PDA

View Full Version : Florida's Stand Your Ground Law


Pages : [1] 2

Desdemona
05-01-2012, 12:33 PM
Posted on Tuesday, 05.01.12

Florida task force seeks major overhaul to Stand Your Ground law

By Toluse Olorunnipa
The Miami Herald

The statewide task force to review Florida’s Stand Your Ground law will begin its work Tuesday, but a state senator who formed his own task force is recommending the law be rewritten to make it more difficult for defendants to claim self-defense.

Sen. Chris Smith, D-Fort Lauderdale, said Monday the controversial law should be revised to allow law enforcement officers more leeway to investigate shootings of unarmed victims and make the self-defense protection less available to criminals looking for an out.

“We wanted to make sure that we put together an accurate report, to give the governor direction, to give the Legislature direction and to give the governor’s task force direction,” he said. “Every day this law is being used and misused in courtrooms throughout the state of Florida.”
<snip>

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/01/2777117/florida-task-force-seeks-major.html#storylink=cpy

ynotdivein
05-01-2012, 07:59 PM
All discussion of the SYG law in Florida belongs here.

PLEASE REMEMBER:

1. TOS and Rules of Etiquette
2. Using sweeping generalizations about any group of people who hold beliefs different from one's own beliefs is divisive and unproductive
3. Debate, even passionate debate between two people who hold opposing views, should be conducted in a reasoned and respectful manner

Usual TOS applies here: provide links to facts, and PLEASE clearly note when you are making a statement of opinion.

Whenever possible, please provide evidence to support your opinion. Any links posted must comply with WS TOS.

:tyou:

zenreaper
05-01-2012, 08:21 PM
I keep hearing this thing about "Stand Your Ground". Now I lived in Texas and currently live in Mississippi. Both have SYG or "Castle" laws, which give, in my understanding, more leeway as to when you can and can't use deadly force.

But if I understand the dynamics of this case, I am not sure if I agree that SYG even applies. SYG allows deadly force without a person seeing if they can make a valid retreat. In other words, you are in your bedroom and a person breaks through your front door. Instead of going out your window, SYG allows you to just kill them.

But according to everything I have seen, Trayvon was ON TOP of Zimmerman when he was shot. Well, if there is NO avenue of escape, SYG has nothing to do with it, you have a right to defend yourself when there is NO avenue of escape.

Harmony2
05-01-2012, 08:22 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57425600-503544/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-faces-task-force-scrutiny/

She emphasized that the task force's mandate was to evaluate Florida Statute Chapter 776 with regard to its application and interpretation.


Carroll said the task force's diversity of background provided an opportunity to "really pull the onion back and say we do need to look at this."

Desdemona
05-01-2012, 09:22 PM
May 1, 2012 6:03 PM

Florida's Stand Your Ground law faces task force scrutiny
By Lucy Madison

(CBS News) A little over two months after the death of Trayvon Martin, a Florida task force on Tuesday held its first meeting to examine the controversial "Stand Your Ground" law that has been at the center of the uproar surrounding the Florida teen's death.
<snip>
Florida is one of more than 20 states with a so-called Stand Your Ground law, which in that state allows a person to use deadly force against another 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 Florida law also grants immunity from those who use deadly force in response to what they believe is a threat to their life.
<snip>
The 19-person task force, led by Florida Lt. Gov. Jennifer Carroll, aims to examine Florida Statute 776, which legalizes the so-called Stand Your Ground law, as well as "other laws, rules, regulations or programs that relate to public safety and citizen protection."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57425600-503544/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-faces-task-force-scrutiny/

Desdemona
05-01-2012, 09:55 PM
With Stand Your Ground in spotlight, NRA launches campaign to defend it

by Tolu Olorunnipa at 2:28 PM on Tuesday, May. 1

On the same day that a 19-member task force met to begin discussions surrounding Florida's controversial Stand Your Ground law, the National Rifle Association released a statement in support of such self-defense laws.

"The National Rifle Association will work to protect self-defense laws on the books and advocate for their passage in those states that do not fully respect this fundamental right," the statement says.

The NRA helped get the law on the books in Florida, and then pushed for it in more than two dozen other states. Now a 19-member task force is taking a look at whether or not the law--which came into play in the Trayvon Martin case--should be changed or scaled back.

Read more here: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2012/05/with-stand-your-ground-in-spotlight-nra-launches-campaign-to-defend-it.html#storylink=cpy

Desdemona
05-01-2012, 09:58 PM
Fla. Stand Your Ground task force to examine public safety
By TaMaryn Waters, The Tallahassee Democrat
Updated 4h 6m ago

<snip>
Lt. Gov. Jennifer Carroll, who is chairwoman of the citizen safety task force, said the review of Florida's stand-your-ground law goes beyond the Martin case.

"This task force is not here to try the Zimmerman-Martin case," Carroll said. "This law has an impact on all Floridians."
<snip>
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-01/trayvon-martin-florida-zimmerman/54662130/1

Desdemona
05-01-2012, 10:08 PM
Lawyers: 'Stand your ground' law becoming more common defense

By John Woodrow Cox, Times Staff Writer
In Print: Tuesday, May 1, 2012

BROOKSVILLE — On a sticky summer night in 2010, William Siskos tucked a .22-caliber Ruger in his waistband and walked to a home on Ligonier Road in Spring Hill.

There, in the front yard, he met Joe Kasbach for the first time. In the nine months before that night, Siskos had been dating Kasbach's wife. An argument broke out almost immediately. Within minutes, authorities say, Siskos pulled his gun and fired a round into Kasbach's abdomen. The 46-year-old was pronounced dead at the hospital.

A witness, standing just feet away, told detectives Kasbach never threw a punch or pulled a weapon. Kasbach had spread his arms wide and taken just a half step toward Siskos before, the witness said, he was shot down in cold blood.

More at: http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/lawyers-stand-your-ground-law-becoming-more-common-defense/1227798

Desdemona
05-01-2012, 10:14 PM
Updated: 7:08 PM Mar 31, 2012
Judge Grants Woman Immunity Under 'Stand Your Ground'
Charges dismissed for Tallahassee woman accused of murder
UPDATE 3.30.2012 6:45pm by Julie Montanaro

A Tallahassee woman accused of murder has walked out of court a free woman.

A judge today ruled that Ernestine Broxsie was immune from prosecution under Florida's Stand Your Ground Law.

"I was scared he'd hurt me so bad," Broxsie testified.

<snip>

http://www.wctv.tv/courtcases/headlines/80750267.html

elementary
05-03-2012, 12:16 AM
I keep hearing this thing about "Stand Your Ground". Now I lived in Texas and currently live in Mississippi. Both have SYG or "Castle" laws, which give, in my understanding, more leeway as to when you can and can't use deadly force.

But if I understand the dynamics of this case, I am not sure if I agree that SYG even applies. SYG allows deadly force without a person seeing if they can make a valid retreat. In other words, you are in your bedroom and a person breaks through your front door. Instead of going out your window, SYG allows you to just kill them.

But according to everything I have seen, Trayvon was ON TOP of Zimmerman when he was shot. Well, if there is NO avenue of escape, SYG has nothing to do with it, you have a right to defend yourself when there is NO avenue of escape.

You make a salient point. Let's say Trayvon was on top. Was Trayvon going to kill George with his fists? I hear the story of head bashed against concrete to the point that any more would make George a vegetable. Indeed, that's the rationale for George using his gun, I realise. But George's injuries don't look that dire. So, I am going to dismiss that and wonder. George feared for his life because Trayvon was so strong and was going to kill him with his fists? Doesn't carry much weight, does it? George has to prove he was in fear for his life. Trayvon was unarmed, and I can't imagine his fists were a deadly weapon. George could have kept fighting back. He had an avenue of escape. Something doesn't compute, IMO.

ETA: Oops, I just read the post above this one. So the woman got off because she was "scared he would hurt me so bad". Not kill, not maim, just hurt badly. So killing someone is justified if there is the potential for bodily harm. Nevermind.

rotterdam
05-04-2012, 04:06 PM
I find this an interesting informative link since it lists all the states with SYG laws and their regional differences. I wish , it had identified how the immunity is applied though.
It has been insinuated that the Fl SYG statute is more liberal than in any other states. Some other States look identical to me as Florida, wonder if the difference is in the immunity provision which is not really addressed in the list.
But quite some restrict the locale where SYG can be invoked and is not "at large"

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/04/us/table.selfdefense.laws/

rotterdam
05-04-2012, 04:29 PM
You make a salient point. Let's say Trayvon was on top. Was Trayvon going to kill George with his fists? I hear the story of head bashed against concrete to the point that any more would make George a vegetable. Indeed, that's the rationale for George using his gun, I realise. But George's injuries don't look that dire. So, I am going to dismiss that and wonder. George feared for his life because Trayvon was so strong and was going to kill him with his fists? Doesn't carry much weight, does it? George has to prove he was in fear for his life. Trayvon was unarmed, and I can't imagine his fists were a deadly weapon. George could have kept fighting back. He had an avenue of escape. Something doesn't compute, IMO.

ETA: Oops, I just read the post above this one. So the woman got off because she was "scared he would hurt me so bad". Not kill, not maim, just hurt badly. So killing someone is justified if there is the potential for bodily harm. Nevermind.

The way I read the statute is that you can invoke the SYG and really do not need to have a scratch on you. Just reasonable fear (very subjective depending on the individual) will suffice. A Halloween prank can easily get you killed IMO. In other words a "Boo" can technically get you blasted to the other side depending on the threshold of reasonable fear by the recipient.
Also warning and/or non lethal shots can get you in jail, better shoot to kill. Dead men/women tell no tales.

LC446
05-04-2012, 04:47 PM
I haven't researched the SYG laws in every state and I live in Texas, which has a version of this law on the books as well. So I'm familiar with the Texas law and now the Florida statute.

If I understand the Florida statute correctly, it limits a police officer's ability to arrest someone who shoots and claims SYG. The officer(s) must be able to decide, basically on the spot, that the evidence does not support the claim. That is very difficult to do without an investigation. But if it's not abundantly clear then the officer cannot arrest because the statute provides immunity against not only civil liability but also arrest. IMO this severely limits a police officer's ability to do his job in these types of situations.

The Texas statute:

In 2007 Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 378 which extends a person’s right to stand their ground beyond the home to vehicles and workplaces, allowing the reasonable use of deadly force when an intruder is:

Committing certain violent crimes, such as murder or sexual assault, or is attempting to commit such crimes;
Unlawfully trying to enter a protected place; or
Unlawfully trying to remove a person from a protected place.[14]
Senate Bill 378, made effective September 1, 2007, also "abolishes the duty to retreat if the defendant can show he: (1) had a right to be present at the location where deadly force was used; (2) did not provoke the person against whom deadly force was used; and (3) was not engaged in criminal activity at the time deadly force was used."[35]

It would seem that the Florida statute is much broader and limits police authority. The Texas statute provides the bolded portion above, which IMHO would have applied in this case. Also in Texas, claiming self defense is an affirmative defense, to be presented at trial, it doesn't make you immune to arrest.

Reality Orlando
05-04-2012, 05:01 PM
Updated: 7:08 PM Mar 31, 2012
Judge Grants Woman Immunity Under 'Stand Your Ground'
Charges dismissed for Tallahassee woman accused of murder
UPDATE 3.30.2012 6:45pm by Julie Montanaro

A Tallahassee woman accused of murder has walked out of court a free woman.

A judge today ruled that Ernestine Broxsie was immune from prosecution under Florida's Stand Your Ground Law.

"I was scared he'd hurt me so bad," Broxsie testified.

<snip>

http://www.wctv.tv/courtcases/headlines/80750267.html

If the story in your post was true, then she had every right to pull the trigger. No one should be prosecuted for saving their own life. She's 65 and says he was choking her and they both went for the gun. So what if she pulled the trigger twice. The gun was a .22 that doesn't have much stopping action.

Reality Orlando
05-04-2012, 05:15 PM
You make a salient point. Let's say Trayvon was on top. Was Trayvon going to kill George with his fists? I hear the story of head bashed against concrete to the point that any more would make George a vegetable. Indeed, that's the rationale for George using his gun, I realise. But George's injuries don't look that dire. So, I am going to dismiss that and wonder. George feared for his life because Trayvon was so strong and was going to kill him with his fists? Doesn't carry much weight, does it? George has to prove he was in fear for his life. Trayvon was unarmed, and I can't imagine his fists were a deadly weapon. George could have kept fighting back. He had an avenue of escape. Something doesn't compute, IMO.

ETA: Oops, I just read the post above this one. So the woman got off because she was "scared he would hurt me so bad". Not kill, not maim, just hurt badly. So killing someone is justified if there is the potential for bodily harm. Nevermind.

From the FL statutes:

"presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm".—

rotterdam
05-04-2012, 05:47 PM
I haven't researched the SYG laws in every state and I live in Texas, which has a version of this law on the books as well. So I'm familiar with the Texas law and now the Florida statute.

If I understand the Florida statute correctly, it limits a police officer's ability to arrest someone who shoots and claims SYG. The officer(s) must be able to decide, basically on the spot, that the evidence does not support the claim. That is very difficult to do without an investigation. But if it's not abundantly clear then the officer cannot arrest because the statute provides immunity against not only civil liability but also arrest. IMO this severely limits a police officer's ability to do his job in these types of situations.

The Texas statute:

In 2007 Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 378 which extends a person’s right to stand their ground beyond the home to vehicles and workplaces, allowing the reasonable use of deadly force when an intruder is:

Committing certain violent crimes, such as murder or sexual assault, or is attempting to commit such crimes;
Unlawfully trying to enter a protected place; or
Unlawfully trying to remove a person from a protected place.[14]
Senate Bill 378, made effective September 1, 2007, also "abolishes the duty to retreat if the defendant can show he: (1) had a right to be present at the location where deadly force was used; (2) did not provoke the person against whom deadly force was used; and (3) was not engaged in criminal activity at the time deadly force was used."[35]

It would seem that the Florida statute is much broader and limits police authority. The Texas statute provides the bolded portion above, which IMHO would have applied in this case. Also in Texas, claiming self defense is an affirmative defense, to be presented at trial, it doesn't make you immune to arrest.

From the FLA SYG statute:
Snipped
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

Is that the same in Texas? With all the tight budgets many towns are experiencing, that provision would certainly be in the back of any (elected) D.A.'s mind when a perpetrator commits a homicide that might fall under SYG. It could become quite pricey if SYG is determined as a valid defense.
Kind of ties their hands behind their back because of the fairly easy burden to meet the liability issue and get bucks back from the State..

rotterdam
05-04-2012, 06:24 PM
Updated: 7:08 PM Mar 31, 2012
Judge Grants Woman Immunity Under 'Stand Your Ground'
Charges dismissed for Tallahassee woman accused of murder
UPDATE 3.30.2012 6:45pm by Julie Montanaro

A Tallahassee woman accused of murder has walked out of court a free woman.

A judge today ruled that Ernestine Broxsie was immune from prosecution under Florida's Stand Your Ground Law.

"I was scared he'd hurt me so bad," Broxsie testified.

<snip>

http://www.wctv.tv/courtcases/headlines/80750267.html

And all over a stupid leather jacket. How incredible sad.

rotterdam
05-04-2012, 06:46 PM
If the story in your post was true, then she had every right to pull the trigger. No one should be prosecuted for saving their own life. She's 65 and says he was choking her and they both went for the gun. So what if she pulled the trigger twice. The gun was a .22 that doesn't have much stopping action.

It is kind of bothersome though that he died on her back steps. Was he trying to get away? And how much time was between the two shots. You are right though, a .22 is not much of any stopping action unless you are a sharp shooter, even when two shots. However, depending on the bullet like if hollow point and/or dum dum bullet, it could still be very deadly.

RANCH
05-04-2012, 08:07 PM
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?
(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.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

Reality Orlando
05-04-2012, 08:20 PM
It is kind of bothersome though that he died on her back steps. Was he trying to get away? And how much time was between the two shots. You are right though, a .22 is not much of any stopping action unless you are a sharp shooter, even when two shots. However, depending on the bullet like if hollow point and/or dum dum bullet, it could still be very deadly.

Rotterdam, here's the scoop from the above link: http://www.wctv.tv/courtcases/headlines/80750267.html

March 30, 2012 by Julie Montanaro

64 year old Ernestine Broxsie is asking a judge to drop murder charges against her under Florida's Stand Your Ground law.

Broxsie was arrested at her Leon County home back in November 2008. She was charged with second degree murder in the death of her friend Elbert Johnson.

Johnson was found shot to death on the back steps.

Broxsie took the stand this morning and told the judge she had tried to help Johnson when he got out of jail. When she moved to Central Florida she allowed him to live in her mobile home rent free for a while.

Broxsie says Johnson called her abruptly in November and said he was moving.out. When she came to Tallahassee to retrieve the key, she asked Johnson about a missing leather jacket.

Broxsie says Johnson yelled real loud and it scared her. "It didn't seem right," she said. Broxsie claims Johnson pushed her to the floor and started yelling "I'm going to kill you."

Broxsie says Johnson reached for a gun on the kitchen counter and she did too. She says the two struggled over the gun. Broxsie says she didn't realize she had shot Johnson until she saw him at the bottom of the back steps.

She called 911 and was arrested."

We need to give the upper hand to the victim in all instances, IMO, and I think, when applied properly, SYG does just that. I'm really tired of the victims of crime also being victims of the court system. This woman tried to help someone when he got out of jail. She got attacked by the guy she tried to help and defended herself. I have not one reservation that she was in the right in this situation.

Even with a hollow point, the .22 is not considered a self defense weapon. It's scaled for small game or "varmints". I shoot and carry a .22 magnum. Even with .40 grain JHP (jacketed hollow point) ammo it would most definitely take more than one shot to bring down a decent sized guy.

LC446
05-04-2012, 08:38 PM
From the FLA SYG statute:
Snipped
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

Is that the same in Texas? With all the tight budgets many towns are experiencing, that provision would certainly be in the back of any (elected) D.A.'s mind when a perpetrator commits a homicide that might fall under SYG. It could become quite pricey if SYG is determined as a valid defense.
Kind of ties their hands behind their back because of the fairly easy burden to meet the liability issue and get bucks back from the State..

No, that provision is not in the Texas law. I agree that it would definitely be costly so I'm sure that is a deterrent.

jaded cat
05-04-2012, 09:15 PM
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/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html


BBM

I think that's where this trips me up in this case. Both of them had a right to be where they were. If you add in a couple of guys possibly bumping chests, one of them has a gun, this really can't end well.

I think part of the law leaves too wide a path to error. Good thing I'm not a legislator in Florida who'll have to deal with this in the future.

RANCH
05-04-2012, 09:37 PM
BBM

I think that's where this trips me up in this case. Both of them had a right to be where they were. If you add in a couple of guys possibly bumping chests, one of them has a gun, this really can't end well.

I think part of the law leaves too wide a path to error. Good thing I'm not a legislator in Florida who'll have to deal with this in the future.
I know what you mean. Obviously people want to be able to defend themselves were ever they happen be. But using deadly force changes things. Should it be ok to use lethal force when outside of your home?

jaded cat
05-04-2012, 10:59 PM
I know what you mean. Obviously people want to be able to defend themselves were ever they happen be. But using deadly force changes things. Should it be ok to use lethal force when outside of your home?

I don't think so. Defending your home or even your car? I'm good with that. If someone is trying to rob or hurt me, I'll do whatever I have to do.

I think it's the combination of the wording of the SYG law and the CCW law that gives me pause. Put them together, no accountability, it's a recipe for disaster like we're seeing with this case.

rotterdam
05-05-2012, 02:34 AM
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/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

I think the part that says no duty to retreat bothers me most. Obviously when in your own house, own car or even in your work place, the "no retreat" and deadly force does not bother me. But in public areas is another story. Do not want some nut case shooting in a busy shopping mall just because he gets in an argument with somebody and gets skeered.
I also think that somebody can fairly easy engineer a situation under the current SYG and gets away with premeditated murder.
I think most of us will retreat anyway when retreat is safely possible as opposed to killing a person regardless what the law says/allows. I know I would if I had the viable option.Retreating does not make you a coward, rather the opposite..

Reality Orlando
05-05-2012, 08:21 AM
I know what you mean. Obviously people want to be able to defend themselves were ever they happen be. But using deadly force changes things. Should it be ok to use lethal force when outside of your home?


If Jennifer Kesse, Michelle Parker and the many other missing women were armed, would they be here today? No one should have to be a victim of crime. When it comes down to the victim vs. the criminal, the victim should always be allowed the upper hand, IMO. If it stops just one rape or murder of an innocent person, then SYG, when properly assigned, should stand.

LiveLaughLuv
05-05-2012, 08:55 AM
Posted: 05/02/2012 3:20 pm

Why the NRA Wants the Trayvon Martin Case to Go Away
When the National Rifle Association's Wayne LaPierre finally spoke out about the Trayvon Martin shooting, it was to decry the media's coverage of the tragedy as "sensational reporting from Florida." It's understandable that the NRA would be uncomfortable with the intense media attention to this particular shooting tragedy.

For one thing, the shooting has thrown a spotlight on the real-world impact of the "Shoot First, Ask Questions Later" (aka "Stand Your Ground") laws the NRA has pushed in Florida and other states across the country that are allowing dangerous individuals to literally "get away with murder." But the NRA's discomfort has even deeper roots. In a real sense, Trayvon Martin's death at the hands of George Zimmerman exposes the mythology of the NRA's core narrative about guns and self-defense.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-a-henigan/why-the-nra-wants-the-tra_b_1471897.html

Just K
05-05-2012, 11:11 AM
SYG could conceivably become Florida's 3rd biggest draw for tourism.

1. Disney World & theme Parks
2. Beaches & Warm weather
3. SYG...The travel brochure could say "Want to kill someone and then say you were defending yourself...heck, come on down..."

My prediction:
The number of SYG Homicide cases will skyrocket if GZ goes free.

Concerned Papa
05-05-2012, 09:00 PM
From Representative Dennis Baxley, 24th district, Florida House of Representatives

Trayvon Martin's alleged attacker not covered under law I wrote

As the prime sponsor of this legislation in the Florida House, I'd like to clarify that this law does not seem to be applicable to the tragedy that happened in Sanford. There is nothing in the castle doctrine as found in Florida statutes that authenticates or provides for the opportunity to pursue and confront individuals, it simply protects those who would be potential victims by allowing for force to be used in self-defense.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/21/trayvon-martins-alleged-attacker-not-covered-under-law-wrote/#ixzz1u2wq9fQ2

rotterdam
05-06-2012, 01:13 AM
From Representative Dennis Baxley, 24th district, Florida House of Representatives

From same article:

Republican Dennis Baxley represents the 24th district in Florida's House of Representatives. He was the prime sponsor of the "Stand Your Ground" law in 2005. He is the principal owner and vice president of Hiers-Baxley Funeral Services.

Does that sound like a conflict of interest? :what:SYG could mean increase in business.:waitasec:

rotterdam
05-06-2012, 01:18 AM
SYG could conceivably become Florida's 3rd biggest draw for tourism.

1. Disney World & theme Parks
2. Beaches & Warm weather
3. SYG...The travel brochure could say "Want to kill someone and then say you were defending yourself...heck, come on down..."

My prediction:
The number of SYG Homicide cases will skyrocket if GZ goes free.

No 3 could translate into competition for Aruba.:floorlaugh:

Just K
05-06-2012, 02:36 AM
No 3 could translate into competition for Aruba.:floorlaugh:

I was thinking about that, too. A little less travel and no need for a passport and to deal with the Dutch detainment and all those crazy hearings...cost less, too.

Just K
05-06-2012, 02:42 AM
I was reading a post over at the Poll...Guilty/Not Guilty:
Aedys mentioned the word, "Retreat" and she put it in parenthesis. Then it hit me...
GZ chose to live in "Retreat View." How Ironic...a daily reminder to retreat as opposed to initiating contact with someone who he found suspicious.

Just another odd aspect to this sad situation.

AJ Noiter
05-06-2012, 02:59 AM
From Representative Dennis Baxley, 24th district, Florida House of Representatives

I thought it was the job of a judge to determine if words of a law, as written, fit for a specific scenario. This typically happens when they've heard the arguments for and against it also. For a representative, regardless of who they are affiliated with, to blindly state that it doesn't fit shows why we need better people in office all the way around. The writers of the law may have -meant- for it to be applied in situations X, Y and Z, but just because they didn't specifically think about situation Q does not mean it doesn't apply - they can't say, only a judge can. They should also realize that just because they wrote, sponsored, endorsed, pandered for, or lobbied for the law doesn't mean they get to dictate when it does or does not apply - especially when they've got a tv camera staring them in the face.

mikeysmommom
05-06-2012, 03:02 AM
If the story in your post was true, then she had every right to pull the trigger. No one should be prosecuted for saving their own life. She's 65 and says he was choking her and they both went for the gun. So what if she pulled the trigger twice. The gun was a .22 that doesn't have much stopping action.

If her story is true,but what if she had helped this man because she had an interest in him that was not returned.They both were close in age so that could be a real possibility.Did she have injuries?Was her neck bruised,finger marks?Was she taken to a hospital or just put in jail?She shot him twice! Once should have been enough to at least stop him so she could call 911.A .22 might not have much stopping power but 2 shots sure does the job.JMO But how does ANYONE even a judge know if a person is telling the truth.

ETA http://florida.arrests.org/Arrests/Ernestine_Broxsie_4030532/

She does not look bruised or even upset in her mugshot taken that day.Her bond was only 50,000.00 and she shot him twice!

dsntslp
05-06-2012, 03:46 AM
BBM

I think that's where this trips me up in this case. Both of them had a right to be where they were. If you add in a couple of guys possibly bumping chests, one of them has a gun, this really can't end well.

I think part of the law leaves too wide a path to error. Good thing I'm not a legislator in Florida who'll have to deal with this in the future.This is exactly what happened in Port Saint Lucie, FL on the basketball courts at Sportsmans Park a few months back. Still no charges levied, last I knew.
He said - he said situation even with all of the basketball courts loaded. I will say I don't envy LE or investigators trying to sort that one out. Tons of witnesses. There are a lot more articles, some more recent but the more recent ones address security in future rather than the shooting. Google "Sportsmans Park Shooting".
http://m.tcpalm.com/news/2012/mar/20/port-st-lucie-police-recover-gun-thought-to-park/


I'm glad this thread was created. Thank you Desdemona and Mods.
I tried discussing the Port Saint Lucie case in context, as another fresh FL SYG case, in Trayvons thread and somebody screamed that they wished people would quit posting about other cases. I didn't do that again! LOL!

I'm interested in reading all of your posts here as I am not sure what I think about it yet. I see where I have my right to carry, protect myself and my home. I have carried for most of my life and have only had to pull and aim my weapon once. I would never, ever want to shoot somebody. My word, how hard that would be to live with? Taking a life? Uhm, yeah, I would have to be in fear for my life and not just injury. I would still try to find a way to diffuse the situation. But then, I also see where the criminal minds immediately made the jump to "I was in fear" as a Defense. I knew it would not take long. As soon as the law changed I knew it would be improperly asserted as a Defense by criminals intent on murder.

Me, I still don't feel I should have a duty to retreat, and possibly be run down or shot in the back, like the law here was before.

I don't know what the answer is...maybe more discretion to LE at the scene?
(Can't believe I just typed that.)

Maybe by reading your posts here I can make up my mind and get off the fence.

Now, I will go catch up. I wanted to post my thoughts before I read so I would not be swayed yet, ha!

Concerned Papa
05-06-2012, 03:54 AM
I thought it was the job of a judge to determine if words of a law, as written, fit for a specific scenario. This typically happens when they've heard the arguments for and against it also. For a representative, regardless of who they are affiliated with, to blindly state that it doesn't fit shows why we need better people in office all the way around. The writers of the law may have -meant- for it to be applied in situations X, Y and Z, but just because they didn't specifically think about situation Q does not mean it doesn't apply - they can't say, only a judge can. They should also realize that just because they wrote, sponsored, endorsed, pandered for, or lobbied for the law doesn't mean they get to dictate when it does or does not apply - especially when they've got a tv camera staring them in the face.

The man has the same right of opinion as you or I. The article is an op/ed piece written on 3/21 and is clearly labeled as such under the "Opinion" tab of the site.

He tried to "dictate" NOTHING except the following which is ALSO in the article:

I would like to emphasize that the approach that is currently developing in this situation, to convene a grand jury, is the proper one in which to discern the facts of this case. I certainly agree with everyone that justice must be served.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/21/trayvon-martins-alleged-attacker-not-covered-under-law-wrote/#ixzz1u4b6XnJj

AJ Noiter
05-06-2012, 04:01 AM
The man has the same right of opinion as you or I. The article is an op/ed piece written on 3/21 and is clearly labeled as such under the "Opinion" tab of the site.

He tried to dictate NOTHING except the following which is ALSO in the article:

And the timing of his opinion plays no part in this? I find that hard to believe, given that the media was in a craze about the story at the time he gave the opinion. It's funny that when most politicians use the back door "I have no opinion" they're accused of just "playing politics," yet when they give their opinion at a crucial time it's not?

My point was made based on the number of people who mistakenly make the claim that his, and the law writers opinions, matter in determining whether or not a judge will find that this case does or does not fit the law's words. The fact is, his words are irrelevant to this case.

rotterdam
05-06-2012, 04:08 AM
I thought it was the job of a judge to determine if words of a law, as written, fit for a specific scenario. This typically happens when they've heard the arguments for and against it also. For a representative, regardless of who they are affiliated with, to blindly state that it doesn't fit shows why we need better people in office all the way around. The writers of the law may have -meant- for it to be applied in situations X, Y and Z, but just because they didn't specifically think about situation Q does not mean it doesn't apply - they can't say, only a judge can. They should also realize that just because they wrote, sponsored, endorsed, pandered for, or lobbied for the law doesn't mean they get to dictate when it does or does not apply - especially when they've got a tv camera staring them in the face.

Rep Baxley is kind of in CYA mode.The SYG law is badly written IMO and very vague. And it does leave it up to the Judges as how to interpret the SYG. Judges will also go by past case history when interpreting this law.
Judges generally do not like to make controversial decisions that might be overturned at a higher appeal and use the fail safe approach by referring to past similar cases.
And there have been cases already where the killer was acquitted even though he was pursuing the victim. Whatever the outcome of the GZ case, other judges will take their cue from it when a similar case will come up again. And you are correct, they could care less what Rep Baxley spouts.
He has a degree in Funeral Services not Law:floorlaugh:

AJ Noiter
05-06-2012, 04:23 AM
Rep Baxley is kind of in CYA mode.The SYG law is badly written IMO and very vague. And it does leave it up to the Judges as how to interpret the SYG. Judges will also go by past case history when interpreting this law.
Judges generally do not like to make controversial decisions that might be overturned at a higher appeal and use the fail safe approach by referring to past similar cases.
And there have been cases already where the killer was acquitted even though he was pursuing the victim. Whatever the outcome of the GZ case, other judges will take their cue from it when a similar case will come up again. And you are correct, they could care less what Rep Baxley spouts.
He has a degree in Funeral Services not Law:floorlaugh:


I still contend that his opinion was only sought because of the media coverage of this story. Why wasn't he asked of his opinion of the January killing where a man chased the perpetrator for a block before stabbing him*? It is not just his fault, I also blame the media. Where is the investigative journalism? Did anyone ask him "Do you have any facts to this case that the public hasn't seen?"

* - I have cited this case in another thread and will get the information from it if needed.

dsntslp
05-06-2012, 04:24 AM
I guess I had read further down this thread than I thought I had.
I still don't know what the answer is though.

Concerned Papa
05-06-2012, 04:43 AM
I still contend that his opinion was only sought because of the media coverage of this story. Why wasn't he asked of his opinion of the January killing where a man chased the perpetrator for a block before stabbing him*? It is not just his fault, I also blame the media. Where is the investigative journalism? Did anyone ask him "Do you have any facts to this case that the public hasn't seen?"

* - I have cited this case in another thread and will get the information from it if needed.

I suppose the man who wrote the SYG law should have just kept his opinion to himself and let Frank Taaffe do all the talking.

Nova
05-06-2012, 04:45 AM
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/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

Not even supposedly liberal California imposes a "duty to retreat" on a person who reasonably believes he is in danger of "death or grave bodily harm".

What seems different and, to me, bothersome about Florida's SYG law is (a) its vagueness and (b) the restrictions it imposes on LE and DAs. In particular, granting a killer "immunity" based on a relatively low burden of proof worries me.

In California, a person may kill his attacker, but he then faces a relatively high burden of proof demonstrating justifiable self-defense in court. I think that's how it should be.

AJ Noiter
05-06-2012, 05:09 AM
I suppose the man who wrote the SYG law should have just kept his opinion to himself and let Frank Taaffe do all the talking.

As far as I'm aware Frank Taaffe isn't holding a political office. That's the difference. It's not that they -can't- give their opinions, the way it has been done by everyone holding a political office is that what they say is factual when, in fact, it can't be factual because they don't have the facts. Even if they did have all of the facts it is my opinion that the education level of many has made it seem as if these individuals actually have a say as to what the written law means.

As I stated in my reply to someone else, I don't just blame him. I also blame the media because investigative journalism died with a great journalist earlier this year.

Lets see the quotes:

“This law does not apply to this particular circumstance,” Bush said after an education panel discussion at the University of Texas at Arlington, The Dallas Morning News reported. “Stand your ground means stand your ground. It doesn’t mean chase after somebody who’s turned their back.” - Newsmax

“He has no protection under my law,” former Sen. Durell Peaden told the newspaper. - LibraryGrape

As you can see, they stated it as a fact based upon one fact of the case. If all cases were as clear cut as that we wouldn't need a jury. The words were said in mistake, not only because they didn't have all of the facts but because they hold a political office and know that their words, even though irrelevant, will sway people to think one way or another. It's irresponsible.


(I do not agree or disagree with the cited websites, they were first matches in google searches.)

rotterdam
05-06-2012, 05:37 AM
I still contend that his opinion was only sought because of the media coverage of this story. Why wasn't he asked of his opinion of the January killing where a man chased the perpetrator for a block before stabbing him*? It is not just his fault, I also blame the media. Where is the investigative journalism? Did anyone ask him "Do you have any facts to this case that the public hasn't seen?"

* - I have cited this case in another thread and will get the information from it if needed.

He is a career politician. Their opinions are like wind sockets. You only hear from them when there is wind and generally matches the popular opinion. Nuff said.

Concerned Papa
05-06-2012, 09:52 AM
Remember this simple response from Investigator Dale Gilbreath at the Bond Hearing?

O'MARA: Ok. Besides that any other evidence to support your conclusion that Mr. Zimmerman continued to follow?

GILBREATH:

We have Mr. Zimmerman's statements,


we have the shell casings


and we had Mr. Martin's body.


Remember this exchange of Q & A?

From the Bond Hearing recording at the [1:19:55] mark:

O’MARA: How do you know he was trying to return to his home?

GILBREATH: Because the location he was found in….is probably….and I don’t have the exact measurements….it’s in the path to the back door of the house where he was staying.

O’MARA: I think the evidence suggested it was 70 yards away, right?

GILBREATH: He came from there; I’m assuming he was going back there.

O’MARA: OK.

http://www.wral.com/news/video/11004815/#/vid11004815

Watch this short video and see Francis get in the game being played:

The Games Zimmerman's People Are Playing - YouTube

I didn't know about Francis being in this part of the game until last night. :rocker:

LambChop
05-06-2012, 10:06 AM
As far as I'm aware Frank Taaffe isn't holding a political office. That's the difference. It's not that they -can't- give their opinions, the way it has been done by everyone holding a political office is that what they say is factual when, in fact, it can't be factual because they don't have the facts. Even if they did have all of the facts it is my opinion that the education level of many has made it seem as if these individuals actually have a say as to what the written law means.

As I stated in my reply to someone else, I don't just blame him. I also blame the media because investigative journalism died with a great journalist earlier this year.

Lets see the quotes:




As you can see, they stated it as a fact based upon one fact of the case. If all cases were as clear cut as that we wouldn't need a jury. The words were said in mistake, not only because they didn't have all of the facts but because they hold a political office and know that their words, even though irrelevant, will sway people to think one way or another. It's irresponsible.


(I do not agree or disagree with the cited websites, they were first matches in google searches.)

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

suzihawk
05-06-2012, 10:16 AM
Remember this simple response from Investigator Dale Gilbreath at the Bond Hearing?



Remember this exchange of Q & A?



Watch this short video and see Francis get in the game being played:

The Games Zimmerman's People Are Playing - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtgG5Y9eUrU)

I didn't know about Francis being in this part of the game until last night. :rocker:

Another excellent post, Papa. I noticed the video erroneously states Trayvon was 170 yards from his own back door rather than 70 yards.

LambChop
05-06-2012, 10:23 AM
Another excellent post, Papa. I noticed the video erroneously states Trayvon was 170 yards from his own back door rather than 70 yards.

It says 170 FEET which is less than 70 yards.

Concerned Papa
05-06-2012, 10:38 AM
Another excellent post, Papa. I noticed the video erroneously states Trayvon was 170 yards from his own back door rather than 70 yards.

Noooo.....It says 170 feet from "where the side walks meet".

Those two were saying Trayvon died "where the sidewalks meet" and Zimmerman's own attorney said the body was found 70 yards from his back door. That point is 170 feet from where the sidewalks meet.

How are they gonna explain that?

LambChop
05-06-2012, 10:43 AM
Noooo.....It says 170 feet from "where the side walks meet".

Those two were saying Trayvon died "where the sidewalks meet" and Zimmerman's own attorney said the body was found 70 yards from his back door. That point is 170 feet from where the sidewalks meet.

How are they gonna explain that?

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

Concerned Papa
05-06-2012, 10:54 AM
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? jmo

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.

Donjeta
05-06-2012, 11:04 AM
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?

who
05-06-2012, 11:11 AM
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.
Maybe I'm just dense this morning, but I'm not getting the difference in locations.

Do you have a visual as to where the body was found, and where they said it was, the "cover-up?"

<runs to get more much-needed coffee>

Concerned Papa
05-06-2012, 11:41 AM
Maybe I'm just dense this morning, but I'm not getting the difference in locations.

Do you have a visual as to where the body was found, and where they said it was, the "cover-up?"

<runs to get more much-needed coffee>

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.

LambChop
05-06-2012, 11:49 AM
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.

Papa could you put this in the Timeline Thread so we don't lose it. I don't think it could go in the media thread but either one if it is allowed. Thanks

who
05-06-2012, 12:04 PM
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.
OK. First, thanks. Very, very much. Your dedication to good sleuthing is appreciated by many.

So, with that attachment - Forgive me again, but brain is still needing engagement.

The "teardrop star" in the center is where you are saying the body was found, and the circled two people at the end is where Zimm & police say it happened?

Concerned Papa
05-06-2012, 12:09 PM
OK. First, thanks. Very, very much. Your dedication to good sleuthing is appreciated by many.

So, with that attachment - Forgive me again, but brain is still needing engagement.

The "teardrop star" in the center is where you are saying the body was found, and the circled two people at the end is where Zimm & police say it happened?

The teardrop star marker is where O'Mara said the evidence indicated the body was located.

The red circle is "where the sidewalks meet".

AJ Noiter
05-06-2012, 12:13 PM
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

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.

Elley Mae
05-06-2012, 12:14 PM
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.

Donjeta
05-06-2012, 12:20 PM
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/2012/03/31/v-fullstory/2725442/what-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
05-06-2012, 12:25 PM
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
05-06-2012, 12:28 PM
So Trayvon Martin had a duty to retreat?
<snipped for relevance>


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 or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) 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
05-06-2012, 12:32 PM
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
05-06-2012, 12:47 PM
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
05-06-2012, 12:53 PM
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
05-06-2012, 12:53 PM
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-12/news/os-beth-kassab-what-angela-corey-may-be-thinking-about-stand-your-ground-20120412_1_deadly-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
05-06-2012, 01:18 PM
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-12/news/os-beth-kassab-what-angela-corey-may-be-thinking-about-stand-your-ground-20120412_1_deadly-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
05-06-2012, 01:34 PM
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
05-06-2012, 01:38 PM
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776ContentsIndex.html&StatuteYear=2011&Title=-%3E2011-%3EChapter%20776

Karmady
05-06-2012, 01:50 PM
<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
05-06-2012, 02:01 PM
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
05-06-2012, 03:20 PM
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
05-06-2012, 08:50 PM
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
05-06-2012, 09:15 PM
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
05-06-2012, 09:23 PM
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/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&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
05-06-2012, 09:38 PM
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
05-06-2012, 09:53 PM
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
05-06-2012, 10:01 PM
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
05-06-2012, 10:16 PM
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....

RANCH
05-06-2012, 10:19 PM
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.
It seems to me that there's more opposition to 776.032 of the Florida statutes than the actual SYG statute 776.013. The immunity for arrest and prosecution is a bit extreme to me and others.

Should the people of Florida restrict their right of self-defense, or should they change the law so that the immunity under 776.032 is repealed?
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting 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 was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).


http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html

dsntslp
05-06-2012, 10:31 PM
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.BBM

Some are just bigger than others.

LOL, sorry, just had to.

Apologize for the OT.

Reader
05-06-2012, 10:37 PM
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/article1222930.ece

This article is dated 4/1/12 but I think it's apt for this thread:

Since its passage in 2005, the "stand your ground'' law has protected people who have pursued another, initiated a confrontation and then used deadly force to defend themselves. Citing the law, judges have granted immunity to killers who put themselves in danger, so long as their pursuit was not criminal, so long as the person using force had a right to be there, and so long as he could convince the judge he was in fear of great danger or death.

The Tampa Bay Times has identified 140 cases across the state in which "stand your ground'' has been invoked, and many involve defendants whose lives were clearly in jeopardy. But at least a dozen share similarities with what we know about the Trayvon Martin case, and they show the law has not always worked as its sponsors say they intended.

Here is a list of 11 cases similar to Trayvon's and other good information:

http://tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/main

grammieto5
05-07-2012, 11:01 AM
Good morning all :-) I hope this question is in the right thread. I understand GZ has the right to carry a gun, and the right to use the SYG law. Would someone please tell me what rights Trayvon has/had? thanks :-)

Karmady
05-07-2012, 11:19 AM
Good morning all :-) I hope this question is in the right thread. I understand GZ has the right to carry a gun, and the right to use the SYG law. Would someone please tell me what rights Trayvon has/had? thanks :-)

Trayvon has no rights under the SYG because he has not been charged with a crime.

grammieto5
05-07-2012, 11:27 AM
Trayvon has no rights under the SYG because he has not been charged with a crime.

I understand the SYG law is for GZ only. I'm asking what rights Trayvon (as the victim) has/had?

Karmady
05-07-2012, 11:31 AM
I understand the SYG law is for GZ only. I'm asking what rights Trayvon (as the victim) has/had?

The same rights as anyone else, I suppose. And some enhanced rights as a member of a protected class or classes. Maybe submit a new thread? Hate crimes, crimes against minors?

grammieto5
05-07-2012, 12:59 PM
The same rights as anyone else, I suppose. And some enhanced rights as a member of a protected class or classes. Maybe submit a new thread? Hate crimes, crimes against minors?

I believe Trayvon does not qualify to be a member for a proctected class, other then being a AA, he is not poor, nor is he uneducated, but then again maybe all he needs is to be an AA???? If this does turn out to be a hate crime, Trayvon's age could be considered. Thanks for your
suggestion :-) I've also been wanting to tell you, though we rarely agree with each other, I really enjoy reading your posts :-) Sometimes what you have written has made me look at certain things differently.

Karmady
05-07-2012, 01:29 PM
I believe Trayvon does not qualify to be a member for a proctected class, other then being a AA, he is not poor, nor is he uneducated, but then again maybe all he needs is to be an AA???? If this does turn out to be a hate crime, Trayvon's age could be considered. Thanks for your
suggestion :-) I've also been wanting to tell you, though we rarely agree with each other, I really enjoy reading your posts :-) Sometimes what you have written has made me look at certain things differently.

Actually, I don't think being poor or uneducated puts you in a special class for hate crimes, but being AA certainly would if that's what motivated the crime. I also think that his age may be an enhancement element, but I don't know that for a fact and don't have time to look it up right now.

And thanks for the nice words. I appreciate that. I know my manner of thinking and communication style are not that warm and fuzzy lol. And If someone also disagrees with what I'm saying, it can make for some strong negative feelings. I appreciate your posts as well and, please know that, even if it doesn't seem that way at times, I can see the other side of the debate :)

Reader
05-08-2012, 09:38 PM
NRA ends silence and comes out fighting for stand-your-ground laws

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/02/nra-stand-your-ground-law

The National Rifle Association has begun a rearguard action to shore up the controversial "stand-your-ground" laws that it has promoted across America, in the wake of the eruption of public anger over the killing in Florida of the unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin.........

A Guardian survey found that states which have stand-your-ground laws as well as weak gun controls have seen a sharp rise in civilian justifiable homicides.........

The NRA's re-entry into the billowing debate on gun laws may not be coincidental in its timing. This week a 19-member task force appointed by the governor of Florida, Rick Scott, has begun deliberations over whether the stand-your-ground law should be changed in the wake of the Martin shooting.

The panel is heavily weighted in favour of the pro-gun lobby. It is led by Florida's deputy governor, Jennifer Carroll, who sponsored the passage of the law through the state legislature.

More at link....

vlpate
05-09-2012, 12:34 AM
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/article1222930.ece

This article is dated 4/1/12 but I think it's apt for this thread:

Here is a list of 11 cases similar to Trayvon's and other good information:

http://tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/main

Great example, as it relates to this case: http://tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_120

AngelWings444
05-09-2012, 12:43 AM
Great example, as it relates to this case: http://tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_120

snipped from article:

"The encounter turned deadly when a drunken Landes began beating Podany. The driver testified that his friend was beating up Podany in a one-sided fight"

Landes was the guy who was shot dead. He was drunk and beating up Poday in a "one-sided fight".

IMO - this is not a "great example" and is not even close to the Zimmerman/Martin case. Trayvon was walking home from 7-11 with nothing more than an ice-tea and skittles. He was NOT drunk! The "fight", if there was one, doesn't seem one-sided, but I won't go into that, there are other threads.

Apples/Oranges.

vlpate
05-09-2012, 12:51 AM
snipped from article:

"The encounter turned deadly when a drunken Landes began beating Podany. The driver testified that his friend was beating up Podany in a one-sided fight"

Landes was the guy who was shot dead. He was drunk and beating up Poday in a "one-sided fight".

IMO - this is not a "great example" and is not even close to the Zimmerman/Martin case. Trayvon was walking home from 7-11 with nothing more than an ice-tea and skittles. He was NOT drunk! The fight doesn't seem one-sided, but I won't go into that, there are other threads.

Apples/Oranges.

I don't know that he was or wasn't under the influence of anything. It relates in that Podany had been following the truck to get a license number, and the fight was one-sided. Given the words of the funeral director, it was one-sided. Closely relates IMO

vlpate
05-09-2012, 12:54 AM
snipped from article:

"The encounter turned deadly when a drunken Landes began beating Podany. The driver testified that his friend was beating up Podany in a one-sided fight"

Landes was the guy who was shot dead. He was drunk and beating up Poday in a "one-sided fight".

IMO - this is not a "great example" and is not even close to the Zimmerman/Martin case. Trayvon was walking home from 7-11 with nothing more than an ice-tea and skittles. He was NOT drunk! The "fight", if there was one, doesn't seem one-sided, but I won't go into that, there are other threads.

Apples/Oranges.

As regards iced tea and skittles, I've never figured out what that has to do with anything besides the media trying to portray him as a little kid. GZ was just going to Target for milk. Does that make him less threatening?

Karmady
05-09-2012, 12:54 AM
snipped from article:

"The encounter turned deadly when a drunken Landes began beating Podany. The driver testified that his friend was beating up Podany in a one-sided fight"

Landes was the guy who was shot dead. He was drunk and beating up Poday in a "one-sided fight".

IMO - this is not a "great example" and is not even close to the Zimmerman/Martin case. Trayvon was walking home from 7-11 with nothing more than an ice-tea and skittles. He was NOT drunk! The fight doesn't seem one-sided, but I won't go into that, there are other threads.

Apples/Oranges.

I think the point is that everything leading up to the physical altercation was irrelevant. Doesn't matter who had a weapon. Doesn't matter who followed, chased or pursued who or why. Doesn't matter whether the NW "protocol" was violated. Doesn't matter whether Trayvon had "skittles and an iced tea." All that matters is who started the physical altercation and what kind of force was used by whom for purposes of SYG. I don't know if this is a published decision that is binding precedent in Florida, but I guarantee that the law will be applied consistently in this case with how it has been applied in others -- O'Mara will make sure that his client doesn't get "special" negative treatment. jmo

eta: oh, and the State's investigator has already testified that they have no idea who started the physical altercation and we not heard of any possible evidence of who started it. jmo

Karmady
05-09-2012, 12:55 AM
As regards iced tea and skittles, I've never figured out what that has to do with anything besides the media trying to portray him as a little kid. GZ was just going to Target for milk. Does that make him less threatening?

I liken it to a campaign or advertising slogan. jmo

AngelWings444
05-09-2012, 12:58 AM
I don't know that he was or wasn't under the influence of anything. It relates in that Podany had been following the truck to get a license number, and the fight was one-sided. Given the words of the funeral director, it was one-sided. Closely relates IMO

So, we are believing the funeral director now? So wait, Trayvon might have been under the influence? I'm trying to catch up...

I understand that Podany followed because the other guy was speeding through the neighborhood. Other than following, which is exactly what GZ did, IMO, these cases aren't close.

I believe SYG should have been used in the case you referenced, if the facts are as reported, and we all know how that goes.

JMO, IMO

Reader
05-09-2012, 01:01 AM
As regards iced tea and skittles, I've never figured out what that has to do with anything besides the media trying to portray him as a little kid. GZ was just going to Target for milk. Does that make him less threatening?

To me, it serves to emphasize that Trayvon was not carrying a weapon like GZ was.

AngelWings444
05-09-2012, 01:02 AM
As regards iced tea and skittles, I've never figured out what that has to do with anything besides the media trying to portray him as a little kid. GZ was just going to Target for milk. Does that make him less threatening?
Trayvon was a kid. GZ "thought" he looked suspicious, was up to no good, blah, blah...Trayvon was simply walking home from 7-11, with nothing more than an ice-tea, skittles and a cell phone.

Back to SYG. I don't think a speeding drunk, who is beating a man in a one-sided fight, compares to this case. JMO, IMO and we shall agree to disagree.

AngelWings444
05-09-2012, 01:05 AM
I think the point is that everything leading up to the physical altercation was irrelevant. Doesn't matter who had a weapon. Doesn't matter who followed, chased or pursued who or why. Doesn't matter whether the NW "protocol" was violated. Doesn't matter whether Trayvon had "skittles and an iced tea." All the matters is who started the physical altercation and what kind of force was used by whom for purposes of SYG. I don't know if this is a published decision that is binding precedent in Florida, but I guarantee that the law will be applied consistently in this case with how it has been applied in others -- O'Mara will make sure that his client doesn't get "special" negative treatment. jmo

eta: oh, and the State's investigator has already testified that they have no idea who started the physical altercation and we not heard of any possible evidence of who started it. jmo
The State charged GZ with 2nd degree murder. The same prosecutor said GZ's statements weren't accurate to the evidence. So, we are back to that..the evidence. Soon, I hope. :seeya:

highflyer
05-09-2012, 01:11 AM
As regards iced tea and skittles, I've never figured out what that has to do with anything besides the media trying to portray him as a little kid. GZ was just going to Target for milk. Does that make him less threatening?

It shows what Trayvon was carrying, food. It is important. George was carrying a loaded gun.
As far as going for food stuffs, Trayvon actually did that and George did not.
The media is not trying to portray anything with it other than what it is.

vlpate
05-09-2012, 01:12 AM
To me, it serves to emphasize that Trayvon was not carrying a weapon like GZ was.

It still has nothing to do with the case or the SYG law. A can of tea or a cell phone can become a deadly weapon.

Concerned Papa
05-09-2012, 01:16 AM
It still has nothing to do with the case or the SYG law. A can of tea or a cell phone can become a deadly weapon.

Don't forget during his interview with Piers Morgan, RG Jr. let us know a tube of Chapstick and a toothpick could be a deadly weapon.....

Karmady
05-09-2012, 01:16 AM
It shows what Trayvon was carrying, food. It is important. George was carrying a loaded gun.
As far as going for food stuffs, Trayvon actually did that and George did not.
The media is not trying to portray anything with it other than what it is.


Well, in the case linked upthread, the immune shooter was, of course, carrying a gun, but his attacker wasn't carrying anything but his fists. So he didn't even have the benefit of the "skittles and tea" argument (or whatever you want to call it). jmo

AngelWings444
05-09-2012, 01:17 AM
It still has nothing to do with the case or the SYG law. A can of tea or a cell phone can become a deadly weapon.

But it wasn't, unless the "injuries" to GZ were from a can or cell. If that picture is authentic, it's not an ice-tea can, a cell phone or candy.

To me, anything on either of them is important. If Trayvon had anything else on him, like a screwdriver, you all would be arguing that he was carrying a weapon. He was not. GZ was.

highflyer
05-09-2012, 01:19 AM
Well, in the case linked upthread, the immune shooter was, of course, carrying a gun, but his attacker wasn't carrying anything but his fists. So he didn't even have the benefit of the "skittles and tea" argument (or whatever you want to call it). jmo

The case up thread had little relevance to this case.

AngelWings444
05-09-2012, 01:22 AM
Well, in the case linked upthread, the immune shooter was, of course, carrying a gun, but his attacker wasn't carrying anything but his fists. So he didn't even have the benefit of the "skittles and tea" argument (or whatever you want to call it). jmo

In the article referenced above, the attacker was speeding, was drunk and was beating the other guy in a one-sided fight.

Apples/Oranges.

Karmady
05-09-2012, 01:24 AM
The case up thread had little relevance to this case.

Did you mean to say, in your opinion? In mine, it has so much relevance to this case that it practically mandates a not-guilty SYG decision unless there is evidence we don't know about that contradicts the State's investigator's standing testimony the State has no evidence of who started the physical altercation. And even then, if the investigator said that under oath and such evidence exists, well, that could be problematic for the State. And if there's new evidence about who started the physical altercation, I'll be surprised given what's gone on so far. jmo

Karmady
05-09-2012, 01:27 AM
In the article referenced above, the attacker was speeding, was drunk and was beating the other guy in a one-sided fight.

Apples/Oranges.

But none of that was relevant to the decision except the part about who was beating whom. In this case, there is no evidence on that issue except George's testimony, John's eyewitness testimony, and maybe the boy. The State has conceded that they have none. We can agree to disagree, but I think you (nothing personal) are very much mistaken about the significance of that case. jmo

vlpate
05-09-2012, 01:37 AM
But it wasn't, unless the "injuries" to GZ were from a can or cell. If that picture is authentic, it's not an ice-tea can, a cell phone or candy.

To me, anything on either of them is important. If Trayvon had anything else on him, like a screwdriver, you all would be arguing that he was carrying a weapon. He was not. GZ was.

The law does not require that both people be armed. Unarmed people kill people all the time. If Trayvon had his hand over GZ's mouth, as has been stated, and had he kept his hand over his mouth and asphyxiated him, he'd still be just as dead as if TM had been "armed". JMO

AngelWings444
05-09-2012, 01:47 AM
The law does not require that both people be armed. Unarmed people kill people all the time. If Trayvon had his hand over GZ's mouth, as has been stated, and had he kept his hand over his mouth and asphyxiated him, he'd still be just as dead as if TM had been "armed". JMO

I know the law. Thank you. The article posted that was claimed to be a "great example" to this case, IMO, is not. JMO, and all that.

If Trayvon...exactly. We shall see, when the evidence is released.

LambChop
05-09-2012, 08:59 AM
It still has nothing to do with the case or the SYG law. A can of tea or a cell phone can become a deadly weapon.

Or a burglary tool too, even. Oh, and fingernails could scratch someone's eyes out. lol But wait, TM was just walking home. If he were out to kill someone wouldn't he at least have taken a knife out of the kitchen drawer to do so. I guess kids just don't think about arming themselves when they set out to kill someone while they are on they're way home from the store.

Just the thought of having a can of ice tea in your hand or your cell phone and you bump into someone accidently and them using that as an excuse to shoot you because "they are having a bad day" is terrifying, absolutely terrifying. As a citizen who choses not to carry a gun I feel I should have the right to feel safe from those who do and have control issues. I've never had a problem with those who want to carry weapons but I'm beginning to see things much differently. If someone carrying a gun is allowed to make bad choices without accountability what happens to my freedom?????? jmo

Elley Mae
05-09-2012, 10:39 AM
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/arraignment-set-george-zimmerman-case-tuesday/nNymm/

Sheaffer said in the coming month there could be a hearing to determine if the case is dismissed based on the "Stand your Ground" law.

LiveLaughLuv
05-09-2012, 11:22 AM
The law does not require that both people be armed. Unarmed people kill people all the time. If Trayvon had his hand over GZ's mouth, as has been stated, and had he kept his hand over his mouth and asphyxiated him, he'd still be just as dead as if TM had been "armed". JMO

What does meet force with force mean?


(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.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

LiveLaughLuv
05-09-2012, 11:24 AM
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/arraignment-set-george-zimmerman-case-tuesday/nNymm/

Sheaffer said in the coming month there could be a hearing to determine if the case is dismissed based on the "Stand your Ground" law.

Yes, could be if MOM decides this is a case for SYG defense...He has stated he doesn't know yet as he still hasn't seen GZ's statements to police..

COULD is the operative word..

and ACorey has already stated, should GZ use this as a defense she will fight it...she doesn't see this as a SYG defense...so, we shall see

Gin
05-09-2012, 11:37 AM
It still has nothing to do with the case or the SYG law. A can of tea or a cell phone can become a deadly weapon.

JMO/IMO
I guess I'm missing the point here? A 9mm loaded with hollowpoint bullets was the deadly weapon used to kill.

Tea, Skittles and a cell really aren't even in the same ballpark.

Reader
05-09-2012, 08:00 PM
Interesting comments on SYG law in this debate....

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-jeff-ashton-lawson-lamar-debate-20120509,0,6601621.story

The candidates were also asked, in light of the ongoing Trayvon Martin controversy, for their take on Florida's controversial Stand Your Ground law. Both Lamar and Jaeger said the law is often "misunderstood."

Williams went further, saying that the law "turns law enforcement into lawyers," forcing them to decide if someone is immune from prosecution before making an arrest.

Ashton's response: "It's wrong, it needs to be repealed, end of story."

I of course agree with Williams and Ashton....

Karmady
05-09-2012, 08:29 PM
Interesting comments on SYG law in this debate....

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-jeff-ashton-lawson-lamar-debate-20120509,0,6601621.story



I of course agree with Williams and Ashton....

If SYG turns police officers into lawyers, why did SPD getting the prosecutor to make the call the night of the shooting?

Reader
05-09-2012, 10:31 PM
If SYG turns police officers into lawyers, why did SPD getting the prosecutor to make the call the night of the shooting?


So that DID happen?

The SYG law says the LE agency is the one to determine whether there is probable cause to arrest if the force used was illegal. To bring in the prosecutor (and judge father) of GZ that night was improper and unnecessary. The LE agency is the one that is supposed to make that decision on their own, according to that law, not the prosecutor.

Bringing in the prosecutor at the point they did makes me believe they found something questionable about what George said that did not match the evidence they found so were reluctant to make a decision not to arrest on their own. They wanted back up and assurance that the prosecutor would not overrule them and file charges.

There is also the story of the detective wanting to file charges which nobody supporting GZ wants to accept, and maybe the chief wanted him to be overruled.

This law to me has turned the legal system upside down...making the LE agency act legally as prosecutors and judges.

IMO

Reader
05-09-2012, 11:01 PM
Florida Senator Chris Smith and his task force on the SYG law have completed their report and forwarded it to the govenor. In his letter to the gov, Sen. Smith said:

On April 5, 2012 Senator Chris Smith convened an independent Stand Your Ground Task Force, comprised of members drawn from law enforcement, state prosecutors, public and private defense attorneys, and other legal experts. This Task Force was charged with reviewing the current “Stand Your Ground” law found in Chapter 776 Florida Statutes and developing recommendations to improve the statute to increase public safety.

The Task Force began its work by hearing public testimony from various members of the community and identifying the problems which have arisen from the implementation of the Stand Your Ground statute. The committee discussed the issue at length and agreed that the statute is too broad and a significant, unnecessary, and dangerous departure from the traditional law of self-defense.


Link to the report and comments:

http://floridastandyourground.org/

Karmady
05-09-2012, 11:19 PM
So that DID happen?

The SYG law says the LE agency is the one to determine whether there is probable cause to arrest if the force used was illegal. To bring in the prosecutor (and judge father) of GZ that night was improper and unnecessary. The LE agency is the one that is supposed to make that decision on their own, according to that law, not the prosecutor.

Bringing in the prosecutor at the point they did makes me believe they found something questionable about what George said that did not match the evidence they found so were reluctant to make a decision not to arrest on their own. They wanted back up and assurance that the prosecutor would not overrule them and file charges.

There is also the story of the detective wanting to file charges which nobody supporting GZ wants to accept, and maybe the chief wanted him to be overruled.

This law to me has turned the legal system upside down...making the LE agency act legally as prosecutors and judges.

IMO

I don't know for sure that it happened, but I have no reason to doubt that it did and there's absolutely nothing improper about it. Under SYG, the State will be liable for damages if George is immune, so it makes perfect sense that they would ask the prosecutor's advice before deciding whether to arrest him or not. The prosecutor ALWAYS makes the decision whether to charge someone in any criminal case, except in most cases there isn't any urgency for the prosecutor to decide b/c the State won't be liable if there is an arrest that the prosecutor later decides not to charge or prosecute. There is absolutely nothing nefarious about what happened in this case and the urgency is totally logical under the circumstances.

jmo.

Just K
05-10-2012, 10:41 AM
If this were not Florida, with the concealed weapons law and the SYG:
Would those saying he is not guilty/SYG agree that he is guilty of voluntary manslaughter. After all, he chose to kill Trayvon...

LiveLaughLuv
05-10-2012, 11:16 AM
Florida Senator Chris Smith and his task force on the SYG law have completed their report and forwarded it to the govenor. In his letter to the gov, Sen. Smith said:




Link to the report and comments:

http://floridastandyourground.org/

Thank you, Reader..it's very enlightening..I skimmed through it but below caught my eye...

One of he recommendations is to bring this to a Grand Jury to decide if there is a SYG defense..take it away from the prosecutors/LE and allow a jury to decide if there was reasonable fear to SYG...or if one should have retreated..much more that I'll read later...

In my post 114...it appears that TM had a right to be there and since he was the one frightened, he too had the right to SYG...but poor kid can't tell but his remains will tell with evidence found...or not found...

marlame
05-10-2012, 02:15 PM
Mind giving the statute number for that? My google searches for someone being locked up for chasing someone else is proving to be fruitless in the US. In Europe there are plenty of cases though.

This is clearly covered in FL "case law"...Statutes are created by the legislature. Case law is the law that is created by judges who try to interpret the statutory law and make it fit within the constitution.

As I said in an earlier post..."chasing" someone would fall under harassment/stalking. It is a "course of conduct". Just because the word "chasing" may not be in the actual statute does NOT mean it is legal.

If this isn't helpful maybe you could google "unlawful pursuit"?

Thanks for engaging in a healthy debate...we just see things differently. Time to move on... :peace:

Concerned Papa
05-10-2012, 02:18 PM
You can not chase someone who is not already running. Why would they be running? That is a separate issue all together. The act of CHASING does not deprive someone of any right.

Edit: Also, just because you THINK something doesn't mean any rights are being violated either. I can sit here in my house all day long and think that YOU are going to come attack me and be fearful that tomorrow I will not wake up from my sleep. See?

Let me ask you a hypothetical question in this context. Suppose for a moment, that there was an encounter between GZ and TM "where the sidewalks meet" along the lines as stated by RZ Sr. after talking to his son AND watching the reenactment w/LE the following day, in which TM gained the upper hand. Suppose TM then DID see GZ draw his gun and took off running, for half a football field's distance, to the area Attorney O'Mara said the body was found in.

Do you think GZ would have been legally justified in chasing him down with his gun drawn and killing him?

AJ Noiter
05-10-2012, 02:21 PM
This is clearly covered in FL "case law"...Statutes are created by the legislature. Case law is the law that is created by judges who try to interpret the statutory law and make it fit within the constitution.

As I said in an earlier post..."chasing" someone would fall under harassment/stalking. It is a "course of conduct". Just because the word "chasing" may not be in the actual statute does NOT mean it is legal.

If this isn't helpful maybe you could google "unlawful pursuit"?

Thanks for engaging in a healthy debate...we just see things differently. Time to move on... :peace:

Did you happen to review the results of "unlawful pursuit" before suggesting it? The results I get:
"Chasing the Devil: The Corrupt and Unlawful Pursuit ..."
"Court of Appeals of Virginia" (it has to do with a police officer chasing someone, making it a separate issue because they're a government entity)
"Man Pays Price for Unlawful Pursuit of Liquor" ... interesting..
"Dentists rapped with tax evasion for unlawful pursuit of business" ...

Maybe you could find a source to site to me, since I'm not the one making the claim? It would be very helpful.

AJ Noiter
05-10-2012, 02:24 PM
Let me ask you a hypothetical question in this context. Suppose for a moment, that there was an encounter between GZ and TM "where the sidewalks meet" along the lines as stated by RZ Sr. after talking to his son AND watching the reenactment w/LE the following day, in which TM gained the upper hand. Suppose TM then DID see GZ draw his gun and took off running, for half a football field's distance, to the area Attorney O'Mara said the body was found in.

Do you think GZ would have been legally justified in chasing him down with his gun drawn and killing him?

Based on the story sited numerous times, I don't feel that Self Defense/SYG automatically dissolve just because someone decides to change their course of action. The case cited happened in march of this year in Orlando, why would it be any different now?

Concerned Papa
05-10-2012, 02:34 PM
Based on the story sited numerous times, I don't feel that Self Defense/SYG automatically dissolve just because someone decides to change their course of action. The case cited happened in march of this year in Orlando, why would it be any different now?

As you've possibly noticed, I don't get too deep in this area of the case and this type conversation as a general rule. You'll have to forgive me for not recognizing the case you're referring to.

AJ Noiter
05-10-2012, 02:36 PM
As you've possibly noticed, I don't get too deep in this area of the case and this type conversation as a general rule. You'll have to forgive me for not recognizing the case you're referring to.

I'll find the story if you need, the facts of that case relevant to your scenario are: A man found a burglar breaking into his car, he grabbed a knife and chased the man for approximately 1 block before stabbing the burglar to death.

MaryAnn
05-10-2012, 02:37 PM
Based on the story sited numerous times, I don't feel that Self Defense/SYG automatically dissolve just because someone decides to change their course of action. The case cited happened in march of this year in Orlando, why would it be any different now?



BBM
Based on Papa's hypothethical story

SYG wouldn't apply because Trayvon retreated and ran the other way. SYG only applies if you are fearful for your life and being threatened at the time of the shooting.

Concerned Papa
05-10-2012, 02:39 PM
I'll find the story if you need, the facts of that case relevant to your scenario are: A man found a burglar breaking into his car, he grabbed a knife and chased the man for approximately 1 block before stabbing the burglar to death.

Then there's no need as I have read that story, but if I remember correctly, the physical altercation and subsequent stabbing happened AFTER a crime had been committed hadn't it? Is this the one involving a bicycle?

AJ Noiter
05-10-2012, 02:39 PM
Based on Papa's hypothethical story

SYG wouldn't apply because Trayvon retreated and ran the other way. SYG only applies if you are fearful for your life and being threatened at the time of the shooting.

Stand Your Ground applied in the case noted to him, there was never a threat to the individual's life who did the stabbing.

Concerned Papa
05-10-2012, 02:44 PM
Stand Your Ground applied in the case noted to him, there was never a threat to the individual's life who did the stabbing.

Whoa! I might better get out of this conversation and do some reading. Are you saying he just walked up cold turkey and stabbed the guy with NO altercation or threat and got away with it?

cityslick
05-10-2012, 02:45 PM
Then there's no need as I have read that story, but if I remember correctly, the physical altercation and subsequent stabbing happened AFTER a crime had been committed hadn't it? Is this the one involving a bicycle?

I guess my question would be was the guy who was getting his car broken into still justified in chasing the guy and then stabbing him? His life wasn't in danger when he was chasing him. But yet he was still protected by SYG?

AJ Noiter
05-10-2012, 02:45 PM
Whoa! I might better get out of this conversation and do some reading. Are you saying he just walked up and cold turkey and stabbed the guy with NO altercation or threat and got away with it?

That is my understanding of the events. The individual had no weapons and took off running as soon as he was found, from my recollection.

Garcia, alerted by a roommate, grabbed a large knife and ran downstairs. He chased Roteta, then stabbed him in a confrontation that lasted less than a minute, according to court documents.

The stabbing was caught on video. Roteta was carrying a bag filled with three stolen radios, but no weapon other than a pocketknife, which was unopened in his pocket and which police said he never brandished.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/21/2706789/miami-judge-stabbing-in-the-back.html#storylink=cpy

Sherbie
05-10-2012, 02:48 PM
Florida Law:
"Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083."
http://www.esia.net/State_Stalking_Laws.htm


marlame, thank you for the link in your signature. I don't think that statute would apply to the evening in question since, IMO, "repeatedly" would mean multiple (or at least two) separate instances of the behavior, rather than behavior where there is not a break in time between offenses.

I'm not saying it might not fall under some other statute, but I don't think this one fits the circumstances. If it did, the state would likely have charged Zimmerman with violating it if they had evidence he'd broken that law. JMO

cityslick
05-10-2012, 02:49 PM
That is my understanding of the events. The individual had no weapons and took off running as soon as he was found, from my recollection.

I wonder what was the jury's explanation for that? Did they say that the guy committing the crime made the other guy fear for his life so at that point, the guy can do anything to the other, up to and including running after him and stabbing him?

Does SYG not define what constitutes 'fear of one's life' and when that fear is no longer valid?

AJ Noiter
05-10-2012, 02:50 PM
I wonder what was the jury's explanation for that? Did they say that the guy committing the crime made the other guy fear for his life so at that point, the guy can do anything to the other, up to and including running after him and stabbing him?

Does SYG not define what constitutes 'fear of one's life' and when that fear is no longer valid?

There wasn't a jury. The judge threw it out at the Stand Your Ground hearing.

LynnM
05-10-2012, 02:58 PM
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/27/2717572/miami-dade-issues-ruling-in-stand.html

The judge said that he had a right to chase the thief to retrieve his property and once the thief swung the bag of stolen radios at him, he was justified in fearing for his life and stabbing him. Ironically, the man then took all of the radios not just his own and sold two of the stolen radios so he too was a thief.

oops, sorry, didn't see Beach's post while I was posting and I forgot we weren't in the Stand Your Ground thread!

Concerned Papa
05-10-2012, 03:02 PM
That is my understanding of the events. The individual had no weapons and took off running as soon as he was found, from my recollection.

Thanks for the article. I hope you understand that ruling makes me want to puke.

I won't bother with the semantics of burgular vs unarmed, non law breaking teenager. That horse is beat ad naseum every day around here.

Damn, he really did chase this dude down and cold turkey kill him, didn't he?

ETA, Sorry Beach. I'm through talking about it anyway, but if you want to zap my posts feel free to do so.

AJ Noiter
05-10-2012, 03:13 PM
Thanks for the article. I hope you understand that ruling makes me want to puke.

I won't bother with the semantics of burgular vs unarmed, non law breaking teenager. That horse is beat ad naseum every day around here.

Damn, he really did chase this dude down and cold turkey kill him, didn't he?

ETA, Sorry Beach. I'm through talking about it anyway, but if you want to zap my posts feel free to do so.


I agree, the two cases are different, was just using it to show that SYG/Self Defense doesn't automatically dissolve because of a change of course :)

cityslick
05-10-2012, 03:48 PM
Thanks for the article. I hope you understand that ruling makes me want to puke.

I won't bother with the semantics of burgular vs unarmed, non law breaking teenager. That horse is beat ad naseum every day around here.

Damn, he really did chase this dude down and cold turkey kill him, didn't he?

ETA, Sorry Beach. I'm through talking about it anyway, but if you want to zap my posts feel free to do so.

The thing is the judge (according to Lynn's post) did not rule in favor of him killing him because the thief committed a crime, he ruled in favor because he swung a bag of radios at him.

Now go to this case. What stops a judge from ruling for SYG if somehow it's proven that TM 'swung' at GZ and had him on the ground? Despite the circumstances that came before it?

I agree, the SYG law needs to be changed.

Reader
05-10-2012, 04:32 PM
I don't know for sure that it happened, but I have no reason to doubt that it did and there's absolutely nothing improper about it. Under SYG, the State will be liable for damages if George is immune, so it makes perfect sense that they would ask the prosecutor's advice before deciding whether to arrest him or not. The prosecutor ALWAYS makes the decision whether to charge someone in any criminal case, except in most cases there isn't any urgency for the prosecutor to decide b/c the State won't be liable if there is an arrest that the prosecutor later decides not to charge or prosecute. There is absolutely nothing nefarious about what happened in this case and the urgency is totally logical under the circumstances.

jmo.

Would really like to agree with you since I realize that it is normal for LE and prosecutors to work together to decide on charges. At least that's how they do it on TV.

However, that's not what the SYG law/1 says and also not what former SA Wolfinger said about how cases are handled on his own website/2:

1/ A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

[previously linked]

2/ When a crime is committed, your local law enforcement agency will investigate. That agency can either make an arrest of the suspect or forward their investigation to the State Attorney’s Office for review and a filing decision. When the case information is received by the State Attorney’s Office, it is reviewed by an Assistant State Attorney for determination as to whether formal criminal charges may be filed. If charges are filed and the suspect was not already arrested by law enforcement, then an arrest warrant called a capias is issued.

http://sa18.state.fl.us/prosecute/division.htm

In his own summary of the SYG bill Wolfinger states:

The bill further prohibits the arrest of a “defender” for using force unless law enforcement first determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.

http://sa18.state.fl.us/rapsheet/rap_0705_3.pdf

Wolfinger covered 2 counties and had 5 offices to supervise. It would be very abnormal for the SA himself to travel over 50 miles at night to meet with an LE dept. to decide if someone should be arrested or not....not charged....just ARRESTED. Very, very unusual....wonder why Bill Lee was willing to give up his authority to the SA that way??


IMO

marlame
05-10-2012, 04:51 PM
marlame, thank you for the link in your signature. I don't think that statute would apply to the evening in question since, IMO, "repeatedly" would mean multiple (or at least two) separate instances of the behavior, rather than behavior where there is not a break in time between offenses.

I'm not saying it might not fall under some other statute, but I don't think this one fits the circumstances. If it did, the state would likely have charged Zimmerman with violating it if they had evidence he'd broken that law. JMO

My understanding is they DID charge GZ with stalking... :waitasec:
Here's the Florida statute under which George Zimmerman has been charged with second degree murder.
It's 782.04 2n: unpremeditated murder as a result of aggravated stalking.

782.04 Murder.—
(1)(a) The unlawful killing of a human being:

1. When perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being;

2. When committed by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:
a. Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),

b. Arson,

c. Sexual battery,

d. Robbery,

e. Burglary,

f. Kidnapping,

g. Escape,

h. Aggravated child abuse,

i. Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,

j. Aircraft piracy,

k. Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,

l. Carjacking,

m. Home-invasion robbery,

n. Aggravated stalking,
o. Murder of another human being,

p. Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person,

q. Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism;

Reader
05-10-2012, 05:46 PM
marlame, thank you for the link in your signature. I don't think that statute would apply to the evening in question since, IMO, "repeatedly" would mean multiple (or at least two) separate instances of the behavior, rather than behavior where there is not a break in time between offenses.

I'm not saying it might not fall under some other statute, but I don't think this one fits the circumstances. If it did, the state would likely have charged Zimmerman with violating it if they had evidence he'd broken that law. JMO

My understanding is they DID charge GZ with stalking... :waitasec:
Here's the Florida statute under which George Zimmerman has been charged with second degree murder.
It's 782.04 2n: unpremeditated murder as a result of aggravated stalking.

782.04 Murder.—
(1)(a) The unlawful killing of a human being:

1. When perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being;

2. When committed by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:
a. Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),

b. Arson,

c. Sexual battery,

d. Robbery,

e. Burglary,

f. Kidnapping,

g. Escape,

h. Aggravated child abuse,

i. Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,

j. Aircraft piracy,

k. Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,

l. Carjacking,

m. Home-invasion robbery,

n. Aggravated stalking,
o. Murder of another human being,

p. Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person,

q. Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism;


Thank you, marlame!

I'm thinking that the separate instances of following Trayvon might be when he first followed him in the car, then ignored the advice of LE and followed again on foot the first time, lost Trayvon, then found him again and followed again, ending with the confrontation.

This would meet the SYG provision of:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony;

This is probably what AC was talking about when she was on NG....

Karmady
05-10-2012, 05:57 PM
Would really like to agree with you since I realize that it is normal for LE and prosecutors to work together to decide on charges. At least that's how they do it on TV.

However, that's not what the SYG law/1 says and also not what former SA Wolfinger said about how cases are handled on his own website/2:



[previously linked]



http://sa18.state.fl.us/prosecute/division.htm

In his own summary of the SYG bill Wolfinger states:



http://sa18.state.fl.us/rapsheet/rap_0705_3.pdf

Wolfinger covered 2 counties and had 5 offices to supervise. It would be very abnormal for the SA himself to travel over 50 miles at night to meet with an LE dept. to decide if someone should be arrested or not....not charged....just ARRESTED. Very, very unusual....wonder why Bill Lee was willing to give up his authority to the SA that way??


IMO

Even without seeing all of those statements in context (the link I followed takes me to the main page, and some of those quotes seem like references to standard procedure in typical cases of the kind I also mentioned in my post), the quotes still specifically say that the prosecutor can make the determination. And in a questionable case of SYG where immunity and the State's liability is at stake (i.e., where it was not at all clear to SPD that there was NO immunity), I stand by everything I said.

And, just for the record, I have no reason to believe that Wolfinger came to the station that night. Maybe he did, but it seems more likely that SPD just e-mailed him the documents and spoke to him over the phone. Iirc, Wolfinger specifically denied some middle of the night meeting.

Also, my comments, including about who decides on the charges, when and under what circumstances, is not based on tv shows. I don't even watch t.v.

RANCH
05-10-2012, 06:04 PM
The problem here is you guys are quoting Florida statute 782.04(1). GZ was charged with statute 782.04(2) which reads as follows.
(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Murder under 782.04(1) is premeditated. Murder under 782.04(2) is without any premeditated design.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/88952000/George-Zimmerman-Information-Document

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html

RANCH
05-10-2012, 06:09 PM
ETA: I should say that murder 1 would apply here if the state had charged GZ with aggravated stalking. They didn't.

gxm
05-10-2012, 06:11 PM
Thank you, marlame!

I'm thinking that the separate instances of following Trayvon might be when he first followed him in the car, then ignored the advice of LE and followed again on foot the first time, lost Trayvon, then found him again and followed again, ending with the confrontation.

This would meet the SYG provision of:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony;

This is probably what AC was talking about when she was on NG....

Interesting. Is it possible the state is going to try to claim that in the car and on foot were two separate instances in order to meet the stalking criteria? Very interesting. But I'm not sure it will fly.

RANCH
05-10-2012, 06:21 PM
Interesting. Is it possible the state is going to try to claim that in the car and on foot were two separate instances in order to meet the stalking criteria? Very interesting. But I'm not sure it will fly.

If the state tries to claim that GZ was stalking Trayvon, I think that the defense will bring up the fact that they didn't charge him with that crime. The jury will probably wonder why. I know that I do. JMO.

LiveLaughLuv
05-10-2012, 06:24 PM
My understanding is they DID charge GZ with stalking... :waitasec:
Here's the Florida statute under which George Zimmerman has been charged with second degree murder.
It's 782.04 2n: unpremeditated murder as a result of aggravated stalking.

782.04 Murder.—
(1)(a) The unlawful killing of a human being:

1. When perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being;

2. When committed by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:
a. Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),

b. Arson,

c. Sexual battery,

d. Robbery,

e. Burglary,

f. Kidnapping,

g. Escape,

h. Aggravated child abuse,

i. Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,

j. Aircraft piracy,

k. Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,

l. Carjacking,

m. Home-invasion robbery,

n. Aggravated stalking,
o. Murder of another human being,

p. Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person,

q. Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism;

Thank You, Marlame...for finding this..Can you place it in the documents thread or a proper thread so we have this handy???

Sherbie
05-10-2012, 06:41 PM
I'm trying to find an official document that lists the statute under which Zimmerman is charged to see whether he's been charged under (2) or (3) below (both are second degree murder).

Best I can tell, if it's 782.04(2), aggravated stalking is not applicable. But if it's 782.04(3), it could be, and if it's 782.04(3)(n), it definitely is. I've had no luck on the official court site finding something with the actual charging statute enumerated beyond "second degree murder." Anyone else? Thanks!

Here's the entire murder statute for context, with second degree murder (emphasis mine).

782.04 Murder.—

(1)(a) The unlawful killing of a human being:
1. When perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being;
2. When committed by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:
a. Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0800-0899/0893/Sections/0893.135.html)(1),
b. Arson,
c. Sexual battery,
d. Robbery,
e. Burglary,
f. Kidnapping,
g. Escape,
h. Aggravated child abuse,
i. Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
j. Aircraft piracy,
k. Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
l. Carjacking,
m. Home-invasion robbery,
n. Aggravated stalking,
o. Murder of another human being,
p. Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person,
q. Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism; or

3. Which resulted from the unlawful distribution of any substance controlled under s. 893.03 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0800-0899/0893/Sections/0893.03.html)(1), cocaine as described in s. 893.03 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0800-0899/0893/Sections/0893.03.html)(2)(a)4., opium or any synthetic or natural salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium, or methadone by a person 18 years of age or older, when such drug is proven to be the proximate cause of the death of the user,

is murder in the first degree and constitutes a capital felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.082.html).

(b) In all cases under this section, the procedure set forth in s. 921.141 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0900-0999/0921/Sections/0921.141.html) shall be followed in order to determine sentence of death or life imprisonment.

(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.082.html), s. 775.083 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.083.html), or s. 775.084 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.084.html).

(3) When a person is killed in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:
(a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0800-0899/0893/Sections/0893.135.html)(1),
(b) Arson,
(c) Sexual battery,
(d) Robbery,
(e) Burglary,
(f) Kidnapping,
(g) Escape,
(h) Aggravated child abuse,
(i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
(j) Aircraft piracy,
(k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
(l) Carjacking,
(m) Home-invasion robbery,
(n) Aggravated stalking,
(o) Murder of another human being,
(p) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or
(q) Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism

by a person other than the person engaged in the perpetration of or in the attempt to perpetrate such felony, the person perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate such felony is guilty of murder in the second degree, which constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.082.html), s. 775.083 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.083.html), or s. 775.084 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.084.html).

(Florida Statutes: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html)

Sherbie
05-10-2012, 06:46 PM
Thank You, Marlame...for finding this..Can you place it in the documents thread or a proper thread so we have this handy???

(1)(a) is actually the first degree murder language. Second degree is covered under (2) and (3) [with parentheses], though the a. through q. sections are the same for (1)(a)2 and (3). The way it reads on the statutes page is a little confusing because they don't use any indentation to set apart the sections.

Elley Mae
05-10-2012, 06:53 PM
I'm trying to find an official document that lists the statute under which Zimmerman is charged to see whether he's been charged under (2) or (3) below (both are second degree murder).

Best I can tell, if it's 782.04(2), aggravated stalking is not applicable. But if it's 782.04(3), it could be, and if it's 782.04(3)(n), it definitely is. I've had no luck on the official court site finding something with the actual charging statute enumerated beyond "second degree murder." Anyone else? Thanks!

Here's the entire murder statute for context, with second degree murder (emphasis mine).

782.04 Murder.—

(1)(a) The unlawful killing of a human being:
1. When perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being;
2. When committed by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:
a. Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0800-0899/0893/Sections/0893.135.html)(1),
b. Arson,
c. Sexual battery,
d. Robbery,
e. Burglary,
f. Kidnapping,
g. Escape,
h. Aggravated child abuse,
i. Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
j. Aircraft piracy,
k. Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
l. Carjacking,
m. Home-invasion robbery,
n. Aggravated stalking,
o. Murder of another human being,
p. Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person,
q. Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism; or

3. Which resulted from the unlawful distribution of any substance controlled under s. 893.03 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0800-0899/0893/Sections/0893.03.html)(1), cocaine as described in s. 893.03 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0800-0899/0893/Sections/0893.03.html)(2)(a)4., opium or any synthetic or natural salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium, or methadone by a person 18 years of age or older, when such drug is proven to be the proximate cause of the death of the user,

is murder in the first degree and constitutes a capital felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.082.html).

(b) In all cases under this section, the procedure set forth in s. 921.141 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0900-0999/0921/Sections/0921.141.html) shall be followed in order to determine sentence of death or life imprisonment.

(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.082.html), s. 775.083 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.083.html), or s. 775.084 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.084.html).

(3) When a person is killed in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:
(a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0800-0899/0893/Sections/0893.135.html)(1),
(b) Arson,
(c) Sexual battery,
(d) Robbery,
(e) Burglary,
(f) Kidnapping,
(g) Escape,
(h) Aggravated child abuse,
(i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
(j) Aircraft piracy,
(k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
(l) Carjacking,
(m) Home-invasion robbery,
(n) Aggravated stalking,
(o) Murder of another human being,
(p) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or
(q) Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism

by a person other than the person engaged in the perpetration of or in the attempt to perpetrate such felony, the person perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate such felony is guilty of murder in the second degree, which constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.082.html), s. 775.083 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.083.html), or s. 775.084 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.084.html).

(Florida Statutes: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html)

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/336022/zimmerman-probable-cause-document.txt

Sherbie
05-10-2012, 07:00 PM
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/336022/zimmerman-probable-cause-document.txt

Thanks, Elley. I read the PC affidavit and don't see the statute listed. Usually we see something like "in violation of <insert statute here>." Either I'm blind as a bat or it's not cited. I can't find it in any of the court documents. Seems like some document somewhere would list the exact statute and subsections that apply.

LiveLaughLuv
05-10-2012, 07:02 PM
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88952000/George-Zimmerman-Information-Document

charging document

I believe Marlame is reading this wrong..I was just given a lesson on the prosecution thread...

Sorry for any confusion, there is no stalking charge for GZ...too bad, I believe there should be an added aggravated circumstance to his actions..

Elley Mae
05-10-2012, 07:12 PM
Thanks, Elley. I read the PC affidavit and don't see the statute listed. Usually we see something like "in violation of <insert statute here>." Either I'm blind as a bat or it's not cited. I can't find it in any of the court documents. Seems like some document somewhere would list the exact statute and subsections that apply.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/120411_Zimmerman_Capias.pdf

:seeya:

Sherbie
05-10-2012, 07:16 PM
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88952000/George-Zimmerman-Information-Document

charging document

I believe Marlame is reading this wrong..I was just given a lesson on the prosecution thread...

Sorry for any confusion, there is no stalking charge for GZ...too bad, I believe there should be an added aggravated circumstance to his actions..

Thank you, thank you, thank you! I could find only the capias return, and it didn't have the info we needed. I agree with you - looks like he's charged under section (2) rather than (3), so the stalking or other offenses in the list wouldn't apply.

Reader
05-10-2012, 07:33 PM
Thank you, thank you, thank you! I could find only the capias return, and it didn't have the info we needed. I agree with you - looks like he's charged under section (2) rather than (3), so the stalking or other offenses in the list wouldn't apply.

Here's a link to the Arraignment minutes which also lists sections of the law:

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/arraignment%20minutes.pdf

Charge of Murder in the Second Degree 782.04 (2) 775.087 (1) (A) F-L

I'll add this to the document section also.

No harm done on this research....we're all just trying to learn and get information...thanks for everybody's efforts!

LiveLaughLuv
05-11-2012, 11:11 AM
Mayor Bloomberg has made gun control one of his signature issues, and his administration harbors the long-term hope of making Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which he co-founded in 2006 and essentially controls, an effective counterweight to the National Rifle Association. The N.R.A.has lobbied for Stand Your Ground laws across the country.

“The laws are not the kind of laws that a civilized society should have," said Bloomberg. "And the N.R.A. should be ashamed of themselves. This has nothing to do with gun owners' rights, it’s nothing to do with the Second Amendment. Plain and simple, this is just trying to give people a license to murder.”

According to data derived from the F.B.I. and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, and cited by the mayor's office on Wednesday, since passage of Stand Your Ground in Florida, it has seen the number of justifiable homicide cases rise from an average of 12 per year to 36; in the three years Texas has had a similar law, it has seen a rise from 26 to 45. And in the four years Arizona has had a Stand Your Ground law, it's seen such cases rise from 10 per year to 15.

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2012/04/5675188/bloomberg-denounces-nra-and-shoot-first-laws-just-charges-against-

LambChop
05-11-2012, 12:03 PM
Maybe this case has a special purpose. Some of these cases coming back up again for review by the public may make people realize that this law is not being used as it was originally intended. It appears it's just getting out of control. If you kill the person you are arguning with and there are no witnesses to say you were wrong where is the incentive not to shoot to kill someone you are angry with. It's almost making killing a national sport from some of the reactions I'm seeing and that is not good for those gun owners who are responsible citizens. jmo

BiancaS
05-11-2012, 12:30 PM
The law does not require that both people be armed. Unarmed people kill people all the time. If Trayvon had his hand over GZ's mouth, as has been stated, and had he kept his hand over his mouth and asphyxiated him, he'd still be just as dead as if TM had been "armed". JMO

And that's a really BIG IF!!! MOO.

BiancaS
05-11-2012, 12:32 PM
http://secondchancecampaign.org/card/

Mother's Day message from Sybrina Fulton, please sign if you agree.

gxm
05-11-2012, 12:39 PM
Maybe this case has a special purpose. Some of these cases coming back up again for review by the public may make people realize that this law is not being used as it was originally intended. It appears it's just getting out of control. If you kill the person you are arguning with and there are no witnesses to say you were wrong where is the incentive not to shoot to kill someone you are angry with. It's almost making killing a national sport from some of the reactions I'm seeing and that is not good for those gun owners who are responsible citizens. jmo

I hope so. It would be a nice memorial to TM if a good hard look was taken at current gun and SYG laws, not just in Florida but around the country. It's just not right. Taking another life should not be such a gray area. It should be clear as day that the person claiming SYG or self defense had no other option.

JMO, OMO, and :moo:

Reader
05-11-2012, 03:10 PM
Interesting remarks from a south Fl. defense attorney on SYG:

Florida's Stand Your Ground Law Explained

http://www.southfloridacriminallawyer-blog.com/2012/03/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-explained.html#more

Excerpts:

..........Zimmerman may try to use Florida's Stand Your Ground Law as his defense. As more information comes to light though, Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law may not even apply given the facts of this case. This controversial law has drawn a great deal of criticism throughout the nation though it is somewhat misunderstood by the public. A full reading and review of the actual text of the law and the other laws it cites to (Florida Statutes 776.012, 776.013, 776.031) is needed to fully understand it.

Under Florida's stand your ground law, a person is immune from criminal prosecution when using justifiable force to protect oneself from another persons use of imminent unlawful force against them. The key here is that the force used to defend yourself must be "justifiable". This means that the force must be reasonable in relation to the threatened force. For instance, if someone attacks you with non-deadly force, such as their fists, you may not defend yourself with deadly force. On the other hand, if someone threatens you with deadly force or great bodily harm, such as a gun or a knife, you can use deadly force in response if you believe it is "reasonably" necessary.

More at link.....


I'm not saying they are correct but they are defense lawyers experienced in using the SYG law....

LambChop
05-11-2012, 03:17 PM
I feel the SYG law's intention was that when you find yourself in a situation where there is no way out of a threat of death that you can you deadly force, not that you have to. Anyone in that situation would know the difference. But unless you are a police officer it should never include you going after an innocent person because somehow you perceived they were up to something criminal. Even police cannot arrest you if they think you might be thinking about breaking into a home. GZ was wrong, very wrong and had he listened, TM would still be alive today. jmo

Reader
05-11-2012, 03:24 PM
Corey: Jax Woman Shot in Anger, Not Fear, She'll Get 20 Years

http://www.wctv.tv/news/headlines/Corey_Jax_Woman_Shot_in_Anger_Not_Fear_Shell_Get_2 0_Years_151121065.html


Angela Corey, the special prosecutor in the Trayvon Martin killing, says the "stand your ground" law doesn't apply in the case of a Jacksonville woman who pleaded self-defense for a shot fired during a 2010 domestic dispute in her home. Marissa Alexander, a 31-year old mother of three, is scheduled to be sentenced on Friday. After being convicted of aggravated assault charges, she faces a mandatory sentence of 20 years............."She was not in fear." Alexander invoked the "stand your ground" law in her unsuccessful defense, but Corey said the facts don’t support that claim.

More at link....

cityslick
05-11-2012, 04:13 PM
I feel the SYG law's intention was that when you find yourself in a situation where there is no way out of a threat of death that you can you deadly force, not that you have to. Anyone in that situation would know the difference. But unless you are a police officer it should never include you going after an innocent person because somehow you perceived they were up to something criminal. Even police cannot arrest you if they think you might be thinking about breaking into a home. GZ was wrong, very wrong and had he listened, TM would still be alive today. jmo

Judge must of thought the bag of 3 radios was life threatening in this case

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/27/2717572/miami-dade-issues-ruling-in-stand.html

The judge said that he had a right to chase the thief to retrieve his property and once the thief swung the bag of stolen radios at him, he was justified in fearing for his life and stabbing him. Ironically, the man then took all of the radios not just his own and sold two of the stolen radios so he too was a thief.

Karmady
05-11-2012, 04:21 PM
Judge must of thought the bag of 3 radios was life threatening in this case

Or fists in the case of the drunk passenger shot by the po'd neighbor on a bicycle with a gun.

wishuwerehere
05-11-2012, 04:34 PM
I wonder if some form of the “clean hands doctrine” will be brought up by the prosecution at the SYG hearing. (I realize this is brought up in civil lawsuits.) How can Zimmerman ask for protection under the law (SYG defense) if he himself does not have clean hands? Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch captain and according to the rules these watchmen are only to observe and report. If Zimmeman was not acting in good faith (unclean hands) at the time of the incident, how can he be granted immunity with SYG?

jmo

sleonardelli
05-11-2012, 04:48 PM
Let me ask you a hypothetical question in this context. Suppose for a moment, that there was an encounter between GZ and TM "where the sidewalks meet" along the lines as stated by RZ Sr. after talking to his son AND watching the reenactment w/LE the following day, in which TM gained the upper hand. Suppose TM then DID see GZ draw his gun and took off running, for half a football field's distance, to the area Attorney O'Mara said the body was found in.

Do you think GZ would have been legally justified in chasing him down with his gun drawn and killing him?

Interest theory!

BTW,

:yourock:

AJ Noiter
05-11-2012, 04:49 PM
I wonder if some form of the “clean hands doctrine” will be brought up by the prosecution at the SYG hearing. (I realize this is brought up in civil lawsuits.) How can Zimmerman ask for protection under the law (SYG defense) if he himself does not have clean hands? Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch captain and according to the rules these watchmen are only to observe and report. If Zimmeman was not acting in good faith (unclean hands) at the time of the incident, how can he be granted immunity with SYG?

jmo

Two things:
- NW doesn't over-ride your right to self defense, whether you're on patrol or not (and Mr. Zimmerman was not patrolling this night)
- Violating a NW "rule" isn't illegal. It may get you removed from the program, sure, but in no way is it illegal to not follow a rule.

Basically, ignore the whole NW program because it's rather irrelevant.

wishuwerehere
05-11-2012, 04:56 PM
Two things:
- NW doesn't over-ride your right to self defense, whether you're on patrol or not (and Mr. Zimmerman was not patrolling this night)
- Violating a NW "rule" isn't illegal. It may get you removed from the program, sure, but in no way is it illegal to not follow a rule.

Basically, ignore the whole NW program because it's rather irrelevant.

Totally disagree about the NW program being irrelevant. I understand that the defense would like it to be.

And I do believe that Zimmerman was patrolling. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been following Trayvon while driving his vehicle. He reported a suspicion. Which is what NW does. He did not report an actual crime. I conclude that Zimmerman was acting within his role of NW, and did not do so in good faith.

Can the judge find that SYG is not relevant if it is concluded Zimmerman was not acting in good faith?

sleonardelli
05-11-2012, 05:29 PM
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/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

Even though concealed weapon holders are peaceful and law-abiding citizens, we have to go out of the way to avoid conflict. Just because we can legally carry a concealed weapon does not make us police officers. The same holds true for situations where deadly force would be justified. Just because we can legally shoot does not mean we must ALWAYS shoot.

http://myweaponspermit.com/top-five-concealed-carry-mistakes/

IMO, from the "evidence" I've seen to date, GZ was "acting" like he had the authority of a police officer when he CHOOSE to follow Trayvon. He could've easily avoided a conflict by never getting out of his car in the first place! According to FT “I think any time you use a weapon, there are certain anger issues working,” Taaffe said. “I think he had fed-up issues. He was mad as hell and wasn't going to take it anymore.” IMO, that sounds like "depraved mind". SYG, as currently written, is too broad and gives license to kill to the wrong people. I also believe it's NOT applied evenly in all cases. Sure, there have been cases where SYG applies but I don't think it does in this case.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...s-shooter?lite

sleonardelli
05-11-2012, 05:31 PM
Corey: Jax Woman Shot in Anger, Not Fear, She'll Get 20 Years

http://www.wctv.tv/news/headlines/Corey_Jax_Woman_Shot_in_Anger_Not_Fear_Shell_Get_2 0_Years_151121065.html


Angela Corey, the special prosecutor in the Trayvon Martin killing, says the "stand your ground" law doesn't apply in the case of a Jacksonville woman who pleaded self-defense for a shot fired during a 2010 domestic dispute in her home. Marissa Alexander, a 31-year old mother of three, is scheduled to be sentenced on Friday. After being convicted of aggravated assault charges, she faces a mandatory sentence of 20 years............."She was not in fear." Alexander invoked the "stand your ground" law in her unsuccessful defense, but Corey said the facts don’t support that claim.

More at link....

Having read Marissa's story, I think AC got it wrong this time. When the evidence enters the public realm, I may rethink my support of her decision in the GZ case.

gxm
05-11-2012, 06:24 PM
Having read Marissa's story, I think AC got it wrong this time. When the evidence enters the public realm, I may rethink my support of her decision in the GZ case.

I am absolutely furious with this sentence. Unbelievable. She fired a warning shot and no one was injured. Absolutely unbelievable! I can't type what I think about AC right now or I'll get a TO!

highflyer
05-11-2012, 06:48 PM
I am absolutely furious with this sentence. Unbelievable. She fired a warning shot and no one was injured. Absolutely unbelievable! I can't type what I think about AC right now or I'll get a TO!

Is weird. Two children were standing by the man she was firing the warning shot toward.

jaded cat
05-11-2012, 06:54 PM
Two things:
- NW doesn't over-ride your right to self defense, whether you're on patrol or not (and Mr. Zimmerman was not patrolling this night)
- Violating a NW "rule" isn't illegal. It may get you removed from the program, sure, but in no way is it illegal to not follow a rule.

Basically, ignore the whole NW program because it's rather irrelevant.

There are no "scheduled patrols" for being in NW. Ours certainly doesn't work that way. There are, however, very specific guidelines NW volunteers are asked to follow. GZ violated at least 2 of those guidelines. That's why we're here.

LambChop
05-11-2012, 06:55 PM
Judge must of thought the bag of 3 radios was life threatening in this case

Maybe they were all playing rap music. jmo

LambChop
05-11-2012, 07:00 PM
Having read Marissa's story, I think AC got it wrong this time. When the evidence enters the public realm, I may rethink my support of her decision in the GZ case.

Ever stop to think she was the abruser in their relationship. It certainly happens and I'm sure those two children were interviewed. I think we would have to know the history to determine if the sentence was fair. jmo

cityslick
05-11-2012, 07:11 PM
I don't know how anyone can say AC doesn't overcharge with a straight face when she's willing to throw a 12 year old in adult jail for life.

I don't care how violent he is, 12 years old is 12 years old. Put the kid in some sort of treatment facility for life, not adult jail.

LambChop
05-11-2012, 07:15 PM
There are no "scheduled patrols" for being in NW. Ours certainly doesn't work that way. There are, however, very specific guidelines NW volunteers are asked to follow. GZ violated at least 2 of those guidelines. That's why we're here.

That is true of all NWPs. I guess people who are not familiar with the program think the P in NWP stands for patrol. It is a watch program only. You see something that looks suspicious you call it in. You do not follow, you do know go after this person with your gun, you let LE know where they can contact you and you let LE do their job. The rules are very simple. Tell me what didn't GZ understand???? We live in our society by laws and rules we have to live by. If your employer said to you, you have to follow certain rules would you deliberately break them because they are not against the law. When you agree to belong to a program/job/company you are expected to follow the same rules, not deliberately break them for your own self gradification.

The rules were set up by the police department to protect all of the people concerned, all of the residents within the community. The rules were set down and those who joined the program agreed to abide by these rules. When someone ignores the rules, someone else gets hurt. GZ has proved that. To ignore rules you know exists for the benefit and safety of others is selfish. GZ seemed to think he had better decision making abilities than the police department. He was wrong, dead wrong. jmo

Elley Mae
05-11-2012, 07:16 PM
I don't know how anyone can say AC doesn't overcharge with a straight face when she's willing to throw a 12 year old in adult jail for life.

I don't care how violent he is, 12 years old is 12 years old. Put the kid in some sort of treatment facility for life, not adult jail.

:oddsmiley:

LambChop
05-11-2012, 07:17 PM
I don't know how anyone can say AC doesn't overcharge with a straight face when she's willing to throw a 12 year old in adult jail for life.

I don't care how violent he is, 12 years old is 12 years old. Put the kid in some sort of treatment facility for life, not adult jail.

He may be too dangerous for a treatment facility. jmo

wishuwerehere
05-11-2012, 07:58 PM
I don't know how anyone can say AC doesn't overcharge with a straight face when she's willing to throw a 12 year old in adult jail for life.

I don't care how violent he is, 12 years old is 12 years old. Put the kid in some sort of treatment facility for life, not adult jail.

Do you have a link that states where this 12 year old has been housed in an adult prison?

Phoenixfla
05-11-2012, 08:19 PM
That is true of all NWPs. I guess people who are not familiar with the program think the P in NWP stands for patrol. It is a watch program only. You see something that looks suspicious you call it in. You do not follow, you do know go after this person with your gun, you let LE know where they can contact you and you let LE do their job. The rules are very simple. Tell me what didn't GZ understand???? We live in our society by laws and rules we have to live by. If your employer said to you, you have to follow certain rules would you deliberately break them because they are not against the law. When you agree to belong to a program/job/company you are expected to follow the same rules, not deliberately break them for your own self gradification.

The rules were set up by the police department to protect all of the people concerned, all of the residents within the community. The rules were set down and those who joined the program agreed to abide by these rules. When someone ignores the rules, someone else gets hurt. GZ has proved that. To ignore rules you know exists for the benefit and safety of others is selfish. GZ seemed to think he had better decision making abilities than the police department. He was wrong, dead wrong. jmo

Let me ask this. I'm not saying this is or is not the case here. Would it be possible for a neighborhood to form a neighborhood watch or neighborhood patrol without the involvement of the police and not subject to the guidelines that the police recommend. Basically an independent neighborhood watch and/or patrol subject only to the laws of the state it is formed in?

Reader
05-11-2012, 08:49 PM
Is weird. Two children were standing by the man she was firing the warning shot toward.

Exactly! The bullet hole was in the wall of the room where the husband and his 2 children were, not in the ceiling like she claimed.

AC brought the charges but she had to prove them to a jury and the woman was convicted, not by AC but by the jury that had the evidence.

Nova
05-11-2012, 08:54 PM
Let me ask this. I'm not saying this is or is not the case here. Would it be possible for a neighborhood to form a neighborhood watch or neighborhood patrol without the involvement of the police and not subject to the guidelines that the police recommend. Basically an independent neighborhood watch and/or patrol subject only to the laws of the state it is formed in?

As long as the group abided by local, state and federal laws, I don't see why not.

Gin
05-11-2012, 11:02 PM
Let me ask this. I'm not saying this is or is not the case here. Would it be possible for a neighborhood to form a neighborhood watch or neighborhood patrol without the involvement of the police and not subject to the guidelines that the police recommend. Basically an independent neighborhood watch and/or patrol subject only to the laws of the state it is formed in?

JMO/IMO
Homeowner's associations and condo associations have a fiduciary obligation to protect assets. Having a " as long as we think it's legal, do whatever posse" would put a neighborhood at financial risk.
That's not a small consideration. Most homeowners associations and condo associations have an attorney. I think attorneys would consider the template you've outlined a disaster waiting to happen. They would strongly advise against it. Most homeowners/condo owners would vote against it. They would not want to see the assets of the association frittered away by expensive lawsuits.
Neighborhood watch works, when folks WATCH, and if they see something, call the police. It is the job of LE to patrol, pursue, and investigate.

Gin
05-11-2012, 11:04 PM
Exactly! The bullet hole was in the wall of the room where the husband and his 2 children were, not in the ceiling like she claimed.

AC brought the charges but she had to prove them to a jury and the woman was convicted, not by AC but by the jury that had the evidence.
Agreed. AC did have to prove her case, and she did. In reading, I was kind of surprised the defendant declined the plea deal.

Phoenixfla
05-11-2012, 11:10 PM
JMO/IMO
Homeowner's associations and condo associations have a fiduciary obligation to protect assets. Having a " as long as we think it's legal, do whatever posse" would put a neighborhood at financial risk.
That's not a small consideration. Most homeowners associations and condo associations have an attorney. I think attorneys would consider the template you've outlined a disaster waiting to happen. They would strongly advise against it. Most homeowners/condo owners would vote against it. They would not want to see the assets of the association frittered away by expensive lawsuits.
Neighborhood watch works, when folks WATCH, and if they see something, call the police. It is the job of LE to patrol, pursue, and investigate.

I understand the liability issues, believe me, but is it possible?

ETA: And not every neighborhood has an association and a board of directors. Some are just a group of homes on county maintained roads with no guard gate, clubhouse, golf course, tennis courts, etc etc etc.

LiveLaughLuv
05-12-2012, 07:51 AM
http://secondchancecampaign.org/card/

Mother's Day message from Sybrina Fulton, please sign if you agree.

:cry:

Signed, sealed, delivered..

My mom and I stood in those shoes 29 years ago, March 1...

My heart aches for you, Miss Sybrina..My only brother was taken from us as tragically as Trayvon was taken from you...I am so sorry for your loss...:rose:

LiveLaughLuv
05-12-2012, 07:59 AM
I don't know how anyone can say AC doesn't overcharge with a straight face when she's willing to throw a 12 year old in adult jail for life.

I don't care how violent he is, 12 years old is 12 years old. Put the kid in some sort of treatment facility for life, not adult jail.

:oddsmiley:

He may be too dangerous for a treatment facility. jmo

Do you have a link that states where this 12 year old has been housed in an adult prison?

Sorry for the O/T posts....one has to read up on this child..he was nurtured into a sociopath..he is in a juvenile detention center...he was offered a plea but his attorney turned it down..but it will take lots of rehabiliation to help this child grow into a productive member of society..he hasn't gone to trial yet...

His trial date is set for this year, June 25th...
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-03-21/story/trial-date-set-cristian-fernandez-sexual-battery-case

LambChop
05-12-2012, 03:56 PM
Let me ask this. I'm not saying this is or is not the case here. Would it be possible for a neighborhood to form a neighborhood watch or neighborhood patrol without the involvement of the police and not subject to the guidelines that the police recommend. Basically an independent neighborhood watch and/or patrol subject only to the laws of the state it is formed in?

The rules are the same, you watch. LE would never agree to you following a suspect. But once you leave your property to follow on someone else's property you are breaking the law by trespassing on private property. So it's still just a watch program and no way would LE tell you to do their job for them. jmo

sleonardelli
05-12-2012, 06:52 PM
That is true of all NWPs. I guess people who are not familiar with the program think the P in NWP stands for patrol. It is a watch program only. You see something that looks suspicious you call it in. You do not follow, you do know go after this person with your gun, you let LE know where they can contact you and you let LE do their job. The rules are very simple. Tell me what didn't GZ understand???? We live in our society by laws and rules we have to live by. If your employer said to you, you have to follow certain rules would you deliberately break them because they are not against the law. When you agree to belong to a program/job/company you are expected to follow the same rules, not deliberately break them for your own self gradification.

The rules were set up by the police department to protect all of the people concerned, all of the residents within the community. The rules were set down and those who joined the program agreed to abide by these rules. When someone ignores the rules, someone else gets hurt. GZ has proved that. To ignore rules you know exists for the benefit and safety of others is selfish. GZ seemed to think he had better decision making abilities than the police department. He was wrong, dead wrong. jmo

:goodpost:

House to vote on Trayvon amendment (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/8/house-vote-trayvon-amendment/)

sleonardelli
05-12-2012, 06:59 PM
Having read Marissa's story, I think AC got it wrong this time. When the evidence enters the public realm, I may rethink my support of her decision in the GZ case.

:nevermind: ignore:

Nova
05-12-2012, 07:23 PM
The rules are the same, you watch. LE would never agree to you following a suspect. But once you leave your property to follow on someone else's property you are breaking the law by trespassing on private property. So it's still just a watch program and no way would LE tell you to do their job for them. jmo

Phoenix didn't ask whether such a neighborhood org would be advisable or free of liability issues, he asked whether it would be "possible"--which I took to mean "legal".

I'm sure you're right that LE would frown on certain activities, but that doesn't mean patrolling public areas and even following suspicious persons would be illegal.

LambChop
05-12-2012, 08:56 PM
Phoenix didn't ask whether such a neighborhood org would be advisable or free of liability issues, he asked whether it would be "possible"--which I took to mean "legal".

I'm sure you're right that LE would frown on certain activities, but that doesn't mean patrolling public areas and even following suspicious persons would be illegal.

The NWP is connected to LE through their crime prevention programs. If a neighborhood wanted to set up a patrol group I'm not so sure they can do so without going through their local police department. Anyone starting a program without notifying LE of what their plans are would not be very smart and might find themselves in the pokey from a complaint by a citizen. Some people just frown on others following them for no reason. Registering with police, taking their course, knowing the rules will keep the citizens and those civilian patrol groups safe. What happened with GZ is a perfect example of what happens when you don't follow the rules. jmo

Nova
05-12-2012, 09:02 PM
The NWP is connected to LE through their crime prevention programs. If a neighborhood wanted to set up a patrol group I'm not so sure they can do so without going through their local police department. Anyone starting a program without notifying LE of what their plans are would not be very smart and might find themselves in the pokey from a complaint by a citizen. Some people just frown on others following them for no reason. Registering with police, taking their course, knowing the rules will keep the citizens and those civilian patrol groups safe. What happened with GZ is a perfect example of what happens when you don't follow the rules. jmo

You and I don't disagree here in terms of what we think is wise, but I don't believe there's any law that says a watch program has to join the existing NWP or follow its guidelines.

That's not to say an ad hoc group might not inadvertently violate SOME law (trespassing, harassment, illegal use of firearms, etc.), but I thought the question was whether its very existence would be illegal. AFAIK, it would not be. Thus far, nobody has found a statute that says otherwise.

Karmady
05-12-2012, 09:08 PM
:goodpost:

House to vote on Trayvon amendment (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/8/house-vote-trayvon-amendment/)

They may want to wait to see how the case turns out first...oh, wait...nevermind.

vlpate
05-13-2012, 12:10 AM
There are no "scheduled patrols" for being in NW. Ours certainly doesn't work that way. There are, however, very specific guidelines NW volunteers are asked to follow. GZ violated at least 2 of those guidelines. That's why we're here.

BEM: Huh? :waitasec:

Reader
05-13-2012, 11:58 PM
Florida Shooting Forces Debate Over The “Stand Your Ground” Law

http://jonathanturley.org/2012/03/21/florida-shooting-forces-debate-over-the-stand-your-ground-law/

..........The DOJ is clearly treating it as a racially motivated shooting since the Civil Rights Division, in conjunction with the FBI, is participating in the investigation.
------

The key component of the [SYG] law is that it allows lethal force when a person reasonably perceives a serious threat of harm and such force is reasonable under the circumstances. Zimmerman is likely to cite the fact that he was bleeding from the struggle — even though he outweighed the teen significantly and was armed. ............That still allows for serious question over whether, even if Martin did struggle with Zimmerman, there remains the notion of a fear of serious bodily injury.
-------

Again, the most salient facts against him are (1) the statement on the 911 tape showing animus, (2) the disregarded instructions not to follow Martin, (3) the advantage in weight and possession of a firearm in the struggle, and (4) the lack of any weapon or proof of criminal conduct by Martin.

While the basis for the intervention by the DOJ remains a bit murky itself, it may help with the many unanswered forensic questions. I am most interested in (1) the trajectory of the bullet, (2) the distance of the shooting, (3) the extent of injuries beyond the bullet wound on both men, and (4) the forensic analysis of the background of the 911 calls.

More at link.....

http://jonathanturley.org/about/

jaded cat
05-14-2012, 12:39 AM
BEM: Huh? :waitasec:

You aren't supposed to follow someone once you've made the report. You're also not supposed to use a weapon.

sleonardelli
05-14-2012, 07:43 AM
The fatal bus stop stabbing of a Collier teen and the ensuing legal battle using Florida’s “stand your ground” law is scheduled to be featured on Dateline NBC Sunday.

A January 2011 fight between Palmetto Ridge High School students Jorge Saavedra, then 14, and Dylan Nuno, 16, ended in Saavedra’s arrest and Nuno’s death.

Nuno’s parents and Saavedra’s attorney, Donald Day, are featured in the Sunday night TV episode, which airs at 7 p.m. on NBC, according to the show’s website.

The case closed earlier this year when a Collier judge ruled in Saavedra’s favor during a preliminary hearing, determining the teen acted in self-defense under “stand your ground” in retaliation for taunting on the bus and punches thrown by Nuno. Saavedra no longer faces aggravated manslaughter charges.

Dateline NBC to feature Collier school bus stabbing 'stand your ground' case (http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2012/may/12/dateline-nbcstand-your-ground-nuno-saavedra-bus/)

This was actually on last night.

LiveLaughLuv
05-14-2012, 09:35 AM
Another Case Involving Self-Defense Claims Roils a Florida Community
By: Margie Menzel News Service of Florida | Posted: May 14, 2012 3:55 AM
As Florida reviews its "stand your ground" law in the wake of the Trayvon Martin killing, Marissa Alexander on Friday received a 20-year sentence for firing a shot in what she claims was self-defense and her backers say was a case of her standing her ground.

Alexander, a 31-year-old mother of three, was sentenced in Jacksonville under a mandatory minimum law for firing one shot in the direction of a spouse with a record of domestic violence in a 2010 dispute.

A judge had rejected Alexander’s "stand your ground" defense, saying she could have escaped instead of firing. Florida courts have often recognized a common law doctrine that says when someone is acting in self defense in their home, they don't have a duty to retreat to first.

Alexander's case has a twist from the usual "stand your ground" claim: she didn't shoot her spouse. She fired, but didn't hit him.

Her case has drawn immense attention, and gained even more notoriety than it likely otherwise could have as the state has been gripped by a new debate over self defense laws in the wake of the Martin shooting earlier this year.

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/another-case-involving-self-defense-claims-roils-florida-community



Angela Corey, the special prosecutor handling the Martin killing, will obviously fight any attempt to use the "stand your ground" defense in that case. And she said it doesn't apply to Alexander, either. Her office had offered a plea bargain of three years, but Alexander rejected it, hoping to convince a jury she had been in fear for her life.

"She got two shots at her self-defense theory," Corey told the Huffington Post on Thursday. "Neither a judge nor a jury bought it."

"It's a pattern we see all across the state," Newburn said. "[Defendants] turn down a plea deal because they think they're innocent…If you're guilty and you know it, you take the plea."

Corey said Alexander’s family and attorneys are spreading "misinformation" about her having been a victim who acted in self-defense.

"If there was a way to prosecute [Alexander’s family] for what they are doing I would," Corey said


In court Friday, Corey said Alexander's shot could have hit her husband or his children. She told the Huffington Post that Alexander "was angry" when she fired the shot. "She was not in fear."


I believe this too will be for GZ...For the life of me, I cannot picture GZ in fear when he's the one with the weapon. If he truly felt in fear, why did he continue to pursue TM?

It didn't appear he was in fear but he does appear to be angry...Angry (fed up) with all these alleged break ins, burlaries that have been happening in the community...

I believe lots of folk may misinterpet this very confusing statute..if the evidence is stacked against you, you might want to take a plea deal instead of going for the entire ball of wax..You stand a greater chance of loosing the case if you wholly depend on a jury to acquit..if the evidence shows the opposite, don't go for broke...Be a man/woman and take the consequences of your actions...admit to the wrong and do your time..

LambChop
05-14-2012, 10:33 AM
I find it hard to believe that Wolfinger and Chief Lee did not meet to discuss GZ and the SYG law in deciding to let him go when the Chief's own homocide detective wanted GZ arrested because he felt he was lying. You would think the Chief would have spent more time with his decision pending an investigation.

GZ claims to have been on the sidewalk at the cut through. He never claimed he was running away from TM from in the opposite direction what we know. If the witness' account is correct about two people running past her doorway right before the shooting GZ did, in fact, run. If GZ ran after TM to detain him that throws the SYG out the window, IMO. TM was not engaged in any crime that even LE could have legally detained him for. GZ had no knowledge of any crime and basically targeted and tracked down an innocent person. There is no evidence of wrong doing on TM's part. jmo

Karmady
05-14-2012, 10:45 AM
I find it hard to believe that Wolfinger and Chief Lee did not meet to discuss GZ and the SYG law in deciding to let him go when the Chief's own homocide detective wanted GZ arrested because he felt he was lying. You would think the Chief would have spent more time with his decision pending an investigation.

GZ claims to have been on the sidewalk at the cut through. He never claimed he was running away from TM from in the opposite direction what we know. If the witness' account is correct about two people running past her doorway right before the shooting GZ did, in fact, run. If GZ ran after TM to detain him that throws the SYG out the window, IMO. TM was not engaged in any crime that even LE could have legally detained him for. GZ had no knowledge of any crime and basically targeted and tracked down an innocent person. There is no evidence of wrong doing on TM's part. jmo

First, we don't know how much time he spent. It could have been ten minutes, it could have been several hours. I'm sure one of the issues they faced was how long they could hold George without triggering the immunity statute in the first place. Imo, they may have triggered it anyway, but I'm sure that was part of their decision-making process.

And regarding the supposed "chasing", even the SP's investigator says they have no idea who was chasing whom - still, to this day. jmo

sleonardelli
05-14-2012, 11:36 AM
TAMPA --
A circuit judge has denied the Stand Your Ground motion of Trevor Dooley, the elderly Valrico man charged with shooting to death a decorated Air Force veteran in front of his 8-year-old daughter two years ago.

Dooley claimed immunity from prosecution under the controversial state law that was enacted in 2005. Dooley, then 69, said he was protecting himself when the younger, much larger David James came after him.

James, 41, was defending a teenager using the park's basketball court to do tricks on a skateboard. Dooley, who lives across the street from the park, yelled at the teen to get off the court and strode into the park to confront the teen when James stepped between them.

Testimony differed slightly about what happened next. Dooley claimed he turned and began walking home when James attacked him. But witnesses said that before that Dooley hiked his shirt up to display a handgun in his waistband, and that's when James went after Dooley.

The two wrestled on the ground when Dooley managed to get the .32-caliber gun out and fired one shot into James' chest. James died at the scene.

Stand Your Ground motion denied for Valrico man (http://www2.tbo.com/news/breaking-news/2012/may/14/stand-your-ground-motion-denied-for-valrico-man-ar-403469/)

Can I say "Yea!!!!!"

AJ Noiter
05-14-2012, 04:35 PM
You aren't supposed to follow someone once you've made the report. You're also not supposed to use a weapon.


In addition, although Zimmerman broke no laws because he has a concealed weapons permit, it's something that Neighborhood Watch strongly discourages. "There's no reason to carry a gun," Tutko said. "You do not carry a weapon during neighborhood watch. If you carry a weapon, you're going to pull it."

http://www.huliq.com/3257/national-neighborhood-watch-director-criticizes-zimmermans-actions-trayvon-martin-shooting


This was Mr. Chris Tutko, the director of the national Neighborhood Watch program. The key word I want to point out to you here is bold in his statement. Mr. Zimmerman was not "on duty," so these guidelines (not laws) do not apply.

LiveLaughLuv
05-15-2012, 10:44 AM
This was Mr. Chris Tutko, the director of the national Neighborhood Watch program. The key word I want to point out to you here is bold in his statement. Mr. Zimmerman was not "on duty," so these guidelines (not laws) do not apply.

How do you know he wasn't on duty? He did call into the 911 NEN, so he must know who/what number to call while on his neighborhood watch...if he is as dedicated as his advocates state, then I believe he is always on CWP...always had that keen eye out for teens who are on drugs or something, while walking in the grass, not the walkway...

Tamato, tomato...

LambChop
05-15-2012, 12:12 PM
How do you know he wasn't on duty? He did call into the 911 NEN, so he must know who/what number to call while on his neighborhood watch...if he is as dedicated as his advocates state, then I believe he is always on CWP...always had that keen eye out for teens who are on drugs or something, while walking in the grass, not the walkway...

Tamato, tomato...

First there is no actual duty other than calling it in which GZ was in the process of doing when he got out of his car and pursued TM. GZ was still on the phone telling LE he was looking for information. The issue is GZ thought he was on duty and knew better than to get out of the car and knew he should not have had a gun on him when he took off looking for TM. The "I was just trying to find the street number on the next street over" just will not fly with a jury when he was suppose to be in his parked vehicle waiting for a patrol car. GZ was not through with LE because he stated he or LE would be calling him back for a location.

There is a reason LE does not want anyone getting involved other than calling it in. The end result when it involves a gun and a pursuit is never good. And I suppose when LE directed GZ he didn't need to follow that this guideline should have been ignored, too. jmo

Phoenixfla
05-15-2012, 12:44 PM
The fatal bus stop stabbing of a Collier teen and the ensuing legal battle using Florida’s “stand your ground” law is scheduled to be featured on Dateline NBC Sunday.

A January 2011 fight between Palmetto Ridge High School students Jorge Saavedra, then 14, and Dylan Nuno, 16, ended in Saavedra’s arrest and Nuno’s death.

Nuno’s parents and Saavedra’s attorney, Donald Day, are featured in the Sunday night TV episode, which airs at 7 p.m. on NBC, according to the show’s website.

The case closed earlier this year when a Collier judge ruled in Saavedra’s favor during a preliminary hearing, determining the teen acted in self-defense under “stand your ground” in retaliation for taunting on the bus and punches thrown by Nuno. Saavedra no longer faces aggravated manslaughter charges.

Dateline NBC to feature Collier school bus stabbing 'stand your ground' case (http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2012/may/12/dateline-nbcstand-your-ground-nuno-saavedra-bus/)

This was actually on last night.


I have followed this case very closely, and until you posted the link.

In the Saavedra case the older boy (Nuno) was a bully and picking on Saavedra. Nuno was trained in martial arts, and was significantly bigger than the younger one. Saavedra got off the bus earlier than his usual stop to avoid Nuno, and Nuno and his friends got off at the next stop and went to where Saavedra was. Nuno punched Saavedra in the back of the head and continued to punch him. Saavedra pulled a knife (he had taken to school) and stabbed Nuno. Nuno died at the scene.

Caused a lot of controversy in our community, much like the GZ TM case.

Reader
05-15-2012, 06:09 PM
TAMPA --
A circuit judge has denied the Stand Your Ground motion of Trevor Dooley, the elderly Valrico man charged with shooting to death a decorated Air Force veteran in front of his 8-year-old daughter two years ago.

Dooley claimed immunity from prosecution under the controversial state law that was enacted in 2005. Dooley, then 69, said he was protecting himself when the younger, much larger David James came after him.

James, 41, was defending a teenager using the park's basketball court to do tricks on a skateboard. Dooley, who lives across the street from the park, yelled at the teen to get off the court and strode into the park to confront the teen when James stepped between them.

Testimony differed slightly about what happened next. Dooley claimed he turned and began walking home when James attacked him. But witnesses said that before that Dooley hiked his shirt up to display a handgun in his waistband, and that's when James went after Dooley.

The two wrestled on the ground when Dooley managed to get the .32-caliber gun out and fired one shot into James' chest. James died at the scene.

Stand Your Ground motion denied for Valrico man (http://www2.tbo.com/news/breaking-news/2012/may/14/stand-your-ground-motion-denied-for-valrico-man-ar-403469/)

Can I say "Yea!!!!!"

That sounds very close to what GZ says happened, altho he didn't admit to showing the gun to Trayvon but I believe he did. So, the judge denied this man's immunity....hmmmmm

Desdemona
05-19-2012, 02:54 AM
Candidates for Orange-Osceola State Attorney (Ashton, Lamar, Williams, Jaeger) took turns weighing in on the Stand Your Ground Law at a May 9 forum.

Video of the responses:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/videogallery/69853686/News/State-Attorney-candidate-forum-Stand-Your-Ground-law#pl-68832490

jjenny
05-19-2012, 09:47 AM
That sounds very close to what GZ says happened, altho he didn't admit to showing the gun to Trayvon but I believe he did. So, the judge denied this man's immunity....hmmmmm

There isn't a single witness in Zimmerman's case that can testify that Zimmerman showed Trayvon his gun prior to the fight. Even Trayvon's g/f who was on the phone with him, said absolutely nothing about a gun, and she claims to have heard quite a few things (even the grass).

LambChop
05-19-2012, 10:19 AM
There isn't a single witness in Zimmerman's case that can testify that Zimmerman showed Trayvon his gun prior to the fight. Even Trayvon's g/f who was on the phone with him, said absolutely nothing about a gun, and she claims to have heard quite a few things (even the grass).

From where the phone was found and since the headset/buds were found beside TM's body it appears the buds were pulled away from the phone and what she may have heard was the phone landing in the grass. Because the phone was found in the grass and not in TM's pocket. It may have disconnected when it hit the ground. I know mine goes off when it hits the floor.

I don't think he had his gun out either. It would have been a juggling act since GZ had the flashlight out and I'm assuming they were GZ's keys because he had just left his car. Both were found on the ground. Unless GZ dropped them to go for his gun? (And that would go along with his statement when GZ said he was reaching for his cell phone.)

It is worth consideration because it could account for GZ yelling for John to help him because GZ was afraid of losing control of the gun. And if he tried to detain TM pulling a gun GZ might have thought it would keep TM there. If TM started to run GZ was not going to shoot him in the back so he could have given chase and some of the injuries GZ received could have been from the gun hitting his head as he fell. TM still trying to get away and maybe holding GZ's arm down to keep GZ from shooting him. That would account for all the screaming because the gun was not pulled out at the last minute and TM knew it was there. The lack of TM's fingerprints on the gun could be because he was trying to hold GZ's arm down so GZ could not shoot him. It is possible, I guess.

But there is no proof he pulled the gun earlier. jmo

Desdemona
05-19-2012, 04:41 PM
''Stand Your Ground' law: Jury finds Fort Pierce man Gilberto Galvez justified in killing


Posted: 05/18/2012

By: Tyler Treadway, Scripps Treasure Coast Newspapers

FORT PIERCE, Fla. — A jury found Thursday afternoon that a Fort Pierce man was justified in stabbing and killing a man under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law.

After hearing a day and a half of testimony, jurors deliberated about three hours Thursday afternoon before finding Gilberto Galvez not guilty of first-degree murder in the death of Carlos Pereza in the early morning hours of March 19, 2011.

After the verdict, Deputy Public Defender Dorothy Naumann said Galvez' case "fit squarely into the way the 'Stand Your Ground' law allows you to protect yourself, your loved ones and your home."


Read more: http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/region_st_lucie_county/fort_pierce/stand-your-ground-law-jury-finds-fort-pierce-man-gilberto-galvez-justified-in-killing#ixzz1vLlf9Gdf

sleonardelli
05-19-2012, 04:44 PM
That sounds very close to what GZ says happened, altho he didn't admit to showing the gun to Trayvon but I believe he did. So, the judge denied this man's immunity....hmmmmm

Trevor Dooley's attorney is appealing the judges ruling:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/valrico-stand-your-ground-case-attorney-will-appeal-judges-decision/1230583

sleonardelli
05-19-2012, 04:47 PM
I have followed this case very closely, and until you posted the link.

In the Saavedra case the older boy (Nuno) was a bully and picking on Saavedra. Nuno was trained in martial arts, and was significantly bigger than the younger one. Saavedra got off the bus earlier than his usual stop to avoid Nuno, and Nuno and his friends got off at the next stop and went to where Saavedra was. Nuno punched Saavedra in the back of the head and continued to punch him. Saavedra pulled a knife (he had taken to school) and stabbed Nuno. Nuno died at the scene.

Caused a lot of controversy in our community, much like the GZ TM case.

The amazing thing is Saavedra reached behind him to stab Nuno. I would've thought forensics could tell he wasn't facing his attacker (Nuno). This was clearly as SYG case and I'm glad Saavedra received his immunity.

TorisMom003
05-19-2012, 05:13 PM
This was Mr. Chris Tutko, the director of the national Neighborhood Watch program. The key word I want to point out to you here is bold in his statement. Mr. Zimmerman was not "on duty," so these guidelines (not laws) do not apply.

Actually it appears that Zimmerman was on duty at the time. Or at least he apparently told Inv. Serino that he was. According to the autopsy report in the section under Medical Examiner Case Report in the case summary is the following:

The caller stated that the male should not have been in the area and he observed the male while walking his neighborhood watch.

That is a statement made by Inv. Serino as to what occured that night.

Link for doc dump and page 138 of 183 is the one concerning the case summary:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/93951121/State-v-Zimmerman-Evidence-released-by-prosecutor

jjenny
05-19-2012, 07:50 PM
[B]


Read more: http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/region_st_lucie_county/fort_pierce/stand-your-ground-law-jury-finds-fort-pierce-man-gilberto-galvez-justified-in-killing#ixzz1vLlf9Gdf

I just find it fascinating on how FL's SYG works. According to that article, rather than claiming self defense from the start, defendant initially tried to cover up his involvement. Still found not guilty.

"Isenhower argued to jurors that Galvez' attempts to hide evidence — putting Pereza in his car and pushing it across the street, cleaning blood off the driveway, hiding the knife and bloody clothes on top of the house and lying to police about knowing the victim — showed "consciousness of guilt.""

Read more: http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/region_st_lucie_county/fort_pierce/stand-your-ground-law-jury-finds-fort-pierce-man-gilberto-galvez-justified-in-killing#ixzz1vMJvyagx

whateva
05-21-2012, 10:59 AM
I'm a newb here, but am a 40 year Florida resident with knowledge of the issues at hand / political evolution and will attempt to add something to the original discussion re SYG and some items on the rest of this thread.... be gentle :)

SYG in Florida is an usually an affirmative defense / pre trial motion and should have had no bearing on any jury finding not guilty... If a DA brings charges for the use of force in self defense, the defendant can move for a dismissal and a Judge decides on the merits if the use was justifiable under the statute. The point being: a DA needs to decide whether or not to incur a Judge's annoyance with being presented with a hot potato in effect. Th second point being: if the DA decides to take that chance / believes they have a very good case... the Judge makes a call. These two issues in practice put some pressure on DA's and Judges to have a very strong argument to deny that defense and thus appears to result in a lot of questionable SYG assertions not going to trial.

The background in Florida regarding SYG was it was intended as a correction of the long term perceived inadequacies of allowed use of force here. Citizens had long felt that they were taking a very serious legal risk (and they were) if they should be presented with a situation threatening their own or someone else's life in a public place.

Pre SYG, as a practical matter:
A person had a duty to retreat from any use of force other than in their homestead or place of business and had no right to defend another if they witnessed a forcible felony. People were frequently charged with manslaughter for using force even when attacked in road rage incidents, shopping disagreements, muggings, etc.... a person sitting in gridlock with someone in the next car over pointing a gun at them had a duty to leave their car and run.... if walking down the street and someone ran at them with a knife, they would have a duty to attempt to outrun the assailant rather than defending themselves.... a friend of mine witnessed an aggravated assault of a homeless man and was powerless to intervene...

If they did use force, even if it was justifiable.... they were frequently the targets of civil liability suits awarding millions to the families of road rage perps and muggers and even rapists.

SYG (with respect to outside one's home), is one paragraph in FSS 776.013, which attempted to fix that: (BTW, there is nothing particularly unique about use law in Florida in comparison to other states)

"(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."

if that person gets a SYG motion granted, then they are immune from arrest, prosecution, and civil liability:

"776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, ...."


So, in practice, someone simply needs to believe they or someone else might get a serious injury and force is OK.

There obviously needs to be some controls implemented on 776.013 and I'm sure that the legislature will do some type of knee jerk thing to gather votes and it will end up more screwed up than before... but I digress :)

Regarding GZ / TM:

If G does a motion for protection under 776.013 (3) (almost certain), he will no doubt assert that he was attacked by T, point out the statements by witnesses that he was mounted by T and being 'ground and pounded', reasonably feared for his life, and that's why he used force.

The key issue, either with the motion or at trial, will be: who started the altercation.

G will say T did.

The State has no person to say otherwise, so they will get the jury to try to buy:
- G expressed a belligerence through his comments on the 911 call
- G disregarded a statement from 911 re: following T "we don't need you to do that'
- that the person yelling for help, in spite of being ID'd initially by Ts father as not T... is actually T.
- that T's face down position and various other perceived inconsistencies amount to a circumstantial case that concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that G started the altercation

the State has a major problem making that stick, but you never know about juries... if the Judge bows to public pressure and denies the SYG motion... it's still a longshot G does time, but you never know... IMO

note: in Florida 'Stalking' is a repeated act.. so by definition this case will not involve stalking....

RANCH
05-21-2012, 12:16 PM
the State has a major problem making that stick, but you never know about juries... if the Judge bows to public pressure and denies the SYG motion... it's still a longshot G does time, but you never know... IMO

note: in Florida 'Stalking' is a repeated act.. so by definition this case will not involve stalking....
SBM.
Thanks and welcome whateva. I think that the judge will not grant SYG immunity to GZ because of public and political pressure. I think this case will be won or lost during jury selection and not by evidence or lack of evidence presented at trial. JMO.

whateva
05-21-2012, 12:25 PM
I think you are right.... 90% plus chance of going to trial and it will 100% hinge on selection .. nobody wants to make that call... but if this was an every day case... 100% chance that there wouldn't have even been an arrest

AJ Noiter
05-21-2012, 06:04 PM
<snip for brevity>
The key issue, either with the motion or at trial, will be: who started the altercation.

<snip>

I've been looking at the Florida laws for a few days now trying to figure out what Ms. Corey could possibly see in this case. In doing so I also found this:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

I'm not saying Mr. Zimmerman initiated the confrontation/assault/etc, but with this law, what are the thoughts?

Karmady
05-21-2012, 06:35 PM
I've been looking at the Florida laws for a few days now trying to figure out what Ms. Corey could possibly see in this case. In doing so I also found this:



I'm not saying Mr. Zimmerman initiated the confrontation/assault/etc, but with this law, what are the thoughts?

I think it means that, even if you have provoked the use of force against you,(and I think that would necessarily be more than a verbal confrontation unless maybe accompanied by a threat of bodily harm and/or the means to carry it out), you still have the defense so long as the force you have provoked creates a reasonable belief in the provoker that he is in danger of death or great bodily harm. In that case, the provoker can only use deadly force is he has attempted to retreat.

In other words, I think the only difference between SYG and this exception, as applied in this case, would create a duty to retreat prior to using deadly force. And, as you say, all of that requires that George be the aggressor. jmo

AJ Noiter
05-21-2012, 06:41 PM
I think it means that, even if you have provoked the use of force against you,(and I think that would necessarily be more than a verbal confrontation unless maybe accompanied by a threat of bodily harm and/or the means to carry it out), you still have the defense so long as the force you have provoked creastes a reasonable belief in the provoker that he is in danger of death or great bodily harm. In that case, the provoker can only use deadly force is he has attempted to retreat.

In other words, I think the only difference between SYG and this exception, as applied in this case, would create a duty to retreat prior to using deadly force. And, as you say, all of that requires that George be the aggressor. jmo

Yeah, my main point for showing it was to say that even if Mr. Zimmerman -did- initiate the confrontation, he still has the right to defend himself and use deadly force if the situation calls for it. If we were to give in to the baseless argument that Mr. Zimmerman confronted Mr. Martin the proof needed would be that Mr. Zimmerman didn't try to escape. With the information we know from witnesses - specifically one stating Mr. Zimmerman was calling to him for help - how can we say that Mr. Zimmerman did not try to escape before using deadly force, again, IF we give in to the opinion that Mr. Zimmerman confronted/etc. I think the lack of defensive wounds on Mr. Martin would point at this also - Mr. Zimmerman didn't want to fight, he wanted to get away from the person who was beating him.

Karmady
05-21-2012, 06:45 PM
Yeah, my main point for showing it was to say that even if Mr. Zimmerman -did- initiate the confrontation, he still has the right to defend himself and use deadly force if the situation calls for it. If we were to give in to the baseless argument that Mr. Zimmerman confronted Mr. Martin the proof needed would be that Mr. Zimmerman didn't try to escape. With the information we know from witnesses - specifically one stating Mr. Zimmerman was calling to him for help - how can we say that Mr. Zimmerman did not try to escape before using deadly force, again, IF we give in to the opinion that Mr. Zimmerman confronted/etc.

Agreed. Retreat would have to have been reasonably possible, imo. The amount of time the physical altercation took and the eyewitness testimony supports (strongly, imo) that it was not -- regardless of whether George can somehow be deemed to have been the aggressor. And also, imo, following someone and asking them what they are doing there, would not be sufficient provocation to a physical assualt.

whateva
05-22-2012, 12:28 AM
I've been looking at the Florida laws for a few days now trying to figure out what Ms. Corey could possibly see in this case. In doing so I also found this:
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

I'm not saying Mr. Zimmerman initiated the confrontation/assault/etc, but with this law, what are the thoughts?

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.

deelytful1
05-22-2012, 12:39 AM
Don't care how many pages the law is or what it says.. it's just giving a *** with a gun another reason to kill someone IMO... "self defense" should be enough... if I kill someone i should HAVE to be interrogated and an investigation SHOULD be done.. if I'm innocent.. I will be found innocent.. NO ONE should WALK when they kill another human being.. Makes it WAY too easy to kill just to kill as we have seen...IMO......

AJ Noiter
05-22-2012, 12:40 AM
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 PROVE that T was using sufficient force to IMMINENTLY cause great bodily harm or death AND that he had exhausted all means of escape.

SYG simply requires the reasonable belief, not the imminent death or great bodily injury...

That much higher standard, if it comes to play, will be a very ominous development for G.... if I were him and that happened I'd start thinking plea or appeal....

According to the quoted law, the person would only need to prove "reasonable belief" in this scenario also.

deelytful1
05-22-2012, 12:46 AM
According to the quoted law, the person would only need to prove "reasonable belief" in this scenario also.

This case aside.. do you not find this in the least bit disconcerting??? Reasonable belief of imminent danger can cause the death of another human being????

deelytful1
05-22-2012, 12:50 AM
True Story.. my landlord texted me and called me tonight and I didn't get either until now (almost 1 AM) she said she and her father are coming tomorrow to check the A/C.. I don't like my landlord (true story) and she has made me go thru alot of sh^T just to keep my son and myself comfortable...
If I hear them come in my home i will shoot them dead and claim SYG!! (WooHoo SYG!!) Do you see what a nonsense law this is???

whateva
05-22-2012, 12:51 AM
According to the quoted law, the person would only need to prove "reasonable belief" in this scenario also.

you are correct... I have now officially worked too long today.... :)

whateva
05-22-2012, 12:54 AM
True Story.. my landlord texted me and called me tonight and I didn't get either until now (almost 1 AM) she said she and her father are coming tomorrow to check the A/C.. I don't like my landlord (true story) and she has made me go thru alot of sh^T just to keep my son and myself comfortable...
If I hear them come in my home i will shoot them dead and claim SYG!! (WooHoo SYG!!) Do you see what a nonsense law this is???

you wouldn't qualify for SYG as they own the property and are legally entering after notice... so you can't establish a home defense presumption of forcible felony... see you in 40 years.....

deelytful1
05-22-2012, 12:57 AM
you wouldn't qualify for SYG as they own the property and are legally entering after notice... so you can't establish a home defense presumption of forcible felony... see you in 40 years.....

They have to give notice and I have NOT constructively received it (I'm telling YOU I saw the text but I can claim I never got their text or call ) Notice according to my lease is 48 hours....
According to SYG.. I'll see YOU right after the cops let me go... I thought someone was breaking into MY home (whether it's rented or not) so i shot them..

PERFECT way to get rid of my much hated landlords and stay here rent free for awhile...

whateva
05-22-2012, 01:16 AM
you believe SYG is going to allow you to walk after you kill a guy with a key and the right to enter your premise, but your constructive notice wasn't properly received?

"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,...."

he might be technically unlawfully entering, but it sure isn't forcible....

actually, probably never see you again...

there are definitely deficiencies in the current law but I would add that Florida's law isn't significantly different than most others.... so the SYG attacks should be properly focused as to eliminate abuse of it by gangs on the street etc. that have abused it..... nationwide....

deelytful1
05-22-2012, 01:25 AM
you believe SYG is going to allow you to walk after you kill a guy with a key and the right to enter your premise, but your constructive notice wasn't properly received?

"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,...."

he might be technically unlawfully entering, but it sure isn't forcible....

actually, probably never see you again...

there are definitely deficiencies in the current law but I would add that Florida's law isn't significantly different than most others.... so the SYG attacks should be properly focused as to eliminate abuse of it by gangs on the street etc. that have abused it..... nationwide....

Well, the way i read that... I'm allowed to kill whomever enters my home unannounced BUT if not..
How on God's green earth does this make sense to you?? You're just proving that the law makes NO sense whatsoever!!! If I have a gun and I hear someone walking in my door and I'm lying in bed naked asleep.. should i NOT have the right to protect myself?? Come ON!! All you're proving to me is that this law makes NO sense at ALL....
OR you're proving that the law is based on the interpretation of the murderer which will be deadly for lots of people...

liedetector
05-22-2012, 02:00 PM
As to some of the issues with the SYG law in GZ's case, following are 2 links I found interesting, one to an article dated today quoting legal experts, and the other a HP opinion piece from yesterday, w/excerpts from each (BBM):



From Catherine Crier, a legal analyst and former district court judge in Texas, on provisions that could prove problematic for Zimmerman's defense:

"There's an interesting provision right at the end of the statute [that says] you can't use 'Stand Your Ground' if you initially provoke the use of force, unless that person is coming at you with such great force that you really are fearful for your life, and you've exhausted every other means of escape other than force," Crier says. "And you can't use it unless you withdraw [from the situation], or indicate clearly that you want to withdraw, and that other person continues to use force that could cause serious bodily harm or death."

"You're telling me that George Zimmerman -- armed -- has a gun, and he is terrified that Trayvon Martin is going to get him, and he has really tried to run?" Crier asks. "All you've got to do is pull that gun and say, 'hey, I'm walking away from this.' Show's over."

AND

[URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-o...50.html?ref=tw" (http://www.thegrio.com/specials/trayvon-martin/media-jprematurely-declares-george-zimmerman-innocence.php)

"Ever since this story hit the press I've been mortified about how Trayvon has been vilified as the aggressor when all evidence points to him being the one who desperately needed to exercise his state's Draconian 'Stand Your Ground' law. For the life of me I don't understand why the media has not explored this angle more than it has....

"...What exactly does 'stand your ground' mean if not to fight like an animal to save your life when you believe it's being threatened with deadly force?Why does the fact that Zimmerman suffered wounds serve as evidence that Trayvon initiated the scuffle? To the contrary, Zimmerman's wounds reinforce that the kid bravely came at his attacker with everything he had. That after screaming for help seventeen times in a desolate area he fought furiously to save himself from being shot dead...something he unfortunately failed to do. Why is no one talking about how it was Trayvon who 'stood his ground?' Why does it seem that this law is only being discussed as it applies to Zimmerman?

As for Zimmerman's claim of self-defense? ********. That defense went out the window the second he stepped from his locked car with a loaded semi-automatic weapon."

AJ Noiter
05-22-2012, 04:03 PM
From Catherine Crier, a legal analyst and former district court judge in Texas, on provisions that could prove problematic for Zimmerman's defense:

"There's an interesting provision right at the end of the statute [that says] you can't use 'Stand Your Ground' if you initially provoke the use of force, unless that person is coming at you with such great force that you really are fearful for your life, and you've exhausted every other means of escape other than force," Crier says. "And you can't use it unless you withdraw [from the situation], or indicate clearly that you want to withdraw, and that other person continues to use force that could cause serious bodily harm or death."

<snip>

There is no such line at the end of 776.012. This is her interpretation of 776.041, which we discussed above. The underline is unfounded as it's not stated that the person has to COME AT YOU with such force - and considering 776.041 is regarding the AGGRESSOR, it'd be silly to state as much. 776.041 is posted up thread to compare. You'd think a "legal analyst" would be able to differentiate the statutes.


<snip>
Why is no one talking about how it was Trayvon who 'stood his ground?' Why does it seem that this law is only being discussed as it applies to Zimmerman?


The full quote was too ridiculous to care about, so I snipped the important part - a question that has been answered MANY times on this forum. As per 776.012 Mr. Martin's DUTY was to retreat UNLESS he felt his life was in danger, or had fear of great bodily harm. Neither of these would be obvious to a reasonable person when given the scenario of being "followed" alone. I'll quote the statute and bold the important parts for you. I'll also underline the part that says his duty is to retreat.

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 or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

The above IS 776.012 in it's entirety according to http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html
Clearly the line the "legal analyst" was speaking of is not there.

RANCH
05-22-2012, 09:49 PM
I don't think MOM has decided whether or not he will use SYG, or just go straight to trial and claim self defense. That was my understanding. Many experts agree that looking at the evidence now, SYG would not apply. I think MOM would know what those chances are and why risk GZ's testimony if it gets turned down. So that might not even be an issue. jmo

I think that O'Mara should ask for a SYG immunity hearing. The prosecution supposedly already has conflicting statements from GZ. What could the prosecution possibly gain if GZ takes the stand at an immunity hearing? The defense will get to see the prosecutions strategy if the hearing takes place. They will see how the prosecution examines GZ. That will help them immensely if it goes to trial. Much for the defense to gain with little to lose. JMO.

liedetector
05-22-2012, 10:05 PM
... This is her interpretation of 776.041, which we discussed above. The underline is unfounded as it's not stated that the person has to COME AT YOU with such force...

...The full quote was too ridiculous to care about, so I snipped the important part - a question that has been answered MANY times on this forum.

Respectfully snipped.

I understand that you wholeheartedly disagree with the excerpted interpretations of possible SYG challenges in this case as expressed by the former judge / both legal analysts, in addition to the viewpoints expressed by the HP opinion piece's author, which I provided with links to the respective current articles in their entirety.

But you should know that immediately after posting -without having seen your response, I actually edited out the underline you deemed "unfounded," got rid of the italics and didn't include that sentence in the remarks BBM.

And though it's certainly your right to feel that the quote from the author of the opinion piece is "too ridiculous to care about" and maintain that his question has purportedly been "answered MANY times," I must say that I've not only observed on WS, the same questions repeatedly addressed and repeatedly answered differently by those with opposing views, but also, the same points and arguments made - without complain. Just as I'm unsure whether this was directed towards the author for his statements, or towards me for posting a portion of them, I'm unsure too, if, or how, I might have elicited what appears (at least to me) to be a bit of "snarkiness" in your reply - especially since the extent of my own commentary regarding the links/excerpts was that I found them "interesting,"

Darkman00
05-23-2012, 03:17 PM
Earlier on, last night already, actually ... on CNN's Erin Out Front ... There was a lawyer who thinks Zimmerman will be set Free ... either because the case gets thrown out ... or because the judge might dismiss it etc...

I think he was attributing it to Stand Your Ground....

Anyone caught that show last night? ... Out Front was repeated several times on CNN.

----

It's HERE, actually: http://outfront.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/22/criminal-expert-zimmerman-will-go-free/

They have a VIDEO there as well......


Criminal expert: Zimmerman will go free

CNN's Erin Burnett talks to a criminal expert who says George Zimmerman will not go to trial. David Dow, defense attorney and law professor says it is unlikely that the case will ever make it to trial and even if it does, Zimmerman will never be convicted of murdering 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

Darkman00
05-23-2012, 03:32 PM
I don't envy Zimmerman in any case ... even if he is set Free basically.

Maybe, if he is set Free, it will be better for him to move to South America, for example, where his mother was born.

Because, how da heck is he going to safely walk the streets in US of A, if he is set Free :rolleyes:

cmsg2002
05-23-2012, 03:33 PM
Quote:
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 or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

If this is the portion of SYG that forms the basis of your opinion that GZ is innocent...then this same portion would have to then be equally applied to TM as well. I don't think any of us can say with any amount of factual certainty, that TM may have also reasonably believed force was necessary to defend himself against GZ's imminent use of unlawful force.

Would it change your opinion any if (and this is just a what if scenario) GZ had brandished his weapon to TM, and TM was acting to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself? It's certainly not out of the realm of plausibility, IMO.

AJ Noiter
05-23-2012, 03:43 PM
Quote:
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 or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

If this is the portion of SYG that forms the basis of your opinion that GZ is innocent...then this same portion would have to then be equally applied to TM as well. I don't think any of us can say with any amount of factual certainty, that TM may have also reasonably believed force was necessary to defend himself against GZ's imminent use of unlawful force.

Would it change your opinion any if (and this is just a what if scenario) GZ had brandished his weapon to TM, and TM was acting to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself? It's certainly not out of the realm of plausibility, IMO.


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.

Karmady
05-23-2012, 03:58 PM
Just sayin'...SYG is strictly an immunity statute. It will be applied to evaluate George's conduct only, as he is the only one charged with a crime. While the State may be able to introduce certain evidence about what Trayvon did or said, his conduct will not be evaluated except as it applies to George's actions or reactions to it. In other words, saying that Trayvon could have been "standing his ground," too, may be a valid opinion here, but such a determination is irrelevant to the court case except maybe as a soundbite in the opening and closing statements, imo.

Maybe a subtle distinction, but I think it's worth keeping in mind in the specific SYG discussion thread. jmo

Aedrys
05-23-2012, 04:03 PM
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.

If someone follows me in their car and it seems like they are trying to follow me to my house, I get scared. I don't go straight home because I don't want them to know where I live. The same would be if I were walking and thought someone was following me. We live in a dangerous society. People have to lock their doors at night. Kids and adults get kidnapped and murdered all of the time. It is ludicrous to suggest that no one would be afraid if they thought someone was following them. Not in this modern day society. There is a lot to fear and people should fear so that they can protect themselves. There is so much violence and murder, people should fear for their lives if they feel someone is following them. Better safe than sorry. And if GZ was following me, heck yes I'd be terrified of him. TM had every right to be fearful of his life that night. All IMO.

cityslick
05-23-2012, 04:09 PM
If someone follows me in their car and it seems like they are trying to follow me to my house, I get scared. I don't go straight home because I don't want them to know where I live. The same would be if I were walking and thought someone was following me. We live in a dangerous society. People have to lock their doors at night. Kids and adults get kidnapped and murdered all of the time. It is ludicrous to suggest that no one would be afraid if they thought someone was following them. Not in this modern day society. There is a lot to fear and people should fear so that they can protect themselves. There is so much violence and murder, people should fear for their lives if they feel someone is following them. Better safe than sorry. And if GZ was following me, heck yes I'd be terrified of him. TM had every right to be fearful of his life that night. All IMO.

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.

Aedrys
05-23-2012, 04:09 PM
Earlier on, last night already, actually ... on CNN's Erin Out Front ... There was a lawyer who thinks Zimmerman will be set Free ... either because the case gets thrown out ... or because the judge might dismiss it etc...

I think he was attributing it to Stand Your Ground....

Anyone caught that show last night? ... Out Front was repeated several times on CNN.

----

It's HERE, actually: http://outfront.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/22/criminal-expert-zimmerman-will-go-free/

They have a VIDEO there as well......

I believe O'Mara has to file first to get a SYG hearing, and he has not done so yet. Those TH's are jumping the gun. Let's see if O'Mara files for that hearing in the first place. He may not and let this go trial. I wouldn't put every hope in that SYG hearing since O'Mara doesn't seem keen on filing to get one.