Talk Elections

After much controversy over this law that has protected some but endangered most, I've decided to do a poll. Personally, I believe it could protect some people if it wasn't so vague.

Keep, of course, just like the people of Florida want. Unfortunately it seems on this forum so far I'm in a minority of one.

This is the kind of question that would be considered a sick joke in most places.

It needs to be amended to make clear that following someone does not invoke the stand your ground provisions if the person you are following turns to confront you.

this

I can't see any reason why the right to stand your ground should turn on whether you were following someone. If the person simply confronts you, that is one thing. If he moves to attack you, that is quite another.

That said, I haven't so much as glanced at the text of the statute, so I abstain from voting.

Well, you're not completely alone.

It's simple enough even a Republican should be able to understand.  When Martin turned to confront the person following him, he became the person standing his ground, not Zimmerman.

I haven't delved into the facts of the Martin-Zimmerman case, which don't seem relevant here. But following someone, by itself and without more, is no threat of force, and certainly does not prevent the pursued from standing his ground. Indeed, in a typical case it means you want the person to stay situated, so you can talk to him.

I'm mostly ambivalent on Castle Doctrine laws, but a duty should retreat should definitely exist when not on one's own property.

Voted Amend It, should keep it.