Most Floridians Support “Stand your Ground” Law
By Manuel Flores | 07/16/2012 | Headline, Issues, Safety | 30 Comments
Credit: Mason-Dixon
A recent poll conducted by the Mason-Dixon Polling and Research Firm, found most Floridians support the controversial ”Stand Your Ground” self-defense law.
Eight hundred registered Florida voters were polled and most are likely to vote in November’s presidential election. More than 64% of the voters agreed that the state’s 2005 “Stand Your Ground” law should remain the same.
According to the poll, 18% of Floridians would like the law to be repealed, 16% would like the law to be modified, while 2% are not sure.
The “Stand Your Ground” law in Florida allows for a person to use force in self-defense when there is a reasonable threat. The law has received critical attention nationwide after the recent Trayvon Martin controversy. On February 26, 2012, George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old neighborhood watch coordinator shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin at point-blank range.
In regards to the Trayvon Martin shooting, voters seesaw between whether George Zimmerman was acting in self-defense or not.
Questions from critics and local residents arose following the tragedy as to the application of the “Stand your Ground” statute. Critics say the law has allowed criminals to escape justice, and that it is not applied fairly to all races.
“Only 6 percent of black voters believe Zimmerman was acting in self-defense, while 82 percent said he was not, the poll found. Hispanics were the most likely to agree with Zimmerman’s self-defense claim, with 52 percent saying he was justified, compared to 50 percent of whites,” according to the Miami Herald.
In addition to calls to rewrite the “Stand Your Ground”, Trayvon’s parents, Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton, are working closely with Second Chance on Shoot First campaign, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the NAACP and the National Urban League in order to argue the conditions of the law. They argue that those who initiate a confrontation should not be protected under the “Stand Your Ground” law.
They have presented a petition to the state task force with more than 300,000 signatures demanding changes to the law.
Leave Your Comment →
30 Comments
Michael Higham
07.16.2012
@michaelhigham
The problem with laws like this is having substantial evidence that would lead you to the truth of the alleged self-defense. I imagine that the “Stand Your Ground” law is well-intentioned, but cases like George Zimmerman’s are reduced to subjectivity. It’s just so hard to find right solution.
George Prudden
07.16.2012
@user253
The Zimmerman case is a good example of nothing other than a political media circus (which really demeans circuses).
What so-called “Stand Your Ground” laws do is reinforce the fact that people are responsible for their own personal protection. There have been instances in which the law was misapplied or people had a misunderstanding of what the law means, but it is pretty simple. If you feel you are in imminent threat of death or grievous bodily injury, you can defend yourself.
Heather Rogers
07.17.2012
@heatherrogers
Maybe if we defined what a “reasonable threat” is there would be less controversy over the Stand Your Ground law.
David Stoll
07.17.2012
YES!
Ted Hewitt Ofs
07.17.2012
Yes, but it should not be an automatic get-out-of-jail free card either.
Fritz Neumann
07.17.2012
I’m an independent Floridian and I do generally support Stand Your Ground in that a citizen protecting their own body or property should not be prosecutable simply because they lawfully discharged a legal weapon to accomplish that. Like any law, it can be abused, and should perhaps be revisited and clarified, but not utterly repealed.
Also, in contrast to some media projections, supporting Stand Your Ground doesn’t mean I’m an NRA member (I’m not), nor does it mean I don’t support some additional regulations on guns and gun sales to, for example, close the loopholes surrounding sales at gun shows (I do).
As with many things, when it comes to gun control and Stand Your Ground-type laws, I think us independents often find ourselves walking a narrow rational line between hype and exaggeration on each side.
Felix L Ricardo
07.17.2012
You should be allowed to defend yourself from an attacker.
Walter Hackett
07.17.2012
I do not support the law as it’s currently written. It effectively promotes vigilantism by allowing citizens to use force to “prevent” a number of crimes that do not involve self-defense. BTW – I am an NRA member (Lifetime).
Manuel Flores
07.19.2012
@mannyflores
I agree with your comment.
Amanda Le
07.19.2012
@amandale
I agree. In a truly life and death situation I think it’s human instinct to defend yourself. Defining it in a law will just promote “vigilantism” as you said.
Steve McHugh
07.17.2012
Fritz is absolutely correct. As Independents, we tend to try to avoid all of the emotion and hyperbole that surrounds the issues, and we attempt to look at each issue objectively and rationally. I dare say that there would be very few Americans who would be in favor of abolishing gun rights. However, I am also sometimes amazed when I hear the exaggerations that come from the NRA, when they seem to imply that ANY reasonable amount of gun control will automatically lead to full confiscation of all weapons. This type of logic is analogous to saying that, because of the fact that we have speed limits on the roads, that this will inevitably lead to confiscation of our automobiles. In terms of the Florida Stand Your Ground rule, I have no objection to this. Of course you should be able to protect yourself, your loved ones and your property from a dangerous intruder. The thorny port of the Trayvon Martin shooting was whether or not Mr. Zimmerman was truly “standing his ground,” or whether he went out of his way to PURSUE someone that he thought looked suspicious. You can get a different interpretation of what actually happened, depending on what news source you listen to. For me, I prefer to leave it to the courts to decide. My GUESS is that Mr. Zimmerman went a step beyond actually standing his ground, but again, I’ll leave this for the courts to decide.
Kevin Whitbeck
07.17.2012
Come at me or my family and you have xtra holes in your body
Mike Vidal
07.17.2012
I have a right to defend myself. The way the law is written, if you are involved in a criminal activity, you cannot claim stand your ground, but since our court systems does not seem to understand what is criminal activity, the law has been mis applied. The Trayvon case is one were I do not believe that stand your ground even comes into play, but self defense does.
Michael Mayhew
07.17.2012
I’m all for defending yourself but the term “reasonable threat” is the most important part of the concept. If people are paranoid and edgy because of prejudice or just because of their own natures, then that makes for a much less safe community. I shouldn’t be afraid of being shot/assaulted for telling some guy he cut in front of me in a line or that he grabbed a parking spot I was waiting for (these things happen all the time). The last thing we want is for these kinds of laws to perpetuate bad behavior. A good example of a system of protections that has been abused is our civil lawsuit system. People can sue companies/individuals for millions of dollars simply because the people doing the suing don’t exercise any common sense and expect someone else to pay for it. With “stand your ground”, the person who pays for someone else’s lack of common sense can get physically hurt/dead.
Lee Neese
07.17.2012
Yes.
Gable Bates
07.17.2012
Of course! It’s not only Constitutional, it’s been essential Common Law for centuries. Doing otherwise gives criminals a legal privilege in several ways over their victims. Self-defense if fundamental.
Judy Ferro
07.17.2012
I don’t think the problem was in the law so much as interpreting it to cover a case where you have grabbed a gun and chased a man for half a mile. That’s not your ground.
Ralph Stephens
07.17.2012
To understand the Stand Your Ground tactic a person needs to first understand the Use of Deadly Force and the limitations involved. This requires training…I think it is a sound law.
Thomas O'Shea
07.17.2012
I feel that the law is fair. As a Floridian, I know it takes the police approximately five minutes to get to my house. In that time any number of bad things could happen. i also feel thsat in the Martin/Zimmerman case the law is not appropriate.The author of the law stated the same some time age. I am also a life member of the NRA and rather liberal in my social views. it really bothers me when the talkinh heads try to pidgeon hole us.
Bruce Stevens
07.17.2012
Yes, its a constitutional right. The liberals and other leeches in our justice system wants us all to be victims. Judy, he didn’t chase him a half a mile or even twenty feet. The little getto rag bag attacked him.
Gable Bates
07.17.2012
@Steve you should do a bit more research. First, listen to all the 911 calls of the Trayvon Martin incident, especially those of the witnesses who saw it happen and were reporting it live to the operators. Zimmerman was being pummeled while calling for help over and over, for a couple of minutes, before the gunshot, and this can be heard on the calls, including the moment the shot was fired. There is also evidence that Martin was reaching for the gun, giving Zimmerman no other real choice. Trayvon Martin did not have a legal right to insist on killing Zimmerman through his actions, and Zimmerman was not legally obligated to die.
As for the slippery slope of gun laws, take a look at their history. There is an excellent ABA article called ‘Can the Simple Cite be Trusted?’, that traces the dishonesty of judges and politicians in reasoning away gun rights one step at a time. Also look at the stated intentions of politicians and organizations that support gun control, and how they’ve applied them. Also look at the history of gun control laws in other countries, and just how bloody things became for various reasons.
Here’s an example from CA. There was a law passed to require registration of SKS Sporters. All the usual excuses were given, including ‘children’, which had nothing to do with banning a specific gun. There was also the promise, with some measure of scoffing, that such registration wouldn’t lead to confiscation. Shortly after the registration was in effect, another law was then passed that required turning them in, with severe penalties for not complying. And all they had to do to enforce the ban was use the registration list. This kind of trickery has been going on for years, and in other countries as well.
The gun-control activists have been extremely dishonest for many years, and they have no concern for the negative consequences of their policies. With decades of experience in what guns and gun laws do, the people that keep proposing new laws have no credibility at this point.
Jeff Nobologna Pirkey
07.17.2012
I support it. Even for use against un-armed assailants. Why? because I had a serious heart attack and no longer have the ability to run or fight off an attacker. If I feel threatened, even by an un-armed attacker, I will shoot to kill before he gets close enough to attempt to take my weapon.
David Benham
07.17.2012
From the reading the above comments, it appears some understand the difference between self defense and Stand Your Ground and some do not. Florida’s Stand Your Ground law includes “to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony” to others or self, potentially enabling the lawful shooting by someone who merely thinks a third person is having their purse snatched and also includes “immunity from criminal prosecution,” enabling the circumvention of a trial by jury of peers. Sounds more like wild wild west chaos than self defense.
Randall Banfield
07.17.2012
Ronald Reagan was a good President but he killed California’s right to carry a defender(weapon). So I say keep your right to protect yourself. The criminal element will always have guns, our Pres’ and A.G. will make sure of that.
Darius von Tannenberg
07.17.2012
No man should be compelled by force of law to yield to violence or threat of violence nor to stand idle while foul deeds are done. It is right to take action and if one considers himself to be a “man” it becomes his duty to do so. The “right” to defend one self and others does not come from government, but from our Creator. To do other wise is to acquiesce to evil. My opinion, your mileage may vary.
Brad R. Schlesinger
07.17.2012
@bradschlesinger
I suppose the poll findings are interesting to a degree. However, putting Stand Your Ground aside, public policy should not be determined based on the whims of public opinion.
Steve McHugh
07.18.2012
I think that we all agree that Americans should cherish and hold on to our right to bear arms, and that we have every right to defend ourselves and “stand our ground” when threatened. We may not agree on the degree to which government may want to impose limits on gun ownership, but I think we agree it is essential that government should NOT attempt to limit gun access beyond a reasonable limit. In the case of George Zimmerman, we seem to be less in agreement, but this is for very good reason: The facts have not fully come to light, so how could any of us truly understand what actually happened that day? * Gable: When you say that I or anyone else should “do a bit more research,” I have a sense that you are stating what is already obvious to everyone. We already know that there was an altercation between Trayvon and George Zimmerman, and we have heard at least a portion of what the witnesses had to say. What is NOT yet clear is HOW and WHY there was an altercation. IF (and I emphasize the word “IF”) the news reports are correct that George Zimmerman called 911, was told to NOT pursue Trayvon, but yet he chose to pursue Trayvon anyway, then this is a significant piece of information. We also do not know how or in what manner George Zimmerman MAY have approached Trayvon. If George Zimmerman did not clearly identify himself as a neighborhood watch representative, then it is very possible that the only thing Trayvon may have known is that an armed man was approaching him, and he may himself have felt threatened and compelled to “stand his ground.” These are the details that the court will have to seek out. I certainly don’t pretend to know the answers. As for your comments on California gun laws, I will leave that for Californians to discuss. I am in the Southeast, and I suspect that attitudes towards gun ownership may vary somewhat from region to region around the country.
Betty Hipkins Howe
07.18.2012
it’s Constitutional , and it makes sense
Mark Welker
07.18.2012
sure there is-however,”stand your ground” does not mean “go chase him down,after being told the police will handle it”…..rule 1 of being a security guard-(or the variation “neighborhood watch captain”……)observe,and report.
Steve McHugh
07.18.2012
*Mark: This is exactly the point that I was also making in my 2 above posts. You are correct.