[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

Makes sense. They really need to do-away with that law.

(ETA: The defense did not use Stand Your Ground during the trial but this has arguably been a convenient combination of self-defense and Stand Your Ground. People use self-defense when convenient and Stand Your Ground when convenient. Some people have attached a duty to retreat to Martin and some people have attached it to Zimmerman. Some people say Martin should have gone home, some people say Zimmerman should have stayed his gun toting ass in the car. Ignoring the duty to retreat for self-defense, Martin or Zimmerman then had the right to Stand Their Ground.)

I agree but Stand Your Ground is gaining momentum. As long as we have the NRA and gun rights lobbyists, we will have Stand Your Ground. As long as we have people (predominantly whites) who are being told that society is being overtaken by violent criminals (disproportionately Black and Hispanic), we will have Stand Your Ground. As long as we have states passing laws allowing concealed weapons in bars, theaters, restaurants, and some K-12 and college classrooms we will have Stand Your Ground.

I still say all of the above would be axed if it was racial and ethnic minorities and people lower socioeconomic status who were pushing for gun rights and Stand Your Ground. Gun buyback programs in inner cities do not care whether those law abiding citizens who sell their guns are "standing their ground."

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

We do it all the time to those "criminals" who don't have the resources to keep from being locked up.

True and this continues to be researched and protested. People know the difference between protesting a specific trial and protesting a general message. There is a difference between filing a civil suit and arguing a civil rights violation. The Zimmerman trial probably ended how it should have ended based on the circumstances.