Trayvon Martin’s Father: Change “Stand Your Ground” Laws on Federal Level

Left to right- Jamal Bryant, Al Sharpton, Sybrina 'TrayMom' Fulton, Tracy Martin (courtesy theconservativetreehouse.com)

The constant drumbeat from politicians and gun control advocates continues apace, despite the fact that “stand your ground” laws were never a part of this case. Wednesday, Tracy Martin spoke to members of the Black Caucus in Washington to urge them to change the law on the federal level to make it that SYG laws wouldn’t apply to a person who was the “initial aggressor.” Exactly what that means and how it would be legislated remains rather unclear, and sounds to be about as effective as an “assault weapons” ban.

From USNews.com:

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.”

Norton went on to state that “stand your ground” laws present “a clear and present danger to black men.” However, as we have reported earlier, it appears that blacks benefit disproportionately from those same laws that Martin is now agitating to repeal, and President Obama backed a strengthening of those same laws in Illinois before his run for the presidency.

avatar

About Nick Leghorn

Nick Leghorn is a gun nerd living and working in San Antonio, Texas. In his free time, he's a competition shooter (USPSA, 3-gun and NRA High Power), aspiring pilot, and enjoys mixing statistics and science with firearms. Now on sale: Getting Started with Firearms by yours truly!

130 Responses to Trayvon Martin’s Father: Change “Stand Your Ground” Laws on Federal Level

  1. avatarAgitator says:

    Am I the only person that’s starting to freak out when someone mentions Saint Trayvon and Stand Your Ground in the same sentence?

    • avatarDaniel Silverman says:

      No you aren’t the only one. I get what he is trying to say, but….
      Lets make this clear again, still.. The only witness we have that testified said Trayvon was on top of Mr. Z. Mr. Z said Trayvon initiated contact.
      So it is the prosicutions job to refute the statement that Mr. Z gave. They failed to do so.
      That is outside of the fact that I am beating my head on my monitor by all the miss direction we are seeing.

      • avatarDoug says:

        John Good also testified that Trayvon was on top, and Rachel Jeantel also testified that Trayvon started the confrontation.

      • avatarBlue says:

        John Good was the closest witness and he testified it was TM on top. The physical evidence supported TM as pounding GZ. Rachel aka Diamond aka DD said TM was just putting a “whoop ass on him.”

        I guess this manager forgot to ask if it was just a “whoop ass” or a “beat down” and he was killed in Sarasota, FL.

    • avatarThe Blue Angel says:

      Correction: It’s Saint SKITTLES.

  2. avatarRob says:

    How many times does our side have to keep telling them that SYG wasn’t used in the Zimmerman/Martin case?!?!?

    Not to mention that SYG laws don’t mean what they say or think it means…

    • avatarPascal says:

      How many times does our side have to talk about 2a and the stupidity of gun laws when they are killing each other in Chiraq on a weekly basis?

      There, you have you answer.

      They will never ever stop because it is based on emotion and the leaders of the Black community have industry in exploiting this type of stuff.

      It will never ever end….never. The family here like the family in Newtown is being led by the nose.

      • avatarRev. Maurice Pompitous says:

        It will never end because the media is “all in” for civilian disarmament. Hour after hour of anti gun messaging will eventually have the desired effect. The majority of children are being taught about the evils of the gun from early childhood. Frog in boiling water analogy is correct. I’m praying for some serious overreach to bring it to a head right now. Dear Lord please let the progressives start an initiative to repeal the 2d amendment.

      • avatarRed Sox says:

        Amen brother

    • avatarRoscoe says:

      This effort is being plotted and navigated by the Obama administration and has nothing to do with the Zimmerman case other than to use that tragedy as a jumping off point to push another anti gun owner restriction, in this case, a federal statute to eliminate SYG. Trayvon Martin is being used just like the kids at Sandy Hook were by the grabber politicians.

      I wonder how long it will be before these gun grabbing pheuquers will start pushing duty to retreat even in your own home?

      Let me guess; they’re just waiting for the right homeowner vs. intruder tragedy.

    • you’re asking people who think Trayvon was innocent to use common sense.

      not. gonna. happen.

    • avatarBlue says:

      The “Black Caucus” is a contradiction in terms on so many levels. They obviously have reading poor comprehension. The SYG portion or Section (3) of Florida 776.013 clearly says “not doing illegal activity” and “who is attacked.” Slamming someones nose and ground and pound is definitely an attack.

  3. avatarBill J. says:

    The “Trayvon Martin Act” would amend “stand your ground” to make it illegal for a person acting in self-defense to act in self defense.

    • avatarRopingdown says:

      Tracy’s bitter because even without availing themselves of SYG, when a party to a fight, even not the aggressor, is blocked from the only exit or sat upon on his opponent, lethal force becomes appropriate if serious bodily injury is reasonably foreseen by the restrained opponent. Tracy Martin wants the law to say “I can sit on you, beat you to a pulp, injure your brain, and you can’t shoot.” Rubbish, and Americans realize it. We have many many decades of experience from which to abstract appropriate self-defense law, and our legislators have. If Tracy had been a father to Trayvon instead of chasing P hither and yon, our world would have been a better place. Time to post Tracy’s life history soon.

    • avatarGreg in Allston says:

      Yes. That about sums it up. Seriously, take a walk in their shoes for a minute; if it was your precious and gifted little snowflake wannabe thug that risked the possibility of reaching room temperature for his “youthful exuberance and indiscretions”, would you want such irrational, mean-spirited and racist laws on the books that would allow the assassin of your darling “child” to get off Scot free on a technicality? That’s utter madness don’t you think?

      The Martin family completely failed their son. They are in complete and abject denial. Everybody else is at fault but them. Oh, and let’s not forget the fact that they may stand to make a tidy little profit if they play their cards right. And so it goes….

  4. avatarAlphapod says:

    Yes yes, we get it, the Trayvon Martin case was tragic. I’m not saying that it wasn’t. But, shouldn’t the Black Caucus be dealing with more important stuff… like 13.7% black unemployment, poverty and crime in the intercity, and the disintegration of the black family? As opposed to one teenager who was shot by a white-hispanic guy? No? Ok then…

    • avatarWilliam Burke says:

      Ssssh. That would be WORK.

      The best thing to do if you are armed and come under attack is to shoot yourself in the head, obviously. That way the “victim” gets to empty your pockets before the cops come. That way, no ones gets upset and demonstrates.

    • avatarRopingdown says:

      How is that stuff going to get them re-elected, or stoke their clientele?

    • avatarC says:

      Don’t be ridiculous. Don’t you know that it’s the white man causing all of those problems?!

  5. avatarMN Matt says:

    Your tragedy does not trump my rights. Go mourn in private.

    • avatarNine says:

      This.

      At this point the Martins can F-off.

      • avatarIn Memphis says:

        Have to agree with Nine. Not to sound like a heartless @&&hole but didnt Martins mother kick him out over the thug he was becoming? Oh she is such a victim.

        • avatarRopingdown says:

          Are you saying The Retreat at Twin Lakes should not be willing to have boys-gone-bad dumped in their community as if it were a juvenile rehab facility?

        • avatarIn Memphis says:

          Im saying that maybe the mother should have done more than just dump her son on his father. Obviously that didnt fix his ways. Sure she has a right to mourn his death, Im not happy someone died. But she recognized he was trouble and her response was yo get rid of him. Yup, that fixed alot.

        • avatarRed Sox says:

          Not to mention that when she was aware of his, unknown whereabouts, the first place she called looking for him was the juvenille lock up.

    • avatarAmanathia says:

      The tragedy here was a case of horrible parenting unfortunately, not any tragedy of laws.

      You can’t sneak up on someone, attack them, start bashing their head into the concrete, and then expect not to suffer any consequences from that. Also, following people from a ways away is not illegal.

  6. avatarWiregrass says:

    It means that some one can beat the shit out of you and render you unconscious or dead before you can legally do anything about it.

  7. avatarGZee says:

    I wonder how much Travyon’s father thinks he’s gonna make from all this. It’s obviously enough to run around talking out his belly button, but how much is that to the average low level liberal puppet?

    • avatarTom in Oregon says:

      Not as much as that dood on the far left in the above photo.
      I’m hearing a mad preacher, rubbing his hands in thinking how much money this is going to bring in…

      • avatarRopingdown says:

        It apparently already has brought tons of money, which fueled the subsequent campaign. I’m open to new information, but the community and the county allegedly settled with Tracy before the trial even took place. Is my understanding in error?

        • avatarGordon says:

          They settled for a million dollars. Also, the mother trademarked the thug’s first name so she should be getting royalties from all the T-shirt and sign sales on which it was used.

  8. avatarKirk says:

    These people want the singular United State_ of America, with one super-jurisdiction — and no ability to just, say, move to Texas to escape Connecticut’s gun grab.

    It’s worse than that, though: An avalanche of laws is killing the Rule of Law, itself.

    It’s tough to set forth in this format. I mean this: https://guardamerican.com/index.php/blog/35-politics/964-regulation-restraint-and-ruin-laws-are-killing-the-rule-of-law

    • avatarAvid Reader says:

      States’ rights don’t matter to these people either. They’d just as soon flush them as they would individual rights.

      • avatarKirk says:

        Precisely.

      • avatarVenator Magnus says:

        Be careful, there. According to the ethnic studies course I took as an undergraduate, “states’ rights” is a dog whistle racist term meaning “I don’t like black people.” Sort of like how “women’s health” is a dog whistle term that only means “abortion.”

        • avatarJason says:

          Ironically, the first big test for states’ right/nullification was northern states nullifying the repugnant fugitive slave act, which would have forced those anti-slavery states to return escaped slaves to their oppressors. Fortunately, the good guys won that one.

        • avatarAvid Reader says:

          Very much a dog whistle. And it shouldn’t be.

  9. avatarBill Derer says:

    Stand Your Ground laws and extended Castle Doctrine *ALREADY* don’t cover you if you were the initial aggressor. Once again, people trying to pass laws that ALREADY EXIST. STFU and go raise your kids PROPERLY for a change.

    • avatarDrWin says:

      Yeah, this is a pretty stupid plea, but not a surprising one considering he likely knows nothing of how self-defense or SYG works. Or maybe he knows and doesn’t care. The only way people can currently argue for self-defense as the initial aggressor is if they somehow regained their innocence in a fight.

      The other requirements for self-defense are imminence, avoidance, proportionality, and reasonableness. Maybe someone should send Mr. Martin a copy of The Law of Self-Defense.

    • avatarRopingdown says:

      You overlook an important point of the relevant law in the FL statute: Even if you are the aggressor, say you push X and he punches you in return, the law provides:

      Fla. Stats. 776.041. The provoker can only regain self-defense rights if:
      (2)(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.

      And these sections, (a) and (b) are important. Without them a person could goad another into a minor shoving match, then block the only exit or knock the guy down and straddle him, hold him down, and beat him into a brain hemorrhage. Of course we think the testimony and physical evidence indicates who first punched whom. Still, the ability to regain self-defense rights is, in the real world, important.

  10. avatarOkieRim says:

    To Mr. Martin,

    With all due respect for the loss of your son, please disembark the BGI / Civil Rights Industry caravan, it is making you look like a fool. Your embrace of the victimization role and complete lack of knowledge of state rights and the realm of SYG laws only hurts your cause.

    PS: Al and Jesse, where were you when this happened?

    http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Girl-8-killed-three-hurt-in-Oakland-shooting-4672223.php

    • avatarSouthern Cross says:

      Mr Martin,

      Let’s be honest and have you admit to some facts. Your son was a thug, a suspected criminal, and a wannabe gangster. If recent facts hadn’t intervened, Trayvon would have either been dead within 5 years from a gangland turf war or over a drug deal, or in prison for drug crimes or murder.

      And where were YOU when he was growing up? Where were you when he dropped out of school to embrace “da gangsta” lifestyle? You should take some responsibility for your son’s upbringing.

      But you don’t want justice. You want vengeance and you don’t care who else gets hurt along the way. Now black gangs are attacking white people in reprisal attacks. For what? They did nothing. When you punish the guilty, you have justice. When you punish the innocent, you have tyranny. I don’t see much justice.

      The observer from down-under.

  11. avatarMark N. says:

    Just how is it that the federal legislature can enact a law that modifies state penal code provisions? The fact is it can’t, because it has no power or jurisdiction to do so, and this is just a bunch of political pandering to the anti-gun left wing. Truly disgusting.

    • avatarBrian says:

      No worries, they will just enact a “stand your ground” tax.

      I all seriousness though. I can’t imagine what he is going through and I feel bad for him, but bad legislation is not going to bring his son back, or stop that black men from being disproportionally caught up in the justice system. Nor would this law have lead to a conviction of Zimmerman since the state was unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Z was the aggressor.

  12. avatarAnmut says:

    Why don’t we just f*cking change it to what they want…

    The Trayvon Martin Act: All white guys to turn in your firearms tomorrow. All black people; feel free to prey on anyone white now.

    • avatarTrey73 says:

      I didn’t want to be the one to say it, but it’s true. Why is it that anytime a white person commits a crime with victim of another race, it’s front page news. But reverse the races, and it is racist to even report it. I made a point of keeping track of such scenarios during this fiasco, and I guarantee you the statistics don’t paint a pretty picture.

  13. avatarJus Bill says:

    I’m sure that there is much strong drink and Excedrin being consumed in the DOJ tonight. If I was one of their lawyers I would get drunk and stay drunk. The idea is so ugly you can’t even drink it pretty…

    And that picture looks like it was taken in that crappy Comfort Inn on New York Avenue. Classy venue. Even has a buffet. For after the press conference.

    • avatarRopingdown says:

      Insightful, Jus Bill. It can’t be easy dancing to the tune of the current administration. Stay drunk, plead “the flu.”

  14. avatarFrodo says:

    Tracy Martin evidently did not get the memo that his son was the aggressor and
    Zimmerman was just a citizen looking out for his neighborhood. Your son is dead because he made bad decisions that night so stop blaming Zimmerman.

  15. avatarensitue says:

    This is the same Travon Dad who lived 200 miles away from his son? The one who foisted his Gangsta teen onto his girl friend?

    • avatarIn Memphis says:

      Thats more or less my issue. Trayvon starts acting like a thug and what do the “parents” do? One dumps the kid on the other. Is it their fault hes dead? No. But they didnt do a thing to help him. I dont think they should be able to play the victim card. But whatever

  16. avatarfull.tang.halo says:

    Once again, people speak of what they do not understand nor even pretend to learn to understand. I love the continued call for Rick Scott to change SYG laws and now this? One needs to understand how their goverment works in order to change it. Rick Scott, Obama, these are not people that can change laws, nor even introduce them. In the same vein, SYG laws are not in the sphere of control of the Federal gov. The fact that someone hasn’t bothered to tell these people this, makes me question their motives and the company that keeps pushing them to make such foolish “calls to action”.

    • avatarRopingdown says:

      It has never been a requirement that a politician’s speech to work up his clientele need comport with the facts, either of events or government process. Most voters will believe that somehow this federal power should exist, that they have been abandoned, that they must vote for people who want this sort of thing. To an approximation none of the people working up the ‘SYG is bad’ know that it has essentially (barring the ability to retreat in complete safety) been the law in most of the US for more than a century. The tendency to have opinions about everything sans knowledge is mirrored by the very ignorant and the very rich.

    • avatarTrey73 says:

      While I appreciate the logic in what you are saying, lets be realistic about where we stand at this point. The Executive branch acts like a monarchy. Judges legislate from the bench. Federal Agencies act as if civilian oversight or transparency is a nuisance. Congressmen and Senators basically ignore the wishes of the people who voted them in, and when they don’t they are just circumvented. The Federal Government will continue to expand its’ reach until the point at which the States actually stand up to them.

      It is our duty to begin reaching out to our friends and family who serve in the military and Law Enforcement, to ensure that they side with the defenders of the Constitution and not the banksters and globalists as things come to a boiling point.

  17. avatarnoone says:

    The tragedy is that an adult male (17) decided to use deadly force against someone who was merely being cautious about the security of his neighborhood. The tragedy was not the death of the attacker. The only loss in this case was that of reason on all those wanting to be victimized, not of a drug using violent person

  18. avatarAharon says:

    Rather than call for a national discussion that addresses all the root causes and possible practical solutions for the real problems of young black men being killed or murdered by violence people are calling for surface level fixes that aren’t even surface level fixes in this case.

  19. avatarMediocrates says:

    The Federal government doesn’t have the Constitutional authority to impose it’s will on State’s SYG laws.

    • avatarJason says:

      The federal government doesn’t have the Constitutional authority to . That hasn’t stopped them in the past.

  20. avatarSmaj says:

    The people are just another front in the efforts to disarm the American people. “Fruit” Martin and the race hustler Sharpton could no more articulate the difference between “stand your ground” and simple self defense than I could recite the Pledge of Allegiance in Latin.

  21. avatarArdent says:

    I’ll say it; the shooting of Trayvon Martin was no tragedy. It was legally permissible under the laws of the state of Florida and ethically permissible under natural law. If there is a tragedy here, it is that he was so ill-bred as to attack an innocent man in the street.

    I do not see how the federal government has jurisdiction to implement a change to state self defense laws. It would seem that those who call for such a thing call for a dangerous and unprecedented overreach of federal authority for the sole cause of ‘doing something’ where nothing needs to be done. (Not that these meme is new or untested, Note the gun laws in some states following the Newtown shootings.)

    The SYG laws I’ve read indicate that the initial aggressor can only claim protection under SYG if they have made all efforts to break off contact and are unable to do so. In practice, being the initial aggressor is an excellent way to be convicted of murder in such cases. SYG is what it is to prevent second guessing by prosecutors who weren’t there, even to the extent that you were willing to meet fists with fists but required lethal self defense later in the altercation. These are good things.

    How it is that a thug wannabe like TM is the poster child for changing such laws evades me. It would seem that GZ’s shooting of TM would be the poster for retaining or strengthening SD laws in general.

    I see this as an extension of the paradigm that no one is responsible for their actions. In essence TM’s parents say ‘We have failed to raise our son in such a way that he does not attack innocent people in the street. Since he was killed while doing so, and the fault cannot be either his or ours, therefore the law that allows people to defend themselves from such actions must be wrong.’ Such drivel barely warrants a response, were it not that such deranged ideas have a way of gaining traction among certain groups.
    Each of you put yourself in their shoes: Your son has (inarguably) attacked an innocent man without provocation and was in the process of beating him senseless when he finally shot your son. Do you feel that the problem lies with you, your son, some combination of both, or with the whole rest of society, its laws, and the natural order of things?
    I’ll just about bet that no one here thinks that everything but them and their child is wrong. I feel secure in saying that because we are responsible people. We accept our responsibilities to raise our children to behave in such a way that shooting them would be obvious murder. If you would have protection of the law, you must obey it.

  22. avatarHector says:

    Trayvon Martin Act = Victims Assume the Fetal Position and Be Beaten Within an Inch of their Life and Can’t Defend themselves from Physical and Mental Injuries and Death Act. Can someone tell me how this’ll work? It seems to me that the bad guy can assault innocents with immunity to a point. Also, can the bad guy sue the dead innocent when the bad guy’s knuckles break?

    • avatarJohn L. says:

      If the burgler can sue the homeowner for injuries sustained after tripping over a child’s toys left in the hallway … yes, the aggressor suing the beaten for having too hard of a jaw is the next step.

  23. avatarSkeev says:

    Maybe he should have done a better job as a father. No amount law changing is going to change the fact that he failed to raise son properly.

    • avatarensitue says:

      And THAT is the national tragedy of our time. Created by the same political party that came into existence to spread slavery into all the states in the union

  24. avatarstateievil says:

    So if the saint “treyvon martin act” became law…. I push you or cuss you out, then you lunge at me with a knife, and then I shoot you dead, I go to jail?

    • avatarAvid Reader says:

      It all depends on the racial mix of the transactors and what generates the most publicity for the professional grievance industry.

  25. avatarJason says:

    Aren’t all the SYG laws predicated on the person lawfully acting?
    1) Fred punches Bob.
    2) Bob is actually a Kung Fu master and starts spin-kicking the crap out of Fred.
    3) Fred backs away, and puts his hands out in to stop the fight.
    4) Bob ignores the move and hits Fred with a flying dragon kick.
    5) Fred pulls a gun and shoots Bob.

    At step 1, Fred is no longer acting legally, so SYG does not apply. At step 4, Bob is a direct threat to Fred, and preventing Fred from retreating, so self-defense laws apply.

  26. avatarJoe Grine says:

    Did I miss something, because in the trial excepts I watched it was pretty damn clear that Trayvon was the “initial aggressor.”

    • avatarAharon says:

      In the Politically-Correct People’s View of events GZ was the aggressor.

    • avatarDan says:

      The race baiting case for Trayvon has all along been the notion that “profiling” constituted an initial act of aggression in and of itself. As such Trayvon deserved a free pass to teach every bone in that creepy ass cracker’s face to mind his own business.

  27. avatarmp says:

    “illegal for a person acting in self-defense if that person was the initial aggressor.”

    uhhh…..that is part of SYG law….

  28. avatarC says:

    “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.’”
    PRONOUN DISAGREEMENT!

  29. avatarCrunkleross says:

    If the dad would have spent the time and effort with his son that he is now doing with the race baiters, maybe no probably his son would still be alive.

  30. avatarFug says:

    They’ve gone beyond waving the bloody shirt. I think I can see Trayvon’s flayed hide fluttering in the wind over DNC headquarters. It’s like they don’t even know what shame feels like. Trayvon is dead but they won’t let him stay buried.

    I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I’m going to, so screw it. Take the following as food for thought, I found it disturbing when it was presented to me:

    Trayvon’s father is a Freemason and possibly a Shriner as well. There are two photos of him in both Masonic regalia and a green fez with crossed scimitars.

    When Obama won the white house, the Freemasons of D.C. held the first EVER Masonic inaugural ball.

    Remember Michael Richards (Kramer from Seinfeld) freaking out at a heckler and calling him an N-bomb? Michael is a 33rd degree Mason of the Scottish Right, Southern Jurisdiction.

    There are a few guys on youtube and elsewhere who claim that they can find no evidence that either George Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin are real people. They are suggesting that this whole case was fabricated from the beginning to create a dialectic juxtaposition which can manipulate the US toward disarmament and/or racial tension.

    Has there been a schism of some sort behind the scenes? Is all of this a damn fraud? If this is a fraud, then what else is? I’m not 100% convinced but I just feel like this push against stand your ground was premeditated. What is going on with the Freemasons, the Obama administration and this case? African Americans have their own lodges as I understand it. Maybe a Mason who posts here can weigh in on this.

  31. avatarJW says:

    These people have no shame! The case is over but the judgement was found wanting. I want my tax money back.

  32. avatarSAS 2008 says:

    The initial aggressor already does not have the right to claim self defense. The claim of self defense is required before you can you claim you had no duty to retreat. So this proposed law or act accomplishes nothing.

    Personally I am tired of the term stand your ground. In the state laws I have read is it always worded as “no duty to retreat”. No duty to retreat values the life of the victim over the life of the attacker while duty to retreat laws say all life is precious no matter what actions a person makes and therefore say it is better to run for your life and hope that you don’t die than to defend yourself. So if we are going to call no duty to retreat “Stand your ground” then we should call duty to retreat and the Trayvon Martin Act “Run for your life” laws. I would love for Tracy Martin, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to publicly say they support “Run for your life” laws.

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      “Personally I am tired of the term stand your ground. In the state laws I have read is it always worded as ‘no duty to retreat’.”

      For the record, in Florida (which is relevant since it’s misunderstanding of our law that kicked off this debate), it says both. (Emphasis mine)

      Fl. Stat. 776.013 (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

      • avatarSAS 2008 says:

        Thanks for pointing out the relevant Florida statute. I won’t be as annoyed by the term anymore. I still think the term stand your ground sounds too indignant and helps fuel disdain for these types of laws.

  33. avatarDon says:

    Does Al Sharpton permanently wear that look of indignation?

    People are so ignorant about self defense law. Except for gun owners.

  34. avatarGlenn in Oklahoma says:

    I think Mr Martin and the Black Caucus have it all wrong. The Federal Statutes of SYG are predicated that the aggressor already can not claim self-defense. Also a repeal on the Federal statute would ONLY have effect where Federal law had jurisdiction. State Law would still take precedence every where else. David Kopel has a good write up about the history of the Supreme Court Rulings. http://davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/Self-Defense-Cases.htm

    • avatarJason says:

      I believe what they’re asking for is a federal law that overrides all state laws. That group isn’t exactly at the level of the guys from Independence Hall when it comes to understanding Constitutional law and human rights.

      • avatarGlenn in Oklahoma says:

        I see. They might as well be on crack, because that is not in the realm of possibility of happening. The two main defenses of Self-Defense (Stand Your Ground and The Castle Doctrine) have been around for hundreds of years going back to English Common Law, if not Roman Law. They are absolutely hysterically funny.

        • avatarGtfoxy says:

          “… & the Fourth Kingdom will come to change Times & Law, & to Destroy.”

  35. avatarGw says:

    With no intent to in any way diminish the grief suffered by the parents and friends of the deceased, and once again admitting ignorance of the details of the incident, an unknowledgeable person such as myself is caused to wonder — exactly how it came about that an individual who knew he was being followed, and seemingly capable of successfully evading and eluding the person following him, ended up in an actual physical confrontation with that person.
    While the State was unable to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, and only as point of inquiry, is it possible that Mr. Zimmerman had found Mr. Martin hiding and the struggle ensued as a result of him trying to hold Mr. Martin until the police arrived?
    No response required or expected, just asking based on a theory proposed by a caller to a radio talk show. One which may, at some point in the future, become yet another aspect of the overall circumstances.
    Submitted with reservations…

    • avatarJason says:

      That’s possible. All we have to go on is the evidence:
      1) GZ says Martin attacked him.
      2) The most credible witness says Martin was on top.
      3) Martin had bruised knuckles, as if he had been hitting something.
      4) Martin had no bruises indicating he had been hit.
      5) GZ looked like he just asked Chuck Liddell about his mother’s relations with farm animals.
      6) GZ had no bruises on his knuckles.
      7) GZ’s back had grass stains.
      8) Martin’s back did not have grass stains.

      Based on that the jury found that there was reasonable doubt (big enough to sail a supertanker through) that he committed murder. Only one living person knows what happened, and he’s probably learned to keep his mouth shut now.

    • avatarGlenn in Oklahoma says:

      GW sir you said,” is it possible that Mr. Zimmerman had found Mr. Martin hiding and the struggle ensued as a result of him trying to hold Mr. Martin until the police arrived?”
      You can speculate all you want. The caller on the talk show was also speculating. Possible, but not likely because GZ did not have the authority to detain a cat much less a suspicious looking teen sneaking around behind the houses. He also did not have the physical capability as his gym instructor testified. He was a wimp. Only the police had the authority to detain. I am convinced that Trayvon Martin initiated the contact and initiated the violence. I don’t even think that GZ had the balls to go start something with a total stranger.

  36. avatarDerryM says:

    Mr. Martin is just trying to get some vindication for his and his ex-wife’s lousy parenting by denying his child was in the wrong and misdirecting attention to an unrelated matter. He learned this behavior from Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, Barak Obama and the other so-called “Leaders” of the race discrimination industry. They don’t want to resolve the issues that plague the African American population because it would cost them too much income.

    There are many persons in the African American population who know what needs to be done to resolve these issues, but the MSM ignores them. The rest of us need to get on board and support the many (and growing in number) rational voices in the African American population and help these good people get heard.

  37. avatarJoshuaS says:

    1. Federal Jurisprudence is already stand your ground. It was ambigious until 1921. US v. Brown. Holmes wrote the opinion, ruling that stand your ground was the rule, at least in federal courts

    2. I am unaware of any state that, carte blanche, allows an aggressor to use deadly force, let alone stand his ground, against someone defending himself. I mean, yeah there are narrow circumstances where that can be done. In California, if you are the initial agressor and either 1) back down and clearly communicated you were backing down, surrendering or 2) attacked with non lethal force, and the person defending himself suddenly escalated with deadly force so that there was no opportunity of backing down, sure then you can claim self defense. But you will have a much tougher time of it.

    3. I would like someone, just once, to stand and ask one of these advocates- can you read for me an example of a law that you want changed. Tell me where it allows an initial agressor to X. Explain your reasoning. Then when they fail, or go for an emotional appeal, there should be a loud gavel, and shout of irrelevant and they should be admonished to give reason. When they fail again, the mic should be shut offand they escorted out. Emotion and passion alert us to something and strengthen us to do something about it (anger over injustice). But that is where they should end. Reason determines the course and whether any action should be done at all.

  38. avatarOut_Fang_Thief says:

    In the 70′s, they had a name for Afro-centric films full of B list actors.
    Blaxploitation. That about sums up this cast of B list character actors.
    Some are just bad characters. One claims to be a Reverend, although
    a more dishonest, morally-challenged Shaman would be hard to find.
    Apparently, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”
    doesn’t seem to be a big concern to any of the participants involved.
    The one about, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.” is
    none too popular either, as they’re making a graven image of Trayvon.

    This just in: Has anyone heard about the Skittles and Arizona iced tea?
    Remember how we heard that innocent Trayvon was murdered because
    he only wanted some Skittles and iced tea? How undeniably innocent,
    right? Wrong! Go search for “Lean,” or “Purple Drank” and read about
    the non-innocent use of Skittles, Arizona iced tea, and cough medicine.
    If you want a plausible explanation for Trayvon’s aggressive behavior,
    the info about the effects of consuming Purple Drank is all you’ll need.
    How many in Americas black communities knew about the real story
    behind the innocent Skittles and Arizona iced tea, and said nothing?
    How many in the media knew about it, and said absolutely nothing?
    Did anyone here know about this before hearing about it just now?
    Trayvon may have been many things, but innocent wasn’t one of them.

    • avatarChip says:

      “.. Go search for “Lean,” or “Purple Drank” ”

      That is nothing more than a distraction from the real issue and needs to stop. Was Saint Skittles going to go get high on skittles? Does is matter? I want to do lots of illegal things, but wanting to do them is very different than actually doing them. Martin wanting to get high on Drank means nothing unless he was already high when the confrontation started.

      • avatarOut_Fang_Thief says:

        A distraction? How many people would be lining up
        to lend support for the Trayvon cause, or the repeal
        of SYG laws, if they all knew the “innocent teen” was
        likely jacked-up on Purple Drank? The carefully and
        fraudulently created image of an innocent teen would
        collapse, and in its place, a true picture of a teen thug addicted to a dangerous ghetto drink of the hip-hop
        culture would be the lead story. But it isn’t, is it?
        To do so would mean that George Zimmerman was
        not facing the saintly Trayvon Martin that evening,
        but a stoned to the bone, wannabe hip-hop gangsta, addicted to a dangerous, mind-altering ghetto drink.
        How many people had to avert their eyes to this info
        in order to project a false image to an already agitated
        throng of black people screaming for racial payback?
        Trayvon’s state of mind IS the crux of this biscuit.
        But this orchestrated “distraction” is what everybody
        has been listening to, and taking their talking points
        from, since this corrupted mess all began. Dismissing
        Purple Drank as an unimportant distraction is just
        what the anti-gun, pro-disarmament forces want.
        Shooting and killing an innocent teen makes it murder.
        Shooting and killing a young adult who is committing assault and battery makes it self defense. One is true,
        but one of them has the power raise a riotous mob, or
        to sway public opinion. Image is everything to a cause.
        Destroy the false image and you destroy the cause.
        That Trayvon was a saint, is a cause worth destroying.

  39. avatarAndy says:

    Is this all about mostly black folks have been killed by stand your ground laws,or is it because blacks commit most crimes in this country,proven by FBI statistics,and their people don’t want them killed when they commit these violent crimes?Is it just more grandstanding by blacks to gain more special treatment,because they already have more rights than my supposed equal rights?Is it a part of the presidents administration to do away with self protection,so that way they can start to do away with a lot of the reasons to own a firearm?Is it just another way to gain momentum for more gun control?Is it a way to keep us all divided,so the administration can tear up more of our Constitution,and take more of our God given rights away?Is it a way to try to push some of the population to initiate some type of insurrection,so the administration can enact martial law,and suspend the Constitution,and take over power of this country?Answer these questions yourself!Be prepared and ready.Keep your powder dry.

    • avatarAndy says:

      Also civil rights proponents that are standing with Mr.Martin,are in it for the donations that will come their way,to help in the supposed fight for civil rights.It is a shame that the donations will mainly go in the proponents pockets,that is the very real reason these sharks come out in a feeding frenzy,when they smell a way to make a buck!Be prepared and ready.Keep your powder dry.

  40. avatarNCG says:

    Lotta ugly here. Just sayin’.

    • avatarseren says:

      I don’t think I share the same level of disdain for the Martin family as what I see here, myself.

      Here is a family that has lost their son, and while I take issue with trying to paint him as an innocent, I hardly think he deserves to be called a thug or monster. My impression is that he was an aggressive teenager, and it ended badly for him. Probably not a bad guy aside from that.

      What I am really saddened by, however, is my suspicion that the Martin family is being manipulated to push this anti-stand your ground campaign, as well as for certain figures to try and maintain political exposure. The law didn’t punish their son’s killer, and so they are probably being told that they need to push this agenda so that Trayvon won’t have died in vain. A grieving family looking for meaning is being used as a pawn, and it won’t bring their son back, and personally, I don’t think it will benefit society if it passes.

      Not to mention, I don’t think the effort will be successful, and so the family will end up feeling even more bitter when they fail to change the law. All they are seeking is a little bit of solace, and it won’t be easily found if they continue to be led down this road to disappointment.

  41. avatarChris says:

    What about a Acquitted Protection Act where if all charges are dropped the Feds can’t confiscate case evidence and thus keeping you from bearing arms

    • avatarTaco Ninja says:

      The Laws don’t apply to the great an powerful obama and his minions…just us peons…didn’t anyone tell you?

  42. The Martins share the blame in their son’s death. As parents, they should have done a better job of not only instilling socially-accepted values in him but should have keep the drug-abusing, thug off the street. Trayvon got exactly what he deserved for brutally attacking a man who was protecting his crime-ridden neighborhood and society is better off.

    Martin’s death didn’t result from alleged faulty legislation but from poor parenting.

  43. avatarTaco Ninja says:

    Am I the only one who sees that the reason Trayvon is dead is because he attacked a man for no reason? And the reason Trayvon was involved in such trouble and would consider doing such a stupid thing could have something to do about being raised in a broken home? A family where mom and dad are always there sure helps a kid round out OK… TM didn’t have that…and therefore was prone to stupid decisions…

  44. avatarJarhead1982 says:

    Trayvons daddy, just another idiot affilicted with MFD disorder.

    Malicious Fecal Discharge!

  45. avatarjwestham says:

    That little mook was the aggressor. What’s the issue here?

  46. avatarJAS says:

    “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.””

    I am aghast at the level of misinformation these people peddle. They have zero morals. That narrative is so misconstrued it gets my stomach churning. I’m just waiting and praying for Karma to make a return appearance.

  47. avatarSadAmerican says:

    So unless they carve out a special part for police officers wouldn’t that mean every police officer that stops someone would be “the initial aggressor” and could be shot and killed by anyone they stop?

    I realize it’s all nonsense to begin with, but it just amazes and saddens me how stupid people are.

  48. avatarthe last Marine out says:

    The start of the whole problem is Martin’s father was never a father, that is why T.M. was always in trouble .. They or he wants laws to make their sins and evil life styles O.K. and the government is using the whole going’s on to cover up that it is in big trouble and has not a clue as what to do , so all the power plays keep going on, even as the USA is broke they keep spending more for spying and wars we do not want…Government for the government and the Martin’s help put up a good smoke screen….the Dems need poor blacks to be kept that way, on government handouts and to vote for more government controls.

    • avatarJus Bill says:

      And keep the school system stupid and broken. That includes so-called “colleges.” It’s easy to subjugate ignorant people because they don’t know they can be anything better.

      And keep the hate flowing…

  49. avatarMark says:

    Gee, amending a law because it is allegedly dangerous to only one race sounds racist to me.
    Trayvon created the scenario that resulted in his death. Stand your ground had nothing to do with the trial, nothing to do with the case and was not in any way the cause of Martin now being dead. Actually I believe that the State of Florida should be made to pay Zimmermans defense fees. In addition to the fact that the trial was a complete joke, I understand that Angela Corey, the Florida States Attorney who obtained the warrant for Zimmermans arrest was indicted for falsifying the application for that warrant.
    Zimmerman was the wronged party, not Martin.

  50. avatarjwestham says:

    Well, if the feds want to step in on SYG laws, then I guess every state with an AWB would have to make those laws null and void, because now the feds are essentially saying “you don’t know what is best for people in the state, we do” because we all know that is the argument the fascists in charge like to use.

    oh no…that won’t happen. I forgot the ultimate goal of the machine is to make us all defenseless.

    Speaking of defenseless, I suggest you watch this for a good laugh.

  51. avatarjeff says:

    Plainly unconstitutional under US v. Lopez. Nothing to see here.

  52. avatarJoseph B Campbell says:

    Let me get this right Trayvon Martin gets suspended from school and his mother sends him to live with his father because she doesn’t feel comfortable with him smoking pot around the house. While his father is out in an area where there is a curfew and in a gated community he walks to the store to buy some candy and some Robotusin (sp) (we used to call it robo when I was in school because of the cheap high and hallucinations you could get from it). Anyway, on his way home a neighborhood watch decides to do his job and watch him. Trayvon jumps him using his head for a basketball and gets shot in the result. Trayvon was thrown away before he met George. They were both set up.

  53. avatarTotenglocke says:

    “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.”

    That’s already the law, you moron. Maybe if you knew how to read, you’d know that.

  54. avatarjoe says:

    Sharpton looks like he has a terminal disease-when will that piece of crap die already?It would leave the world a slightly better place

  55. avatarNeez says:

    This is so stupid, if there were no stand your ground, then trayvon had no right to use force because he had a huge oppurtunity to retreat.

  56. avatarMatt in FL says:

    Laws named after people are almost invariably bad laws. Not bad as in “I don’t like them,” bad as in “poorly written so as to either restrict things you didn’t intend, allow things you intended to restrict, or (and usually) both.”

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.