Florida's Stand Your Ground Law

[magnolia]

I know that, but I was responding to the poster who said it would never be reasonable that anyone would be scared of someone following them. I believe just the opposite. I didn't mention the SYG law in my post. I believe TM did believe and was afraid of great bodily harm that night, yet this poster suggested no one should be afraid of someone even following them, much less someone following them and doing great bodily harm to them. That is just not so in society today. I never said that fit the law, I just was refuting that people should be a-okay with other people following them. That is just not the case in society today. I never said people should feel free to attack someone else who is following them. That is where the law comes in.

The consensus with some people is that Trayvon should not have had any fear at all that night, and I'm saying, yes, he did. Someone was following him, and he had every right to fear that person.I highly doubt he just up and attacked GZ out of the blue.I'm betting GZ became aggressive in some way that made TM fear for his life and that made TM defend himself. If they SYG law applies to anyone, it's TM, not GZ. How could GZ have any fear when he was carrying a gun? That makes no sense to me. All IMO.

I don't think too many 17 yr. old males frighten easily. I say this because I raised two boys. At that age,they knew no fear. I believe Trayvon knew he could hold his own against Zimmerman. After all, we are talking about a very fit 6'3" young man here. I think Trayvon was curious why another guy was out there that night. Frightened-NO IMO

 

[cmsg2002]

I think it would be very hard to find a handful of reasonable people that will say "being followed is reason to have a fear of great bodily harm." That's what the "reasonably belief" means - a REASONABLE PERSON would believe that their life were in danger, or have fear of great bodily harm. I'd like to see a single scenario where being followed alone is any indication of great bodily harm or death, but haven't yet.

It pretty much is out of the realm of plausibility given that he never states anything to the girlfriend that there's a weapon. Supposedly she heard everything right up to the fight, right? Why WOULDN'T he say something? Can't say he didn't see it, because you can't fear it if you can't see it - in your scenario.

let's clarify..that I did not say or imply that being followed is a reason to have a fear of great bodily harm....that was your wording. My what if scenario did not state when he may have brandished the weapon, but I will further clarify it by saying...what if he brandished the weapon after TM's conversation with the gf?
I'll put myself in the situation as a reasonable person: I would and could certainly believe my life was in imminent danger: if a person, who I had previously observed to have been staring at me, then following me in their vehicle, and subsequently following me on foot, i.e. acting "suspiciously" towards me; and then confronted me verbally and perhaps also physically, and during this time they either showed me they had a gun, or I noticed on my own they had a gun....am I as a reasonable person supposed to assume this person had no intention of causing me great bodily harm?
1 minute 57 seconds....between the time GZ called 911 to report a suspicious person and time he fired a fatal shot at TM. a whole lot of stuff happened in just shy of 120 seconds..per GZ's story.

 

[AJ Noiter]

let's clarify..that I did not say or imply that being followed is a reason to have a fear of great bodily harm....that was your wording. My what if scenario did not state when he may have brandished the weapon, but I will further clarify it by saying...what if he brandished the weapon after TM's conversation with the gf?
I'll put myself in the situation as a reasonable person: I would and could certainly believe my life was in imminent danger: if a person, who I had previously observed to have been staring at me, then following me in their vehicle, and subsequently following me on foot, i.e. acting "suspiciously" towards me; and then confronted me verbally and perhaps also physically, and during this time they either showed me they had a gun, or I noticed on my own they had a gun....am I as a reasonable person supposed to assume this person had no intention of causing me great bodily harm?
1 minute 57 seconds....between the time GZ called 911 to report a suspicious person and time he fired a fatal shot at TM. a whole lot of stuff happened in just shy of 120 seconds..per GZ's story.

I think the bold is pretty obvious, and keep in mind that according to her statement she heard everything up to when the confrontation started, clearly. By saying the gun was drawn AFTER the call ended between him and his "girlfriend" you are then admitting that he didn't have the weapon drawn prior to the confrontation. Also, by the "girlfriend's" account, Mr. Martin confronted Mr. Zimmerman - he asked his question first.

 

[cmsg2002]

I don't think too many 17 yr. old males frighten easily. I say this because I raised two boys. At that age,they knew no fear. I believe Trayvon knew he could hold his own against Zimmerman. After all, we are talking about a very fit 6'3" young man here. I think Trayvon was curious why another guy was out there that night. Frightened-NO IMO

correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the ME's report had TM at 5'11" and 158 lbs. That is a young man with a slim build...my nephew is almost exactly the same, and a stiff breeze might knock him over! Further, GZ knew he was a teenager...he said so himself in his 911 call.

 

[AJ Noiter]

correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the ME's report had TM at 5'11" and 158 lbs. That is a young man with a slim build...my nephew is almost exactly the same, and a stiff breeze might knock him over! Further, GZ knew he was a teenager...he said so himself in his 911 call.

And he stated in the interview with the investigators that he felt Mr. Martin was closer to his own age. He probably changed his opinion after taking a blow to the head that knocked him to the ground, but it doesn't matter. Even though he made the estimation that Mr. Martin was in his late teens does not mean he DID know how old Mr. Martin was. If this is "proof of a lie" it's rather flimsy.

 

[cmsg2002]

I think the bold is pretty obvious, and keep in mind that according to her statement she heard everything up to when the confrontation started, clearly. By saying the gun was drawn AFTER the call ended between him and his "girlfriend" you are then admitting that he didn't have the weapon drawn prior to the confrontation. Also, by the "girlfriend's" account, Mr. Martin confronted Mr. Zimmerman - he asked his question first.

AJ, I can respect your opinion, and you have obviously put alot of thought and effort in basing your opinion, but again, I never said he had the weapon drawn prior to the confrontation...again those are your words.

And again as to the gf's account, TM's ? to GZ as to why are you following me does not in and of itself prove anything....because GZ would have had to be approaching TM at this point, and close enough for TM to even say this to GZ. And we know from GZ's own words in the 911 call, TM was "running now" and that GZ had lost sight of him. GZ subsequently parked and exited his vehicle; walked or ran in the direction of where he had last seen TM; and approached TM....so who confronted who here? IMO, there is no question it was GZ. TM was actively trying to avoid confrontation with GZ by running away from him....can't say the same for GZ's actions, and that's factual.

 

[cmsg2002]

And he stated in the interview with the investigators that he felt Mr. Martin was closer to his own age. He probably changed his opinion after taking a blow to the head that knocked him to the ground, but it doesn't matter. Even though he made the estimation that Mr. Martin was in his late teens does not mean he DID know how old Mr. Martin was. If this is "proof of a lie" it's rather flimsy.

yeah, he said that after the fact...after knowing he had killed someone; someone who not more than 120 seconds before he described as a teenager. GZ went to college for criminal justice; he did ride-arounds with the SFD; he applied to become a police officer; he volunteered for neighborhood watch duties; he was very observant of people and their behaviors; he had some formal training in this very aware and used this in correctly identifying in his initial observation that TM was a teenager.

IMO, his statement that he felt TM was closer to his own age is self-serving and more than slightly convenient. again, nothing was said about proof of a lie.

 

[magnolia]

correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the ME's report had TM at 5'11" and 158 lbs. That is a young man with a slim build...my nephew is almost exactly the same, and a stiff breeze might knock him over! Further, GZ knew he was a teenager...he said so himself in his 911 call.

You are correct. Before the autopsy, many said that Trayvon was 6'3". The difference in height does not change my opinion. Trayvon looked to be a very fit young man.

 

[AJ Noiter]

yeah, he said that after the fact...after knowing he had killed someone; someone who not more than 120 seconds before he described as a teenager. GZ went to college for criminal justice; he did ride-arounds with the SFD; he applied to become a police officer; he volunteered for neighborhood watch duties; he was very observant of people and their behaviors; he had some formal training in this very aware and used this in correctly identifying in his initial observation that TM was a teenager.

IMO, his statement that he felt TM was closer to his own age is self-serving and more than slightly convenient. again, nothing was said about proof of a lie.

Estimations are not considered to be facts. You estimate that there was 120 seconds before Mr. Zimmerman described him as a teenager - if that turns out to be a mere 24 seconds should you be considered to be lying? I wouldn't consider you to be one. On the age specifically, I think it backs up the claim that he made on the stand that he didn't know how old Mr. Martin was. He made both statements LONG before this blew up to be the huge issue it has turned out to be, he made the second estimate after being brutally attacked by the same person he felt was a teenager.

Let me pose this question to you: had it turned out that Mr. Martin was 25, would the claim that he "lied" still stand? He did give a statement that he thought Mr. Martin was "around his age." It seems no matter what he says he's going to be called a lair and because of that people will not believe anything he says. I think we should be fair - he had no clue, factually, how old Mr. Martin was.

 

[pjblack]

the purpose of this was to eliminate prosecutions for a guy A slaps guy B, B starts beating A to death and A kills B, A is denied SYG.

I believe it will still boil down to: did G start the altercation?.... If it's proved that G did initiate, then 776.041 puts him in the position of having to assert that T was using sufficient force to cause great bodily harm or death AND that he had exhausted all means of escape as opposed to the very different notion in SYG of simply having a reasonable fear...

In front of whatever jury, G doesn't want to have any more obstacles .... and this one could put him on the defensive to a much greater degree.

Agree. In the charge affidavit, Special Prosecutor Corey stated that G "profiled" and "confronted" T. Apparently in her mind, profiled and confronted is equal to G being the "initial aggressor". By using those two high-impact words "profiled" and "confronted" she is hoping to effectively eliminate G's use of SYG defense and abolish his immunity from prosecution by claiming G is the initial aggressor and that his actions rose to the level of second degree murder.

By using the word "profiled" which one naturally associates with "racial profiling", Corey hoped to create the illusion that what G did that night was "racial profiled" T -- a federal hate crime -- and which automatically carries with it the assumption that the perpetrator acted with malice and a depraved indifference towards the murdered victim. Thus, using the term "profiled", Corey was able to charge G with 2nd degree murder and not simply manslaughter.

The iffy part is whether SYG law unequivocally defines what constitutes an initial aggressor. Is the "initial aggressor" the first person who uses physical force on another person, or is it so general and ambiguous as to simply be the person who first "profiled" and "verbally confronted" another person?

If SYG hearing is sought by O'Mara and the judge agrees that the prosecution has sufficiently shown -- by a preponderance of evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt (correct if wrong please) -- that G was the initial aggressor, G cannot use SYG and will have to defend himself against the 2nd degree murder charge in court by using the "justifiable use of lethal force" self-defense law. To do so, G must prove that T used "disproportionate physical force" on G, causing G to "reasonably fear for his life or at the very least, bodily harm" and G "had no means to retreat" and therefore, G was justified in using the necessary deadly force against T.

 

[AJ Noiter]

Agree. In the charge affidavit, Special Prosecutor Corey stated that G "profiled" and "confronted" T. Apparently in her mind, profiled and confronted is equal to G being the "initial aggressor". By using those two high-impact words "profiled" and "confronted" she is hoping to effectively eliminate G's use of SYG defense and abolish his immunity from prosecution by claiming G is the initial aggressor and that his actions rose to the level of second degree murder.

By using the word "profiled" which one naturally associates with "racial profiling", Corey hoped to create the illusion that what G did that night was "racial profiled" T -- a federal hate crime -- and which automatically carries with it the assumption that the perpetrator acted with malice and a depraved indifference towards the murdered victim. Thus, using the term "profiled", Corey was able to charge G with 2nd degree murder and not simply manslaughter.

The iffy part is whether SYG law unequivocally defines what constitutes an initial aggressor. Is the "initial aggressor" the first person who uses physical force on another person, or is it so general and ambiguous as to simply be the person who first "profiled" and "verbally confronted" another person?

If SYG hearing is sought by O'Mara and the judge agrees that the prosecution has sufficiently shown -- by a preponderance of evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt (correct if wrong please) -- that G was the initial aggressor, G cannot use SYG and will have to defend himself against the 2nd degree murder charge in court by using the "justifiable use of lethal force" self-defense law. To do so, G must prove that T used "disproportionate physical force" on G, causing G to "reasonably fear for his life or at the very least, bodily harm" and G "had no means to retreat" and therefore, G was justified in using the necessary deadly force against T.

Just wanted to say I agree with everything you said, and also wanted to point out that I would find it hard for a judge to agree that the profiling was in malice, considering all of the <insert name> Watch guides say they should call in descriptions of the individuals. I think this scenario would come down to what it means to "confront" someone. By definition one could argue that Mr. Martin was the one doing the confronting, but what's the legal definition? Everything I've found has to do with people being able to confront their accusers.

 

[cmsg2002]

Estimations are not considered to be facts. You estimate that there was 120 seconds before Mr. Zimmerman described him as a teenager - if that turns out to be a mere 24 seconds should you be considered to be lying? I wouldn't consider you to be one. On the age specifically, I think it backs up the claim that he made on the stand that he didn't know how old Mr. Martin was. He made both statements LONG before this blew up to be the huge issue it has turned out to be, he made the second estimate after being brutally attacked by the same person he felt was a teenager.
Let me pose this question to you: had it turned out that Mr. Martin was 25, would the claim that he "lied" still stand? He did give a statement that he thought Mr. Martin was "around his age." It seems no matter what he says he's going to be called a lair and because of that people will not believe anything he says. I think we should be fair - he had no clue, factually, how old Mr. Martin was.

the 1 min 57 seconds is not an estimation...it is factual and is the exact time between the first 911 GZ call and the shot being fired, based on the timeline SPD themselves has put forward based on 911 dispatcher calls. (the link to which is contained within the Timeline thread). so I'm not sure what or where you're coming from with regards to your "lying" comment. I think GZ has had more exposure and experience than the average person in observation skills, and that is what I was using to support my opinion.
BBM....with all due respect, this is an assumption and/or allegation that so far has yet to be proven. I think the level of the attack/brutality is certainly up for questioning at this point.
Again, I'm not sure what you are referring to about GZ lying about TM's age?? I did not say he was outright lying....I said that his comments about TM's age after the fact were IMO, self-serving.

 

[Karmady]

Agree. In the charge affidavit, Special Prosecutor Corey stated that G "profiled" and "confronted" T. Apparently in her mind, profiled and confronted is equal to G being the "initial aggressor". By using those two high-impact words "profiled" and "confronted" she is hoping to effectively eliminate G's use of SYG defense and abolish his immunity from prosecution by claiming G is the initial aggressor and that his actions rose to the level of second degree murder.

By using the word "profiled" which one naturally associates with "racial profiling", Corey hoped to create the illusion that what G did that night was "racial profiled" T -- a federal hate crime -- and which automatically carries with it the assumption that the perpetrator acted with malice and a depraved indifference towards the murdered victim. Thus, using the term "profiled", Corey was able to charge G with 2nd degree murder and not simply manslaughter.

The iffy part is whether SYG law unequivocally defines what constitutes an initial aggressor. Is the "initial aggressor" the first person who uses physical force on another person, or is it so general and ambiguous as to simply be the person who first "profiled" and "verbally confronted" another person?

If SYG hearing is sought by O'Mara and the judge agrees that the prosecution has sufficiently shown -- by a preponderance of evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt (correct if wrong please) -- that G was the initial aggressor, G cannot use SYG and will have to defend himself against the 2nd degree murder charge in court by using the "justifiable use of lethal force" self-defense law. To do so, G must prove that T used "disproportionate physical force" on G, causing G to "reasonably fear for his life or at the very least, bodily harm" and G "had no means to retreat" and therefore, G was justified in using the necessary deadly force against T.

I agree with everything you said about the PCA .

On the SYG, I think the exception is for a provoker. Imo, that means one who provokes the use of some force. Also, imo, that can be done by the provoker's use of force himself, or by words with the apparent ability to carry them out ("I'm going to bash your brains in" while holding a crow bar, for example).

Also, I believe that the burden at the SYG is on the defense by a preponderance. I'd have to look it up again to say for sure, though, so jmo for now

 

[AJ Noiter]

the 1 min 57 seconds is not an estimation...it is factual and is the exact time between the first 911 GZ call and the shot being fired, based on the timeline SPD themselves has put forward based on 911 dispatcher calls. (the link to which is contained within the Timeline thread). so I'm not sure what or where you're coming from with regards to your "lying" comment. I think GZ has had more exposure and experience than the average person in observation skills, and that is what I was using to support my opinion.
BBM....with all due respect, this is an assumption and/or allegation that so far has yet to be proven. I think the level of the attack/brutality is certainly up for questioning at this point.
Again, I'm not sure what you are referring to about GZ lying about TM's age?? I did not say he was outright lying....I said that his comments about TM's age after the fact were IMO, self-serving.

someone who not more than 120 seconds before he described as a teenager

This is the 120 seconds I was speaking of. Sure my example was greatly exaggerated with the 24 seconds or so that I stated, but the point remains. "Mr. Zimmerman is a liar, and nothing he says can be trusted, based on an estimation that he made." If a police officer estimated that I weigh 150lbs and it turns out that I really weigh 162lbs, he/she would be "lying" under this standard. It's not fair in any scenario, including the exact scenario we're discussing. This is my point. I wouldn't consider the officer or anyone to be a "liar" based on an estimation - regardless of the time it was made. Before, during, after - it's all an estimation unless you have some kind of evidence that suggests he did actually know Mr. Martin's real age, which I have yet to see.

The topic did bring us here, but I'm starting to get a bit paranoid regarding TimeOuts if we continue with this discussion here. Is there somewhere else we could discuss it?

 

[suzihawk]

The SYG law does not allow you to forcibly attack the person following you simply because you are being followed. In fact, I don't think any law allows you to confront and assault a person simply because you suspect someone is following you.

There's also not a law that allows one to confront and assault a person simply because he suspects someone is a criminal.

 

[LambChop]

For those who feel TM was not afraid think about the fact that he was a very young black male on his way home alone in the dark, it's raining, in the deep south and he has a white man following him. What do you think was going through his mind. Has anyone watched some of the terror movies that are being released today? I'd be surprised if he were not afraid. But we know he said he was, he told his gf. Whether or not it's what "normal" boys don't do....he did it so that tells me he was really afraid of this man.

Why is it so easy to get into this young man's head and decide he aggressively attacked GZ, jumped from the shadows....oh, no that can't be right because we have a witness who said GZ asked TM, what are you doing here. So it's easy to do that but he can't be afraid because that would not be macho. But wait, he was not, he was still a kid. He was not 28 years old. We did not see GZ hiding, did we. Nope he just ran right after him as if he could not catch up with him fast enough.

Of the two, GZ getting out of the car and following shows more aggression on his part than TM hiding watch GZ run to the next street and return. GF said TM said, "he found me." Does not sound like TM jumped out at anyone. jmo

 

[LambChop]

Wouldn't we think that if GZ was planning on sneaking up on TM (to see where he was going) that he would have unzipped his jacket, you know, just in case TM decided to jump out at him (TM being the criminal type and all). He'd want that gun within easy reach. What if TM did see it if GZ tried to detain him. We know TM never touched the gun so what if the gun got loose and TM tried to stop GZ from retrieving it and was trying to hold GZ down so that he could not get to the gun. That could be why there is none of GZ's DNA on TM's hands and why TM had no defensive wounds or bruising.

Personally, I think when they were running TM ran past that tree and a branch might have come back and smacked GZ in the face. That would account for the location of the cut on his nose and the scratches. jmo

 

[AJ Noiter]

Wouldn't we think that if GZ was planning on sneaking up on TM (to see where he was going) that he would have unzipped his jacket, you know, just in case TM decided to jump out at him (TM being the criminal type and all). He'd want that gun within easy reach. What if TM did see it if GZ tried to detain him. We know TM never touched the gun so what if the gun got loose and TM tried to stop GZ from retrieving it and was trying to hold GZ down so that he could not get to the gun. That could be why there is none of GZ's DNA on TM's hands and why TM had no defensive wounds or bruising.

Let me first start by saying I'm not sure this is the right thread but I'm not sure where else it would go - hopefully a mod can help us out and move them to a more appropriate spot.

I would think that if Mr. Zimmerman wanted to sneak up on Mr. Martin he would need to know where Mr. Martin is - there is nothing that I've seen that says he knew where Mr. Martin was. Nothing I've seen states Mr. Zimmerman was carrying his weapon outside of the holster, which was in his waistband. We -don't- know that Mr. Martin never touched the weapon as the DNA results were not NEGATIVE - they were inconclusive. Many people touched that weapon, such as the officers, and their DNA doesn't appear either and we KNOW they touched it.

 

[RANCH]

I have read it a couple of times with many "what ifs" in my mind .And that Fla SYG law is very ambiguous and not like some in other States. And each time I come away with a different impression. Coupled with the other self defense Fl laws, it is a morass IMO. I pity any jury that will have to deal with it. And I bet prosecutors/Judges hate it too. Not enough case history yet.

I think that Florida will change there SYG law in the wake of this case. I believe that they will remove the part about being able to stand your ground in any place that you have a right to be and allow it only in your home, car or business. If your anyplace else, you must run, flee, or do whatever you can to remove yourself from harm before you can attempt to defend yourself. JMO.

 

[jaded cat]

I think that Florida will change there SYG law in the wake of this case. I believe that they will remove the part about being able to stand your ground in any place that you have a right to be and allow it only in your home, car or business. If your anyplace else, you must run, flee, or do whatever you can to remove yourself from harm before you can attempt to defend yourself. JMO.

Bravo, RANCH! Best post I've seen on this issue. Protecting your house, your car, your business, all those make perfect sense. Common sense says that's a reasonable course of action.