Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 7 years ago

Have liberals that defend Trayvon Martin actually read the 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. The concept sometimes exists in statutory law and sometimes through common law precedents. One key distinction is whether the concept only applies to defending a home or vehicle, or whether it applies to all lawfully occupied locations.

Under these legal concepts, a person is justified in using deadly force in certain situations and the "stand your ground" law would be a defense or immunity to criminal charges and civil suit. The difference between immunity and a defense is that an immunity bars suit, charges, detention and arrest. A defense, such as an affirmative defense, permits a plaintiff or the state to seek civil damages or a criminal conviction but may offer mitigating circumstances that justifies the accused's conduct.

More than half of the states in the United States have adopted the Castle doctrine, stating that a person has no duty to retreat when their home is attacked. Some states go a step further, removing the duty of retreat from other locations. "Stand Your Ground", "Line In The Sand" or "No Duty To Retreat" laws thus state that a person has no duty or other requirement to abandon a place in which he has a right to be, or to give up ground to an assailant. Under such laws, there is no duty to retreat from anywhere the defender may legally be.[1] Other restrictions may still exist; such as when in public, a person must be carrying firearms in a legal manner, whether concealed or openly.

"Stand your ground" governs U.S. federal case law in which right of self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Beard v. U.S. (158 U.S. 550 (1895)) that a man who was "on his premises" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."


Copying and pasting an article from Wikipedia is no substitute for thinking., and Martin obviously did not think before he attacked Zimmerman did he?

Update 2:

It's a bad law as one can see it has resulted in at least one murder of an innocent boy. It IS a law and your opinion is not that of a court is it? the boy was far from innocent, he ATTACKED Zimmerman

12 Answers

  • Daro
    Lv 7
    7 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    It matters NOT about "STAND Your Ground Law", man has an inherent right to defend life and property.

    And you're not limited to the same weapon as your attacker. That argument is just nonsense.

    The gov is simply infringing on those right for the purpose of increasing it's control.

    Self-defense can't be tolerated since that makes politicians less important.

  • 7 years ago

    Thank the media for all the ignorance and misunderstanding on this issue. SYG has nothing to do with this case, which is why the defense didn't assert it and the prosecution didn't even bring it up. Nor would race have come up if the media and special interests didn't have reasons to grandstand on an issue that didn't even apply here. Oh, right, Zimmerman is a "light skinned" Hispanic (code: light skinned people are all racist and people who race bait, aren't).

    Before SYG, people already had the legal right to defend themselves. SYG only addresses whether one has a duty to retreat, if retreat is possible. The defense asserted that retreat with Zimmerman trapped beneath Marlin, struggling for his life, wasn't an option. Hence, SYG was irrelevant.

    Source(s): Life long Floridian who respects the law and the process more than the media and other people's blind assumptions and prejudices.
  • 7 years ago

    Yes. If you appoint yourself as in charge of an area, and you spot some guy like Trayvon Martin you are entitled to tell him to stop and you check out what he thinks he is doing around there.

    If he doesn't stop, when you tell him to, then he is not 'standing his ground', and if you shoot him you are in the clear.

  • 7 years ago

    It's a bad law as one can see it has resulted in at least one murder of an innocent boy. besides, if it's predicated on self defense then following and confronting as Zimm did canceled his claim of self defense, you're not defending yourself if you're following someone while armed and poised to shoot, youre stalking them and they have the right to defend themselves from YOU.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 7 years ago

    Wrap it in whatever words you want, but the simple fact is Zimmerman did not need to murder Trayvon Martin.

  • 7 years ago

    Copying and pasting an article from Wikipedia is no substitute for thinking.

  • 7 years ago

    I don't defend Martin.

    I am critical of Zimmerman's actions that night. Neighborhood Watch volunteers do not pursue, and they do not carry weapons.

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    You should maybe Google Florida's version of the "Stand Your Ground" law.

    It will help you make better arguments in the future.....

  • 7 years ago

    Zimmeran isn't using SYG as a defense in this trial.. It's just pure self defense

    But Libs ignore that truth

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    The NRA sure has influenced laws in this nation, hasn't it?

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.