In the state of Florida, under Florida statute 775.082, you are subject to up to a year in jail and a $5000 fine if you kill a dog.
828.12. Cruelty to animals (1) A person who unnecessarily overloads, overdrives, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance or shelter, or unnecessarily mutilates, or kills any animal, or causes the same to be done, or carries in or upon any vehicle, or otherwise, any animal in a cruel or inhumane manner, is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or both.
775.082. Penalties (a) For a misdemeanor of the first degree, by a definite term of imprisonment not exceeding 1 year.
BUT, in the same state, it appears that if you kill an unarmed child, you can go home with your gun, no problem. http://www.self-defender.net/law2.htm
"It used to be that the burden was on the person who shot to prove they were in danger and needed to use deadly force. The Florida law shifts the burden: it's the prosecutors' burden to prove a negative."
Under the law in Florida and other states, it appears to make little difference that someone in Trayvon's situation was unarmed."
It appears George Zimmerman's actions in following Trayvon Martin were exceptionally aggressive. The 911 operator told Zimmerman he did not need to follow Trayvon Martin but Zimmerman did so. Zimmerman does not seem to have been threatened until he confronted the teenager. Zimmerman is calm and matter-of-fact on the 911 tape. It appears to me he went way beyond any need to defend any life. From the news reports, he appears to have chased Trayvon Martin. This death was needless. The lack of an immediate investigation is a serious failure of the police department. It looks to me like Zimmerman should be charged with a crime, possibly up to murder.
I drove my parents to the airport this morning for a flight to Orlando. They're meeting with representatives from civil rights organizations from across the country who are there to rally in support the kid's family. I would've gladly gone with them but my schedule just won't permit it at such short notice.
But I'll certainly be there in spirit.
There's just SO MUCH wrong about this entire incident....horribly wrong.
I drove my parents to the airport this morning for a flight to Orlando. They're meeting with representatives from civil rights organizations from across the country who are there to rally in support the kid's family. I would've gladly gone with them but my schedule just won't permit it at such short notice.
But I'll certainly be there in spirit.
There's just SO MUCH wrong about this entire incident....horribly wrong.
Is the consensus that this was handled so poorly because the child was black? I mean obviously there was a crime committed and it wasn't handled correctly. Is it believed that it has something to do with skin color?
Doni, do your parents live in Florida? Are they more up in arms because the child was black? I guess I am having a hard time understanding, I noticed you said something about how this wouldn't be adequately discussed on this forum in another thread. Is this considered a racially charged issue? I mean I personally don't care that the child was black or white or whatever. Am I naive in believing that their is a travesty here and it has nothing to do with race?
Doni, do your parents live in Florida? Are they more up in arms because the child was black? I guess I am having a hard time understanding, I noticed you said something about how this wouldn't be adequately discussed on this forum in another thread. Is this considered a racially charged issue? I mean I personally don't care that the child was black or white or whatever. Am I naive in believing that their is a travesty here and it has nothing to do with race?
No, my parents live in Chicago. I wonder why you ask....does that truly matter? My mother was one of the charter members of Operation Breadbasket in the 60's (now Rainbow Coalition) and has been actively involved in national civil rights issues since the 50's. In light of that, it was requested that she attend the meeting and she agreed to do so. This particular incident happened to a Black kid and, yes, many within the Black community are outraged by the incident, its aftermath and subsequent events. But it could happen to ANYONE'S kid irrespective of ethnicity under the law as it is currently formulated....and that's the larger problem. That's my parent's POV....and mine as well.
From my personal perspective, there are two paramount issues at play here:
(1) If one examines the facts that have been released thus far, there should be little doubt that the incident was racially motivated to a certain degree, as Zimmerman's comments prior to the incident (and his history as a "community watcher") will bear witness to. To disregard that race could play a role in the incident simply because Zimmerman is of Hispanic background (as if racial prejudice can't exist in any other form beyond "Black/White" issues) is, respectfully using your own terminology, naive.
(2) The "Self Defense" law as presently written is so over-reaching, it allows anyone to summarily kill another person, unarmed or not if they can convince law enforcement officials that they felt they were "in danger." In this specific instance, Zimmerman himself pursued Trayvon Martin, not the other way around. Zimmerman was obviously in no immediate danger and was even told by the police dispatcher in no uncertain terms not to pursue. In the guidelines related to the formation of Neighborhood Watch Citizen Patrols, the National Crime Prevention Council clearly states participants "have no policing powers, carry no weapons, are nonconfrontational, and always coordinate activities with law enforcement." Further, the guidelines state specifically that a Community Watch participant "Never carries weapons of any kind — e.g. guns, black jack, mace, baseball bat, or knives." All of these were disregarded by Zimmerman in this instance, yet he shot an unarmed teenager under the banner of being a "Community Watcher", a kid who was doing nothing more than walking home and was allowed to go free by law enforcement officers who took his version of events at face value without hesitation or (again IMO) adequate investigatory efforts.
As far as it being discussed here is concerned, IMO and mine only, this incident touches all the "hot button" issues that so many here like to rail about and/or frequently against: race relations in America, gun control laws and the 2nd Amendment, the NRA and the political power of the gun lobby, self-defense and/or "castle doctrine" laws, AG Holder and the US Justice Department, ethnic stereotyping and profiling, community-based activism, hate crime legislation and on and on....the list is lengthy to say the least but likely missing something I've overlooked.
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 03-21-2012).]
Doni- Thank you for being someone I consider a friend. If it is okay with you, can I share your posted message with my school kids. We have discussed this incident several times and I think they would be enlightened by your perspective. Thanks- Greg
Doni- Thank you for being someone I consider a friend. If it is okay with you, can I share your posted message with my school kids. We have discussed this incident several times and I think they would be enlightened by your perspective. Thanks- Greg
If they'd just outlaw all firearms this type thing would never happen. [dripping with sarcasm/]
Castle Doctrine shouldn't come into play, as they don't apply (judging from the articles I have read thus far)
Sarcasm acknowledged, Don. To avoid any confusion, I should probably state that although I don't doubt that some people will go there, that's not my position by any stretch of the imagination.
No, the "castle doctrine" laws don't apply in this instance, I agree. I never said they did myself. It was simply an example of what I view as an example of a self-defense related "hot button" issue.
The only thing that law says is that you are not required to retreat (run) before you defend yourself. It is the same as 30 other states.
I wonder what is wrong with the other 20 states that require you to try to run away before you can defend yourself.
That's certainly one way of interpreting it. From a humanistic level, another could be to try to do everything one can to avoid killing someone before you pull your weapon and do so. Even law endorsement officials tend to follow that guideline. Why shouldn't the citizenry?
My broader response to that is this....Does it make one less of a "man" to try to avoid a potentially deadly confrontation first before subjectively engaging in one?
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 03-21-2012).]
This is absolutely a race issue, IMO. He apparently has only been suspicious of Black people and this has been going on. I also think it's an example of how easy it is to get a concealed permit. Is that wrong? I don't know... But most gun owners I know fully understand what they should do in pretty much every situation. It seems this guy didn't.
I am guessing he thought the kid's cell phone was a gun and shot. However, we shouldn't be able to go shoot everyone we see with a cell phone, claim self defense, then walk away. There is something wrong with him getting away.
This is absolutely a race issue, IMO. He apparently has only been suspicious of Black people and this has been going on. I also think it's an example of how easy it is to get a concealed permit. Is that wrong? I don't know... But most gun owners I know fully understand what they should do in pretty much every situation. It seems this guy didn't.
I am guessing he thought the kid's cell phone was a gun and shot. However, we shouldn't be able to go shoot everyone we see with a cell phone, claim self defense, then walk away. There is something wrong with him getting away.
By all reports, Martin was actually talking on the cell phone at the time the incident began.
Maybe Zimmerman thought the kid was about to commit suicide. (Like Maryjane, absolutely dripping with sarcasm.....no disrespect intended.)
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 03-21-2012).]
By all reports, Martin was actually talking on the cell phone at the time the incident began.
Maybe Zimmerman thought the kid was about to commit suicide. (Like Maryjane, absolutely dripping with sarcasm.....no disrespect intended.)
I understand that. But imagine taking the cell phone from your face down. You reach a point where you're "pointing" it forward like a gun.
I'm hypothesizing and giving the guy the benefit of the doubt that he didn't wake up that morning thinking he would murder someone, but I definitely think he did end up murdering someone. Of course, that isn't up to me, but based on the reports, that is my opinion.
That's certainly one way of interpreting it. From a humanistic level, another could be to try to do everything one can to avoid killing someone before you pull your weapon and do so. Even law endorsement officials tend to follow that guideline. Why shouldn't the citizenry?
My broader response to that is this....Does it make one less of a "man" to try to avoid a potentially deadly confrontation first before subjectively engaging in one?
In an ideal world, we would not have to defend ourselves at all. In the real world, turning your back to your attacker and trying to run will make you even more vulnerable to anything they want to do to you. How do you know you can outrun them? What if you can't outrun them such as someone in a wheel chair,elderly, or a woman wearing heels, etc.
There is good reason for removing the requirement to try to run and that is why most of the states don't have it.
Zimmerman was definitely an aggresor. He also has a history of similar 911 calls and following black youths in this neighborhood. His 911 calls sound like he is setting himself up to "defend" himself. I think he was just on the hunt and looking for an excuse to kill. There certainly was no need for him to be armed while patrolling the neighborhood. That by itself is dangerous to the people that live there. Firing rounds off in a neighborhood like that will almost certainly guarantee someone could get hit. The police definitely dropped the ball on this one and there will be repercussions. The law here is not to "shoot first", it is you have the right to defend yourself and you don't have to flee, if you feel you are in danger, and you can protect yourself. It doesn't say you have the right to pursue a suspisious person to corner and kill them. If Trayvon had been old enough to have a concealed weapon this story would have had a different ending as Zimmerman was the aggresor. Trayvon's girlfriend was on the phone while this was happening and she has said that Trayvon told her he was being followed by this man. She even told him that he should run away and he told her he would just walk more quickly. The law does not defend Zimmerman's actions and the 911 operator even told him to not continue following the "suspicious person" he was following. Zimmerman was not defending himself or his property. He was trying to catch some kid he thought was tresspasing in the neighborhood. It doesn't sound like he even questioned the kid about what he was doing in the neighborhood. It sounds to me like he cornered him with his gun out and shot him to silence him. The kid's calls for help can be heard on some of the 911 calls. They end when Zimmerman shoots him dead. Normally the shooter's gun would have been confiscated while the incident is investigated. This has not happened because it is a grey area in the law here. If he had been arrested they would have done that. This is what the people here are demanding now. Zimmerman will not get off scott free either. I bet the family sues him for wrongful death and civil rights violations. The bottom line is that the laws here are not wrong as they are, but they might require a little better definiton due to this incident. Before the stand your ground laws were in effect, one was required to escape from their home, if they were able to, when someone forced their way into it. If someone tries that now, we have the right to defend ourselves with deadly force, if we deem it neccesary. The police are always minutes away when seconds count and we have the right to defend ourselves, family, and property with the stand your ground and castle laws. They aren't a license to chase and kill. I know one thing for sure, and it hasn't been reported, but I bet Zimmerman no longer is allowed to patrol that neighborhood.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 03-21-2012).]
By all reports, Martin was actually talking on the cell phone at the time the incident began.
Maybe Zimmerman thought the kid was about to commit suicide. (Like Maryjane, absolutely dripping with sarcasm.....no disrespect intended.)
That actually supports Zimmerman's self defense claim. Martin's GF heard the physical scuffle on the phone before Martin hung up but she did not hear the shot. That means the shot happened after the physical scuffle.
Even so, Zimmerman acted in a very unwise way and a 17 year old was killed because of it. I would guess he gets manslaughter at best.
I'm in the middle of applying for a Florida ccw. I hope this doesn't hurt my chances. They will probably be taking a longer look at the ccw permits. I should be OK since I am a veteran with no criminal record. Just making a judgement from all I've heard, it sounds like a racially motivated murder to me. That plus a guy who is way too full of himself. Possibly a bully.
Zimmerman was definitely an aggresor. He also has a history of similar 911 calls and following black youths in this neighborhood. His 911 calls sound like he is setting himself up to "defend" himself. I think he was just on the hunt and looking for an excuse to kill. There certainly was no need for him to be armed while patrolling the neighborhood. That by itself is dangerous to the people that live there. Firing rounds off in a neighborhood like that will almost certainly guarantee someone could get hit. The police definitely dropped the ball on this one and there will be repercussions. The law here is not to "shoot first", it is you have the right to defend yourself and you don't have to flee, if you feel you are in danger, and you can protect yourself. It doesn't say you have the right to pursue a suspisious person to corner and kill them. If Trayvon had been old enough to have a concealed weapon this story would have had a different ending as Zimmerman was the aggresor. Trayvon's girlfriend was on the phone while this was happening and she has said that Trayvon told her he was being followed by this man. She even told him that he should run away and he told her he would just walk more quickly. The law does not defend Zimmerman's actions and the 911 operator even told him to not continue following the "suspicious person" he was following. Zimmerman was not defending himself or his property. He was trying to catch some kid he thought was tresspasing in the neighborhood. It doesn't sound like he even questioned the kid about what he was doing in the neighborhood. It sounds to me like he cornered him with his gun out and shot him to silence him. The kid's calls for help can be heard on some of the 911 calls. They end when Zimmerman shoots him dead. Normally the shooter's gun would have been confiscated while the incident is investigated. This has not happened because it is a grey area in the law here. If he had been arrested they would have done that. This is what the people here are demanding now. Zimmerman will not get off scott free either. I bet the family sues him for wrongful death and civil rights violations. The bottom line is that the laws here are not wrong as they are, but they might require a little better definiton due to this incident. Before the stand your ground laws were in effect, one was required to escape from their home, if they were able to, when someone forced their way into it. If someone tries that now, we have the right to defend ourselves with deadly force, if we deem it neccesary. The police are always minutes away when seconds count and we have the right to defend ourselves, family, and property with the stand your ground and castle laws. They aren't a license to chase and kill. I know one thing for sure, and it hasn't been reported, but I bet Zimmerman no longer is allowed to patrol that neighborhood.
I agree with all of this statement. See what happens when you actually post an opinion? :P
I understand that. But imagine taking the cell phone from your face down. You reach a point where you're "pointing" it forward like a gun.
I'm hypothesizing and giving the guy the benefit of the doubt that he didn't wake up that morning thinking he would murder someone, but I definitely think he did end up murdering someone. Of course, that isn't up to me, but based on the reports, that is my opinion.
Your comment reminded me of this film we're watching in a class right now. Its all about creating conversation that gets people thinking, which is helpful for me since I haven't heard much about this situation.
Zimmerman was definitely an aggresor. He also has a history of similar 911 calls and following black youths in this neighborhood. His 911 calls sound like he is setting himself up to "defend" himself. I think he was just on the hunt and looking for an excuse to kill. There certainly was no need for him to be armed while patrolling the neighborhood. That by itself is dangerous to the people that live there. Firing rounds off in a neighborhood like that will almost certainly guarantee someone could get hit. The police definitely dropped the ball on this one and there will be repercussions. The law here is not to "shoot first", it is you have the right to defend yourself and you don't have to flee, if you feel you are in danger, and you can protect yourself. It doesn't say you have the right to pursue a suspisious person to corner and kill them. If Trayvon had been old enough to have a concealed weapon this story would have had a different ending as Zimmerman was the aggresor. Trayvon's girlfriend was on the phone while this was happening and she has said that Trayvon told her he was being followed by this man. She even told him that he should run away and he told her he would just walk more quickly. The law does not defend Zimmerman's actions and the 911 operator even told him to not continue following the "suspicious person" he was following. Zimmerman was not defending himself or his property. He was trying to catch some kid he thought was tresspasing in the neighborhood. It doesn't sound like he even questioned the kid about what he was doing in the neighborhood. It sounds to me like he cornered him with his gun out and shot him to silence him. The kid's calls for help can be heard on some of the 911 calls. They end when Zimmerman shoots him dead. Normally the shooter's gun would have been confiscated while the incident is investigated. This has not happened because it is a grey area in the law here. If he had been arrested they would have done that. This is what the people here are demanding now. Zimmerman will not get off scott free either. I bet the family sues him for wrongful death and civil rights violations. The bottom line is that the laws here are not wrong as they are, but they might require a little better definiton due to this incident. Before the stand your ground laws were in effect, one was required to escape from their home, if they were able to, when someone forced their way into it. If someone tries that now, we have the right to defend ourselves with deadly force, if we deem it neccesary. The police are always minutes away when seconds count and we have the right to defend ourselves, family, and property with the stand your ground and castle laws. They aren't a license to chase and kill. I know one thing for sure, and it hasn't been reported, but I bet Zimmerman no longer is allowed to patrol that neighborhood.
Honestly, I was rather hoping you particularly would respond to this on a personal level, in light of the fact that you actually reside in the area and are probably getting a lot more local feedback and insight than the rest of the country.
Your comment reminded me of this film we're watching in a class right now. Its all about creating conversation that gets people thinking, which is helpful for me since I haven't heard much about this situation.
Nope! I will pick it up next week on spring break and check it out. It sounds spectacular.
Originally posted by Doug85GT: In an ideal world, we would not have to defend ourselves at all. In the real world, turning your back to your attacker and trying to run will make you even more vulnerable to anything they want to do to you. How do you know you can outrun them? What if you can't outrun them such as someone in a wheel chair,elderly, or a woman wearing heels, etc.
There is good reason for removing the requirement to try to run and that is why most of the states don't have it.
Personally, I think a more logical and much less aggressive way of looking at it would be to, at the very least, realistically attempt to defuse a situation before killing someone over it. In some instances admittedly, such an action wouldn't be reasonably feasible. BUT it most certainly would be in others.
I guess that's a matter of one's definition of "in eminent danger" at the time. Simply being present doesn't equate to placing someone else in "eminent danger."
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 03-21-2012).]
Speaking of the "stand your ground" law, Martin's GF told him to run and he told her he was not going to run. He was also standing his ground. In other words, when Zimmerman confronted him, he was ready.
Who initiated the scuffle, we don't know.
It is sad that I have to go to a foriegn paper to get facts on this case. All of the US papers are giving nothing but legal opinions, speculation and worthless feelings on the case:
Originally posted by Doni Hagan:"It used to be that the burden was on the person who shot to prove they were in danger and needed to use deadly force. The Florida law shifts the burden: it's the prosecutors' burden to prove a negative."
In other words, the prosecution has to prove the defendant is guilty of the law. The defendant doesn't have to prove his innocence. Isn't that the way it's supposed to work?
Speaking of the "stand your ground" law, Martin's GF told him to run and he told her he was not going to run. He was also standing his ground. In other words, when Zimmerman confronted him, he was ready.
Who initiated the scuffle, we don't know.
It is sad that I have to go to a foriegn paper to get facts on this case. All of the US papers are giving nothing but legal opinions, speculation and worthless feelings on the case:
Another fact that backs up Zimmerman's self defense claim:
Police say Zimmerman was bleeding from his nose and the back of his head, and told police he had yelled out for help before he shot Martin.
How do you bleed from the back of your head unless your head was bashed against something like the ground?
Come on....Let's be clear.
Zimmerman was IN HIS CAR at the beginning of all this. He had no authority under ANY stretch of the imagination or the laws as they presently exist (and was even told by LEO not to engage) to get out of his nice, safe vehicle with a handgun and give chase. He was following the kid through the neighborhood while he was talking to police about it....from inside his vehicle and after he exited it.
At what point was he in danger of attack?
When he confronted Martin without telling him why or even who he was armed with a handgun and the kid ran from him? What child wouldn't?? If he subsequently got into a struggle with Martin AFTER he finally caught up with him, WHO of the two could've been considered defending themselves? The unidentified man with the weapon or the kid trying to escape from him?
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 03-21-2012).]
Personally, I think a more logical and much less aggressive way of looking at it would be to, at the very least, realistically attempt to defuse a situation before killing someone over it. In some instances admittedly, such an action wouldn't be reasonably feasible. BUT it most certainly would be in others.
I guess that's a matter of one's definition of "in eminent danger" at the time. Simply being present doesn't equate to placing someone else in "eminent danger."
Well of COURSE it would be more logical and less aggressive.
Isn't that SO EASY to sit back in our chairs from the safety of our homes, and with plenty of time to scrutinize and examine the situation, and say what would have been absolutely best?
What does that have to do with the reality of a perceived life and death situation? TRAINED people don't exhibit the level of analytical thought you are suggesting, when they are in a situation they consider life threatening. Meaning policemen and soldiers, for example.
THAT is the purpose of the law. If you are in a situation where you are threatened, you are NOT HELD to this second guessing, Monday morning quarterback, hyper-analysis. You felt threatened, you acted. WE have the burden of proof in a situation like this, not you, to PROVE you shouldn't have done it. That doesn't really have hardly ANYthing to do with THIS case. The guy WASN'T threatened. He STALKED the guy. He had NO reason to even BE in a confrontation. It was only when HE initiated the confrontation that he was "threatened". No. He HAD plenty of non-threatened time to AVOID the situation.
The police and courts in Florida should make it clear via this case, that this law doesn't cover YOU initiating the situations, and then claiming you felt threatened. Bad person, and bad police decision.
Zimmerman was IN HIS CAR at the beginning of all this. He had no authority under ANY stretch of the imagination or the laws as they presently exist (and was even told by LEO not to engage) to get out of his nice, safe vehicle with a handgun and give chase. He was following the kid through the neighborhood while he was talking to police about it....from inside his vehicle and after he exited it.
At what point was he in danger of attack?
When he confronted Martin without telling him why or even who he was armed with a handgun and the kid ran from him? Who wouldn't?? If he subsequently got into a struggle with Martin AFTER he finally caught up with him, WHO of the two could've been considered defending themselves? The unidentified man with the weapon or the kid trying to escape from him?
There is no law that says that Zimmerman had to stay in his car. It may have been unwise but it was not illegal. It also is not illegal for him to ask anyone, "what are you doing here?"
Martin did not run. He was still on the phone with his GF when the scuffle happened. He was confronting Zimmerman.
From the new article that I cited earlier:
quote
"She says, 'Run', he says, 'I'm not going to run, I'm just going to walk fast.' She hears Trayvon say, 'Why are you following me?' Other voice says, 'What are you doing around here?"'
She told Crump they both repeated themselves and then she thinks she heard Zimmerman push Martin "because his voice changes like something interrupted his speech." She heard an altercation and then the phone call was cut off. She didn't hear the gunfire.
Watchmen are not allowed to carry guns while on duty. Even if they have CCW. Which the killer found easy to get in gun happy Florida.
1) The killer was carrying a weapon, which he was not permitted to do. Even with a CCW. 2) He killed an unarmed, clean cut boy without provocation.
If a black man had shot a white boy under the same circumstances, would he still be walking around free 24 days after the killing?I seriously doubt it. And the usual suspects still say there is no racism involved. Sorry, there WAS racism involved.(Almost) any one can see it.
In other words, the prosecution has to prove the defendant is guilty of the law. The defendant doesn't have to prove his innocence. Isn't that the way it's supposed to work?
I would invite you to read closely the very quote you lifted.
"It used to be that the burden was on the person who shot to prove they were in danger and needed to use deadly force."
That was copied from one of the links I posted....and I would think the statement is rather unambiguous. As presently written, the law is IMO infected with one major loophole. It essentially makes killing someone a matter of subjectivity, not pre-existing law or actuality.
Example....you and I get into a heated discussion and tempers flare, voices get raised. You shout at me, I feel as if I'm in "eminent danger," reach for a weapon and blow you away. Should my defense in a court of law be simply that I felt threatened by you or should the overall circumstances under which the shooting occurred be taken into consideration? In my reading and interpretation of the law as written, it doesn't define what circumstances related to degrees have to be present in order for it to apply.
Can the threat be verbal, visual or tangible?
Does one have to be armed at the time or simply considered "a threat" by the person who shoots?
As written, the person that locks his/her car doors when they see me standing at the stop light has legal cause to fire a weapon at me rather than lock said doors simply because they determined I caused a threat to their safety at the time. That's subjective enough to be easily interpreted as free license to "shoot first" under the most innocent of circumstances. An extreme example, admittedly. However, not beyond comprehension based upon the wording of the law at present.
Here is the EXACT wording of the Florida law....CHAPTER 776...JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of 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 such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if 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. History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102.
Jeez...That's so vague as to make it perfectly legal to kill someone simply based upon impressions, not facts. How can the state seek to base a law of this magnitude solely upon what someone "believes?" I would suggest that the word "reasonably" should come into play should such a case reach a court of law.....but to a certain degree, that also is highly subjective.
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 03-21-2012).]
The key section of the law states: 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."
The key words are: if he or she reasonably believes it is neccesary to do so. I don't think this kid posed any physical danger to Zimmerman or was committing a forcible felony by any stretch of the mind. The article I linked to has a theory of accidental discharge. The question in my mind is when did Zimmerman pull his gun out? I bet it was right before the kid started screaming for someone to help him as he knew this guy was going to shoot him.
From the article I link to: “There’s a misunderstanding about what Stand Your Ground laws really do. No Stand Your Ground law translates to a broad permission for the use of lethal force when it’s not warranted.”
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 03-21-2012).]
There is no law that says that Zimmerman had to stay in his car. It may have been unwise but it was not illegal. It also is not illegal for him to ask anyone, "what are you doing here?"
Should I assume that, from your perspective, that somehow affords Zimmerman sufficient justification for his actions? That there is "no law" that prohibited him from engaging Martin? Under the banner of a Citzens Patrol, he shouldn't have been carrying a weapon in the first place! A CCW permit does not (most certainly SHOULD not) give one license to actively seek out confrontational situations for the purposes of resolving them with a weapon. Also, he was clearly the first of the two to assume the more aggressive stance by confronting Martin for no obvious reason other than his simply being in the neighborhood.
Like it or not, there ARE laws covering THAT.
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 03-21-2012).]
I would invite you to read closely the very quote you lifted.
"It used to be that the burden was on the person who shot to prove they were in danger and needed to use deadly force."
That was copied from one of the links I posted....and I would think the statement is rather unambiguous. As presently written, the law is IMO infected with one major loophole. It essentially makes killing someone a matter of subjectivity, not pre-existing law or actuality.
Example....you and I get into a heated discussion and tempers flare, voices get raised. You shout at me, I feel as if I'm in "eminent danger," reach for a weapon and blow you away. Should my defense in a court of law be simply that I felt threatened by you or should the overall circumstances under which the shooting occurred be taken into consideration? In my reading and interpretation of the law as written, it doesn't define what circumstances related to degrees have to be present in order for it to apply.
Can the threat be verbal, visual or tangible?
Does one have to be armed at the time or simply considered "a threat" by the person who shoots?
As written, the person that locks his/her car doors when they see me standing at the stop light has legal cause to fire a weapon at me rather than lock said doors simply because they determined I caused a threat to their safety at the time. That's subjective enough to be easily interpreted as free license to "shoot first" under the most innocent of circumstances. An extreme example, admittedly. However, not beyond comprehension based upon the wording of the law at present.
Here is the EXACT wording of the Florida law....CHAPTER 776...JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of 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 such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if 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. History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102.
Jeez...That's so vague as to make it perfectly legal to kill someone simply based upon impressions, not facts. How can the state seek to base a law of this magnitude solely upon what someone "believes?" I would suggest that the word "reasonably" should come into play should such a case reach a court of law.....but to a certain degree, that also is highly subjective.
A self-defense defense has always been subjective, regardless whether the defendent has to prove he was in fear of his life, or the prosecution has to prove he wasn't. The point is "innocent until proven guilty." A defendant doesn't (or shouldn't) have to prove the didn't break the law. It's the prosecution's job to prove they did. In the case of the example of an argument between you and I, if your defense is you felt threatened, the prosecution has to prove no "reasonable person" would feel threatened in that situation. It would be up to them to prove you didn't feel threatened. That's where the jury of your peers comes in. Do they all think you were reasonable in your fear or not.
Laws based on how a reasonable person would react are not uncommon. You can only win a libel or slander suit if a reasonable person can be expected to believe the alleged slur. If I take out a full page ad in the paper calling you a space alien, you won't win a libel suit against me because no reasonble person would believe it. If I did the same and said you had committed some crime, such as selling drugs or molesting children, you could win because there's a good chance a reasonable person would believe it and that would damage your reputation.
My comment was about the law in general and not this specific case. In this case it does appear there was an injustice done. In other shootings, people have been convicted because they "went looking for trouble." In one case a man thought someone was coming to kill him, and as the guy walked up his sidewalk, he went outside with a gun, confronted him and killed him. He went to jail because the act of going outside meant he was looking for trouble. In this case, Zimmerman following Martin should have been looked at in the same manner.
If you instigate a fight and become in fear of your life, you can't legally use deadly force to defend yourself because you started the fight. I haven't researched this case, but based on what little I've read, it would appear Zimmerman "went looking for trouble" and is at fault because of that.
Originally posted by Doni Hagan: A CCW permit does not (most certainly SHOULD not) give one license to actively seek out confrontational situations for the purposes of resolving them with a weapon.
I can't speak for other states, but when I took my CCW class in NC, they spelled out very clearly that seeking a confrontation like that is illegal and NOT justification for use of deadly force.
That's certainly one way of interpreting it. From a humanistic level, another could be to try to do everything one can to avoid killing someone before you pull your weapon and do so. Even law endorsement officials tend to follow that guideline. Why shouldn't the citizenry?
My broader response to that is this....Does it make one less of a "man" to try to avoid a potentially deadly confrontation first before subjectively engaging in one?
That would be up to the individual to decide I suppose. Many people have done exactly that, (as have some entire civilizations and cultures as a whole) and many of those individuals are now under the ground, as are their families, with many previously long lived cultures/civilizations either none existant or virtually so. I suppose it could be said they are all still "men", albeit dead ones.
I've never been much on kissin ass, hidin under my bed, or running away from my domicile, and I don't suppose that will change at this late date. Better to be judged by 12, and my maker than be carried by 6, but that policy has little or nothing to do with the current subject Treyvon Martin's death, as the shooter was not in his home, on his own property nor in any danger--real or percieved.
Now I understand a little better why you added so many different dynamics to your previous post.
quote
this incident touches all the "hot button" issues that so many here like to rail about and/or frequently against: race relations in America, gun control laws and the 2nd Amendment, the NRA and the political power of the gun lobby, self-defense and/or "castle doctrine" laws, AG Holder and the US Justice Department, ethnic stereotyping and profiling, community-based activism, hate crime legislation and on and on...
A self-defense defense has always been subjective, regardless whether the defendent has to prove he was in fear of his life, or the prosecution has to prove he wasn't. The point is "innocent until proven guilty." A defendant doesn't (or shouldn't) have to prove the didn't break the law. It's the prosecution's job to prove they did. In the case of the example of an argument between you and I, if your defense is you felt threatened, the prosecution has to prove no "reasonable person" would feel threatened in that situation. It would be up to them to prove you didn't feel threatened. That's where the jury of your peers comes in. Do they all think you were reasonable in your fear or not.
Laws based on how a reasonable person would react are not uncommon. You can only win a libel or slander suit if a reasonable person can be expected to believe the alleged slur. If I take out a full page ad in the paper calling you a space alien, you won't win a libel suit against me because no reasonble person would believe it. If I did the same and said you had committed some crime, such as selling drugs or molesting children, you could win because there's a good chance a reasonable person would believe it and that would damage your reputation.
My comment was about the law in general and not this specific case. In this case it does appear there was an injustice done. In other shootings, people have been convicted because they "went looking for trouble." In one case a man thought someone was coming to kill him, and as the guy walked up his sidewalk, he went outside with a gun, confronted him and killed him. He went to jail because the act of going outside meant he was looking for trouble. In this case, Zimmerman following Martin should have been looked at in the same manner.
If you instigate a fight and become in fear of your life, you can't legally use deadly force to defend yourself because you started the fight. I haven't researched this case, but based on what little I've read, it would appear Zimmerman "went looking for trouble" and is at fault because of that.
Ya may as well throw out the entire "Probable Cause" statutes as well (along with the bath water), as they depend entirely upon subjective judgement at any given time--as do any and all jury decisions and judicial rulings. "Bye bye US Supreme Court too--you are relying on opinion and interpretation instead of "facts"."
A self-defense defense has always been subjective, regardless whether the defendent has to prove he was in fear of his life, or the prosecution has to prove he wasn't. The point is "innocent until proven guilty." A defendant doesn't (or shouldn't) have to prove the didn't break the law. It's the prosecution's job to prove they did. In the case of the example of an argument between you and I, if your defense is you felt threatened, the prosecution has to prove no "reasonable person" would feel threatened in that situation. It would be up to them to prove you didn't feel threatened. That's where the jury of your peers comes in. Do they all think you were reasonable in your fear or not.
How would someone outside of my subconscious mind prove without a shadow of a doubt that I and I alone felt threatened? A psychological examination? Reading my personal diary? A Vulcan mindmeld??? That's the very loophole I referred to. Rather than word the law in a manner that leaves no room for ambiguity (for the sake and safety of the community overall), it simply passes the ball to the courts. It's almost as if the state was abdicating responsibility for creating the law by making it as vague as possible.
I'm not making light of this nor am I dismissing your opinion out of hand but I don't see how anyone could accomplish such a thing as to non-subjectively determine what was going on in someone else's mind at the time of any given event. That's my point in a nutshell. If laws are to carry any weight at all, they should reflect the" collective thoughts/morals/limitations/call them what you will" rather than any one individual's interpretation of the laws themselves. That should most certainly be the case in instances where a human life is at stake.
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 03-21-2012).]
But, let me be perfectly clear on this. Based solely upon what I have thus read on any number of reputable reporting sites, heard on TV, and in newsprint, it's my unbinding and basically worthless opinion that Zimmerman is a cold blooded murderer, and the local police dropped the ball on it's initial investigation, tho I do believe there was initially insufficient evidence to arrest at the scene.
It essentially makes killing someone a matter of subjectivity, not pre-existing law or actuality. As written, the person that locks his/her car doors when they see me standing at the stop light has legal cause to fire a weapon at me rather than lock said doors simply because they determined I caused a threat to their safety at the time. That's subjective enough to be easily interpreted as free license to "shoot first" under the most innocent of circumstances. An extreme example, admittedly. However, not beyond comprehension based upon the wording of the law at present. Jeez...That's so vague as to make it perfectly legal to kill someone simply based upon impressions, not facts. How can the state seek to base a law of this magnitude solely upon what someone "believes?" I would suggest that the word "reasonably" should come into play should such a case reach a court of law.....but to a certain degree, that also is highly subjective.
Of COURSE it is subjective. There is no way to write a law that would objectively cover all scenarios.
So it gets down to REASONABLE.
The problem with "reasonable" is that when someone is sitting safely in a jury box, and has all the facts AFTER the event, that can be a significantly DIFFERENT definition of reasonable, then when someone is sitting in their car and you are standing at the stoplight looking all menacing in your hoodie.
So they wrote the law to account for that. They made the burden fall on the prosecution instead of the individual. KNOWING that people sitting in a jury box have a hard time telling what is reasonable when they weren't in the situation. And regarding hoodies, it isn't MY fault that WAY, WAY, WAY more violent crimes are committed by people wearing hoodies than people wearing collared shirt and tie.
It isn't an absolute, but as in MANY THINGS IN LIFE, you go by the odds. Especially when they are over-whelming.
(and there are MANY ways other than hoodies alone to assess threat likelihood. The poor guy that was killed probably exhibited other signs that he wasn't a threat. But even if he didn't, the guy that did it STALKED AND PROVOKED it. And that behavior is NOT emblematic of the typical person using characteristics to assess threat.)
