Bill Clinton Speaks Out On "Stand Your Ground" Laws

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

President Clinton Hopes Trayvon Martin Case Leads to Reappraisal of 'Stand Your Ground' Laws

Former President Bill Clinton said the "tragedy" of the killing of Trayvon Martin should cause a re-thinking of the "Stand Your Ground" law.

"There are different stories being told," the former president said, "so the first thing I have to say is that it's important to find out the facts."

Clinton continued "but to me, beyond the incredible personal tragedy- this young man was not armed, he clearly presented no threat to anybody's life - is, the most important thing I've read was from the former police chief in Florida in the community, he was one of many law enforcement officers testifying against that Stand Your Ground law. And he said, you know this is going to create all kinds of problems. And it's going to be almost impossible to prove what was in someone's mind when a certain thing happened."

Clinton said "people have always had a right to have a handgun in their home- to protect their homes- then we've seen this breathtaking expansion of the concealed weapons laws in America moving from the late 90's into this decade, far - if you will - to the extreme that America had ever been on these.

"And now the Stand Your Ground law," he continued. "I think the law is going to create real problems because anyone can - anyone who doesn't have a criminal background, anyone not prohibited by the Brady Bill and caught by the checks - can basically be a part of a neighborhood watch where they have a concealed weapon whether they had proper law enforcement training or not. And whether they've had any experience in conflict situations with people or not.

"So I hope this will lead to a reappraisal of the Stand Your Ground laws," President Clinton said, "and I hope that the truth will come out and that the tragedy of this young man's loss will not be in vain- it's just terrible. Whatever the facts were - all these people trying to jump on him and talking about some mistake he made in his life- that's irrelevant because unarmed person who was killed on the street by a gun. And so I hope justice will be done in this case but I hope that the larger justice that would somehow redeem a portion of this terrible loss."

He said: "the American people should re-examine their position on that and ask: Is this really worth it? Are we really all that much safer taking the chance that this kind of thing could happen over and over and over again?"

The president made his comments in an exclusive interview with ABC News focused on his work with Clinton Global Initiative University.

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/president-clinton-hopes-trayvon-martin-case-leads-reappraisal-111305679--abc-news-politics.html

Edited April 2, 2012 by ☼

[Danno 1,228]

This is not a case of -Stand your ground.

To listen to the logic of the race baiters this has nothing to do with "Stand your ground" because after all Zimmerman was out hunting Black people, hardly a case of "stand your ground".

IN the other scenario, zimmerman was having his head bashed into the sidewalk.

in which in every state a person would be entitle one to defend himself.... so no "Stand your ground" situation there either.

[james&olya 1,121]

This is not a case of -Stand your ground.

To listen to the logic of the race baiters this has nothing to do with "Stand your ground" because after all Zimmerman was out hunting Black people, hardly a case of "stand your ground".

IN the other scenario, zimmerman was having his head bashed into the sidewalk.

in which in every state a person would be entitle one to defend himself.... so no "Stand your ground" situation there either.

Of course 'stand your ground' laws had no role here. And besides, these aren't the droids you are looking for! Move along!

[xebec 195]

Of course this law has played a role. It has given demagogues like Bill Clinton, and hoplophobes in general, a new (and false) sense of relevancy....

Edited April 2, 2012 by xebec

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Of course this law has played a role. It has given demagogues like Bill Clinton, and hoplophobes in general, a new (and false) sense of relevancy....

File this comment under 'I don't care if the law is a license to kill' school of thought? If so does that not make you a potential threat to me and give me safe cause to shoot you first???

[SMOKE 1,426]

File this comment under 'I don't care if the law is a license to kill' school of thought? If so does that not make you a potential threat to me and give me safe cause to shoot you first???

if you think he's about to kick your a$$ in florida. yes.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

if you think he's about to kick your a$$ in florida. yes.

I don't think I will be travelling in Florida without body armor.

[xebec 195]

File this comment under 'I don't care if the law is a license to kill' school of thought? If so does that not make you a potential threat to me and give me safe cause to shoot you first???

File this comment under 'I'm completely ignorant of the law, so I'll just engage in my usual baseless hyperbole.' school of thought?

Draw pardner....

Edited April 3, 2012 by xebec

[one...two...tree 2,762]

File this comment under 'I'm completely ignorant of the law, so I'll just engage in my usual baseless hyperbole.' school of thought?

Draw pardner....

Not trying to put you on the spot here because I know you posted the transcript of the actual law, but can you explain, in your own words, the difference between what this law does for someone carrying a gun and pre-existing laws on the right of self defense? And does this law encompass other lethal measures? For example, if someone with extensive martial arts training knows how to inflict lethal damage onto another person trying to attack them.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The Florida Law does not exclude following someone. In fact, it completely removes the context of an encounter that could potentially escalate to violence.

The right of self defense should be protected, however, the context in which one exercises self defense needs to be considered.

[xebec 195]

Not trying to put you on the spot here because I know you posted the transcript of the actual law, but can you explain, in your own words, the difference between what this law does for someone carrying a gun and pre-existing laws on the right of self defense? And does this law encompass other lethal measures? For example, if someone with extensive martial arts training knows how to inflict lethal damage onto another person trying to attack them.

The law does not distinguish between weapons, but references only force and deadly force. If, by "this law" you mean section 776.013, then the change commonly called "castle doctrine" (it isn't a stand-alone law) simply removed the retreat requirement from the existing body of law that treated the issue of defensive use of force. An example of such a code is New York's: "(a) He reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete safety as to himself and others avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating"

Interestingly, California's laws on defensive use of force (including deadly force) contain no "duty to retreat".....So......I guess California is another state that allows someone "to pick a fight" and then murder. California law is essentially no different than Florida law in this respect.

No duty to retreat

Although some states require that you retreat before responding to force with force, California self-defense law does not. In fact, even if you think you may face a deadly attack by, for example, going somewhere you know an enemy frequently hangs out...and are subsequently compelled to act in self-defense...you are still permitted to go to that location.

http://www.shouselaw.com/self-defense.html

Of course, people will argue that California doesn't have the same "shall issue" handgun licences. But remember, these statutes are applicable to any form of force, or deadly force.......gun, knife, baseball bat, or fists.

[xebec 195]

The Florida Law does not exclude following someone. In fact, it completely removes the context of an encounter that could potentially escalate to violence.

The right of self defense should be protected, however, the context in which one exercises self defense needs to be considered.

Very true. I am not aware of anyplace in the country that has criminalized following someone, as long as you aren't committing some other crime while doing so......trespassing, intimidation, etc. People seem to bandy the "stalking" term about fairly often in relation to this case I have noticed, but stalking is usually defined legally both as a pattern of behavior, and by its intended effect on the victim. Would we really welcome a law that criminalizes following another person?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Very true. I am not aware of anyplace in the country that has criminalized following someone, as long as you aren't committing some other crime while doing so......trespassing, intimidation, etc. People seem to bandy the "stalking" term about fairly often in relation to this case I have noticed, but stalking is usually defined legally both as a pattern of behavior, and by its intended effect on the victim. Would we really welcome a law that criminalizes following another person?

I think it's ill-conceived to exclude any mitigating circumstances that led up to a violent encounter where one person uses lethal force and claims self defense. Cornering someone in the middle of the night, in the rain, and in a common area where that person has a legal right to be, should factor in if such an encounter turns violent. For example, if I'm walking home in my neighborhood and I'm carrying a gun, I would consider such an action toward me as a threat and if I saw that person had a gun, shooting them could be interpreted as an act of self defense.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Mister Fancypants

[xebec 195]

I think it's ill-conceived to exclude any mitigating circumstances that led up to a violent encounter where one person uses lethal force and claims self defense. Cornering someone in the middle of the night, in the rain, and in a common area where that person has a legal right to be, should factor in if such an encounter turns violent. For example, if I'm walking home in my neighborhood and I'm carrying a gun, I would consider such an action toward me as a threat and if I saw that person had a gun, shooting them could be interpreted as an act of self defense.

I agree with you, and the prosecuting attorney (if it reaches that stage) will certainly raise the issue of Zimmerman following Martin. If there is evidence that Zimmerman "cornered" Martin then I'm sure that a jury would take this into account. I also agree that if you were armed and someone followed and cornered you, then displayed the fact that they were armed, you may well be able to convince a jury that you felt you were in imminent danger of an attack that was lethal or posed risk of great bodily harm. A typical example of legislation covering this:

A person is guilty of menacing in the second degree when:

He or she intentionally places or attempts to place another person in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death by displaying a deadly weapon, dangerous instrument or what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm; or

He or she repeatedly follows a person or engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts over a period of time intentionally placing or attempting to place another person in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death

So, the example you gave- cornering a person and displaying a firearm- Could certainly inspire "a reasonable fear of serious physical injury or death", and give them grounds to defend themselves. If you were put into that situation in Florida (or California, any other state without a "duty to retreat") at least you would not have to convince a jury that you could have reasonably retreated from this person's agression.

Edited April 3, 2012 by xebec

[xebec 195]

I think it's ill-conceived to exclude any mitigating circumstances that led up to a violent encounter where one person uses lethal force and claims self defense. Cornering someone in the middle of the night, in the rain, and in a common area where that person has a legal right to be, should factor in if such an encounter turns violent. For example, if I'm walking home in my neighborhood and I'm carrying a gun, I would consider such an action toward me as a threat and if I saw that person had a gun, shooting them could be interpreted as an act of self defense.

Looking at the photos you posted.....those of the housing complex..... You point out that the encounter occured in a large stretch of open grass and sidewalk. The idea that Zimmerman "cornered" Martin here seems a little far-fetched. What was cutting off Martin's avenue of escape? If the encounter took place in a blind alleyway, that theory would make some sense. Here is doesn't.