Trayvon Martin Case

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Well, IMHO, "stand your ground" is not that bad it may need some tweaking. Based on some of saden1's statement both here and in other threads, not sure if he believes in the common law "duty to retreat" anyway. When pressed, I think a lot of people think they shouldn't have to run if, unprovoked, someone threatens them.

I believe in the social law that says "don't start shit, there won't be shit." I believe using deadly force as a last resort. I believe in seeking a safe place to retreat if you hear someone pop-offs. If you can't, by all means, get behind the nearest thing and aim to kill. I believe that people can lose it and shoot you dead for talking shit about their mama or spitting at them. I believe that would constitute manslaughter.

I believe the laws on the book are adequate. I don't believe Stand Your Ground solves any real world need or problem. I believe all it does is introduce uncertainty into the picture and makes it permissible to subjectively shoot someone.

Stand Your Ground Law:

A person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;

I can come up with countless of scenarios that render the above law idiotic. I mean, it nullifies responsibility for the utterance of fighting words, instigation and escalation of a situation. It can potentially allows sadistic people to get away with murder. Any law that simply requires you to have wounds to justify self-defense is beyond idiotic.

Now the truly ironic thing in this Trayvon Martin tragedy is that in Florida Aggravated Stalking is considered a forcible felony.