Attention: The forums will be placed on read only mode this Saturday (Oct. 20, 2018)

During this outage (6:30 AM to 8 PM PDT) the forums will be placed on read only mode. We apologize for this inconvenience. Click here to read details

Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Is Trayvon Martin not allowed Stand Your Ground right ?

by grimgraphix / July 18, 2013 7:11 AM PDT
The state of Florida implemented the Stand Your Ground law to give people the right to not retreat when a person feels that a physical attack is about to take place. Instead, that person has the legal right to use force to stop impending physical harm before it happens.

Interesting idea. If Florida's Stand Your Ground law gives a person the right to stand their ground by using force, without having to retreat, then it seems that the state of Florida ignored Trayvon's right to stand his ground and use force to protect himself.
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Is Trayvon Martin not allowed Stand Your Ground right ?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Is Trayvon Martin not allowed Stand Your Ground right ?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
I believe that was all explained
by Steven Haninger / July 18, 2013 8:53 AM PDT

The law maintains that if the person being threatened with death or great bodily harm is in his home, car or anywhere which he has legal right to be and is not in the act of committing a felony, he may respond with such force as is necessary...including lethal.

In the Zimmerman/Martin case, the stand your ground law was not invoked during the proceedings. The judge did include mention of that component in the jury instructions, however.

I would say that Trayvon Martin could have availed himself of that protection under the right circumstances. It would have required that some action of George Zimmerman caused him fear that he was about to be killed or gravely injured. There would have needed to be evidence that the fear was well reasoned.

One scenario...(and I'll just make this up)...other than a physical attack that could have raised such fear is if GZ had approached TM with his gun drawn. Trayvon, if GZ was stupid enough to get within range of a fist, could have decked him and tried to take away the gun. At that point, had GZ maintained control of his weapon and shot Trayvon, George would be at fault as he would have been in the commission of a felony by approaching TM with his gun drawn. But had GZ dropped the gun and TM recovered it, Martin would now have the advantage. He could not shoot GZ at will, however. He could only do so if GZ got up and came back at him.

We can invent plenty of possible scripts but there would need to be supporting evidence to get a reasonable jury to buy one of them.

Collapse -
TM didn't stand his ground
by TONI H / July 18, 2013 8:57 AM PDT

when he first spotted Z.......he ran, according to testimony during the trial by his friend that he was on the phone with, because she told him to 'run'. He had the opportunity to keep running to his unit, but instead turned back and confronted Z later in the dark. Also, according to her new interview today, she said: Trayvon threw the first hit (just as Z stated when his nose was broken from a sucker punch)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/rachel-jeantel-huffpost-live-interview_n_3610921.html (there are other links to this statement as well)

From what I understand about Florida's Stand Your Ground law, once you leave, you don't get a second chance to come back and THEN stand your ground.

Collapse -
For a better understanding of Stand Your Ground.......
by Tony Holmes / July 18, 2013 6:38 PM PDT

law and how/when it applies,I recommend watching this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsQeTKnD_f0

The speaker is a Police Capt who has instructed cops and private students in handgun tactics and laws that apply for over 30yrs.

Collapse -
What I find interesting.....
by Josh K / July 19, 2013 12:01 AM PDT

......is that we haven't heard a peep from the NRA over this. Where is their "If Trayvon had also been armed, he might still be alive" statement? I think we know where.

I have a hunch -- just a hunch, mind you -- that when the NRA talks about the well-regulated militia being "everybody" they didn't mean these guys.

Collapse -
As badly as you want to try
by TONI H / July 19, 2013 12:14 AM PDT

to turn this into an argument that has no merit, Josh, it's not going to work. If TM HAD had a gun, he would have been breaking the law by having an illegal one since he wasn't old enough to own one. Keep trying.

Collapse -
Can you find me an official quote
by James Denison / July 19, 2013 12:54 AM PDT

from the NRA concerning Zimmerman's defense? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I suspect you haven't even looked,....yet.

Collapse -
(NT) Why should they be expected to say anything?
by Steven Haninger / July 19, 2013 1:04 AM PDT
Collapse -
Because they (and their supporters).....
by Josh K / July 19, 2013 1:06 AM PDT

......always seem to say that when there's a high profile case of someone getting shot to death. Well, almost always. Wink

Collapse -
I suppose we could ask why our president
by Steven Haninger / July 19, 2013 1:25 AM PDT

has been thus far silent about the verdict. After all, he did comment on the incident once it blew up in the media.

Collapse -
Separate question
by Josh K / July 19, 2013 1:43 AM PDT

But, in fact, he has not been silent. He made a statement the next day. I would not expect him to express an opinion of the verdict. That would be inappropriate no matter what that opinion was.

Collapse -
The only comment he made was
by TONI H / July 19, 2013 3:54 AM PDT
In reply to: Separate question

that 'a' jury rendered a verdict.......he never said 'THE' jury. That was pretty telling to me that he didn't agree with it (especially after he also said that the DOJ would be doing an investigation.....even while KNOWING that not only did the DOJ send people down ahead of an arrest to make sure one WAS made but that his own FBI had ALREADY done an investigation and didn't find even one shred of evidence that this was a race/hate/civil rights crime).

Collapse -
"A" jury vs. "the" jury is an issue for you?
by Josh K / July 20, 2013 6:49 AM PDT

Lord have mercy. Sounded to me like he was downplaying the federal investigation, to prepare people for the likelihood that there will not be federal charges.

Collapse -
He sent Eric Holder out
by James Denison / July 19, 2013 3:10 AM PDT

To make the real statement. Obama made one that supposedly leaves him above the fray. Bad cop, nice cop approach. Obama gets his "lieutenants" to do the dirty work for him, like any good mob boss would do.

Collapse -
BS, Josh.
by Paul C / July 21, 2013 8:55 PM PDT

Here's why: {b]http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/
Not guilty: The verdict in the manslaughter trial of Roderick Scott. After more than 19 hours of deliberations over two days, a jury acquitted the Greece man in the shooting death of Christopher Cervini, 17, last April.

"I just want to say thank you to the people who believed in me, who stood by me," Scott said following the verdict. "I still have my regrets for the Cervini family; it's still an unfortunate situation for them. I am happy that at least this chapter is over."

...

Cervini's family members say justice wasn't served. They say Christopher was murdered in cold blood, that he'd never been in trouble and Scott acted as judge, jury and executioner.

"The message is that we can all go out and get guns and feel anybody that we feel is threatening us and lie about the fact," said Jim Cervini, Christopher's father. "My son never threatened anybody. He was a gentle child, his nature was gentle, he was a good person and he was never, ever arrested for anything, and has never been in trouble. He was 16 years and four months old, and he was slaughtered."

Scott says he acted in self defense when he confronted Cervini and two others saying they were stealing from neighbors cars. He told them he had a gun and ordered them to freeze and wait for police.

Scott says he shot Cervini twice when the victim charged toward him yelling he was going to get Scott.


Mr. Scott is black, Josh. Mr. Cervini was white. Many (including myself) have blasted George Zimmerman for not obeying the 911 dispatcher's order to stand down, return to his vehicle and wait for the police. In the Scott case, Mr. Scott was not so ordered, but, as in the Zimmerman case, he went out to confront the people whom he (rightfully) believed were up to no good, namely breaking into and burglarizing cars - when he had no specific authorization to do so. Mr. Cervini charged Mr. Scott, at which point Mr. Scott shot Mr. Cervini - after warning that he was armed - as he was legally obliged to do.

The similarities between the cases (except for the fact that Mr. Scott didn't get his nose broken or his skull split by Mr. Cervini as Mr. Zimmerman did at the hands of Trayvon Martin) are remarkable. The one difference that's obvious is that we have yet to see professional rabblerousers such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton calling for "Justice for Christopher Cervini!" - and we both know why, don't we, Josh?

Collapse -
(NT) BTW, New York does NOT have a "Stand Your Ground" law.
by Paul C / July 21, 2013 9:14 PM PDT
In reply to: BS, Josh.
Collapse -
Oh, yes. The people who our esteemed Attorney General...
by Paul C / July 21, 2013 9:01 PM PDT

...let off the hook by ending a previously plea bargained open and shut case of blatant voter intimidation in Philadelphia on Election Day, 2008? Why would the NRA support blatant law breakers, Josh?

Collapse -
Nope, that's not who that was a photo of
by Josh K / July 21, 2013 10:36 PM PDT

That photo was of the original Black Panthers, in 1968. As far as I know they were breaking no laws, just "exercising their second amendment rights." And you and I both know that if you showed that photo to a group of "gun enthusiasts" that's not what their first conclusion would be.

Collapse -
OK, Josh, I stand corrected, but only because...
by Paul C / July 22, 2013 8:52 PM PDT

...I failed to specify that I was referring (as you undoubtedly knew) to the New Black Panther Party, who engaged in a blatant exercise in voter intimidation in Philly in 2008:

http://jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/black20panthers20philadelphia.jpg That isn't a magic wand the man's gripping, Josh.

The fact remains that the Bush Justice Department had secured a conviction (with a plea bargain) that would have prevented the NBPP from future acts of that nature, only to see AG Eric Holder drop all charges against it.

That of course didn't stop further lawbreaking from one of the NBPP leaders who was at that Philly polling place:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/26/new-black-panther-who-sparked-voter-intimidation-probe-in-2008-reportedly/

A member of the New Black Panther Party who sparked a federal probe for voter intimidation in 2008 has been arrested on gun charges in New York.

King Samir Shabazz, a 41-year-old Philadelphia street preacher and national field marshal for the New Black Panther Party, was arrested late Thursday in Harlem after NYPD officers spotted him with wearing a bulletproof vest and a loaded, unlicensed handgun.

Shabazz was arrested without incident at about 10:30 p.m. on June 20 after officers stopped him to talk about the vest under his clothing, NYPD spokesman Paul Browne told FoxNews.com.

"When they stopped to talk to him about it and patted him down for their own safety, they discovered that he was armed with a loaded, illegal five-shot revolver," Browne wrote in an email.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/26/new-black-panther-who-sparked-voter-intimidation-probe-in-2008-reportedly/#ixzz2ZrdMXZwd

Collapse -
Isn't he the same guy
by TONI H / July 22, 2013 10:25 PM PDT

who was caught on camera/video screaming in the streets about killing 'cracker children'? Forgetting conveniently by law enforcement that he was inciting a riot, inciting violence against whites....and where are the civil rights activists? Nowhere...........

Collapse -
Quick! Call Al Sharpton!!
by James Denison / July 23, 2013 2:11 AM PDT
In reply to: Isn't he the same guy

Get Jesse on the phone!!! Time's Awastin'!!

Collapse -
sounds like an illegal search
by James Denison / July 23, 2013 2:16 AM PDT

And when is it illegal to have passive protection for oneself? If anything that should be considered the least problematic self defense item. I despise this guy, but I don't approve of stopping someone for wearing a bullet proof vest.

Collapse -
No evidence to sustain such an allegation
by James Denison / July 19, 2013 12:52 AM PDT

If there had been ANY evidence beyond just bruised knuckles from his battery of Zimmerman, any wounds other than the single gunshot wound, then maybe such possibility would exist. If for instance Trayvon had facial wounds, a broken nose, impact wounds to the back of his head, and then was also shot, with only Zimmerman having bruised knuckles, then things would have been entirely the other way. But....of course...you know that.

Collapse -
That's exactly what I've been wondering given the pursuit
by Ziks511 / July 20, 2013 3:32 PM PDT

first in a vehicle and then on foot to challenge him. He was moving away from him until he felt cornered enough to respond judging by the information in the trial by a single punch to the face which caused Zimmerman to fall on his back and strike his head.

Of course, Florida is one of those states inclined to play games with the voter's lists, but the SCOTUS doesn't think that's important.

Apparently Stand Your Ground is now to be interpreted as the equivalent of Run Him Down, Get Him on the Ground, and Shoot Him Dead, until perhaps another SCOTUS offers up another ruling which approximates a humane response.

All I hope is Mr. Zimmerman steps into traffic and is struck by another Hispanic driver.

Rob

Collapse -
Interesting script you've put together there...

Too bad it doesn't match up with eye or ear witness evidence.

Collapse -
be careful on what you wish for others
by James Denison / July 20, 2013 10:38 PM PDT

God sometimes likes to turn it around on such. Remember Haman? Hung on his own gallows, lol.

Collapse -
Yes, It is an odd piece of legislation where the guy with
by Ziks511 / July 23, 2013 11:29 AM PDT

the lethal weapon is presumed to be in fear of his life, and the unarmed teen is the assailant after having been followed for several minutes by some Creepy A$$ Redneck.

What would have happened had Trayvon Martin fled. Shot while escaping? Confirmation that he was up to no good? Is there any response short of lying down on the ground with his hands behind his head that would have been acceptable to you. No crime, No badge, no reason, no patience, no judgement, no justice, no mercy.

And for all the Googling being done, there is no indication that Mr. Martin was planning on a Robitussin party, there was no Robitussin on his person, so all of this is complete after-the-fact BS conjecture, and would never have been admitted into a court of law. But the Usual Suspects here take it as an absolute certainty, just as they have from day one, that Trayvon Martin was guilty of the capital crime of being black where he shouldn't have been. Well, the sentence was passed, without the benefit of trial, judge, defense, witnesses, or a crime. He was dead well before the police arrived.

Twitter is hardly what one might call evidence, more like hear say. Anybody ever heard about teenagers bragging about things they haven't done?

Rob

Collapse -
(NT) a deliberate mish mash of misinformation you spread
by James Denison / July 23, 2013 2:17 PM PDT
Collapse -
How easily you distort and rewrite history, Rob
by TONI H / July 23, 2013 7:38 PM PDT

For one thing, TM wasn't followed as intensely as you make it out to be. You ask what would have happened had TM fled.........he DID and was out of sight of Z for a long number of minutes and had plenty of time to reach his father's unit and instead circled back to confront Z (that's been proven and isn't speculation).

Second, you have the quote wrong....it was 'creepy a$$ cracker' not redneck.

Third, NEITHER Z nor TM knew if the other was armed since neither had pulled a weapon for the entire duration, so you are making an assumption not based on fact. If Z was actually stalking TM in the dark as most of you believe, it only makes sense that he would have had his weapon drawn the entire time instead of walking around in the dark pathways and taking a risk that TM was armed himself.

You accuse us, who followed this case from day one carefully, of passing judgment early on, but rather it was the liberals, the politicians pandering to their bases, the activists, and the media who were passing judgment before he was actually arrested that Z was guilty of murdering this 'poor' teenager in cold blood because of his color. When in fact, Z didn't KNOW if he was black.......he said TM was acting suspiciously and like he was 'high'.......he only speculated that TM was black AFTER the dispatcher ASKED HIM. Local law enforcement AND the local prosecutor didn't believe Z acted in any fashion other than self-defense, and the FBI didn't find anything to suspect or charge him with regarding civil rights or hate crimes. It was only after the activists like AS, JJ, and the NAACP put pressure on the Governor of the State that charges were brought, and I believe the charge of 2nd Degree Murder was brought SOLELY because they knew it would never stick but that it would take the pressure off.......and instead it backfired when Z was found not guilty and AS, JJ, and the NAACP realized they had been duped and are now stirring it up to a new frenzy that again won't go anywhere except to keep the country divided over a case that should have completely been left to the local law enforcement.

Fourth.....yes, teenagers brag about things they haven't done.......but for the most part, they brag about things they HAVE done. Does that mean that you will again totally ignore the fact that he DID brag about using drugs and has pictures on his phone with guns and text messages bragging about his expertise in the fighting arena that were also indicative of the fact that he was a 'gansta' wannabe?

Popular Forums

icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

FALL TV PREMIERES

Your favorite shows are back!

Don’t miss your dramas, sitcoms and reality shows. Find out when and where they’re airing!