Well I have family down there so I try to get down every year or so. It's not really a bad place and the people are nice, the sun is warm, and the beaches are pretty fine.
However, this incident really reveals the big problem of the Stand your Ground law...namely, what happens when BOTH people have a right to be where they are? Much of the press I've been reading has explained that under that law a person is under no obligation to back down if they are threatened, and may use lethal force if they fear for their life. That's all well and good for Mr. Zimmerman and is why I honestly don't think they can legally charge him. However, if Mr. Zimmerman is under no obligation to back down when he's confronted after following Trayvon Martin, then does that mean Trayvon Martin needed to back down after Mr. Zimmerman begins following him? I'm curious about that because I'm not sure what that would mean here. If he's just walking home from a store, not threatening anyone, not disturbing the peace, then how does he back down sufficiently to deescalate this conflict? Does he not have as much right (and possible more, which is probably the question of the moment for the legal system) to stand his ground?
The only conclusion I'm drawing would be "Don't leave your house", and I can't see that being what anyone had in mind for this law. Personally I don't blame anyone for the various angles they are seeing because this is really complex story.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-04-01 08:02 pm (UTC)However, this incident really reveals the big problem of the Stand your Ground law...namely, what happens when BOTH people have a right to be where they are? Much of the press I've been reading has explained that under that law a person is under no obligation to back down if they are threatened, and may use lethal force if they fear for their life. That's all well and good for Mr. Zimmerman and is why I honestly don't think they can legally charge him. However, if Mr. Zimmerman is under no obligation to back down when he's confronted after following Trayvon Martin, then does that mean Trayvon Martin needed to back down after Mr. Zimmerman begins following him? I'm curious about that because I'm not sure what that would mean here. If he's just walking home from a store, not threatening anyone, not disturbing the peace, then how does he back down sufficiently to deescalate this conflict? Does he not have as much right (and possible more, which is probably the question of the moment for the legal system) to stand his ground?
The only conclusion I'm drawing would be "Don't leave your house", and I can't see that being what anyone had in mind for this law. Personally I don't blame anyone for the various angles they are seeing because this is really complex story.