Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: What about Trayvon's right to stand his ground? Finally, CNN asks the right question. [View all]yardwork
(69,139 posts)34. Oh for fuck's sake.
I don't know what planet you live on, but if somebody was stalking me while holding a gun I would feel that they were being aggressive. I would be in fear for my life.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
255 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
What about Trayvon's right to stand his ground? Finally, CNN asks the right question. [View all]
pnwmom
Jul 2013
OP
I agree. And I agree with the writer here -- if Trayvon had managed to grab Zimmerman's gun
pnwmom
Jul 2013
#2
I have to also agree that CNN's reporting is definitly biased. He won't be hired by CNN but FOX.
olegramps
Jul 2013
#217
Precisely the problem with this law. It only makes sense when there is a clear aggressor..
DCBob
Jul 2013
#3
And whose word do we have for that gun being in the holster and not in his hand?
proReality
Jul 2013
#138
Why would you follow someone with a gun if they had not threatened you in any way?
sabrina 1
Jul 2013
#53
you say that like Zimmerman simply happened to be walking behind Travyon while carrying a gun
azurnoir
Jul 2013
#161
follow someone you just called "these fucking punks always get away" after being told to stay
tiredtoo
Jul 2013
#180
Right, "stand your ground" makes more sense in something like home invasion
thesquanderer
Jul 2013
#98
Today in the Prosecution's closing argument the attorney did talk about Trayvon's fear. n/t
Tx4obama
Jul 2013
#10
The question raised in the OP is not who struck whom first, but who had the right to fear for his
JDPriestly
Jul 2013
#22
A manslaughter conviction could still get him 30 years. That would be fine with me. n/t
pnwmom
Jul 2013
#25
The judge said that the prosecution would give half of its closing argument Thursday,
pnwmom
Jul 2013
#46
Thanks for this information. I have purposely kept myself from watching the trial.
JDPriestly
Jul 2013
#56
every right, sure, but the dispatcher told him "we don't need you to do that"
noiretextatique
Jul 2013
#126
If I was 17 in Trayvon Martin's position and some man in a truck first ogled me and then followed me
JDPriestly
Jul 2013
#195
The fact that the jury is composed of women may mean they see Trayvon Martin for the child he was.
JDPriestly
Jul 2013
#229
"Had Zimmerman not been carrying a gun, he probably would not have followed Trayvon. "
Vanje
Jul 2013
#209
Interesting that you make note of Zimmerman's weight but not the fact he had a gun.
Dawgs
Jul 2013
#82
It doesn't matter. None of this would have happened if Zimmerman hadn't recklessly
pnwmom
Jul 2013
#97
Because people keep saying that it was against the law for Zimmerman to get
Lurks Often
Jul 2013
#193
Some of the lawyers have stated that while a judge can issue a judgement of acquittal
Lurks Often
Jul 2013
#111
there is no way in HELL that gutless coward approached Trayvon without his precious gun pulled
Skittles
Jul 2013
#241
I would say the guy being stalked by a gun-toting vigilante was the one fighting for his life
Skittles
Jul 2013
#246
There is no proof, because if there was the prosecution would have used it n/t
Lurks Often
Jul 2013
#250
If lying indicates a lack of credibility, then we may only presume you find Zimmerman lacking credib
LanternWaste
Jul 2013
#203
Because it is the state's burden to prove that Z's actions were not self-defense
hack89
Jul 2013
#84
Z has to prove something. You can't just kill people when no one is around and claim self-defense.
Dawgs
Jul 2013
#85
I thought justifiable homicide had to be shown to be...justified...i.e. reasonable.
jmg257
Jul 2013
#152
It's like this after every. single. article. on the internet. Makes me furious.
yardwork
Jul 2013
#37
Is the op suggesting we have the right to assault someone because we think they're following us?
Hempologist
Jul 2013
#31
This is false, we do know what happened...zimmerman, afraid of TM, got out of his car and chased him
uponit7771
Jul 2013
#59
Personal insults and accusations of racism are the last refuge for who can't form rational arguments
Hempologist
Jul 2013
#148
In your opinion the prosocution failed. Others feel they succeeded. That's that.
TeamPooka
Jul 2013
#235
"Was he, Martin, justified in standing his ground and defending himself when this stranger, an..."
uppityperson
Jul 2013
#36
How about if they display a gun while walking behind us or making serious threats?
lumpy
Jul 2013
#41
Children are taught that if an adult is trying to abduct them that they should hit and kick
pnwmom
Jul 2013
#67
According to your logic, then everything women are taught to defend themselves
sinkingfeeling
Jul 2013
#86
that boy is DEAD...did his follower have the right to shoot and kill him?
noiretextatique
Jul 2013
#128
Of course the law acknowledges our right to defend ourselves from violence
Hempologist
Jul 2013
#145
Because Z's basic story has been allowed to stand as the truth, with only some "discrepancies"
WinkyDink
Jul 2013
#65
because martin is black and black people are scary. don't you know that yet?
Nanjing to Seoul
Jul 2013
#83
yes...the black would have been arrested that night, and the police would have actually investigated
noiretextatique
Jul 2013
#118
REPEATEDLY following someone in FL is a criminal act. Even Z indicated he REPEATEDLY followed TM and
uponit7771
Jul 2013
#186
...unnn, REPEATED following of a person is stalking. I don't think Z had the right to "STALK" TM
uponit7771
Jul 2013
#185
Except such an instruction to the jury would result in any conviction being reversed
onenote
Jul 2013
#173
As a factual matter, you are right. If Zimmerman stays in the car, Trayvon is alive today.
onenote
Jul 2013
#178
If the law were so clear on this matter the judge would have dismissed the charges
pnwmom
Jul 2013
#188
AAAAGH! Using present verb tense when it doesn't belong is the province of stupid sportscasters!
WinkyDink
Jul 2013
#231
Self-defense doesn't apply in situations where the person claiming it PROVOKED an attack.
pnwmom
Jul 2013
#187
Note that the judge did not instruct the jurors regarding the provocation exception
onenote
Jul 2013
#207
why didn't it come up at the trial is the question. martin was the one being stalked.
HiPointDem
Jul 2013
#237
Clearly Martin had no right to stand his ground, even under threat of lethal force.
Rex
Jul 2013
#243
Not to be flippant about it, but stand your ground changes every time the last
chelsea0011
Jul 2013
#255