUILTY until proven INNOCENT. Our justice system was not originally designed to operate in this manner. The justice system was originally intended to operate under the premise that we are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. And furthermore, guilt is supposed to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
REGARDING:
“An analysis of FBI homicide data by the office of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg , co-chair of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, found that states that passed “stand your ground” laws saw a 53.5 percent increase in justifiable homicides in the three years after enactment, while states without such laws saw a 4.2 percent rise.”
Notice they found and increase in justifiable homicides, not an increase in homicides. What’s the difference? Simple, it is possible to kill in self-defense but it not be considered justifiable homicide if you didn’t turn your back on your attacker and try to run first. It is possible you would be killed while running. Either way, neither homicide is considered justified.
If the law is changed to not force you to turn your back on an attacker, there might still be a homicide but it will be that of the attacker, not the intended victim.
Blumberg thinks this is a bad thing. David disagrees.
David for dissuading would-be-attackers
This is just one of few laws on the books in Florida that allow the average citizen to use and not fear retalliation. Repealing this law will only add a multitude of people that will access your home by any means necessary to take what they want.
I’am really sorry for ths family , but there son should not have been acting so strange and should not have been out in the dark.and should have answered the man we he ask what are you doing . I believe the shooter. I dont think he should have shot so quik, like I said I’am sorry for a life that was cut so short , God Bless.
While I truly sympathize with Ms. Sybrina, it is the prosecutor’s job to PROVE it was not “stand your ground”, and the defense to PROVE it was. COMMON SENSE MUST BE APPLIED. I should not be FORCED to leave MY HOME because some dirtbag feels he has a right to crash my door and threaten to harm or kill my family. Repealing this law will deny our right to defend family and property without fear of prosecution. Again, COMMON SENSE MUST BE APPLIED.