More evidence that critics of Stand Your Ground laws (including Trayvon's father) haven't actually read the statutes

If you read the actual state laws, people aren't allowed to rely on the Stand Your Ground provisions if they initiated the conflict.  From US News:
In an emotional speech before members of Congress Wednesday, Tracy Martin, the father of slain Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, urged lawmakers to consider a "Trayvon Martin Act" to amend Florida's "stand your ground" law.
"Stand your ground" allows people to use physical force in self-defense without a duty to retreat and served as the backdrop in the recent "not guilty" verdict for George Zimmerman in the shooting death of Martin's son Trayvon, who was unarmed.
The "Trayvon Martin Act" would amend "stand your ground" to make it illegal for a person acting in self-defense if that person was the initial aggressor.
Martin said the act would help establish a future in which people "can't profile our children, shoot them in the heart and then say that you're defending yourself." . . .
Here is the Pennsylvania version of their Stand Your Ground law.

(i)  the actor, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or
(ii)  the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating, except the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be. . . .

Here is the relevant part of Florida's law:
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.History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.
Isn't it pretty clear that even under Florida law if you initiate the confrontation you aren't allowed to Stand Your Ground.  

Labels: ,


Blogger Chris said...

Almost every state has some sort of law like that. Reason is due to Wallace v. United States • Ð; 1896; 162 U.S. 466; 224.

So good luck changing those laws, even if you call them something they are not.

7/25/2013 9:27 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

Reality is becoming more Orwellian than Orwell ever imagined - we're bordering on the theater of the absurd! Holder is not only criminal - he's criminally insane!
What would he have to do to be relieved of office? Does he remain in power because we are terrified of him and Obama and his drones?
Trayvon's family addresses congress? What about the families of Christian and Newsom in Knoxville in 2007? Two whites murdered by 5 blacks - in the most horrible way imaginable. (We didn't even HEAR about it. The MSM chose to enforce a news blackout. Don't trust me - Google it for yourself.)

Molon Labe!

7/25/2013 1:52 PM  
Blogger RS said...

Who NEEDS to read?

Progressives already KNOW they KNOW EVERYTHING.

7/25/2013 5:32 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home