Trayvon Martin - Stand Your GroundEric Holder: After Trayvon, It’s Time To End “Stand Your Ground”"Attorney General Eric Holder Tuesday called for an end of so-called 'Stand Your Ground' laws, warning they can encourage violent situations like the deadly altercation between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin and represent a threat to public safety."
Source: http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/eric-holder-after-trayvon-its-time-to-end-stand-your-ground
For the record, George Zimmerman's defense team did not "invoke Florida's 'stand your ground' defense in winning his acquittal of murder in last year's shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. But the specter of the 2005 law loomed, inescapably, over the proceedings."
http://tinyurl.com/nc2s5mk“In the United States, 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.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_lawThe “Stand Your Ground” law is not really the problem. In the case of someone going about his legitimate business: if he encounters someone who tries to rob, or assault him, then the “Stand Your Ground” law protects him if he refuses to run and uses force, deadly or otherwise, against such an aggressor. One should not be forced to flee in such situations. It may be smart and well-advised to safely retreat from threats, but the law should not be revised to compel one to do so. “Stand Your Ground” addresses those instances where people should stand up for themselves.
If someone is the unlawful aggressor, then that person should not be able to use that law as a defense after assaulting or killing another person who was about his legitimate business.
It is not the law that is wrong; the problem is ignorance and racism in how the law is interpreted. If in error you cause another person who is going about his lawful business to feel threatened to the point that they lash out to protect themselves, you cannot claim self-defense after using deadly force to stop the person from defending themselves. That is just common sense.
Also, the debate about who struck first in order to determine the aggressor is silly. Once Trayvon Martin felt his life was in danger he had a legal right to strike first in self-defense. So it does not matter if he struck first or if he struck after he was assaulted in that instance. Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin and accosted him that night. We also know from the 911 recording what Zimmerman assumed about whom he was following. Zimmerman was wrong in his assumptions and Trayvon had every reason to feel threatened while going about his lawful business. Trayvon was the one who had a right to stand his ground and to be protected by the “Stand Your Ground” law.
--Ayinde
Author
