Five ‘Stand Your Ground’ Cases You Should Know About

Discussion in 'Civil Rights & Privacy' started by Lisa Simeone, Jun 11, 2012.

  1. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Five ‘Stand Your Ground’ Cases You Should Know About
    This piece first appeared at ProPublica.
     
  2. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    Technically speaking (based on what I have read - for what it is worth), the Martin case is not actually covered under the "Stand your ground" clause or rules. Based on Zimmerman approaching Martin (again based on what I have read), this removes that particular rules coverage. I am not a scholar on the regulation, but I was under the impression that it only covered people that have not actively placed themselves into the situation (such as if someone is threatening you at your home/workplace/public - not in the active pursuit of forcing an interaction with the other person). Essentially distilling it down to a person does not have to retreat in order to defend themselves from an aggressor - not actively pursuing someone in a public place or challenging someone in a public place.
     
  3. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    5 cases out of 200+ is a very small percentage. I would conclude that "stand your ground" laws work well.
     
  4. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    Agree with Rugape. If I were on a jury, the fact that Zimmerman turned and pursued Martin, effectively by doing so himself becoming the problem and the threat, this changes everything. stand your ground is gone here.
     
    Rugape likes this.
  5. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    Agree. The anti self defense and anti-gun crowd are trying to use the Martin case, where stand your ground does not apply, as a hammer to beat a good law with.

    If someone approaches me on the street with the intention of doing me harm and in fact proceeds to do me harm, then I have the right to defend myself, period. For a female, with grave, as in fatal, disparity between herself and ANY male attacker, a firearm is the only effective means she has in defending herself. That is all the law is intended for.

    There are huge numbers of CCW permits and very few times where the weapon is resorted to. In 98% of the cases where a weapon is drawn, drawing the weapon is enough to cause the perp to flee and there is no shooting. People know the finality of such weapons and are very reluctant to use them.
     

Share This Page