Not North or South Carolina? Wonder why?

It appears the FindLaw list is out of date. South Carolina and North Carolina both have similar laws.

The FindLaw link says "Other states may have adopted a stand your ground doctrine through judicial interpretation of their self-defense laws..."

Stevie Wonder is an admirable guy.

I've read/heard claims that the defense didn't claim SYG as a defense in the Zimmerman case.

They didn't have to. The judge read it to the jury when she charged them. Juror B37 (or whatever) specifically mentioned it as a factor in her decision.

We gotta be able to stand up to the federales and the revenooers when they come calling, threatening our very way of life.

FREEDOM!1!!

OK, found a more current list and updated the original post. It's more than 30 states now.

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(link...)

I read that, as in the Zimmerman case, that someone can initiate a confrontation and shoot if they can goad someone into a fight.

"It's Not Just Zimmerman: Race Matters a Lot in 'Stand Your Ground' Verdicts"

And be sure to check out the graph.
~m.

Hummm- 2007 - didn't TN have a Democrat governor and a Democrat House - and a Democrat as Lt. Governor?

One of the bricks in the wall of his defense was the testimony of the guy who ran the gym where he'd been working out. This guy pretty much said Zimmerman was a creampuff who couldn't win a butt kicking contest with a one legged granny lady. This, of course, was crucial to the defense claim that Zimmerman was never the aggressor in the confrontation with Trayvon Martin.
The prosecution asked him one time if he'd advertised Zimmerman's being a client. He said no. The prosecution didn't pursue the line of questioning.
The guy flat lied.
(link...)
And there's this:
(link...)

And that's just one witness. I could link up his brother's distasteful tweets or his father's weird ramblings, which certainly do nothing to bolster the claim that the Zimmermans are cumbayah singing liberals when it comes to matters of race.

Somehow Zimmerman's version of the facts has become gospel.
It's not. If it were, his lawyers would have put him on the stand.

All this talk of the 'stand your ground' scenario fails to take into account the fact that Zimmerman was actually guilty of stalking the child, something he would have been too cowardly to do had he not been carrying that equalizer.

If you are in a crosswalk and a car approaches the crosswalk too quickly, you can shoot the driver dead and claim SYG.

Read the statute. It makes no consideration about the intent of the other person. Only that you have a legal right to be where you are (crosswalk) and just think you might be hurt (car isn't slowing down fast enough for your tastes).

Prior to the "stand your ground" law, Florida law (and law in most other jurisdictions that have adopted it) required a "duty to retreat" if possible.

Between Zimmerman and Martin, Zimmerman is the one with a criminal record. And the two assault charges both involve violence against person.

In addition to states with so-called "stand your ground" statutes, the common law of many other states do not have a duty to retreat (i.e. California and Virginia). There are cases from the 1800s, and probably the prior century.

Tennessee has had the "no duty to retreat" since revising the criminal code in 1989.

The 2007 revisions basically broadened the locations where there was a presumption of imminent fear of death or serious injury from an unlawful entry, such as in one's place of business, hotel room and certain vehicles. The presumption under the 1989 law only applied to a residence.

Interestingly, the Tennessee statute includes this:

(3) To resist a halt at a roadblock, arrest, search, or stop and frisk that the person using force knows is being made by a law enforcement officer, unless:
(A) The law enforcement officer uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest, search, stop and frisk, or halt; and
(B) The person using force reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary to protect against the law enforcement officer's use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

Read that second one again. If I 'reasonably believe' that the cop is going to use excessive force, even if he doesn't do it, then I get to shoot the cop?

Seriously?

So, if a cop, in the heat of the moment, says "Get down on the ground or I'm going to beat the shit out of you," the perp then gets to LEGALLY shoot the copy?

(Assuming the perp isn't black, of course... we know the law wouldn't apply then...).

I'm stunned. And appalled.

But it's also interesting that the TN law does include this:

(e) The threat or use of force against another is not justified:
(1) If the person using force consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other individual;
(2) If the person using force provoked the other individual's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) The person using force abandons the encounter or clearly communicates to the other the intent to do so; and
(B) The other person nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the person;

So, reading that, Zimmerman would be screwed if he had been in Tennessee, although he could claim he tried to walk away and Trayvon continued to pursue him. OK, I feel a little better.