|
I as a private security officer am paid to investigate suspicious activity and on property I am hired to protect. If I talk to someone who is acting suspicious or breaking the rules and they get violent I should still be a able to defend myself.
Submitted by: Michael Griffin
No where in the law says GO OUT and look for trouble. This law was pass for all law ividing citizens to safeguard there safety anywhere in the state of Florida. Since you are making mention of the TRAYVON case we can agree that the media ,with there lack of honesty has been the biggest law breaker here, shame on them. A 17 yr old losing his life is a tragedy. But also is a tragedy when the media lied to the people and create problems. And lest remember that another 17 yrs old shoot and killed two tourist in Miami and now is going to jail for life. If we had God back in public sector many of this tragedies will be lesser........
Submitted by: Reinaldo Torres
It is quite obvious (considering the makeup of the so called impartial Task Force Members and Presenters), that the deck is stacked against a fair hearing on "Stand Your Ground" (SYG). Nowhere in the aforementioned 18 invitees did I see any mention of any Pro-Firearm/Stand Your Ground representatives, let alone including former State Sen. Durell Peaden (R-FL), or Marion P. Hammer of Florida as speakers. How then can one NOT consider the task force as being biased against "SYG" when the opposing Pro-view of the law is kept silent?
As far as Florida's "SYG" law and how it relates to the Trayvon Martin situation.. I believe it doesn't. Formally being in "Law Enforcement" (but retired now), I question several things (even though NOT against the law) that Zimmerman did that should bring into question as to the validity of his "self defense" under Florida's "SYG".. and thus his arrested and being brought up on charges.
Submitted by: FireStar M40
I live in New York, so I'm certainly familiar with the challenges associated with crime and violent gangs. I'm not, however, used to the practice such as the one in Florida where someone can shoot another person in a public setting just because the shooter thinks that the person looks suspicious. Worse yet, the local police don't even seem to care enough to investigate what really happened when this type of situation occurs. I respect your right to pass whatever laws you want, but there's no way I'd visit Florida under these conditions. Until things change, I'll be spending my tourist dollars in a state with different values.
Submitted by: Dennis McCarty
There were laws that allowed legal self defense before stand your ground became law. The right to defend yourself will never go away.
Stand your ground is and will be maligned and assailed in the coming months. This media assault on it is every bit as ridiculous as their pre-mature assault on Zimmerman and I think will be seen that way in the end. The anti-gun lobby has been looking for a good case to tarnish this law and they think they have one now. If the opponents are able to carry the discussion to the legislature and they open the hood on stand your ground, people will be forced to look at the details and identify the parts that are a problem. Isn't it reasonable that in a self defense situation that you are immune from any arrest without probable cause? Is it unreasonable that if not prosecuted then you are immune from civil lawsuits? Is it unreasonable that you can protect yourself in public when attacked? Is it unreasonable to say that you don't have a duty to retreat if under attack and risk a shot in the back? I don't know how the anti-gun lobby can defend their position.
In this upcoming debate the opposition will not be able to demonstrate how stand your ground applies to the Sanford case other than possibly not arrresting him immediately. But, there was no probable cause. One can make the case that this is exactly what stand your ground was meant to do as under the media and civil rights pressure they probably would have arrested Zimmerman without probable cause. They will also look like fools suggesting that self defense rights be tamped down in favor of the assailant.
People who are proposing changes to stand your ground are ill-informed and misguided. There is nothing bad about the law. It's common sense.
Submitted by: Anonymous
In the pursuit of the truth America needs to look at itself in depth to realize what the real problems are. Perhaps if you were to make the spread sheets mentioned below the truth wold come to the top and then we could as a united people make a decision on what do we need to do to stop and race related, income related, or mentally ill related crime from happening. During my time in the service in Vietnam I learned the soldiers serving with me all bleed bright red when shot. So until the government can truthfully tell the citizens of this great country there is never going to be another instance of innocent people getting shot, beaten, or sexualy attacked and killed leave the law alone. And know this, I have friends who happen to have darker skin than I do that carry a firearm with a legal license here in the great State of Florida that stand with me and others like us because it does not make a hill of beans of a difference what the race of a criminal is they needto be able to defend themselves. Those signs that warn not to bring a firearm into/onto the private property of a store owner are not working just like the law you could pass making firearms illegal. The crooks do not read the sign and go away because they are prohibited by a sign.
Okay. Lets make a spread sheet with the names of people killed or permanently injured in the first column. In the second column place the person(s) charged with the crime. In the third place the people/persons convicted in a court of law of the crime. In the next place the race of the person(s) convicted. In the last column place the victim's race.
Those would be just facts and only facts. After we create this document it would be decided who was doing the most crime involving death or permanent injuries to others. Once this is completed then we could develop programs to remove the things from people's lives that turn them into killers. Would it reflect that the entire United States of America and its legal system is racist were one race above another become evident as the one committing the most crime?
Or we could just out law all firearms and weapons of any kind. Then we could do a new spreadsheet with the same information. The weapons would change to wooden spears of course because we outlawed all those bad weapons and firearms.
Now depending on who you are this will be either a good idea or a bad idea. Any bets which is which? Safe speak, or politically correct speech has got to stop. when the real issues are hidden under the cloak of what I call, "Kissy Face Speak" we cover up the real problems so they can never be solved. Then we can repeal all the laws that protect private citizens from people who could care less if we live or die.
Submitted by: Anonymous
Only the Crooks and Thug's fear SYG! Everyone has a right to defend themself's from harm. If you really care about Justice then let the courts decide the issue of Martin Vs. Zimmerman. This whole thing is being overdone by the lying laimstream media and racebatters along with political fools with an agenda who don't even give a crap about Black on Black violence that's comitted by the gangsters in the hood. Clean up your own house and leave the good citizens of Florida alone.
Submitted by: Anonymous
What would you have citizens do? Are you suggesting that we allow ourselves to just be beaten to death? Perhaps your efforts would make more sense and be more rational if you pushed for heavy mandatory punishment for commiting a felony with a firearm or even carrying a firearm with intent to commit a felony. All your efforts are currently being motivated by the Martin incident without the benefit of full disclosure of evidence. There is a distinct possibility that you may be making fools of yourselves by jumping to judgement. Personally, if proven evidence shows that Zimmerman shot Martin and was not being attacked, I would consider the situation to be murder and not fall under the "Stand your ground" law.....which would be the case as the law currently requires. I cannot help but feel that you have a double hidden agenda:
1. Cause racial division
2. Challenge a just law while encouraging criminals to attack and mame without fear of being shot.
I would be in full l support of your efforts if you sponsored legislation that punished criminals for even having guns, but don't attempt to punish law abiding citizens for defending themselves, family or those around them.
Submitted by: Anonymous
It seems to me that the stand your ground law overrides the right to trial by jury. So, if someone murders me and just one person decides that this law applies here then the murderer gets to go free. Only in Florida!
Submitted by: John Hassel
After reviewing all of the information on the town of Sanford's web site; video, audio, and press releases, it is so obvious to me that Mr. Zimmerman was never in a position to stand his ground because he was in active pursuit of Mr. Martin from the time Mr. Zimmerman noticed him. Mr. Martin was the individual in this instance who had a right to stand his ground, and no matter how badly Mr. Zimmerman was being beaten, he was required to extricate himself from the confrontation by the same means he entered into it without the use of his gun. It is Mr. Martin who is protected by the "stand your ground" law, and he could use whatever force he thought was necessary against Mr. Zimmerman. This makes Mr. Zimmerman's wounds irrelevant.
By defending himself against Mr. Zimmerman's pursuit, Mr. Martin had the right to stand his ground and defend himself when confronted by Mr. Zimmerman. That being the case, Mr. Zimmerman broke every concealed c!arry law by starting an altercation, and then ending it with his gun. If you diagram this out, including the fact that Mr. Martin was going in the direction of where his father was staying, and not "trying to get away," and match the actual physical movements against the state of Florida laws, you will see that Mr. Zimmerman has no legal defense of his actions, and that only obfuscation of the pertinent facts is driving this case away from justice being done.
As someone who has a CWL and carries, i make this observation based on my reading of all Florida laws, and Jon H. Gutmacher, Esq's. book "FLORIDA FIREARMS Law, Use & Ownership - Seventh Edition," and no others, especially Civil Rights laws because they cloud the waters of what to me is an obvious case of manslaughter, regardless of the race of the people involved.
An aside here: My wife and i have been conducting an informal survey of people walking thru our neighborhood, culling out the couples. Better than half of the individuals, especially without pets, could be construed to be "casing the neighborhood." Mr Zimmerman was specifically looking for "suspicious people and suspicious behavior" as a participant in his Neighborhood Watch program. I conclude that he projected his thoughts onto the situation Thank you for creating this site.
Submitted by: Anonymous
I FORGOT SOMETHING IN MY PREVIOUS COMMENT. I SAY IT IS POLITICAL, AND I BELIEVE MOST AFRO-AMERICANS WILL AGREE WITH ME. BLACK ON BLACK HOMICIDES ARE OUT OF CONTROL, AND WE DON'T EVEN HEAR ABOUT FROM DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE COUNTRY. BUT, NOW YOU HAVE WHITE MAN KILLS BLACK BOY. MY SINCERE CONDOLENCES TO THE FAMILY. TRAGIC YES, DON'T RUSH TO JUDGEMENT. ALL OF A SUDDEN THIS IS WORLDWIDE NEWS, ANYTHING TO DIS-CREDIT THIS COUNTRY
Submitted by: ROBERT CONLEY
Thank you for giving us a place to learn about the law.
Submitted by: Cheryl Haywood
do you really think that forcing someone to flee from an assault is wise? I don't, retreat will only cause more casualties. You do realize that there are almost one million concealed weapons permit holders in FLA and millions more who keep guns in their homes and cars and the number of defensive shooting incidents by these two classes is statistically insignificant. this idea of changing a law that works well is just a simplistic half baked reaction to an incident that has been exploited by some for their own gains
Submitted by: Marc Kort
Gov. Scott is correct. Wait until a verdict is reached by the courts, not by the media, not by a knee jerk reaction, not by sensational personalities looking for fame and recognition to their agenda.
Submitted by: Anonymous
If the person on the receiving end of that "justice" is unarmed and you outweigh them by 110 lbs....then you should be held responsible for your actions. This law needs to be changed and waiting just allows this situation to happen again.
Submitted by: Anonymous
Although we have vacationed in Florida many times in the past, my family will not be visiting Florida so long as the Stand Your Ground law is in effect. When any ignorant, gun-toting vigilante can kill people with governmental blessing, it simply doesn't seem prudent to go there.
Submitted by: Susan Hooten
I agree that it appears that this situation could have been avoided had both sides of the altercation acted in a more reasonable fashion. That being said does one incident warrant changing a law that has otherwise not caused any problems. As of last year there were over 800,000 people in the state of Florida that had concealed carry permits. I just don't think there should be a knee jerk reaction to isolated incidents that would deprive all of those people the right to defend themselves.
Submitted by: Anonymous
Dear Mr. Smith and Task Force Members
Let me start off by saying that what happened on 2/26/12 was a very tragic event that we all hope does not happen again and can't possibly know what families are feeling.
There are so many direction for finger pointing when events like this happens. The Media starts to salivate, untrue information surfaces, he said , she said this list goes on and on, but the truth of the matter is we need to stop a take a good hard look at our social decay and the behavior that is taking place all around us.
I started this morning by reading the article about the repeal of Stand Your Ground , I am flbbergasted that we are now ready to throw the baby out with the wash so to speak.
Do you really think that if you repeal this law , that will stop what had happened on 2/26/12, if so we are really in trouble. We as tax payers will again FOOT the BILL for all of this back and forth political positioning and really not change the real problem !
no matter which way the the Stand Your Gound Bill takes shape. There are senior citizens that are frightened and do take up for themselves by having a firearm and now feel that if they need to protect themselves they can.
The subject of the "state tourism industry will suffer" another to soon to call, from what I hear from out of state visitors is that they are not afraid of being here because of the Stand Your Ground , they are more afraid of the crime that happens here in Florida let spend our time and resources doing some in that area.
I believe that this tasks force should insitute a good quality GUN CONTROL LAW that will take the GUNS from the BAD GUYS and leave the good citizens keep their right to bear arms if they choose. It always seems we THE GOOD PEOPLE pay for others mistakes and we are tired of it and the rubber band is getting real tight.
In closing ,there have been other cases that have had the opportunity for challange recently but there was not the Media Frenz we see today, Why is that ???? I hope we are not stepping back 30 Yrs. and driving a wedge between the Florida Citizens, our state or country can not afford this. DO the right things !!! SO I ask you as goverment leaders Please START leading us forward into the future not backward.
Submitted by: Anonymous
As the Miami Attorney related to Trayvon Martin, I would recommend the following inital changes:
1. Fla. Stat. 776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.
Section (1) . Delete "civil action"
Section (2). Eliminate
Section (3). Eliminate
2. 776.041 Use of force by aggressor.
Section (2)(a). Eliminate
Section( 2)(b). Eliminate
Submitted by: P. Jones
It seems that so many commenters here have already found George Zimmerman GUILTY in the court of public opinion without knowing all of the FACTS. Remember innocent until proven guilty. Let the legal process take it's course. Regarding "Stand Your Ground", it does NOT provide a defense to the agressor in a crime, leave Stand Your Ground alone. With all the break-ins and attacks occuring these days, who knows you may need the protection of Stand Your Ground yourself one day.
Submitted by: Colin R.
Stand your ground is not the problem, the full details of the event that has caused this subject to become under scrutiny are not even completed. If one shows to be an aggressor, under Florida Statute 776.041. That section of the law says a person acting illegally (an “aggressor”) must, before using self defense, either clearly surrender, or in good faith withdraw from physical contact with the other, and clearly indicate to the other person that he desires to withdraw and terminate any use of force. Next, The law prior to the “Stand Your Ground” law basically stated that before you could use deadly force you had to have a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm from a person acting illegally or a reasonable belief that a forcible felony (the real serious stuff) was taking place or was imminent (in the sense of immediate and unavoidable). On top of this your use of deadly force needed to be reasonable. And you had to retreat if by retreating you could avoid the need to use deadly force and you could retreat with safety. With Stand Your Ground, We also did away with the “retreat rule” almost completely. Now – if you are not committing a crime, and are not in a place you are forbidden to be in – you do not have to retreat if you are faced with a situation where you are being attacked, or if you are attempting to stop the commission of a forcible felony. you are now presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm ONLY if someone is using or has used force to break into your residence, or a vehicle occupied by persons, or is attempting to abduct a person from a residence against that person’s will. (Situations that have nothing to do with the death of Trayvon Martin, and will have no application to it.) Why . . . you ask was doing away with the retreat rule a good idea? Well . . . think of the various scenarios. Someone else is attacking you – they have a firearm, or you have a reasonable belief they have one. Qute frankly, anyone who knows anything will tell you there’s no safe way of retreating in that situation. Someone is breaking into your home, boat, whatever – and knows you’re inside. Same situation – in most such cases – they are armed – and ready to do whatever they need to do to you or your family to accomplish their illegal goals. If killing you is involved in that – no problem. What about someone with another type deadly weapon? What about someone who wants to kidnap your infant, rape your wife, rob you, etc. Do you really want an anti-gun jury who have no idea of how it “really was” to decide whether you could have retreated safely, or not? Do you really want them to hash out if you should have retreated rather than stop the armed robbery, or beating of some homeless guy on the side of the road? You are attacking a good law that may need some better clarification, but never a repeal of the law itself. Learn the facts, read the law, and stop blaming a law for ignorant people
Submitted by: Anonymous
This is NOT a "Stand your Ground Law" issue. This is a case of was the law broken. I am so tired just because Jessee Jackson and Al Sharpton are jumping up and down that you feel you have to form a committee to challenge a law. Be honest to everyone, a Black Male was shot by a White Male. That is the whole issue. Quit making Florida a "Race" state. Let the legal system do it's job and handle yourselves accordingly. Where was everyone when Governor Scott cut $3 Billion from Education? This is taking $3 Billion from our children. If we don't educate our children you are going to see more crime, Black and White. Where was Jessee and Al then? Oh that's right, there was not enough spotlight on that issue. It still had the same cause and affect. People are going to die without the proper education. If they can't read, they can't read laws. If they can't read about laws, they're going to break them. Parents- Teach your children right from wrong, old and young. Know where they are at, what they are doing, don't let them be out wandering malls, make them do their homework, spend time with them and things like this will stop. Restore the morals in this great country and these types of crimes will stop. If you are going to form a committee, form one that figures out how to hold parents accountable for their children's actions until they turn 16-18. If you can do that, there will not be a need for a "Stand your Ground Law". You will see more people in church instead of the malls. Kids won't be out getting into trouble because their parents will be forced to get off their lazy butts and start spending time with their children.
Quit making this a Race Issue and let the legal system prevail. Quntify this one single action for what it is and stop all of this madness. It is people like this Senator that is causing this problem by turning it into a race issue. I don't like Governor Scott but at least he is letting the investigation be completed before moving forward causing additional issues. Trayvon and Zimmerman have no place in the political arena.
Submitted by: Robrt Foster
I completely support this law and all 2nd amendment rights and will defend my home and family even if it means taking the life of another. As a homeowner and crime victim I would like to be part of the task force to strengthen the law and give victims greater rights with regard to defending themselves and their family.
Submitted by: Stephen Cawton
The Trayvon Martin case was not even close to a stand your ground defense. He had every right to be there. Zimmerman took it upon himself to follow and shoot him because in his head Trayvon "looked" like trouble. I believe in the stand your ground law but only when it is used properly. This was not used properly!!
Submitted by: Carla Gemmati
I have studied the FL SYG statutes in their entirety, and they are riddled with absurd and terrible language that should make every LE officer, lawyer and prosecutor afraid of its consequences. Example: "However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary ... to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony" There are so many other flaws it would take an hour to explore so let's just look at the above issue. Do you know what constitutes "imminent" under Florida law? How about the list of 15+ "forcible felonies" under which this law allows you to use deadly force if "imminent"? Can you name and define 10? Can you do so under the high stress of a potential crime in progress? I can't and it's highly unlikely that any non-LE person can.
Did you know that a person can shoot to kill in the state of Florida if the imminent forcible felony they believe they!
are witnessing is "Aggravated Stalking" ? So, I am LEGALLY entitled to use deadly force and potentially KILL another human being because I BELIEVE that he/she is about to stalk someone? Does it really take a legal expert to understand how insane this is?? Police are highly trained in the law, rapid assessment of criminal activity/danger situations, dealing with high stress conditions and how/ when to use their weapons - and they will admit that they themselves some times get the above wrong. and god bless them, this is their job!
Florida SYG law as it is written gives Joe Public (who has NO legal or LE training in any of the above subjects) the right to make a split-second judgment under extreme duress about what is "Imminent"; what the applicable law is; who may be breaking that law and in what degree - then based on that, pull a weapon and kill someone. Florida Statute 776.012 et al gives police powers to average untrained and armed citizens. This is a mistake which empowers citizens to act as sheriff/judge/jury/executioner in! seconds without any training whatsoever - it is dangerous and the statutes need to be repealed/rewritten immediately.
Submitted by: A. Mohr
The stand your ground is a good piece of legislation. It was designed to protect he rights of law abiding people to defend themselves when they are under attack or assault. That’s all it does. It keeps law abiding people who choose to defend themselves from having to retreat in the face of attack and make themselves more vulnerable to criminals. That’s what the law is all about. The is nothing in the law that states you can follow and attack. The law is for your protection and the protection of others if needed when attacked or assulted.
This is coming under fire because someone is taking this to the next level and following someone and then getting into a altercation. The law is clear "stand your ground" nothing about persuing anyone.
Submitted by: Marc Littleton
My condolences to the Trayvon family. This is truly a tragedy on many levels. I would ask that people dutifully consider how 'Stand Your Ground' became law in the first place. This law is INTENDED to protect the law abiding citizen from prosecution when RIGHTFULLY defending themselves (judicious use of force). Imagine your the victim of a home invasion or carjacking, you defend yourself and family with justifiable use of force only to be sued in a civil suit by the criminal or their surviving family members. Before this law was enacted this scenario played out time and time again. This was truly a tragedy as well. That is just one crude example of why this law exists. Laws are put in place for a reason. Is this law perfect? apparently not. Amend the law if need be, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water. I do find the selected 'Task Force' on this website suspect, knowing that Christopher Smith voted against the law originally and most members appear to be! of the democrat persuasion (typically gun grabbers). Note: most gun control laws are nothing more than OSHA (occupational safety and health act) for criminals. As for the Trayvon case, the 1st amendment has won out here: the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Let the prosecutors finish their SECOND investigation. Let's refrain from the lynch mob mentality and race baiting. Truly a tragedy!
Submitted by: Anonymous
As a retired Iowan who vacations in Florida, stand your ground laws are a positive when I select vacation locations. I would not worry that this law will drive away tourism. Your problem is your high violent crime rates in some of your Florida cities that drive away tourism. Around Orlando it is now ranked one of the worst violent crime areas in the nation. You diminish the legal means of vacationers self defense and shift the burden of protection to your law enforcement and you will see many of us vacation elsewhere. As a CCW permit holder I would not be any where near Orlando with out my own means of self protection. As for making this stand your ground law an issue now due to the Martin case. It appears that you are in rush to judgment the same as most of the media and protesters. Based on the list of task force members and their titles, I would have expected restraint do to the current investigation.
Submitted by: Anonymous
Stand Your Ground is GREAT and I approve of it. If I am somewhere that I can legally be and somebody attacks me, I should have the right to defend myself! DO NOT CHANGE THIS LAW!
Submitted by: Rodney Mcintire
Leave SYG alone. The only portion that has been abused is gang violence. Gang members have used self defense as a means of defense. If Zimmerman was attacked the SYG is not relevant. Ages old self defense laws grant us the right to protect ourselves. This campaign is an insult to our State. Stop knee-jerking and let the investigation run its course. Where are the quick actions from lawmakers when we need something done quickly? Each day of session costs tax payers over $50,000. Where is the fiscal responsibility shown by lawmakers. You are embarrassing us with your wastefulness. Think before you act. SYG must be left alone.
Submitted by: Anonymous
Since Zimmerman has not even been brought up on charges yet, we are all jumping to conclusions. We are arm-chair judges, juries, and some even executioners. The evidence has not yet been presented. The media has mislead (that is putting is lightly) the public on many levels: NBC's edited 911 tape, photos of both Zimmerman and Martin, and the list seems to be growing. This case does not even relate to the "Stand Your Ground" law according to what we have heard. If Zimmerman's account is true and Martin attacked from behind, knocked him down and was on top of him, then retreat was not an option, so this law is irrelevant. If that is not true and there is evidence that contradicts it, then Zimmerman has a lot of explaining that no law will "help" with. The only way the law may remotely be related to this case, is if ZImmerman had cornered, threatened, or assaulted Martin. Then Martin, not ZImmerman, would have been protected in using force. If anything needs to be!e uncovered in this case, it would be why did the Sanford police even refer to the law. Did Zimmerman have a different story originally? Did they not do a thorough investigation and used the law as an excuse? We should all want justice, but justice involves first getting to the truth, something that many want to bypass. If this is about justice, I stand with you. If this is about reversing a law that protects those who act in defense of themselves against violent criminal behavior and diminishing my right to self-defense and life and liberty itself, then I wholeheartedly stand against you.
Submitted by: Anonymous
Your task force is ridiculous. Another burden on the Tax Payers of the state of Florida. I am certain you can find something much more productive to spend your time on. If you cant find something more constructive to work call me and I will be happy to point you in the right direction. Let Sanford, Seminole county and the Govenor sort this out. You have no business in this matter!
Submitted by: Anonymous
I just read an article that led me to your site. I'm happy to hear a task force has been set to
review the Stand Your Ground law. I think it is important to review the law
based on the amount of protest and public concern that has arisen since the
killing. In the article i read that Rep. Smith did not think politics was a
concern when creating the task force. In an election year when politics are so
in our face whether we like it or not and the country is so divided it stood
out to me when i read the list of people on the task force and before i even
read the line that Smith did not think politics mattered. i said to myself,
"there are no R's on the list of people". I immediately felt that could be a significant problem in how this plays out. I might add that i
am a pretty hard line D and i think this could ruffle feathers in what is a
well intentioned motion. I'm just one of the 99%. One of 300 million. but we
really need to start considering those differences! that keep us
divided so that maybe we can find center ground in the persuit of happiness and
life and liberty and all that. inclusiveness, not divisiveness.
Submitted by: Anonymous
The gun law works fine. This particular incident is tragic, but very isolated. Masses of people are NOT being gunned down because of this law. PLease leave it alone. I ask the task force to NOT take away our right to defend ourselves. Law Enforcement cannot protect us, only pick up the pieces after we are victims of crime..
Submitted by: Anonymous
Mr. Smith you are wasting taxpayers money.
Submitted by: Anonymous
First, I`d like to thank Mr. Smith and the committee for forming this committee to address this horrible law. 1. If this law is to be modified in any way, it is MANDATORY to completely remove the immunity clause. The persuasive argument could be that the only way, again the only way to determine guilt or innocence with any degree of accuracy is in a court of law where there is testimony,witnesses, a judge and a jury.2.It would be wise to declare that the old self defense laws have served this nation well for a 100 years, despite the occasion bumps in the road. Any radical departure carries risk .3. The best approach if it`s feasible (???) is to remove the law completely as you already know.4.A premise for your recommendations could be as follows: A history of this law shows that cases(often involving death) are dismissed , and dismissed , and dismissed month after month after month. Is it possible that individuals that might have committed manslaug!hter/homicde are walking free. ANY POLICY THAT BYPASSES A COURT OF LAW WHERE DEATH HAS OCCURRED IN AN ALLEDGED SELF DEFENSE SITUATION IS THE ANTITHESIS OF PROPER JUSTICE AND IS AN ACT OF INJUSTICE BY IT`S VERY NATURE.5. I believe committee members have to meet privately with Gov. Scott ,present the recommendations, and aske for his support. He can be told that we are looking for a yes or no answer and any waffling will be seen as a lack of support. Again, THANK YOU FOR MAKING FLORIDA A BETTER PLACE TO LIVE.
Submitted by: Thomas Burke
When an unarmed person is dead, the person with the weapon that caused that death should be held accountable in front of a grand jury.
Submitted by: Anonymous
I believe the law needs to be amended to include wording that makes it clear you can not follow someone, get into an altercation
with them and then shoot them and claim self defense. If you are not following
someone and causing the situation yourself then there is no need for self
defense. Simply because you put yourself in a situation where you have to use
deadly force to protect yourself doesn't mean that you should be permitted to
get away with it.
Submitted by: Robert Davis
the Stand your Ground was intended to protect Law abiding citizens Defending themselves from overt criminal actions, or
assaults upon their person that may or is intended to inflict death or great
bodily harm. It protects them from law suits while defending themselves from
immediate threat to their person or someone else's from an aggressor. If you take
away this protection you allow those who are law abiding to be victimized from
an out of control criminal element who doesn't care about gun permits, the law
or their fellow human being. As far as the young person refereed to is concerned,
you can seriously injure or kill another human with your bare hands. It is
irresponsible for anyone to take action before ALL the Truthful evidence is in!
Submitted by: Roy Fisch Jr.
This tragic event occurred outdoors in a
neighborhood. But the Stand your ground law has to do with someone(s)
specifically trying to forcibly enter someone's residence, dwelling. or vehicle.
What does one have to do with the other?
Leave the current law alone. I'm so tired of everything a tragic event
like this happens the liberal media tries to take everyone else's right to
defend their home and property away.
Submitted by: Travis Alltop
This has NOTHING to do with the Stand Your Ground Law!!Once Zimmerman left his own property, the Stand Your Ground Law, was
abandoned!!!
Submitted by: Paul Anderson
There is nothing wrong with the current law. Leave it alone.
Submitted by: Michael Thompson
Considering the facts have shown that Zimmerman was pinned to the ground and had absolutely no opportunity to retreat, how is Stand Your Ground even relevant here? How can you avail yourself of a law that does not impose a duty to retreat when there is no opportunity to do so? This Stand Your Ground issue shows how hateful and ignorant the media, politicians, and much of the liberal community really is. If there is no opportunity to retreat, then Stand Your Ground does not even come into play. Just admit it liberals, this is all propaganda to impose more gun control.
Submitted by: Anonymous
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force. Stand Your Ground does not apply to those who place themselves in situations like those Dr. Scott! mentioned unless that person has no choice in order to survive. It may be frustrating but I believe everyone must have the right to defend themselves without prosecution (or persecution) but common sense needs to prevail,too. If someone creates the environment whereby a shooting or death occurs, they should not have legal protection even if it is to save their own life. However, the consequence should be less than manslaughter. SYG should be kept in tact but it needs to be better defined and additional training needs to be required.
Submitted by: Anonymous
The law should stand. There is no language in this law that would allow you to pursue someone then kill them. I wish the media would take the time to show how many times this law saved law abiding citizens of Florida from the lawless people that live in our society. Certainly no one really believes you could get ride of guns. You ban guns and only the criminals will be the ones with them. Check out Chicago, some of the strongest gun laws in the country and they have the WORST gun crime statistics.
Thomas Ohlinger
I am a registered CCW here in the state of Florida. Although I do believe we need a stand your ground law I also believe it should not be within the law to instigate an altercation, whether it's with words, or actions and then still be able to claim self defense when you discover you've made the wrong choices. The law was put in place with good intentions and it's there for law abiding people to defend themselves if they are involved in an UNPROVOKED attack. Until our legal systems starts issuing real punishments to criminals rather than a slap on the wrist there is nothing to stop them from attacking us and we need to be able to defend ourselves without a fear of prison or lawsuits.
Submitted by: Anonymous
Many contributors seem to think that the law should remain in its present state, but does this law even say or suggest that you are free to pursue someone, pick a fight (verbal) or physical with the individual, and then use your gun to silence the one you pursued when you the pursuer seem to be losing the verbal or physical fight? If we can get the law amended to include language that you "cannot just randomly or otherwise single out and pursue someone and then kill them," then it would be a better law. Now if Trayvon was of age to carry a gun, and he had killed Zimmerman that night, would he be in the 'right' knowing that he was pursued or verbally attacked by a stranger? Let the critics answer this question.
Submitted by: Dr. Cecil Scott, Professor
Keep the law as is. If the law is abused then prosecute. Why should invaders be able to sue homeowners for being shot inside the home? This has happened many times that home invaders have sued homeowners for being shot and disabled for loss of income - in other words not being able to steal...
Submitted by: Rob Walker
First let me say that I am deeply saddened by the death Trayvone Martin. I am sure he was an innocent young man. I pray that
his Parents get justice for their son. No parent should have to deal with this
kind of tragedy! Please do something to get rid of this terrible law! There are
so many crazy people out there that think it's okay to use their weapons for
any reason they see fit. We all need to stand together and change this once and
for all!
Submitted by: Debra Lajoie
I think we should get all the facts of the case before jumping to conclusions and thinking about changing any laws. I believe you are presumed innocent until
PROVEN guilty, not
guilty until proven innocent when politicians or celebrities say so. I feel the
Stand your Ground law is fine the way it is.
Submitted by: Anonymous
This law seems to be a way to murder someone and get away with it. Some of the cases I am aware of the individuals who killed someone were the ones who brought the so called danger on themselves. The law needs to be reviewed and rewritten or sadly there will be more Trayvon Martins.
Submitted by: Anonymous
The death of any person at the hands of another must receive the same thorough investigation and adjudication irregardless of the apparent circumstances. That it required a lawsuit, national media coverage, and intervention by the USDOJ to have the killing of an unarmed individual competently investigated and seriously reviewed by a prosecutor due to the state's stand your ground law is an outrageous travesty of justice. Stand your ground is an unneeded, bad law that will only serve to contribute to more killings in the future. As it is: Stand your ground + no witnesses = a state approved human hunting permit. The NRA lobby be damned; this law needs to be repealed.
Submitted by: Mark Sol
I do not think that the law should be repealed,but I do think that the law should be amended, and the language made clearer.
The law is too vague, and people have probably misused the contents of the law.
Submitted by: Dr. Cecil Scott, Professor
This is horrible for the State of Florida. A state that relies on tourist money and not a state income tax should be protecting people not allowing a stupid law to allow anybody to claim self defense. I would not bring my family to Florida for vacation because there is not safety when guns are allowed to be used when emotions are high or for that matter just because somebody doesn't like you. To be able to kill somebody when you are the agrressor and then be able to claim self defense is no place I would visit. I think all there should be a camping to boycott Florida as a tourist or citizen due to safety concerns.
Submitted by: Anonymous
I feel very sorry for the family of Trayvon Martin and I am grateful that things are finally moving in the right direction to further explore what actually happened on that night in Sanford, Florida. I want justice to be served! I pray that healing will begin for all of those affected
Submitted by: Belinda C.
I don't think the problem is in the law itself. The law clearly doesn't support Zimmerman's actions.....He or some slick defense attorney is trying to wrongly use this law to save his a--. There's hundreds of laws in our country that have been twisted to be used for reasons other than what the were created for. This is nothing different.
Submitted by: Marcus M.
|
