SYG has no effect on local police at all, unless the DA's officed tells them not to bother with an arrest, which is what I think occurred here. It is a legal procedure to be used in a court of law. Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, not Martin. Of course he stopped pursuing the victim. The victim decided to Stand HIS ground when he was being pursued. You are no longer pursuing something when you've caught it.

The confrontation began when Zimmerman began following Martin in his car, not when Martin turned around gave back a little of what he had been getting.

If something doesn't happen to defuse this situation, and soon, it'll be the Rodney King riots all over again, only better organized. An arrest at an early stage would have done just that.

What I find interesting is the fact that one of the Florida legislators that wrote the "Stand your ground" law himself says Zimmerman has no grounds for self defense.For me the number one issue is that Zimmerman placed himself willingly into a possibly dangerous situation and on no solid evidence what so ever to justify why he is not a law enforcement officer.Zimmerman would have reason if he had seen Martin about to commit a violent crime against another person other than himself but that was not occurring Martin merely appeared suspicious according to Zimmerman and then Zimmerman claims that Martin attacked him while walking back to his vehicle and of course people never lie certainly not when they might spend a considerable amount of time behind bars.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-...-seek-changes/

unfortunately, it is more than a claim that he was attacked. This is from the police arrest report made that night:

Right now the facts, including the eyewitness testimony of the first officers on the scene, support Z's story.

Unless the investigation uncovers new facts, this will be a tough case to prosecute.

If someone jumped me for walking down the street, I'd absolutely fight back.

Exactly, this is what I'm wondering here as well. Why isn't this same doctrine being applied to the victim here? He was very clearly in a place he was lawfully allowed to be, with a clearly provable lack of criminal intent, unarmed, and was chased by a much larger and older (this by the way has been made a case of repeatedly) armed man, cornered in somebody else's backyard. He had a right to stand his ground (which he did not, and tried to escape) or fight back, and honestly in his situation I would've tried to do exactly that - punch the bastard in the nose and try to run away. Unfortunately the pursuer was armed.

Honestly, if some huge guy who's not wearing uniform steps out of a car and starts coming at you, then runs when you get scared and start running away, it's not a very irrational response to think that your life is threatened. I think the suggestion that he "attacked" is pretty ludicrous - someone with a very clear reason for being where he was and carrying nothing but snacks bought from a store would have had no business attacking a much larger armed man. What's more, the victim's lack of violent history and the shooter's having such should only further help establish a case for aggression or lack thereof here.

this seems to be the situation

if you are armed, you may absolutely attack someone else without provocation, and if they try to defend themselves, you may then shoot them dead and claim self defense.

That's how I read it as well. It seems to be the fatal flaw in this law.

Agreed, and the irony of the situation is that if M. had killed Z., HE is the one that would be protected by the SYG law.

Incidentally, the situation would be entirely different up here in Canada. We have an expanded common law definition of self-defence. In Canada, Z. could not claim self-defence since he provoked the assault.

However, in Canada, we have too many cases where citizens in "self-defence" situations are prosecuted:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/08...d-inside-home/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1778679/

So it really comes out to what type of law you want: blanket immunity for all self-defence cases or leave it up to prosecutors to decide if you were justified?

i think blanket immunity to anyone who claims self-defense regardless of circumstances (especially when the other guy is too dead to argue his side of things) cannot be the right way

There is no blanket immunity here. Only a lack of competence by the police and an incorrect application of the law.

The sad thing is the anti-gunners will (try to) use this incident to get this law, and those like it around the country repealed and we'll go back to the old system of blanket arrests of people who were indeed just defending themselves.

well i don't think that sounds like the right way either. perhaps blanket anything is the wrong approach.

unless the facts of this case turn out to be substantially different from how it seems, then florida is going to have to either get the police to do their job properly or else make it clear where the line is drawn for what makes SYG a valid defense. for as presented, common sense says this is not one of those situations.

I would agree although blanket immunity was not what the authors of the law intended nor is that what the laws history shows:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/2...und-cases.html
Agree.

Agreed. It would be nice if they do both. In principle Stand Your Ground is good idea but rules must be very clearly defined (although the judge should still have right to use common sense).

I agree. I just need short break. :DL

Thank you Neal! :salute:
I think you are correct.

It has been stated many places that Zimmerman was carrying a Kel Tec 9mm you are either misreading a report or reading a re-worded report(not sure hwy you mention Zimmerman's handing over of the gun obviously he did).Zimmerman obviously handed over his weapon the Kel Tec 9mm.Zimmerman can not prove how he got the grass stains and bloody nose this obviously could be caused by a fight(either party being the aggressor) an unarmed person also has the right to defend themselves from harm as well we have no way of knowing if Martins inflicted those wounds on Zimmerman in self defense apart from Zimmerman's word.

How does the rule apply then let us say if one person fears threat of bodily harm and reacts (one can be killed with bare hands alone) in self defense and the attacker has a weapon and now according to Florida law (if it fails to take into account) the person that placed the other into a self defensive reaction has the right to defend himself with deadly even though he had put the other person in danger.What about an unarmed person having a gun pulled on them this puts their life in danger and they the right to use deadly force to protect their life from great harm this law in wording or misunderstanding seems to greatly increase the chance of a very violent confrontation occurring between two persons.If that is the case something needs to be done about its wording to avoid misunderstanding or taking advantage.

As I mentioned in an earlier post there is another case from 2010 in Florida of a man shooting another man in self defense in the case it was in the middle of the day with several witnesses all of whom counter the shooters claim of self defense.The problem here it is very clear in the Sanford PD simply taking the one and only eye witnesses word even through there is plenty of audible evidence(someone seeming not be Zimmermans voice a child's voice yelling for help,the fact that Zimmerman pursued into a possible situation out side the lines of self defense the boy had done nothing to give him a reason to pursue according to the SYG) to counter his claims.When the police have several people telling them they heard a boy yell for help they accept Zimmerman claims I find it hard to believe that they did this or perhaps even ignored this all together