[bmw335xi]

I hope so too because the law is very useful and fair.

However, Zimmerman wasn't attacked minding his own business. He was chasing after Martin. Zimmerman was the initial provoking party.

If he doesn't receive any punishment, than the court is basically saying you can be a "internet tough guy" in person too. You can intimidate or verbally assault someone, but as long as you aren't the first one to physically hit the other person, you are fine to use deadly force.

Who knows, Martin could have used stand your ground as the reason he hit Zimmerman. The guy was following him late at night, Martin tried to run away and Zimmerman was running after him. I would feel in danger if that happened to me. I don't think Martin is this sweet little 17 year old many people imagine him as, but he wasn't running after Zimmerman, he was running AWAY from Zimmerman.

Once again, I don't want Zimmerman to be the idiot that ruins this great law for everyone else.

[tallrick]

I support the law but do not know if zimmerman is guilty of murder. Not enough evidence to know who is right there.

[justNancy]

I voted "not sure" in this poll because of the murder charge.

I support the right to defend oneself from bodily harm, but the law needs to be explained better to the general public. As Denzel Washington said in the movie Philadelphia, "explain this to me like I'm a 4 year old." I mean, can most people decide what is a reasonable perceived threat? In my own personal opinion, I think it's best to retreat from danger if possible than to take a life, but I would shoot someone in self defense if necessary.

Regarding George Zimmerman, only he & Trayvon Martin know what happened that night. What I think GZ should have done and what's legal are 2 different things. I think Zimmerman should have waited for the police since there was no imminent danger to him, his car, his wife or his property. Zimmerman might be a murderer or he could have been defending himself. I don't know because I wasn't there. However, I think the man has a personality disorder and would have eventually killed someone. Just my opinion.

[Sugah Ray]

I'm against the law

I think Zimmerman is not guilty with the current evidence. I also think Zimmerman is a psychological mess and his paranoia and anger will lead him back to prison.

[cfbs2691]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

Zimmerman was proactively looking for trouble.

Agreed!

[The Villages Guy]

Originally Posted by NowSoFlorida

I support the law, but in this case Zimmerman is guilty. He was told to stand down by 911 and decided to follow and confront an unarmed, innocent kid who was not committing a crime and killed him. If Zimmerman goes to jail for life it's fine with me.

This law is to protect innocent people who are attacked, not a person who confronts and attacks someone else.

1) He was not told to "stand down". Listen to the audio.

2) There is no evidence whatsoever that Z-man continued to follow TM after speaking with the dispatcher and also no evidence that Z-man was the one doing the confronting. The only testimony is that TM did the confronting and that TM was on too of Z-man....beating him.

Why do people keep inventing false facts?

[DUNNDFRNT]

Originally Posted by PriusH8r

1) He was not told to "stand down". Listen to the audio.

While he was not told "go home leave" he was told "we don;t need you to do that" in the context of the call I think a large percentage of people would interpret that as don;t follow him. Since we are talking about an interpretation we will have to agree to disagree but its a far cry from making something up. He agreed to meet the cops at the mailboxes opposite direction of where the the confrontation took place, Zman truck was also parked away from that, so the only logical conclusion is that zman was looking for trayvon, where the body was found is on the way from the 7eleven to trayvons house so again it looks like trayvon was heading home.

Originally Posted by PriusH8r

2) There is no evidence whatsoever that Z-man continued to follow TM after speaking with the dispatcher and also no evidence that Z-man was the one doing the confronting. The only testimony is that TM did the confronting and that TM was on too of Z-man....beating him.

You forget that we have conflicting testimony.

[DUNNDFRNT]

Originally Posted by pilotpair

Why are you combing these into one question?

Self defense has always been a justification for killing someone - long, long before Stand Your Ground

Stand Your Ground was intended to help people mitigate civil lawsuits and prevent over zealous prosecutors from indicting people. The push for these laws came after one of the L.A. riots when Korean and other Asian businessmen defended their stores with semi-automatic weapons from rioters.

Groups who help battered women also supported this law. Otherwise, it was up to an individual prosecutor to decide whether to charge someone and then essentially have the burden on the individual to prove s/he wasn't guilty.

Prior to Stand Your Ground, people had a 'duty to flee' but what is reasonable? If someone is breaking into the apartment of a 22-year-old female at 3 a.m., does she have a 'duty to flee' even if that means into a parking lot of a huge Miami apartment complex with nothing but her pajamas on? Stand Your Ground answered that question and left it to the victim to decide whether it was safer to flee or not.

I hope the hysteria around the Zimmerman case doesn't cause people to reject a very sensible law.

The law as it stands is absurd and ill defined, I agree to stand your ground in your house, in your car as long as you are in it. I don;t agree in people being judge and executioner, someone trying to steal a car radio should not be shot in the back. Look at the cases where the law has been applied, no 22yo girls running for their life there,
Stand your ground law, Trayvon Martin and a shocking legacy | Tampa Bay Times
spend 5 minutes looking through that data and tell me that law doesnt need revising,

[The Villages Guy]

Originally Posted by DUNNDFRNT

While he was not told "go home leave" he was told "we don;t need you to do that" in the context of the call I think a large percentage of people would interpret that as don;t follow him. Since we are talking about an interpretation we will have to agree to disagree but its a far cry from making something up. He agreed to meet the cops at the mailboxes opposite direction of where the the confrontation took place, Zman truck was also parked away from that, so the only logical conclusion is that zman was looking for trayvon, where the body was found is on the way from the 7eleven to trayvons house so again it looks like trayvon was heading home.


You forget that we have conflicting testimony.

There is only one eyewitness testimony available about what happened directly after the communication with the dispatcher and that is that Z-man was indeed heading back to his vehicle. We can believe it or not, but that is all there is available as far as "eyewitnesses" at that particular point in time. TM is not talking, so we cannot ask him if he did go after Z-man after he started heading back to his vehicle.....if that is what he did.

There is also only one independent eyewitness to the beating and he has been the most consistent witness......and he testified that TM was most definitely on top and that TM was most definitely beating Z-man. There is nobody else who eyewitnessed it, other than Z-man and TM and again, TM is not talking.

We can only go by what evidence has been presented. Our "guesses" or "wishes" as to what may have happened are irrelevant.

[Jo48]

Better poll. If a Florida resident, would you want George Zimmerman patrolling your development? As an old, white woman, I would say NO to that, and I would have fought the likes of him, and his gun, with my HOA.