Change.org has jumped on the bandwagon and is fronting Trayvon Martin's parents to promote arguments against the "stand your ground" laws. Change.org doesn't mean "review" these laws; it means change them, rescind them.
It's wrong. They are wrong.
The "stand your ground" laws don't need to be reviewed, and certainly not because of the Trayvon Martin shooting in Sanford, Florida. In my opinion, that never was a "stand your ground" case.
George Zimmerman should have stayed in his car. He never should have confronted Trayvon Martin. You can't pick a fight and then shoot someone because you are standing your ground.
The "stand your ground" petition for review should grind to a fast halt.
Illinois should enact a "stand your ground" law. It won't.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
GZ never confronted Martin,it was the other way around. And we should be applauding GZ for standing up to the criminal element in society,not criticizing or second guessing him especially since we now know that he was the victim not the aggessor.
Big Daddy, if I thought you were right, I'd agree with you.
The initial call by GZ to Sanford PD set the stage. He spotted TM. At that point he should have attempted to keep TM in sight and waited for the police to arrive.
So, no applause for GZ. He was very, very lucky in court. And "we" don't know that he was not the aggressor.
First... to this:
**GZ never confronted Martin,it was the other way around. **
Actually, we don't know this. At all. All we know is that Zimmerman followed Martin, and at some point Martin ended up on top of Zimmerman. We don't know what happened in between. But further, there is NO question that Zimmerman inserted himself into a situation that he had no reason to. That alone should make SYG irrelevant in this case. But the prosecution couldn't prove it.
Second... Gus, sometimes it amazes me how little you know about the things you talk about, yet you pretend to speak with such authority. IL already has a stand your ground law on the books -- or, in other words, IL's law a) allows for self defense, and b) does not require one to retreat.
Thanks, dave. Would you like to identify the Illinois statute that allows SYG?
I believe Dave is taking about this:
"Placing the suggestion before the jury that the defendant had a duty to retreat is a clear misstatement of Illinois law..."
People v. Estes, 469 NE 2d 275
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13179784283436107163&q=no+duty+to+retreat&hl=en&as_sdt=4,14
Gus hate to say it but I agree with Big Daddy. You admit that zimmerman should have attempted to keep martin in sight. Well exiting the car and following may have been the only way he really could do that. You could argue maybe not but i havent heard anything that would support that idea. While Illinois does not officially have a stand your ground law there is nothing that requires you to run either. Assume for the moment that all Zimmerman did was follow Martin and that Martin started the physical confrontation, 720 ILCS 5/7-1 paraphrased gives a person the right to defend themselves using that force necessary including deadly force if they reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. Well look at Zimmerman's face. His nose was pushed in. On the back of his head were multiple injuries. Other than the gunshot that ended the altercation there was no mention made as to injuries to Martin. The injuries to the back of Martins head are consistant with getting his head slammed to the ground multiple times. Zimmerman claims he could not get free and that Martin was showing no signs of backing off the confrontation. At this point he did what he had to to prevent what he could reasonably believe his death or great bodily harm. Next assume that Zimmerman actually was the aggressor. In that case 720 ILCS 7-4 paraphrased states that if he strted the use of force to provoke another to use force against him as an excuse for his use of force that is not allowed UNLESS he has tried every reasonable way to retreat then he can use force, even deadly force if necessary to stop the inital victim of his use of force who has now become the aggressor. So if Zimmerman started the confro tation and Martin defended himself Martin is good. However he ended on top of Zimmerman and zimmerman had all the injuries. If he could have escaped he wouldnt stay for that beating. In Illinois Zimmerman was ok too. A Chicago Police Officer told me that gang members are using that technique now of mounting and repeatedly slamming the other persons head to the ground
Mike "Other than the gunshot that ended the altercation there was no mention made as to injuries to Martin."
Maybe the judge withheld that information, just as she did with all the other pertinent information! TV was a punk ass kid. He was not the Lilly pure cute black kid. He also knew some martial arts and was a druggy. Why was this all withheld? BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN ORCHESTRATED TO START TROUBLE! Put the puzzle pieces together... I feel they fit!
Stand Your Ground is authorized by Public Act 93-0832
See
720 ILCS 5/7-1
720 ILCS 5/7-2
720 ILCS 5/7-3
By the way, PA 93-0832 was sponsored by Barack Obama.
Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of “aggressor” set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
Sec. 7-2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other’s unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or
(2) He reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of “aggressor” set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
Sec. 7-3. Use of force in defense of other property.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other’s trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of “aggressor” set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
The NAACP is trying to ram "Trayvon's Law" through all SYG states.
See http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/02/NAACP-launches-trayvon-law-campaign
Clem K., thank for quoting (11:54PM) statutes, but I don't read them as authorizing SYG.
Ok Gus, but neither do they say you must retreat. Stand your ground by default.
Yep. Have you seen what he really looked like? The picture the media kept putting up of this innocent looking little kid was far from accurate. Found a fairly recent one of him. Thought it was Mike Tyson at first. Tattooed face and all!
Gus,
Read it again, especially this part:
"In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of “aggressor” "
That is the essence of "stand your ground" in Florida. The inability of the state or plaintiffs survivors to prosecute or sue civilly is actually the heart of "stand your ground."
Second. The Illinois statutes do not specify or require a "duty to retreat." Duty to retreat is essential language that is missing in Illinois' statute. Unless stated, there is not duty to retreat. QED. Because "duty to retreat" is on in the criminal statutes, Illinois is a "stand your ground" state.
Here is a specific example:
Connecticut Jury instructions on the use of self defense: § 53a-19 (b)
Exceptions to the use of deadly force.
Duty to retreat: "...a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if (he/she) knows that (he/she) can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating. This disqualification requires a defendant to retreat instead of using deadly physical force whenever two conditions are met: 1) a completely safe retreat is in fact available to (him/her); and 2) (he/she) knows that (he/she) can avoid the necessity of using deadly physical force by making that completely safe retreat."
Duty to retreat applies to one's home, too, under circumstances involving a "co-dweller."
Surrender of property: "...a person is not justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense against another is when (he/she) knows that (he/she) can avoid the use of physical force with complete safety by surrendering an object of personal property to the assailant."
Comply with demand: "...a person is not justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense against another is when (he/she) knows that (he/she) can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by complying with a demand that (he/she) abstain from performing an act which (he/she) is not obliged to perform."
Note: In Connecticut, you must first "give it up," run away if you can, until you are cornered or exhausted, or be bleeding out before you can use deadly force to defend yourself.
ALL THIS LANGUAGE IS MISSING in Illinois' statutes.
Illinois is a stand your ground state!
Mike (11:44PM posting), there is a photo of a Trayvon Martin in wide circulation who is not the TM shot by GZ. Is that the one you are referring to?
Post a Comment