For what I heard on the reports on the Trayvon Martin case the police didn't arrest Zimmerman because they considered he acted in self defense.they seemed to conclude that his description of the situation to the police officers were consistent with what they saw at the scene. Let's suppose for a moment that what they saw is exactly as he said, that there had been a fight, and that he presented a broken nose and scrapes on the back of his head, and wet and green stains on the back of his jacket.It is my understanding that in that case he really thought his life was in danger and he shot Trayvon dead,and would have committed no crime because he killed him in self defense according to stand your ground.Now let's suppose on the other hand that Trayvon Martin had a license to carry a gun and was actually carrying one at the time, and he is walking back from the store and a man in a car is following him, gets out of the car and keeps following him on foot, words are exchanged and a fight ensues ,Trayvon pulls out his gun and shoots Zimmerman dead,because if they are in a fight and this well built guy a hundred pounds heavier and more muscular is beating him to a pulp and he is really in fear for his life.(let's not even bring up the fact that one is black and one is white and we know that a black man who just killed somebody and a white man in the same situation are not treated the same way, just for argument's sake)In that case Trayvon would also be innocent of any wrong doing according to stand your ground.DO YOU NOT SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THIS?So what happens if everyone on the street is carrying a gun and upon any dispute or argument if a fight happens to start people feel afraid for their life and start shooting each other?There is no way you can convince me this makes sense in 2012 America.
In your scenario Martin is indeed in the right.
In your scenario, you are saying one person is in the right...but then you present another scenario that is in essence, the same scenario - and saying that the person is not right.
Sounds hypocritical to me.
So no, I don't see anything wrong with that. If I happen to have a gun, and my life is in danger, I sure as hell hope not to have to choose jail or death. Shoot the bastard and let me go free.
I think you don't understand what i'm saying, in both cases the scenario is the same and the outcome is the same and both persons are innocent, no hypocrisy here. so you think it's ok everybody carries a gun and any argument can end up in a fight that can evolve into a gunfight and we'll just have endless number of shootouts like if we were living in a real life spaghetty western movie.really?
Either you'll have the spaghetti western scenario or a lot more people that are reluctant to throw that first punch simply because they're insulted or "disrespected" somehow. If I knew that some guy was in the legal right to kill me (and might be packing a weapon) if I punched him in the face for insulting my wife I would think twice about doing it, drunk or sober.
The problem, I think, is that "fear for your life" thing. I don't find it reasonable to tell someone they are competent to carry a gun for self defense but at the same time they are murderers if they kill someone regardless of the reason.
Nor is it reasonable to set them free if they provoke someone else into throwing a punch. That's not fearing for your life, but what is? Should it be left vague and interpreted at each instance? Should it be better defined, while trying to cover a 5' woman being struck by a 250 pound drunken man? Should we simply disregard our constitution and jail anyone found with a gun?
Sorry, I don't see any good answer.
Equally at what point does it become reasonable to use your weapon? Do you have to have broken bones etc? It's a tough one really, I have seen someone die in fist fight it happens all the time.
I see two different situations in this.
1st: How can Zimmerman say he feared for his life and had no choice but to kill Trayvon,(he could have left it up to the police after the 911 call) when...He is the one who iniated the act? I see Trayvon as self-defense in the fight(if there was one). No case for "stand your ground" here.
2nd: Legal license to carry weapon and a man follows you and then pursues you on foot and is very much larger person than you then attacks you. You would fear for your life and this case could be considered as "stand your ground."
by Sooner28 5 years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law"In the United States of America, stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first."So, let's recall the...
by SpanStar 5 years ago
The 2 representatives who sponsored "The Stand Your Ground Law" have openly and publicly stated that Mister George Zimmerman does not qualify under the statutes of this law. ...
by Longhunter 6 years ago
http://news.yahoo.com/official-charges- … 38994.htmlIt's about damn time but can he get a fair trial?Will all groups on both sides of this issue accept the outcome of a trial and move on?
by Cassie Smith 5 years ago
Why is Eric Holder telling people to challenge Stand Your Ground?Zimmerman's trial had nothing to do with stand your ground but was basically about self-defense. Isn't it really about the gov't trying to erode your right to protect yourself, home, and family so that you would have to depend...
by Xenonlit 6 years ago
Will the Trayvon Martin homicide lead to changes in state "Stand Your Ground" laws?Other nicknames for laws that are based on the Castle Doctrine include the Defense of Habitation Law, and "Make My Day" law.Either the "stand your ground" laws present a deadly threat to...
by chipsball 5 years ago
The most important phase of this criminal trial will be the selection of six (6) jurors and (4) alternate jurors who will determine the outcome. Selecting jurors who can set aside their feelings towards either the State of Florida or the Defense, listen to the testimony that only comes from the...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|