Florida's Stand Your Ground Law

[Donjeta]

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/31/v-fullstory/2725442/what-is-known-what-isnt-about.html

In an interview two weeks after the incident, Lee said witness statements and physical evidence backed up Zimmerman’s version of events.“If Trayvon has made it that far, and Zimmerman is getting out of his truck, why doesn’t Trayvon keep walking?” Lee said.

“He’s 70 yards from his house.

I have been trying to find the original "source" of the 70 yards, so far it's looking like Lee.

So Trayvon Martin had a duty to retreat?

Zimmerman called police. Records show it was the fifth time in a year that he had alerted authorities to the presence of a black male he found suspicious. This one, he said, looked high and had something in one hand while he kept the other in his waist as he peered at houses.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/...t-is-known-what-isnt-about.html#storylink=cpy

This is a bit OT but do we know what the four other calls were? I suppose one was the guy who didn't burglarize Taaffe's apartment but the other three?

 

[suzihawk]

You would think he would be educated on the way our government works to know that once it's passed into law he has no control over it anymore, and no authority to say whether or not it does or does not fit a specific scenario. It's not new, the nation has been run this way since the birth. That's not even mentioning the fact that neither of them had the full story. But lets not pretend that the nation hasn't already convicted someone without a trial and evidence.

He has as much knowledge as the rest of us at the moment and he also has as much right as anyone else does to express his very educated opinion on the matter.

IMO

 

[AJ Noiter]

So Trayvon Martin had a duty to retreat?
<snipped for relevance>

776.012&#8195;Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1)&#8195;He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2)&#8195;Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

<snipped 776.013 due to it being about Home Invasion, which I believe we all agree that this was not a home invasion for either party>

The way I read the bold part, yes. Of course, that is my opinion.

 

[AJ Noiter]

He has as much knowledge as the rest of us at the moment and he also has as much right as anyone else does to express his very educated opinion on the matter.

IMO

As I've stated, none of them stated it as an opinion. You do not see the words probably, possibly, maybe, might, I think, etc in any of the quotes. I pasted the quotes earlier in the thread. To state it as a fact leads people to believe that they're some kind of authority on the matter. Lets face it if people knew that they weren't an authority you wouldn't see people throwing it around in debates.

 

[JBean]

You would think he would be educated on the way our government works to know that once it's passed into law he has no control over it anymore, and no authority to say whether or not it does or does not fit a specific scenario. It's not new, the nation has been run this way since the birth. ,<snipped for relevance>.

It's these very legislative and political representatives that make and pass these laws. Who would better understand them then the people who wrote, supported and passed this law to begin with????? jmo

Our justice system is adversarial in nature.Everyday our laws are subject to argument and differences in interpretation as to how they are applied. Often certain laws have unexpected consequences that even their makers did not anticipate. Lawyers and legislators have every right to say if a law does or doesn't apply to a certain scenario- but in reality it won't be up to any of them unless they are the judge or jury in a case that involves said law.
Precedents are set every day upon which new legal opinions are formed.

JMHO of course.

 

[who]

He has as much knowledge as the rest of us at the moment and he also has as much right as anyone else does to express his very educated opinion on the matter.

IMO

As regards Gov. Bush and even perhaps the lawmaker who wrote the law - it's possible they have seen more of the evidence / talked to investigators (those in the loop). We have no idea if they know more, but considering people in high positions have more access to details from the authorities, it's quite likely.

One phone call to Serino, for example, could have filled either of them in on the details much more than we know.

 

[suzihawk]

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...dly-force-physical-force-second-degree-murder

GRACE: “In a case like this when you are confronted with force — let’s just say for argument’s sake Zimmerman’s story is true, a 17-year-old hits him. Standing your ground, is he allowed under the law to shoot him dead?”

COREY: “Nancy, our laws are very clear that it has to be a forcible felony and that a reasonable person would have to believe that deadly force is necessary as opposed to just physical force, fighting back and that sort of thing... ”

Corey made two very clear points here. The first is that, in order for "stand your ground" to work, the dead person must have been in the process of committing a "forcible felony" when the struggle happened. In other words, Trayvon needed to be engaged in a crime such as an assult on Zimmerman... Trayvon was speaking with on the phone at the time his confrontation with Zimmerman started.

Secondly, it appears from the charge that Corey simply isn't convinced that whatever happened between Zimmerman and Trayvon justified the use of deadly force.

 

[Karmady]

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...dly-force-physical-force-second-degree-murder

GRACE: “In a case like this when you are confronted with force — let’s just say for argument’s sake Zimmerman’s story is true, a 17-year-old hits him. Standing your ground, is he allowed under the law to shoot him dead?”

COREY: “Nancy, our laws are very clear that it has to be a forcible felony and that a reasonable person would have to believe that deadly force is necessary as opposed to just physical force, fighting back and that sort of thing... ”

Corey made two very clear points here. The first is that, in order for "stand your ground" to work, the dead person must have been in the process of committing a "forcible felony" when the struggle happened. In other words, Trayvon needed to be engaged in a crime such as an assult on Zimmerman... Trayvon was speaking with on the phone at the time his confrontation with Zimmerman started.

Secondly, it appears from the charge that Corey simply isn't convinced that whatever happened between Zimmerman and Trayvon justified the use of deadly force.

The only reason I can think of why Corey would say such a thing is if she has concluded that George was not faced with a threat of great bodily harm and, therefore, has chosen to omit the pertinent parts of the law, bolded below:


776.012 Use of force in defense of person.
A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) 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.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

 

[suzihawk]

The only reason I can think of why Corey would say such a thing is if she has concluded that George was not faced with a threat of great bodily harm and, therefore, has chosen to omit the pertinent parts of the law, bolded below:

<snipped for length>

Could I get a link to the statutes listed in your post? TIA

 

[dsntslp]

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ml&StatuteYear=2011&Title=->2011->Chapter 776

 

[Karmady]

<snipped for length>

Could I get a link to the statutes listed in your post? TIA

You can, but they've been posted here over and over, and I quoted them in their entirety. You also can google the statute number 776.012 and 776.013 and get plenty of links.

Here's the url for 776.012. Once you get there, just change the 2 before the ".html" to a 3 and you'll get the rest.

http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/776.012.html

 

[suzihawk]

You can, but they've been posted here over and over, and I quoted them in their entirety. You also can google the statute number 776.012 and 776.013 and get plenty of links.

Here's the url for 776.012. Once you get there, just change the 2 before the ".html" to a 3 and you'll get the rest.

http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/776.012.html

No need to be condescending. It's common courtesy to provide links to technical and factual information, IMO.

But I thank you for going to the trouble. Much appreciated!

 

[rotterdam]

It's these very legislative and political representatives that make and pass these laws. Who would better understand them then the people who wrote, supported and passed this law to begin with????? jmo

BBM. Not really. Marion Hammer/NRA lawyers were mostly the architects of the Fl SYG law. Certain Fl reps were just the sponsors that introduced the bills into the legislation. You can leave the "wrote "out. Lots of new legislation is introduced and mostly written by powerful special interest groups whose lobbyists contact the elected legislators. Nothing unusual about that. Happens everyday, including in Washington D.C..

Snipped:
Hammer was one of the chief architects of Florida's controversial 2005 "Stand Your Ground" law, which Sanford police cited as the reason why neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman wasn't immediately arrested and charged in the February shooting and killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. Police said at the time that they had nothing to refute Zimmerman's self-defense claim.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/15/us/marion-hammer-profile/index.html

Now, it would be nice if the NRA also would take a closer look at the 2005 SYG in Fla and contributes constructive criticism and/or more clarity to the law. It surely was not their intention to have vigilante types murder unarmed kids and walk scot-free afterwards. I would not want to lose my right to carry a gun and/or have one in my house. I have lived in some secluded/rural areas in the USA(and there are many) and I felt pretty secure to have some fire power in my house.
But doubt that is gonna happen. Nobody , especially politicians, wants to admit mistakes, even small ones.

 

[AngelWings444]

You would think he would be educated on the way our government works to know that once it's passed into law he has no control over it anymore, and no authority to say whether or not it does or does not fit a specific scenario. It's not new, the nation has been run this way since the birth. That's not even mentioning the fact that neither of them had the full story. But lets not pretend that the nation hasn't already convicted someone without a trial and evidence.

GZ is not convicted, and has not been convicted by the nation. That is a little extreme, if you ask me. IMO. You can find as many people supporting him, if not more, than those who support Trayvon. Obviously, he has major people backing him, he has raked in a ton of dough.

Opinions are like @..., everyone has one. Some will change as the evidence comes out, some won't. The only opinion that matters, is ONE, the juries.

 

[who]

Absolutely true.

There has been no conviction. There are people weighing in, in the court of public opinion.

Having an opinion: as American as apple pie.

 

[Reader]

I'm curious to know what part of Florida's SYG statute is most bothersome to people. Is it the part that allows deadly force to prevent great bodily harm or the part that says no duty to retreat if in a place were he or she has the right to be?


http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

Personally, I don't like any of it and fought against it being passed. My futile hope (with Florida's political realities and the NRA's backing) is that it will be repealed. If not that, I hope these committees that are looking at it make some major recommendations for changes. I don't think that LE should be restricted from making an arrest and doing an investigation. The SYG hearing should be done away with granting immunity. If LE finds charges are warranted they should go straight to a regular trial and the defense present their self defense before a jury. Florida is turning into the wild west of the 1800's with this law. That's my opinion.

 

[LynnM]

You would think he would be educated on the way our government works to know that once it's passed into law he has no control over it anymore, and no authority to say whether or not it does or does not fit a specific scenario. It's not new, the nation has been run this way since the birth. That's not even mentioning the fact that neither of them had the full story. But lets not pretend that the nation hasn't already convicted someone without a trial and evidence.

While he has no authority, his information about the original intent of the legislation is not meaningless. Judges can consider legislative intent if the language of a law is ambiguous.

http://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/legislative-intent.html

 

[Karmady]

While he has no authority, his information about the original intent of the legislation is not meaningless. Judges can consider legislative intent if the language of a law is ambiguous.

http://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/legislative-intent.html

Legislative intent does not include the subjective intent of an individual lawmaker, especially when it's expressed after the bill has been passed.

I can't link this article because it's a pdf, but if you google, "Divining legislative intent and Finding Statutory Meaning," you'll see the pertinent discussion about extrinsic evidence of legislative intent at page 42 at the bottom of the first column, top of the second.

 

[Reader]

Oh, so that is why FT is standing where the sidewalks meet? That really seems strange because wasn't RZ, Sr. at the reenactment? Wouldn't he know where they found the body?

So that would lend credibility to the woman who said she saw two figures run past her window. jmo

BBM...Exactly!

That little snip was from a Francis walk through with NBC on 3/21 before charges were filed. 100% of what that side had to say never had George setting a foot off that "main" sidewalk.

I think everyone connected with this apparent coverup knew where that body was located but didn't want it coming out. It blows SYG completely out of the water.

I realize we don't have GPS coordinates or notarized statements signed in blood as to the location at this point, but we do have the defendant's OWN ATTORNEY volunteering the information and the State's Investigator agreeing with it as to what the evidence shows.

For the time being that's solid enough, as far as I'm concerned, to know that "where the sidewalks meet" was never more than a manipulative game.

Agree...it definitely shows to me that he chased Trayvon down.

It's very strange to me because GZ was there that night and he knows where TM's body ended up so why isn't it reflected in the narrative of where he was supposedly standing his ground at?

He lied and Sanford LE either believed him or abetted the lie?

See the attachment below.

-The yellow line is 70 yards or 210 feet from TM's residence per O'Mara's statement at the Bond Hearing.

-The red line is 170 feet from that point to "where the sidewalks meet" as stated by Robert Sr. and shown by Francis T.

Excellent post and diagram as always, CP, thanks for making it clear to me and others!

All IMO

 

[Reader]

Unstable ground: The fine line between self-defense and murder

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/29/us/stand-your-ground/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

Another heartbreaking case where the SYG law is being used to avoid a murder charge....IMO

........The next morning brought two police detectives bearing news that Daniel Jr., who was 29 but had the mental capacity of a 13-year-old, had been shot and killed. The shooter said he acted in self-defense. He has not been charged.........

In Arizona, where the Adkins family lives, a similar law was enacted in 2006, tacked on to another gun bill after a gun rights lobbyist promoted it for 20 seconds in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Called "Make my Day," it says people have no duty to retreat before using deadly force to protect themselves anywhere they have the legal right to be.............

When Adkins lifted his hands in the air again, the driver drew his Smith and Wesson .40-caliber handgun from his sweatpants. He pointed the barrel at Adkins from inside his car and racked the slide of the gun, putting a bullet in the chamber. Then he pulled the trigger.

Struck in the chest, Adkins fell to the ground, face first, clutching Lady's leash. The lab stayed at her master's side, even as the life drained out of him.


More at link....