Gun Control Forum on Facebook Gun Control Forum on Google Plus Gun Control Forum on Twitter

Greetings Gun Control Debater

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In with Facebook Sign In with OpenID Sign In with Twitter

Popular Gun Control Forum Categories

In this Discussion

No Retreat Law

edited October 2015 in Gun Law Facts Posts: 7
This discussion was created from comments split from: Secret Service has Guns, How're You Trying To Take Our Guns Away?.

Comments

  • I'm not familiar with the No Retreat Law.  What exactly does it mean?  There are no repercussions if you need to fight off an attacker?
  • Posts: 234
    You have the right to stay and fight you are not required to try and run first.You are allowed to use as much force as they are using against you.If you are fearful for your life or great bodily harm you are allowed to use any force needed to incapacitate that person or persons.If they have a deadly weapon and you fear for your life or great bodily harm then you are allowed to use deadly force.They realize that more then 60% are shot trying to simply run away.
  • Thank you for explaining that to me.  I'm glad we have that law.  Sometimes you can't outrun someone. 
  • Posts: 234
    Your welcome.but now this is for IL. where I live this differs from state to state,so make sure you check it out in what ever state that you live.
  • The no retreat law gives you the right to defend yourself without having to run first. I am more of the type that would fight first any way. However having a law is even better for me.
  • Posts: 1

    These are also referred to as 'Stand your ground' laws. Several states have them but they can vary state-to-state in what they actually allow and don't allow for legally standing your ground when you feel threatened. An alarming number of states have 'Duty to Retreat' laws. Some of those won't even allow you to defend yourself legally inside of your own home!

    As the old rule of 'ignorance is no excuse for the law' still stands, and always will, it is everyone's duty to do their due diligence into researching your states laws regarding this matter.

  • Stand your Ground is what got Zimmerman off. I'm surprised nobody mentioned this yet because it became very popular after the case. I still say that it was the wrong verdict. You re only allowed to meet force with force, and Trayvon didn't have a gun. He got off because Trayvon was kicking his butt and then he shot.
  • Unfortunately, the jury didn't read this article, and they found him not guilty because it was apparently self defense. How was it self defense when Trayvon had no weapon and the only reason Trayvon attacked is because he noticed him following him. The trail is over though, and he got away with it, so it is what it is.
  • Posts: 234
    It was a bad call on his part and the gun shouldn't have played a part in it at all.I still think it is a good law to have,it just needs to be used right,and responsible people do.
  • I agree, this is a fantastic law, if used in the right context and situation. It definitely shouldn't have happened in the Trayvon Martin case, and I personally believe Zimmerman was wrong, and should have had consequence for his actions. 
  • Posts: 21
    I know there is a stand you ground law and I think it does a validity if a person is actually standing their ground. If they are actually acting is self defense against someone who is a viable threat to them.  Someone who is the instigator of the situation.  This wasn't the case with Zimmerman from what I heard.  He was the one who went after an unarmed teenager. He was the one who challenged an unarmed teenager, so how in the world was this standing his ground?  It wasn't not from where I sit, I felt like the prosecution in the case didn't handle it well and should of really stressed the fact that Zimmerman more or less stalked an unarmed youth.  That he has no business going after the kid in the first place and if he had done as the 911 operator had instructed and not went after Trayvon this never would have happened.  But no the Prosecutor didn't stress these parts, which I felt was one of the reason's he walked.
  • This fact is even weird in general. I know in my state you have to actually be HIT multiple times before they even CONSIDER it self defense. I don't know what it's like there, but I don't think it should have been considered that. He didn't hit him, and he wasn't armed, so there really isn't a reason for it. It was a bad trial all around.
  • Zimmerman proved a loon after the fact, he was most unsavory a character, this is very important to note before discussing this case.

    Zimmerman was part of an UNARMED security detail, also very very important to note before hand.

    Zimmerman was also very unstable emotionally and this added to things considerably.

    Zimmerman as a unpaid volunteer security officer, ie neighborhood watch, his only duty was to watch and dial 911, he had no duty to aprehend anyone, or follow anyone around, he was supposed to call his dispatcher, or 911 and follow those instructions, to stay out of the way and NOT TO get involved.

    Zimmerman exceeded and disobeyed direct instructions of the 911 operator, to stay out of it....

    HOWEVER, Zimmerman was an idiot, a Polyanna, and a wannabe or a Buff, a Police wannabe.
    However, Trayvon Martin was no Saint either, Zimmerman asked what Trayvon was doing, but that was not enough provocation to go ballistic as Trayvon did, Zimmerman was very stupid, but not violent initially, when Zimmerman finally did shoot, Trayvon was indeed quite close to murthering him.

    That is the only reason Zimmerman got off, Trayvon was really an attempted murderer.

    Zimmerman was guilty of being stupid and ecceeding his non existent authority, but he did not deserve to die, in a way neither did Trayvon, had not Trayvon been under the influence of drugs and over reacted, perhaps he would likely still be alive and Zimmerman would be in jail still.

Sign In or Register to comment.