Can both stand ground?

  • Follow Letters

This letter is to all the legal eagles in our area in regard to the Stand Your Ground Law.

When the Trayvon Martin case first came to light, I had thought that both Martin and Neighborhood Watch captain George Zimmerman could use the Stand Your Ground Law, as it
applied to both.

However during the trial I believed Zimmerman would be found guilty, as he was the stalker giving Martin the right to punch his lights out.

Was Martin given the right to protect himself under the law?

Michael Ferguson

Augusta

Comments (104) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Riverman1
84971
Points
Riverman1 07/21/13 - 07:06 am
15
5
Wrong On All Accounts

"However during the trial I believed Zimmerman would be found guilty, as he was the stalker giving Martin the right to punch his lights out."

Looks like you were wrong on all accounts. No one has the right to punch out the lights of anyone for following them, assuming Zimmerman actually did that. Plus, the Stand Your Ground Law was never brought up at this trial. It was self-defense.

ymnbde
9903
Points
ymnbde 07/21/13 - 07:14 am
14
4
the "right" to punch his lights out? uh, no...

Charles Barkley got it right.
"I think Trayvon Martin, God rest his soul, I think he did flip the switch and started beating the hell out of Mr. Zimmerman. But it was just a bad situation."
people like Al Sharpton and the msnbc type media in general make that an easy switch to flip.
if a much larger man breaks my nose and is bashing my head on concrete, and i have a gun, i will use it.
If a suspicious person is acting in a manner that "fits the profile," not long after my own home has been burglarized, i will follow. Follow and stalk are not the same thing.
Following is not reason enough to attack someone. Certainly not reason to "punch his lights out."
Stop committing so many crimes.

carcraft
26270
Points
carcraft 07/21/13 - 07:57 am
12
4
If a Police detective doing

If a Police detective doing undercover work follows me, do I have a "right " to punch him out and beat the daylights out of him?

deestafford
27879
Points
deestafford 07/21/13 - 08:02 am
10
3
I find it so hard to believe after all this time where we had

a jury trial, access to all the 911 transcripts, televised interviews of Zimmerman giving his account of what happen, and Zimmerman passing two lie detector tests we still have people who are ignorant of the facts and law in this case.

Here is a short synopsis:

Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch captain in a neighborhood where there had been numerous break ins committed by youths.

Zimmerman was returning home in his truck when he observed Martin slowly walking with apparently no purpose direction in the rain. He notice Martin cutting through the buildings and decided to see where Martin was going.

During this time he was talking with 911 giving a situation report as he was waiting the police. He told the dispatcher he was following the individual and had lost him between the buildings. The dispatcher told Zimmerman he did not need to follow the suspicious individual.

After losing sight of the individual Zimmerman was returning to his truck when he was confronted by Martin who began assaulting him. After Martin broke Zimmerman's nose and beat his heat into the sidewalk Zimmerman got his pistol out and fired at Martin in self defense. Stand Your Ground was never an issue.

Martin's girl friend said in a TV interview that when Martin told her over his cell phone someone was following him she told Martin it could be a gay man who wanted to rape him and for Martin to run. After that Martin circled around and confronted Zimmerman and assaulted him. Based on his girlfriend's words he was homophobic and was going to take care of the gay man.

As far as the stand your ground law goes in FL it has been used more by blacks than it has by whites. It basically says if you are threaten with bodily harm that causes you to think your life is threatened you can take whatever force is necessary to defend yourself. You don't have an obligation to run and escape.

At no time was race a factor and after tens of FBI interviews no one has shown any racial prejudice on Zimmerman'part who by the way took a black girl to the prom, defended a black homeless man against the local police department among other supporting blacks actions.

Ignorance and prejudice by many, to include obama, Holder, and other racial pimps are the ones stirring the honey pot of perceived black victim hood.

Little Lamb
46419
Points
Little Lamb 07/21/13 - 09:10 am
11
3
Sharpton Doctrine

Michael Ferguson wrote:

However during the trial I believed Zimmerman would be found guilty, as he was the stalker giving Martin the right to punch his lights out.

America is in for some more hard times if sizable numbers of people believe what Ferguson believes.

:-(

Little Lamb
46419
Points
Little Lamb 07/21/13 - 09:14 am
13
4
Lying on your ground

You are really not standing your ground when your attacker has you pinned on your back to the ground and is pounding your head into the concrete sidewalk. It's difficult to flee such a situation.

seenitB4
88328
Points
seenitB4 07/21/13 - 09:47 am
4
4
Enough

Have we talked this case TO DEATH!!!!

Bring P Deen back..pleeeeezeeee

t3bledsoe
14290
Points
t3bledsoe 07/21/13 - 12:47 pm
4
11
LL @ 9:14

"You are really not standing your ground when your attacker has you pinned on your back to the ground and is pounding your head into the concrete sidewalk. It's difficult to flee such a situation."

This LTE is titled "Can both stand ground ?". YES, BUT TM did not have a gun which makes GZ guilty of murder !!

mrenee2003
2946
Points
mrenee2003 07/21/13 - 12:48 pm
3
10
Pretty amazing

that you think it's difficult to flee when "your attacker has you pinned on your back to the ground and is pounding your head into the concrete sidewalk" but not so difficult to pull a gun out of an internal holster and shoot someone right in the chest? Pretty amazing feat for someone described by his trainer as "soft." The willingness to believe that story would be laughable if that kid was not dead.

t3bledsoe
14290
Points
t3bledsoe 07/21/13 - 12:50 pm
4
7
Quote from LTE

"Was Martin given the right to protect himself under the law?"

I think this one of the fundimental questions that each of us need to answer. My answer is a RESOUNDING NO !!

t3bledsoe
14290
Points
t3bledsoe 07/21/13 - 01:36 pm
3
7
mrenee2003 @ 12:48

"The willingness to believe that story would be laughable if that kid was not dead."

I whole-heartedly agree with this statement !

t3bledsoe
14290
Points
t3bledsoe 07/21/13 - 01:46 pm
4
7
A POINT TO THINK ABOUT

We all know what the result of the actions taken in this fight was ! I am convinced, LIKE MOST REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIVES, had GZ not had a gun, he is the one that would be dead ! MY QUESTION TO ALL OF YOU, "Would GZ have "STALKED" TM if he had not had a gun ??!" My answer is that GZ's gun gave him the empowerment to "STALK" TM with a very egotistical "MOCHO" attitude !!!!

Little Lamb
46419
Points
Little Lamb 07/21/13 - 02:02 pm
9
3
@ t3bledsoe, regarding 12:50 comment:

Of course Trayvon Martin had the right to self defense and he had the right to stand his ground if someone were attacking him. The trouble is that as soon as Martin threw the first punch, he forfeited his right to self defense and he lost his immunity under the stand your ground statute (two separate things).

You see, the key to understanding this whole matter is the attack. It is not against the law to follow someone in an area open to the public. It is not even against the law to stalk someone unless you are under court order not to stalk (note that papparazzi stalk every day as part of their jobs). It is not against the law to profile someone when making decisions about what you plan to do.

But it is against the law to punch someone in the face, even if he taunts you (which Zimmerman did not do, by the way). Martin's assault on Zimmerman turned Martin's civil rights upside down. He lost his civil rights when he unlawfully attacked Zimmerman.

RMSHEFF
16214
Points
RMSHEFF 07/21/13 - 05:52 pm
7
2
Bledsoe

Zimmerman is guilty of self defense. If you were having your head slammed against the concrete sidewalk and you had a gun are we to believe you would not use it ?

KSL
131379
Points
KSL 07/21/13 - 07:39 pm
4
5
Let's see, bledsoe, if can put this in terms you can comprehend

Suppose your wife is attacked by a man who is attempting to rape her. She has a conealed carry permit. She manages to reach for her handgun, shoots and kills the guy. Would you be calling her a murderer?

mrenee2003
2946
Points
mrenee2003 07/21/13 - 07:49 pm
3
5
The problem is

how quick you all are to believe GZ. NO ONE KNOWS who threw the first punch. No one. Amazing how quick you are all to believe a person with a history of lying and violence. The only person who knows who threw the first punch is GZ and he is a liar with a history of violence (against a woman and a police officer). So, we're to believe that poor little George, who met with a MMI trainer three times a week for over a year, was innocently walking back to his truck when Trayvon jumped him from behind the bushes (again, what bushes?) and pinned him down and bashed his head against the concrete. So, while he is being pinned down and getting his head bashed against the concrete sidewalk, he reaches behind his back where he said his internal holster was and was able to shoot Trayvon in the chest. Wow! What a story! So, KSL, let me put this in terms YOU can comprehend. A woman (Black) in Florida discharges a warning shot into her ceiling to ward off her abusive husband. No one was hurt. She gets 20 years in jail. So, yeah, in Florida, if you're Black and attacked, you are the guilty one -- and based on the comments on this forum, in Augusta too.

t3bledsoe
14290
Points
t3bledsoe 07/21/13 - 07:55 pm
4
3
KSL @ 7:22

"Suppose your wife is attacked by a man who is attempting to rape her. She has a conealed carry permit. She manages to reach for her handgun, shoots and kills the guy. Would you be calling her a murderer?"

This is a good example, BUT there is something very different with the GZ / TM case. My wife wouldn't have been "STALKING" the rapest and the rapest wouldn't have been covered under the "STAND YOUR GROUND" Florida law code ( 1c ) stateing that if one is fearfull of his life, one can use deadly force.

t3bledsoe
14290
Points
t3bledsoe 07/21/13 - 08:00 pm
4
4
mrenee2003 @ 7:49

OUT-STANDING arguement !! Way to go !!!!

t3bledsoe
14290
Points
t3bledsoe 07/21/13 - 08:03 pm
2
2
Got to go for today

mrenee2003, KEEP THE DEBATE GOING !

Little Lamb
46419
Points
Little Lamb 07/21/13 - 08:04 pm
4
0
What does anyone really know?

Yes, Mrenee, no one really knows what happened on that grassy knoll after dark in Sanford, Florida.

That is why it is so bizarre that the special prosecutor came forward with a murder charge. No one really knew anything! The police had almost no evidence, and what evidence they did have corroborated Zimmerman's story.

In a murder trial, it is up to the prosecution to make his case, to prove his case with evidence — eyewitnesses, forensics, photos, strong timeline and solid story. But in the Zimmerman murder trial, the prosecution kept laying "what ifs" out on the table instead of evidence. "What ifs" are the stock in trade of defense attorneys. All they have to do is put some what ifs out there and plant a seed of reasonable doubt into the jury's collective mind.

So here the tables were reversed. The defense had all the physical evidence on its side. It had eyewitnesses on its side. It had a plausible story on its side.

The only fair and true verdict had to be not guilty — because the prosecution never proved a single thing.

Little Lamb
46419
Points
Little Lamb 07/21/13 - 08:08 pm
5
1
Stalking?

In responding to KSL's hypothetical situation, t3bledsoe posted:

My wife wouldn't have been "STALKING" the rapist. . . .

Stalking never entered into the jury's decision because stalking is not a crime unless a court has put a "no stalking" order on you. Zimmerman was under no court order not to stalk Trayvon Martin; hence he committed no crime that fateful night.

validPoint
982
Points
validPoint 07/21/13 - 08:17 pm
3
4
Very Troubling

Based on much of the reasonings that are expressed here, I am very troubled. It is most troubling to know that folk feel they can intimidate others and face no retaliation. Could this be that many are angered because a black person left scars on someone who is "nearly" white, and regardless to what this "nearly white" person did to coerce this on, the black person deserved to die. I hope not, I really hope not.

Another thing I fail to understand is how can any law be applied to any situation when the only live person involved did not take the stand to give account under oath, and the record that was presented is very flawed. This merry-go-round is really turning out to be a "trip" to say the least.

Riverman1
84971
Points
Riverman1 07/21/13 - 08:24 pm
6
0
It seemed the prosecution

It seemed the prosecution witnesses helped Zimmerman more than his lawyers and witnesses. Rachel Jeantell, Martin's girlfriend, probably helped the defense more than anyone.

Riverman1
84971
Points
Riverman1 07/21/13 - 08:27 pm
6
1
" It is most troubling to

" It is most troubling to know that folk feel they can intimidate others and face no retaliation."

If we can all attack others physically because we FEEL intimidated, the rule of law doesn't mean much. I'm sorry you don't understand that.

KSL
131379
Points
KSL 07/21/13 - 08:51 pm
3
2
You fell into my trap

I debated as to whether to head you off. Chose not to. I knew exactly how would respond. I will now add what I left off. Your wife has encountered the stranger and had been friendly. He mistakes her intentions anf follows her. By the way, I am asking you where you draw the line on self defense or murder. Not who is following who and for what reason.

RMSHEFF
16214
Points
RMSHEFF 07/21/13 - 08:37 pm
4
1
Riverman1

Only a few feel that way. Most believe the jury did the right thing with the not guilty verdict. Just like menree2003 stated above " NO ONE KNOWS who threw the first punch. This statement means the jury made the correct decision because the burden is on the state to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" and if no one know for sure this is the definition of reasonable doubt. Many guilty people are not convicted because the state cannot prove what happened.

validPoint
982
Points
validPoint 07/21/13 - 08:52 pm
2
2
Trained to follow.

@Carcraft, it is my understanding that police detectives are trained to follow and govern themselves accordingly.

validPoint
982
Points
validPoint 07/21/13 - 09:13 pm
2
3
No sorrow needed

Riverman1 don't feel sorry for my understanding. Save it for the things that are surfacing as the result of this ill thought out behavior shown by ZG. Believe me, I am very comforgtable with my understanding.

Being that you began,it is my hope that you would continue and respond to the remainder of my concern. That is the one that incorporated the Law. i would really like to receive a response to that.

Riverman1
84971
Points
Riverman1 07/21/13 - 09:09 pm
5
0
What if Obama had started

What if Obama had started punching the person who followed him around in the store when he was younger? I suspect he had better sense.

Riverman1
84971
Points
Riverman1 07/21/13 - 09:09 pm
4
0
Well, when SOMETHING surfaces

Well, when SOMETHING surfaces that changes the evidence, give me a call. So far nothing but conjecture has come from the other side.

Back to Top

Top headlines

SRS shipments halted until 2016

Savannah River Site can't resume shipments of Cold War nuclear waste materials to an underground repository in New Mexico until at least 2016 when the federal government reopens the facility to ...
Search Augusta jobs