If there wasn't a self defense law there would be more deaths and injuries. Stand your ground law is only a self defense law. If someone broke into my home they aren't there to sing me a love song so therefore, they would not be walking out and I don't care what color they are or how old they are. I would not wait to find out what they wanted, I'd shoot first and ask questions later. Same thing if I were on the street and someone attacked me or my children, or even my dogs, sorry but I have a strong survival instinct for me and mine. These people that are so against self defense should have to get a real life lesson, hopefully not a fatal one. I also agree a court of law should decide right or wrong in this type of instance not the media. They just want ratings and so many people are giving it to them with their responses to this case.
I no longer buy your paper due to the built bias and this article was no exception. Weak on facts heavy on opinion. How many times has this occured? How does it break down as a percent of all homicides? Your always intersted in a racial slant. What was the racial mix between shooter vs the one shot? How many of these cases were based upon evidence that the shooter was in danger verses a shooting based upon simple argument?
Florida Statute 776, commonly referred to as the "Stand Your Ground" law, is PERFECT AS AUTHORED & ADOPTED.
Here is MY PREDICTION, one you can place on your refrigerator door for future reference:
When all is said and done, approximately a year from now, when all the hearings have concluded, Governor Scott's "Taskforce on Citizens Safety & Protection" will not recommend the repeal or modification of the existing statute.
To All Post Readers, please come back to a future Stand Your Ground news story in one year and tell me how smart I was for advancing my PREDICTION !
Whether or not Mr. Martin would agree is not relevant as to whether or not this is a "good law". Florida State statue 776.05 outlines the use of force by police officers stating the do not have to retreat from a threat of violence from an aggressor where as 776.06 (which outlines use of force by everyone else) stated that a private citizen had to make every effort to escape the violence prior to using force. Why should a citizen of this country have to flee like a mouse searching for cheese in a maze from a criminal predator? Why should a law abiding citizen have to worry if he "did enough" to avoid contacting that predator or hide from him before finally defending him/herself? This law was designed with the protection of the people who follow the laws, not the criminal element looking to prey upon them. It's sad that Mr. Martin is dead. That much is fact. Whether he died as a thug preying upon Mr. Zimmerman or as a innocent pedestrian is a matter for the courts to decide. The law is good. Zimmerman has been arrested which shows a possible violation of that law (although he IS SUPPOSED TO BE innocent until proven guilty) which only further proves that this law is good. If a jury decides that Zimmerman was a criminal predator preying upon an innocent Mr Martin, he will go to jail. If that same jury decides Mr Martin was the predator, Mr Zimmerman will go free. This decision cannot be made without ALL THE FACTS. Not just the facts that are presented by a group of media attention seeking people looking to further their own personal agendas with this tragedy.
So the law is a good law? I think tht Mr. Martin might disagree with you if he came back from the grave. Notice it is the only law where the dead victim cannot tell his or her story so we have to believe the shooter that he acted in 'self defense'
Be cautions anytime you look to repeal a law that guarantees "law-abiding" folks the right to protect themselves from a "life threatening" situation. One day you may find yourself on the other side of that trigger protecting yourself, your son, daughter, wife, husband, mother or father from being prey to a criminal looking to hurt them. These laws were designed with the protection of YOUR RIGHTS in mind. Like anything else meant for good, there are people who abuse and contort the law in an attempt to violate law but that is what a courtroom is for. If we repealed all things people took advantage of, there would be no unemployment benefits, food stamps or any other public assistance. The law is good, deal with the individual's abusing it as necessary. That means a court of law, not the court of media in case I wasn't clear.