In light of what happened to Trayvon Martin, do you think that the 'Stand Your Ground' law should be amended or ditched?

As is, absolutely. I don't think we should put people back in the situation of being required to flee first. People have a right to protect themselves including the use of deadly force. But the law is too damn ambiguous. The thing that's frustrating about this case is it doesn't even fit that law. Even with it this asshole should be in jail NOW.

I believe the law needs to seriously re-examined, yes. As it stands, you can get in an altercation in about any public place, and use deadly force if YOU feel "threatened". I can think of many scenarios, aside from this tragedy, where senseless deaths might occur.

CeCe wrote:

As is, absolutely. I don't think we should put people back in the situation of being required to flee first. People have a right to protect themselves including the use of deadly force. But the law is too damn ambiguous. The thing that's frustrating about this case is it doesn't even fit that law. Even with it this asshole should be in jail NOW.

I'm almost positive I read an account where someone shot the person who was "threatening" them in the back as they were walking away. What the fuck?!

Here's the culprit exposed:

2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death 776.013 or great bodily harm.—(SNIP)

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful. (This is why the cops claim they did not arrest asswipe)

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

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.

A thousand times, yes! Trayvon Martin was intentionally stalked and attacked by a racist jackass who decided to take the law (which hadn't even been broken) into his own hands. Last time I checked, law and order is what the police were for. Would the same outcome have occurred if Martin were Caucasian? Or female? How does the "Stand your Ground Law" apply? The altercation didn't occur in a home, it occurred on a street. The police told Zimmerman not to follow. Does the "Stand your Ground " law encourage this type of aggression by justifying the use of lethal force? Until they can come up with a clearer definition of this law and more importantly a clearer consequence for the fools who misinterpret it while deciding to play Batman, it should go on ice.

Absolutely, that is probably one of the worst laws I have ever heard of it grants any one the right to kill anyone else and get away with it. Remember when you were allowed to kill to protect yourself inside your own home? That was a reasonable law. Just killing someone out on the streets has until now been against the law.

Yes it does. As you see what it can lead too...fake ass Taxicab-era Robert Deniro's thinking that they can personally martial the streets because they don't like who's on it. Cops need to do their job, it's not up to the often ignorant citizens to play along.

The problem Florida is having is deciding if STAND YOUR GROUND allows an idiot to chase someone down and confront them. I believe the law id explicit in saying you need to be the one who is confronted, not the one who is stalking.
I truly do not see what the problem is and why the stalker with the gun is not in jail awaiting trial.

Yep.