Florida’s Castle Doctrine Law: Let’s Actually Read It
Geraldo Rivera thinks a hoodie bears some responsibility. The Rev. Jesse Jackson thinks “blacks are under attack.” In a sign that day remains day, the Rev. Al Sharpton has demanded “justice,” of a particular kind.
In a sure sign of the apocalypse, Rich Lowry thinks Al Sharpton is right. Robert VerBruggen thinks Florida law should be changed, and people should be able to protect themselves when the police can’t, but only somewhat, and sometimes. And in a sign that race-baiting, opportunistic politics is very much alive and has sunk to Mariana Trench-levels, President Obama has rhetorically adopted the deceased and let loose the Department of Justice on George Zimmerman.
Relatively little is known about the case except that George Zimmerman, a member of a local neighborhood watch group, shot the unarmed Martin once in the chest, killing him. Martin claimed self-defense, and had a bloody nose and injury on the back of his head in support. Local police did not find sufficient cause to arrest Zimmerman, and bits of potential “evidence” have made their way into the public spotlight, fueling innumerable pundits, politicians, and race-baiters.
The danger which has been overlooked is hasty, emotional law creation — or in this case, rescindment.
At stake is Florida’s so-called “stand your ground” law. There is no such standalone law. The law to which so many have referred without knowledge of the text or meaning is a common “Castle Doctrine” law in chapter 776 of the 2011 Florida Statutes. It reads (emphasis mine):
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 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.
Weren’t both the Hispanic Neighborhood Watch Fellow, and the Black deceased on the public street during the entire episode? When did either of them enter a private house? Where did they respectively live? Who lived in that neighborhood and why did they need a Neighborhood Watch? Anyway, I heard Zimmerman had grass stains on his back, suggesting he was pushed over onto a lawn, so how does this Castle Law apply when no house, workplace, or vehicle were involved? All in all the reporting on this case are terrible. The OJ question remains though. If there is a trial will the Jury be Hispanic or Black. Seems like in this stupid race soaked society, that’s all we have to know to predict the outcome. The facts, and the alleged witness who stepped forward saying th black kid attacked the Hispanic are irrelevant
Try reading the whole article, especially the part that quotes the law.
Go ahead and draw your conclusions that this was race based before reading the article (did you bother?) – it does not change the facts. Zimmerman had been decked by the kid according to a witness – he then proceeded to bang Zimmerman’s head on the sidewalk. I’d have shot the kid too if that happened to me.
It has been made into a race issue…dont you know George is “white hispanic”? strange way to describe someone.
Blacks so want a race riot it’s going to happen…thanks to our “white black” president. He just can’t keep his mouth shut…
When the black panther leader offered the one million, and the administration did not step in, we saw it as their way of saying..”okay, go get your tv’s and tennis shoes when and where you want to”
Facts of the case be damned..
Trayvon’s mom or dad need to stand up for what really is right and work with the police to find the truth and then stand up for and with it, not matter what it is..against people like Sharpton and Jackson the race baiters.
It doesn’t matter where they were. Florida stand your ground law applies to “anywhere you have the right to be” (even in public), as well as your place of residence.
You’re missing what he’s getting at. Stand Your Ground and The Castle doctrine are not the same thing. Zimmerman did not have to be in his home or car to be able to stand his ground and defend himself.
While yes, Trayvon also had the right to be where he was that night, he did not have the right to attack Zimmerman in any place. In doing so he became an aggressor and was committing a forcible felony. One good punch to the temple can kill you, getting your head pounded into concrete doubly so (in neither case does the attackers age make them less deadly). Reasonable fear in this case is a no brainer.
In that situation Zimmerman had every reason to be in fear of his life and thus to defend himself.
Yes… lets ignore the fact that Zimmerman followed the kid.
Its what neighborhood watch groups do when they spot someone that is suspicious. Duh!
Yes… lets ignore the fact that Zimmerman was not following the kid and did not know where he was by the end of the 911 call.
Apparently Zimmerman was walking back to his car when Martin came up to him, punched him in the nose, decking him, and then got on top of him and started slamming his head & punching him. Stand your ground/duty to retreat does not apply here as Zimmerman was physically unable to retreat, as he had a high school football player on top of him, beating him up. At that point you do have a right to kill in self defense.
Now these aren’t all the facts, and they may be wrong in this situation. So we’ll have to wait for more facts to come to light.
If he was on his way back to his car, he had retreated.
Did you not notice this part(the real Edmund Burke would have)?
“(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.”
Right. I missed that. Thanks for the correction. I was talking about the Castle Doctrine as in your home is your castle. I have no problem with self defense, which I presumed would apply in the public street but I did not catch that the “Stand your Ground” section was included in the rather long law on the subject of defending your home, car or business. This “any other place” section certainly applies though “force with force” might not mean a gun is a proper response to a punch in the face.
The stand your ground law might apply if retreat was an option, but as other posts have mentioned, it might not be relevant where you have a large angry youth on your chest pounding your head into the pavement enough to necessitate stitches. I found out more about this case from these comments, assuming they are true, than from any of the TV talking heads who have avoided the facts like the plague.
…”a gun is a proper response to a punch in the face”
You are right, but its a POSSIBLE response…
Which is why smart folk dont go around punching people in the face, just because they’ve been “dissed”
“treat everyone with the courtesy due AN ARMED MAN” is how it used to be.
The Root ’83 – I think i was Robert Heinlein (the SF writer) who said that an armed populace is a polite populace.
Yes. In Beyond This Horizon, in which it was customary for everyone to carry, and those who chose not to were pretty much second class citizens.
Someone beat me to it. In most of Heinlein’s novels, a theme similar to this comes out. Heinlein today, from the themes in his writings at least, would be considered a libertarian. His novels and short stories espouse a strong individualist streak and the idea that a man is responsible for himself, and that it is his job to live his life, not the government’s to live it for him. If you’ve ever read his bio, it will show that Heinlein was a true American patriot – of the type that would not recognize this nation as it has been transformed in the 24 years since his death.
The elites in this nation would not possibly grok what Heinlein knew to be the truth of a free society. Heinlein, notably, was a reformed liberal who, as he grew older in life came to believe in more conservative and then libertarian values. None of his works (admittedly, I haven’t read them all yet) beats the writing and theme of The Cat Who Walks Through Walls.
And we still need more facts to develop. I read/heard somewhere that Zimmerman had called the cops (911?) a total of 46 times over 11 years. That’s a significant record, so how do the cops view him: as a responsible member of an organized block watch program (my neighborhood has one) or Johnny jr. FBI agent with a plastic badge from a box of Cracker Jacks?
46 times over 11 years is a hair over once every three months.
It seems like an outlier, but I don’t see how it could be considered excessive.
rbj: It would be a lot if I called the cops 46 times in 11 years but I’m not in a nieghborhood watch. For all we know, many of those calls could have been about things like broken streetlights, seemingly abandoned cars, or anything else at all. In fact, if he was calling the cops it seems to me he was doing exactly what he signed up to do.
Yes, because calling the cops when there is a problem is what we are not s’posed to do.
Imagine, actually reading the language of the law before positing an opinion. What a novel approach. Thanks for providing the pertinent statute.
The facts as I know them at this time: Zimmerman was a member of the neighborhood watch and was on neighborhood watch at time(because there had been several break-ins in the neighborhood in the previous year). Zimmerman observed Martin, who was not known to him. Zimmerman called the police (not 911; someone else called 911 – see below). The police told Zimmerman to stand down (don’t follow Martin) and were going to come on over because Zimmerman had apparently provided reliable information to them in the past. Zimmerman lost sight of Martin and was walking back to his SUV. Here things get murky. The next thing we have is a 6’2″ 17 year-old Martin on top of Zimmerman beating the pulp out of him. This was observed by a neighbor, and he was the one who called 911. Zimmerman was armed and was able to use his gun to shoot Martin. When the gun was examined, there was no round in the chamber but the magazine was full; that was a failure to feed which can happen on guns that are part plastic. It is usually because the shooters wrist is limp. In Zimmerman’s case, he probably barely had the strength to get off one round because of how badly he was being beaten, and hence the failure to feed. Zimmerman’s nose was broken and the back of his head was lacerated, possibly needing stitches.
This case has nothing to do with stand you ground, and everything to do with plain self-defense. It must be a slow time in the lives of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and for O as well.
Jack,
I seriously doubt “limp wristing” had anything to do with the chamber being empty after the first shot was fired….
More than likely it was the very close physical proximity/hand to hand struggle that prevented the slide from moving sufficiently to chamber the NEXT round after he got off his fist shot…
That is to say, Zimmerman was able to access his weapon (which had a round in the chamber) and actuate the trigger, but with the Perp supposedly on top of him as they fought, its reasonable to believe the weapon may have been “sandwiched” between the two of them (or had an extra pair of hands grabbing at it) that there wasnt sufficient “room” or un-impeded freedom for the slide to cycle properly, following that first shot.
That is a common scenario with autoloading pistols in extremly close defensive shooting, and why “immediate action drills” for stoppages is a part of most weapons training. Weaver and Isosceles go out the window when the grappling starts.
As for “stand your ground” I agree with the law, but think its an extremly poor choice of words to put INTO a law.
It sounds too “bravado” and will surely cause it to become a lightning rod for innaccurate and unfair criticism
(as it has) for that very reason.
There must be a way through better verbage to specify in the law that the ATTACKER, being the unlawful party, can expect no RIGHT TO ADVANCE upon the innocent victim.
Because thats really what the Left is saying…that you must suffer harm, that you must give up safety, or seconds. That you relinquish some state-mandated percentage of you survival odds to HIM, before your life is REALLY your own to defend.
Without “standing your ground” you must “allow” a criminal a measure of access to harming you, because they are somehow ENTITLED to a measure of criminal behavior, ENTITLED to a certain amount of chase, advancement, and ultimately, physical harm upon you, before you can defend yourself.
The hard part with the Liberals controlling the narrative is to get these basic concepts into the mainstream, to where regular people can see them and go “DUH, why are we arguing this?”
Giving them a buzzword to harp on like “stand your ground” forces US to react, and clarify, to ask permission, when the shoe should be on the other foot.
The phrase “Stand your ground” is too “bravado”? Seriously?
This country is so screwed.
You have to think tactically, Steve.
It was a bad idea for Zimmerman to get out of the car when the police were on the way. No, he didnt “deserve” to get attacked, but better judgement would have foreseen the possibility, and the bro-ha-ha that would inevitably arise if he HAD to defend himself.
Similarly, when proposing self defense laws to protect our rights in a hostile (media) environment, we need to choose phrases that put legal/moral concepts in perspective with a minimal amount of “negative ammunition” for the enemy (the media) to use against us.
“Stand your ground” evokes images of resolve, bravery and independence in the face of assault and danger…
Verbotten concepts for us to have, according to to most people in two places.
Government. And Media.
Dont GIVE them a talking point, slogan, or “wild west” comparison when other language is available.
Think. Tactically.
Just being “right” isnt enough anymore.
“You have to think tactically, Steve.”
He was. He was evaluating the odds of losing or keeping sight of him and the sum benefits and downsides of each. He reasonably determined the benefits of trying to keep Martin in sight outweighed staying in his car.
It could be claimed the most “tactical” thought would be to stay home, but then there would be no neighborhood watches.
There is no trace of criminal intent in Zimmerman’s following the deceased. There is nothing but criminal intent in Martin’s assaulting Zimmerman, with the facts as they are known there is no excuse for it. Zimmerman was trying to stay in contact with 911.
If Martin had been thinking “tactically” instead of like a thug, he’d be alive now and would than have been on the phone to 911, with Zimmerman on the phone to 911, both staring at each other, until the police showed up to sort it out.
It’s Martin’s bad it didn’t go down that way.
Getting out of the car was bad tactics.
Period.
Strange suspicious guy, huh?
Not ACTIVELY engaged in messing with/threatening you, and you are ARMED?
Stay in the freaking car.
Recognize your weapon at that moment is more liability than asset, and do NOT go “looking” for him on FOOT.
Its called “neighborhood WATCH” not “neighborhood CHASE” for a REASON.
Cops on on the horn? Telling you NOT go on foot?”
Dude, wait in the freaking car, and point the cops in the right direction when they get there.
EVERYTHING else is a LIABILITY waiting to happen, because YOU ARE ARMED.
I’m a Firearms Instructor. I would NEVER have gotten out of my car, not unless the kid was killing someone. For 30+ years I’ve told every single private citizen I trained to defend themselves with a weapon the same thing, because I foresee from outer-freaking-space, the exact situation Zimmerman is now in, if you DONT.
Its was a TEXTBOOK bad tactical decision.
And the inevitable politically driven media storm from an easily AVOIDABLE incident, has ruined your life, you freaking DOLT.
Put it this way…what do THINK will happen, if this “suspicious person” DOES in fact does turn out to be a “hood”, when you come face to face with them?
When you could have EASILY AVOIDED IT?
How do YOU think a leftest, gun-hating media will paint the picture?
When you could AVOID the confrontation?
Hello?
Rule “Numero Uno” for private citizens who are armed:
Think ahead to AVOID possible confrontations.
AVOID means “dont meet them on their terms”
Zimmerman did the EXACT opposite.
And when the kid acted like the PUNK he suspected he was,
who’s in the hot-seat now?
Its a no f*cking brainer, amego.
Know your enemy*, and plan accordingly
*Your enemy is not just the punk. Its the media that will destroy you if YOU LET THEM.
And he was trying to keep him in sight so he could watch him.
I can’t say I’d do the same under the circumstances I know of, but I can’t swear I’d act differently either. I don’t know the lay of the land that night.
Since I’ll bet you don’t either, and this specific case comes down to specifics which you don’t have, maybe you should consider your speaking in generalities which may well not apply?
“Telling you NOT go on foot?”
No police or dispatcher ever said such a thing, which you should well know.
“For 30+ years I’ve told every single private citizen I trained to defend themselves with a weapon the same thing, because I foresee from outer-freaking-space, the exact situation Zimmerman is now in, if you DONT. ”
And being in a neighborhood watch in and of itself implies a willingness to hang it out there and become involved which you are training people not to do. He already wasn’t playing your gig, it’s unreasonable to expect him to do what you say is best.
“When you could AVOID the confrontation?”
He wasn’t trying to avoid it, he was trying to be a witness for the police who were coming. He from the outset was not trying to keep his head down and in the sand where he could at most guard himself, he was trying to be of use to his neighborhood. It’s a fundamentally different goal from what you are talking about, and is best served from time to time by different means.
A responsible foreward thinking person who is CARRYING A FIREARM needs to put something on the front burner, before all other things.
Safety.
Yours, the neighborhoods, and yes, the “suspects” too.
Do not get out of the car.
Period. Because go “good” can possibly arise from that.
A reasonable person sees the following equation:
Maybe “nothing bad” will happen, but maybe “something bad” WILL.
Dont bet your life on “nothing bad” as the best odds you can get in the game.
Thats sheer stupidity when no ones life is at stake.
Thats why the dispatcher said “you dont have to do that”
The dispatcher was being smart. The dispatcher saw what Zimmerman didnt.
A really, REALLY stupid move, that had ZERO chance of any “good” coming from it, but a GOOD chance for something BAD to happen.
Zimmerman was an ass for putting himself in an unreasonably dangerous situation for NO GOOD REASON.
I’m armed too, slick, usually 24/7.
Every step I take is with that “liability on my hip” in mind.
Because like it or not, THATS the standard I’ll be held to if something goes down
Sure, I have “the right” to be in a LOT of places my common sense judgement tells me are BAD IDEAS, because of the LIABILITY my firearm carries with it in those places.
For instance, dont eat dinner in certain places in town that serve a lot college age kids, because of known pissing contests, staring matches, “bumps” and “wudafugareyoulokinat” nonesense that are too commonplace in them.
And I KNOW, sure as spittin, that if GO there, and some young buck gets in my face, ITS GONNA BE MY FAULT if I have to shoot him.
Because I’m ARMED. And I dont NEED to be there.
I’m EXPECTED by the issuing authority to BE more mature, more responsible, more cautious, more aware of the potential consequences EVEN IF ITS NOT MY FAULT HOW OTHER PEOPLE BEHAVE.
If you KNOW its not a smart idea, if you know (or SHOULD know) it does nothing but INCREASE the risk of a confrontation, and you DO IT ANYWAY, You are an ASS who brought it on yourself.
Stay away from dirt bags when youre a private citizen who’s packing.
Shoot them if they chase and attack YOU.
Do NOT chase THEM
Because its a really REALLY bad idea
Just ask Zimmerman how well that decision worked for him.
A bad decision alone does not deserve or beget a murder conviction.
In this case, Martin’s far worse judgement in attacking, pinning, and verbally threatening Zimmerman’s life (not just poor judgement, but criminal action) is what should be lamented, not Zimmerman’s decision to keep a guy within his sight.
Sitting in a vehicle and waiting for police to show up does not make you safe. It makes you a mostly-blind sitting duck. Given that Zimmerman observed Martin reaching into his waistband and “mean-mugging” Zimmerman from afar, Zimmerman had reason to believe Martin was armed. A suspicious, likely-armed man running off behind some buildings to get out of your line of sight is NOT someone you should just forget about. Sitting in your car where your motion is limited to one axis (forward or backward) and your vision is limited is a bad idea in that situation.
Zimmerman had to stay put for police to find him. I would have done the same thing Zimmerman did: attempt to keep Martin in sight, attempt to find a street sign or address to give the dispatcher, and then walk back to my vehicle where I would stand outside my vehicle and stay alert until police arrived.
Unfortunately, Martin got the jump on Zimmerman, punched him, breaking his nose and knocking him to the ground, and then proceeded to slam his head into the pavement. Zimmerman attempted to move off of the pavement to the grass. In the scuffle to move off the pavement, Zimmerman says his Kel Tec PF9 was revealed, at which point Martin said something to the effect of “You’re going to die now. You’re going to die tonight.” Zimmerman had, during this exchange, cried out for help to a witness who simply ran inside, locked his door, and called 911 (the witness named John). It is reasonable to assume that IF Martin spotted the firerm, he probably tried to wrestle for control of it. So leading up to the shot being fired, Martin still has Zimmerman pinned, has threatened his life, had smashed his head into the concrete, is not showing any signs of yielding or retreating, is presumably wrestling for control of the gun, and the only apparent witness to the ongoing incident has just fled and left you to die. Anyone put in Zimmerman’s situation who does not believe their life is in imminent peril is, to put it bluntly, a f***ing moron.
In short, Zimmerman acted appropriately leading up to the incident, and was completely justified in using lethal force to save his own life.
If we’re going to discuss tactical thinking, the WORST thing Zimmerman could have done was to just sit in his car and wait. If Martin had returned, and been intent on harming Zimmerman, or if Martin had been armed (no reason to believe otherwise, and when we think tactically, we must consider worst case scenarios), then sitting in the car waiting would have been the worst place for Zimmerman to have been.
Root ’83 – The limp-wrist idea was based on what one commenter said here on PJM and what a friend of mine who is an NRA insructor told me. But I would not exclude your version of events from being correct. Zimmerman may know the answer to that.
The Left and the anti-gunner types are indeed making a big deal about the stand-your-ground law, but from what I can tell, this is not that case. Zimmerman was being attacked by Martin. Martin was on top of him, and it is very hard to retreat when someone is sitting on top of you, beating you to a pulp. As I said in my original comment, this sounds like a simple case of self-defense. The issue of retreat vs. stand-your-ground is irrelevant. One might as well discuss the usefulness of neighborhood watches, although no one has brought that up yet.
The autopsy should note if Martin’s hand is cut, and if the cuts are consistent with having hold of a pistol slide while it is fired.
Forensic investigation should also be able to estimate the distance between the pistol and the body of the shooting victim, based on powder burns and entry of the burned gas into the wound.
The police should already have marked the path of the two prior to the shooting.
Again, the investigation will reveal rather a lot of information. We have been treated to some egregious misinformation by the lawyer of Martin’s parents (the 5 year old photograph) and the false assertion that Zimmerman was “Racist”. When a lawyer is providing misinformation, we know that if he had good facts to bring to light he would be providing them.
Jack,
It doesnt take much to retard slide movement to prevent a failure to feed on that second shot. A little clothing drag or poorly placed finger can do it, no need to draw blood for it to occur. Since the fired case is ejected just prior to the slide indexing over the rim of the next cartridge in the magazine in most semi auto sequence of operation, just 1/8th inch is all it takes to get a “bang” followed by an ominous “click”
Limp wristing can cause it too, but thats mostly a “range phenomenon” uncommon event with the adreanailzed “death grip” most common in live shootings.
Beware, lots of bogus “nuanced” techniques are coming out of shooting schools, high thumbs and all that stuff…developed by instructors running drills for decades and fine tuning their own personal speed and accuracy skills like top athletes, and calling this esoterica “tactical”
The “high thumbs” thats standard training now has eliminated the most effective draw/retention tool we have, our opposable thumb. It eliminates roughly 90 degrees of “grip/grasp” circumference, making draws from “triple threat holders” with sweaty slippery (bloody?) hands more difficult, and leaving a big chunk of the guns grip “exposed and unsupported” during your draw making it more easily knocked out of your hand before you can get both paws onto it…like when you might be grappling with someone else..(or three?).
Unless of course you use a “wrapped thumb” for your draw, then “transition” to a high thumb(s) to shoot, but then we’re into that finicky “nuanced” stuff that makes people drop guns ALOT under stress (see endless you-tube vids of bad weapons handling techniques)
Great for speed shooting at paper in controlled environments, but for real world, real stress, real fast, not so much.
Grab that thang like youre MAD at it, and hang on like its’s the only thing thats gonna save you from falling down into a deep DEEP hole…
Cause thats EXACTLY whats happening, when you need it to keep you from being “six feet under”
Oddly, the words “stand your ground” appear nowhere in the actual law.
From Article Notice “….has the right to stand his or her ground….”
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.
Yep That’s sure not in the Law, Rob. Guess you read the article, Huh?
Wow! We have heard from the grammar police. The case is solved. Thanks, Jason.
I’ve said it before:
The problem is not the self-defense law itself.
The problem is the immunity portion of the code, 776.032.
Under that section, you do not have to prove you were defending yourself.
All you have to do is make the claim, and you gain complete immunity from prosecution, and the burden of proof for the State goes from whether you did kill or injure the person to having to show that you are not eligible to claim self-defense, typically because you were the agressor or were committing some other crime.
That is a massive shift in the principle of a claim of self-defense being an exculpatory and assertive defense, particularly when death is involved and no other side is possible.
Further, it makes the investigation more difficult as you cannot detain the (otherwise) accused, allowing him freedom to dispose of or alter evidence and prepare a story, and functionally prohibiting bringing it to trial unless you have established an absolute case against self-defense.
Oh, and there is a “separate” Stand Your Ground law in the Florida statutes. It is:
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.
Since this happened on a street and not a “dwelling”, “residence”, or “vehicle” for which the term “place” would be applicable to, it is 776.012 that would apply, not 776.013.
“Under that section, you do not have to prove you were defending yourself.”
It’s the state’s responsibility to rebut your assertion of self-defense. I don’t see the problem here.
“Further, it makes the investigation more difficult as you cannot detain the (otherwise) accused,”
Wrong. Zimmerman was taken into custody that night and questioned.
No, in every other case it is your responsibility to prove self-defense. All the state has to do is prove you killed or injured someone.
And I saw nothing indicating Zimmerman had been taken into custody.
He was questioned at the scene and the police let him leave.
If the police did take him into custody then they actually violated the law.
No, in every other case it is your responsibility to prove self-defense. All the state has to do is prove you killed or injured someone.
Then the states job is easy here, because Zimmerman freely admits that he killed someone.
What you are trying to say is “It should automatically be a crime when you kill someone unless you can prove it wasn’t in a court of law”.
That is your opinion, but it is not an accurate description of the law anywhere in the US.
Actually, that is the law in the U.S.
Self-defense is an affirmative defense, at least in NY state, not an immunizing statement to police.
As for it not being a crime when you kill someone, what exactly should it be?
Why not just presume all killings are self-defense until proven otherwise, and completely eliminate the need to bother with self-defense as a legal principle?
Along the way we can presume that all sex is consensual unless an actual lack of consent is proven, that all transfer of property is gifts unless an actual lack of a grant is established, and other bizarre inversions of the law.
SYG does not make a claim of self defense an immunizing statement from police.
It only says that absent evidence to the contrary of your claim, you may not be charged or sued as a result of successful self defense. It nowhere says, your claim will not be investigated for congruence with observable facts.
No, they did not violate the law by taking him into custody after the shooting. They conducted a sufficiently detailed investigation to be sure there were no reasonable grounds to charge let alone hold Zimmerman and cut him loose as the should, as per the law.
Then they did not take him into custody, as the Florida law prohibits that unless the investigation shows cause for believing otherwise.
That’s the catch-22 that is the problem.
776.013.2.b is the only occurrence of the word custody in the law in question. Nowhere does the law prohibit police from securing the scene and taking custody of witnesses long enough to get and verify statements.
You do not know what you are talking about. There is no catch 22.
The media and team crump a dump have been very disingenuous in this case (they are outright liars)!
.
George Zimmerman spent SIX HOURS being yapped at by the cops the night he shot Saint Skittles (which means he was held in their custody til well past midnight).
.
The cops wanted him to come back the next day for MORE QUESTIONING done in the absence of an attorney (to represent Zim) even though his dad was a retired magistrate (and all retired magistrates are as rich as Oprah if you are as dump as Benny Crump).
.
GZ then went to the hospital (yup, team media and team crump joined together to coordinate their lies) where he was told his injuries would require much waiting (how much, they would never say). His health insurance was only for major catastrophic coverage, had an annual $5,000 copay before they paid anything and a CAT scan would have cost nearly a thousand dollars just to fidn out that he had been hit hard on the back of his head (almost hard enough to kill him if he had been a little less lucky).
.
Since GZ didnt want to spend the next 12 hours in the ER (waiting for a bunch of illegal immigrants to get routine health care) after spending six hours being questioned (also KNOWING that he would have to meet with the police in only a few more hours since they wanted to question him again and again (since he hadnt layered up and shut up which was his right).
.
Listening to the call tracey martin makes to the missing person line in instructive of cool, calm and collected (he sounds like he would be more worried if someoen stole his bike than if his son went missing – I got the feelign that his son ran away a lot – like he skipped school a lot – Saint Skittles had missed 53 days of school between August and february.
You are abjectly wrong. No SYG law yet mentioned provides immunity from prosecution where it is warranted. One single fact contradicting a claim of self defense, and the prosecutor has a free hand.
How would that be innapropriate?
I didn’t write “where it is warranted”.
I wrote, and the statute supports, that prosecution, charging, arresting, or even detaining may not be done unless an investigation can produce sufficient evidence, and that such pushes the burden of proof for the claim from the erstwhile defendent to the state.
That is a major difference.
Normally the state must prove that a crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt.
With this the state must prove that a circumstance did not exist beyond a reasonable doubt, but without a key witness that has been killed by the defendent.
One single fact will not be enough. If it were, Zimmerman would already have been arrested because that one single fact, that he chased after Martin, not merely exists, but has been clearly established and admitted by Zimmerman himself.
I wrote, and the statute supports, that prosecution, charging, arresting, or even detaining may not be done unless an investigation can produce sufficient evidence, and that such pushes the burden of proof for the claim from the erstwhile defendent to the state
And you think that it is a bad thing that the burden of proof is on the state to prove guilt and not on the defendant to prove innocence?
The left really are fascists.
I agree, the left ARE fascist.
Someone who defends themselves from a thug slamming their head into the ground is well within stand your ground self defense.
The State should have to prove it otherwise.
Do you think it would be a bad thing if someone gunned down someone in your family, claimed self defense, then left you to wait for the state to be able to prove it wasn’t?
What if Martin had killed Zimmerman and claimed he was defending himself from the armed Zimmerman? Would you be happy if the burden was shifted in that instance?
Anarchists really are into casual street murder.
If Martin had killed Zimmerman, he’d have looked way worse than Zimmerman does now, because Zimmerman was the one who’d called 911, not Martin.
No, I wrote it.
The whole purpose of the law is to prevent overzealous prosecutors from charging people where, as in the case of Martin and Zimmerman, there is no evidence to justify even holding–let alone charging–the survivor. Keeping someone in sight you have found to be suspicious and have reported to the police is not merely not criminal and not stalking, it is laudable.
Assaulting someone as Martin did is a criminal act, most likely even a violent felony if he had survived it.
I am suspicious of your motives in making these baseless, I wonder if you are for some reason attempting to criminalize neighborhood watches?
Oh, so then such encounters should be judged purely by who survives, the standard should be “Dead Men Tell No Tales”; if Martin had killed Zimmerman he should be considered innocent by reason of self-defense until proven otherwise.
But no, you want to condemn Martin for what he easily could have perceived as defending himself against an armed person, following him on the street, challenging his mere presence.
I am suspicious of your motives in attempting to excuse Zimmerman. Do you think neighborhood watches should be able to execute people they don’t recognize by claiming “self-defense”?
“Oh, so then such encounters should be judged purely by who survives, the standard should be “Dead Men Tell No Tales”;”
No, the standard should be, is there any evidence a crime has been committed by those still living. Here, there is none.
“if Martin had killed Zimmerman he should be considered innocent by reason of self-defense until proven otherwise.”
Exactly.
“But no, you want to condemn Martin for what he easily could have perceived as defending himself against an armed person, following him on the street, challenging his mere presence.”
Observing him from a distance is challenging his presence? That is a psychotic statement on your part. I condemn Martin, far less than did reality, because he did not call 911, or otherwise act as an innocent person acts.
“I am suspicious of your motives in attempting to excuse Zimmerman. Do you think neighborhood watches should be able to execute people they don’t recognize by claiming “self-defense”?”"
No, but the state should have some evidence a crime has been committed by someone still alive to charge, who is claiming self defense, before putting that someone through the wringer of the criminal justice system.
Sam, in that case, I sure hope someone pounds your head into the concrete enough times that you feel your life in in danger and then you can begin to defend yourself from the police and the prosecutors and the media.
.
I dont say this in a malicious way, but rather in an informative way (since you really sound like you dont even listen to what you are saying). In fact, your statements are so lacking in credibility, you really seem to be working for the prosecution (oops, team crump a dump only think they are prosecutors)
.
Innocent until proven guilty really is a hard concept for you to grasp, isnt it?
.
TM’s girlfriend, Deedee, was supposedly a super strong prosecution witness who was gonna close this case down, quick. Only problem is she was interviewed in the most unprofessional fashion imaginable.
.
Not only that, but she is not as anywhere near as credible as the media and team crump a dump have claimed. Listen to her testimony if you dare, it will make you laugh how stupid she sounds (she sounds like she is testifying while high on sizzurp while trying to recall all the coaching she went through before she began to testily (oops, i mean testify).
.
PS, Deedee wasnt Trayvon’s girlfriend (not for some time). It seems that she was into tough guys and trayvon wasnt tough enough for her. If you listen to her testimony, she claims, “She got guilt”.
.
Why does she “got guilt” Did she egg Trayvon on to jump GZ? Did she question his manhood if he didnt “Jump” the neighborhood watch guy?
.
Mark my words, Deedee is so discredited, you can be sure she wont be anywhere near the courtroom when this comes to a hearing which may happen some day after the race baiting his gone (and the head white people hater is voted down).
.
Sam works for team scheme if you axe me (yeah, I speak a little ebonics, too).
Sam,
“Do you think it would be a bad thing if someone gunned down someone in your family, claimed self defense, then left you to wait for the state to be able to prove it wasn’t?”
.
If a member of my family was gunned down, would I hope for a rush to judgment to ensure an unjust outcome like the absentee parents Trayvon had are demanding just so they can get BIG BUCKS in a civil suit that their many lies have tried to influence the outcome of? NOPE…..I dont treat the loss of a family member as a lottery ticket worth multiple millions of dollars. That is NOT my mentality.
.
“What if Martin had killed Zimmerman and claimed he was defending himself from the armed Zimmerman? Would you be happy if the burden was shifted in that instance?”
.
I would NEVER be happy that someone was killed, regardless of whether they were in my family or in the family of the attacker. Just cuz a family member of mine was killed, you think I would advocate the elimination of civil rights for all people just to placate a pair of absentee parents who raised a feral child who were hoping their feral child would blossom into a massive civil liability lawsuit?
.
“Anarchists really are into casual street murder.”
.
And you really sound like you and trayvon are on the side of the anarchists not the law abiding citizens (I cannot stand anarchists – they killed the US President, McKinley in 1905 and I don’t think they are harmless or cute – don’t feed the anarchists), btw. Also note, street gangs are also into casual street murder, too (and the local street gangs in Sanford are called the GOONS, which local media are more tha familiar with, but they tried to make a big deal out of it and pretend Zim was racist when the local street gangs are called GOONS.
.
There is evidence that trayvon was a street gang member (as well as his daddy) and five of his close friends had died within the last year.
.
If trayvon had killed GZ, I would even want that hood rat feral child to have a fair trial.
The problem lies in blowing this case up to represent some kind of a trend. One side knows this kind of thing happens rarely, the other side expects this exact thing because they feel it IS a trend – when that latter side sees exactly what they expect, they go nuts. Black Americans are ruthlessly both advocating and defending by race and are presuming white folks are doing the same. They have done their best to drag over 200 million white Americans into this. The issue of whether Zimmerman is white or not is moot; Zimmerman being white still wouldn’t have involved over 200 million Americans.
White folks are being asked to involve themselves in a sucker’s bet. If you look at the larger fabric of American culture it’s plain to see white Americans have no overarching interest in race.
White folks don’t even really see themselves as white, or a race. There is no such thing as white culture except in a stereotypical satirical or humorous sense. White folks involve them in everything under the sun this Earth has to offer. Without attributing racial causation one can still say whites have myteriously had the Forest Gump effect and just happened to be around for every great advance in tech and society for the last 250 years. The “coincidence” bothers people who see the world through a racial lens. Black folks attribute that “coincidence” to white racism, oppression and exploitation, then and now. The problem is those weird “coincidences” stubbornly won’t go away. At some point you have to stop with excuses and open your eyes or get another way of looking at the world, preferably one that sees people by success and failure instead of white and black.
The fact white folks don’t generally see themselves as white is also “proof” of their blithe “privilege” as theories about white racism from the black political Left pile up to keep pace with the lack of “coincidences” to be found in the black community when it comes to conspicuous paradigms of success.
This is not my fault: I am not going to get some sort of measuring stick, look at the spectrum of my skin color and ease off or slow down. I am not a high scorer who will shave points to feed the delusional views of others about race.
If someone wants to huddle by race and then measure themselves by race and then they see they come up short, then either stop measuring yourself or start winning or just accept a consolation trophy if you must measure. It has nothing to do with me. The gov’t has bought into these stupid racial arguments and enacted affirmative action policies to act on a success-drag on anyone with white skin as if in fact white folks not only do buy into racial measuring what are responsible for what any white person may or may not have been responsible for in the past, even if they were simply criminals. By this same token all blacks should be responsible for all black crime.
These are all circular arguments that lead no where; it is why men like Derrick Bell, Al Sharpton and Roland Martin, hiding behind complex theories and suppositions wrapped up in cheap psychology are not seen for what they simply are: unintelligent racial bigots. Just for starters, you can throw Lovie Smith, the Miami Heat, the Hoodie March in with them. There is no cure for idiocy or explanations to bail one out or raise your IQ. Self-pity is not something you build a statue to.
In a sure sign of the apocalypse, Rich Lowry thinks Al Sharpton is right. Robert VerBruggen thinks Florida law should be changed, and people should be able to protect themselves when the police can’t, but only somewhat, and sometimes
National Review has been drifting leftwards for decades now. I don’t consider it to be a conservative publication anymore.
The NRO isn’t Conservative? Are you joking? Are you a Norwegian serial killer terrorist because, Jesus, it attacks Obama everyday, hates the health care program, and has articles about how the New Deal was horrible for the country….
Or maybe you’re illiterate?
Are you also “Jesus Christ, guys”?
Are you capable of giving yourself a name and sticking with it? That would be the conservative thing to do. But then, you’re no conservative either.
Certainly NRO is conservative. Having said that, we can perhaps both agree that the New Deal was bad for the country.
Keeping the US in depression/recession until 1937 was objectively bad.
Dumping farm products down the drain to create scarcity was objectively bad.
Paying white land owners in the south to not employ black sharecroppers was objectively bad.
Steering public works away from districts that were solid (D) or solid (R) to swing districts is a corrupt practice, and therefore objectively bad.
Zimmerman followed the guy. The police told him not to. He did. Zimmerman was in the wrong. If an old, creepy man starts following me, I’d beat him to a pulp to, because I’m standing my ground to not get illegally stalked.
You’re going to beat up someone just because you believe him to be creepy and he happens to be following you? You’re as bad as Sharpton. I only hope that the old man walking home from the drug store that you choose to beat to a pulp is armed as was Zimmerman.
Yeah!
What’s this world coming to when you can’t stalk someone with a gun on a dark street whenever you feel like without having to worry about the person fighting back?
Stalking is a term you are using baselessly and pejoratively. It implies hunting, of which there is no trace of motivation here. Someone hunting someone wouldn’t have 911 on speed dial, let alone on the phone.
Your accusations against Mr. Zimmerman aren’t merely without merit, they are laughable.
No, I am using stalking as may be applicable per the Florida law:
(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person’s child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
It certainly appears that Martin was afraid of bodily injury at some point.
Of course it may have been just assault or aggravated assault, but that would require more detailed investigation.
The key though is that following someone with a gun with an intent to confront that person is not a harmless activity, or going to be perceived as a harmless activity.
“(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person’s child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.”
There is no evidence of the will to commit a crime on the part of Zimmerman, nor any malice, neither any repetition, and there is no evidence he made a threat. If Martin felt threatened although Zimmerman offered no threat, Martin should have called 911.
“The key though is that following someone with a gun with an intent to confront that person is not a harmless activity, or going to be perceived as a harmless activity.”
And there is no evidence Zimmerman confronted or intended to confront Martin. There is evidence Martin assaulted Zimmerman in manner easily lethal to Zimmerman.
Jesus Christ, guys – First off, Zimmerman is not old, he’s 28. Secondly, the evidence on whether Zimmerman was following Martin is murky. Several points came out about this issue: when the police told Zimmerman to back off, he said OK; also Zimmerman apparently lost sight of Martin, so it’s hard to be following someone you’ve lost sight of him/her. Finally, it is not illegal to follow someone, or alternatively, if Martin was standing his ground and if Zimmerman was not threatening him, which seems to be the case, there was no reason for Martin to beat Zimmerman to a pulp.
And no Mr Zimmerman was not in the wrong. He had every right to keep the thug in sight while calling the police.
In fact Mr Zimmerman is a very brave man doing so at considerable risk to himself from the thugs. He preformed a civic duty, one we all should, well beyond what most do in order to help his neighbors to be free from punks.
Fantom.
I sympathize with Zimmerman, I really do…But being “right” and being “smart” are two different things.
When you are armed, and youre NOT a sworn law law enforcement officer, you need to exercise better judgement than getting OUT of your car, around a suspicious person.
My gut tells me this Martin kid was a punk from a mile away.
AS a punk, I’d expect him to ACT like a punk.
Its therefore, a no brainer to see that no GOOD can come from me exiting the vehicle, get it?
Maybe nothing “bad” might go down, but no possible “good” can occur,
especially when the cops are already on the way.
A “smart” person (who is armed) does not put their life, and their future, into bell ringing, flashing light level jeapordy/danger, when “something bad might NOT happen” is the best option on the table.
Stay in the car.
Yeah, it wasnt his FAULT he got jumped, but the risk of confrontation/escalation/assault/loss of weapon/second guessed shoot decision, etc etc etc was a lot HIGHER outside the car, AND WITH ZERO BENEFIT TO BE GAINED TACTICALLY OR PUBLIC SAFETYWISE WHILE TAKING THAT RISK.
My gun has a safety. Its “supposed” to work. Its not “fair” if it doesnt.
But I wont trust life with it, by pointing it at my head and pulling the trigger.
Because no good can come from that decision….
The best I can hope for, is nothing “bad” happening.
And thats just not good enough odds, to convince me to do it..
It is not smart to join the army either. If by smart you mean “to avoid conflict”. However it is done by brave men nonetheless to protect others. Much like what Mr Zimmerman was doing, putting himself at risk in a selfless desire to aid others from being victims of crime.
Damn good man that Mr Zimmerman…. damn good.
Remember, for evil to triumph only requires that good men do nothing. Yes Mr Zimmerman may have been safer in his locked car… maybe, He certainly would have been safer in his house on his couch… maybe.
Prisoners to criminals or we go out and take back the night. Those really are the choices.
Exactly. The Root ’83 does not understand Zimmerman’s goal is not on one always well served by the means of always staying in the vehicle.
Guys (Phantom and Tom)
I’m not comming down on him for doing what he was doing. I appreciate his concern for his neighborhood, and what he was trying to acomplish. What I’m saying is, there are WAYS of acomplishing his honorable good deed that night were are A LOT SMARTER than the one he chose.
“you dont have to do that” was the dispatchers polite version of what I would have said: “dude, are you STOOOPID?”
I carry a gun quite often. I’ve TRAINED others do so for 30 years. In wars and in the hometown streets of America. I’ve dealt with Deadly Force issues in uptight Blue states and gun friendly Red ones. Its not “opinion” to me what kind of “second guessing” you “ought” to receive, its the reality of how it WILL be, and if you dont grasp that and take it to heart, you have no business crying later.
When you are a Private Citizen who is armed (not a cop or someone “employed” while armed, like a security guard, alarm response company, etc.) you have to think about the implications of every move you make when not on your own property. No uniform, and a concealed weapon mean no “recognition” of who you are, beyond general assumption based on your dress/appearance/race.
By that I mean, a person will think you are just another schmo who’s “probably” not armed…not someone “working a detail” with a route, a dispatcher, communication etc etc.. A punk will be MORE likely to jump you, and an innocent stranger will be MORE likely to be alarmed by you “following” them.
Period. Truth. Reality. Right and wrong do NOT exist at this point.
You have to get over the “unfairness” of that fact, and deal with it, like the highly intelligent, extremly responsible, far ABOVE average man you need to be, because YOU ARE ARMED.
And while I do NOT buy it in this particular instance, being fully “anonymous” CAN create alarm within that “innocent person”, and thus CAUSE them to react in a negative way that YOU must now react to. It has happened often enough since the invention of gunpwder for it to be ACCEPTED as a potential phenonenon, whether its “fair” or not.
When you are a private citizen who is ARMED, these kinds of things MATTER…and they ARE your responsibility to avoid whenever possible, especially when you decide to “do something” about another person who is NOT ON YOUR PROPERTY…not because its “fair”, and not because its “right”, but because its reality.
Because if you DONT, just like like poor Mr. Zimmerman is finding out now, when ANYTHING goes wrong, who will be crucified? The guy with THE GUN, who had other options? Or the Purp (or his supporters) who have a whole universe of excuses, theories, denials and accusations to play with?
Leaving his vehicle was bad tactics, because it opened up a Pandoras Box of “all bad, no good” consequences I could see from outer space.
If I was his “partner” that night, knowing what I KNOW TO BE TRUE FROM PAST EXPERIENCE, I would have physically restrained him from exiting the vehicle, just like I’d physically restrain a small child from from darting into the street without looking.
I dont look for cars FIRST, or figure the odds are better than X they WONT get hit, and let them do it.
Its an automatic reflex, based on KNOWLEDGE.
Good people, with no malice in their hearts, make bad decisions all the time.
And it destroys their lives, not because they “deserve” it, but because thats reality.
“. If an old, creepy man starts following me, I’d beat him to a pulp”
Yeah, that is what another thug did too.
Strange how Karma works.
And if you beat a guy to a pulp on a public sidewalk simply because he was following you, you’d be arrested, charged, and convicted of at least assault and battery, if not attempted murder.
What went wrong here? Under this Wild West “Stand Your Ground” Law, clearly 17 year old Martin should have had a gun. Zimmerman comes after him, Martin shoots him dead. Martin claims self-defense, reasonable threat, there is a quick investigation, no charges. End of story, right? Except poor Zimmerman would still be dead, for no conceivable reason.
If Martin had a pistol he would go to jail for it, with a minimum sentence of 5 years, for being under the legal age to carry a pistol. If he didn’t have a CCW, he would go to jail for that, in addition to the 5 years.
And no, being followed is not sufficient reason to open fire. If Martin had acted as you advocate, he would properly be looking at trial for murder.
Being in proximity of a gun is not a threat, just as armed police officers are not considered a threat merely by being armed. Only if one had brandished the pistol, or pointed it would there be a threat.
By contrast, hitting someone is simple assault, striking someone’s head against the sidewalk is aggravated assault, and breaking their nose or causing lacerations that require stitches is battery. Depending on the state, some of those are felonies.
Unless there is credible evidence that Zimmerman hit first, it seems to be a good shoot.
Now throw in that Martin had apparently swung on a bus driver earlier that month, and was to stay with his father to straighten Martin out.
When you need to lie, that means you don’t have a good case. Still, it is best not to lie.
Quite reasonable.
DonM – Just another little tidbit, this one uncovered by Bryan Preston(from the NYT of all places): Martin was suspended, not because of truancy, but because there were traces of marijuana in a plastic bag in his backpack. Mr. Martin is getting to look less angelic as we find out more about him.
Most laws regarding firearms and threats, as well as self-defense, are written with explicit exemptions for law enforcement officers, pretty much establishing that having the gun is actually a threat, particularly once it is visible or referenced.
In such a case Martin would be in trouble for possessing and possibly concealing a gun, but not for defending himself with it.
Of course given how gun advocates always insist that people using otherwise illegal guns for legal self-defense should be given a pass on the gun charges, people would have to advocate for letting Martin off on the gun charges.
And for reference:
784.011 Assault.—(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
(2) Whoever commits an assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
784.021 Aggravated assault.—(1) An “aggravated assault” is an assault:
(a) With a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or
(b) With an intent to commit a felony.
(2) Whoever commits an aggravated assault shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
Let’s see . . .
Followed a person;
With a deadly weapon (with no intent to kill);
Causing fear of imminent violence;
Hmmm . . . looks like Zimmerman could easily have committed aggravated assault on Martin, passing all claim of self-defense to Martin, allowing Martin to strike first, and even escalate to lethal force when Martin tried to draw his gun.
Or don’t the laws and presumptions apply both ways?
Sam, I don’t know where you got your deductive and reason skills from but they are simply erroneous at best. A police officer having a gun on his hip is no more of a threat than a gardener holding on to his shovel or a baseball player holding a bat. It is how the person is acting and presenting such object.
In your thesis you claim Zimmerman should be held to account for assault? I don’t see your logic here. You used tems such as pursue which is deceitful. Pursue indicates a footchase, yet Zimmerman was only following from a distance. Furthermore, Zimmerman made no overt attempt to confront Martin nor did he call out to him. Additionally, you claim Martin was allowed to assault Zimmerman because he had a gun. If Zimmerman was carrying concealed, how would Martin know that fact?
You have claimed Zimmerman followed Martin (with a gun) with the intent to murder him. How can you claim that? Did Zimmerman call you before he followed Martin? You cannot assign intent without corroborating evidence.
One last thing, in an earlier post you claimed the police told him not to follow. That is factually incorrect. The Dispatcher (on 911 call) asked Zimmerman if he was following. Zimmerman replied, “Yeah”. Dispatcher said, “OK, We don’t need you to do that”. A dispatcher is NOT a police officer. Please, stick to the facts and stop interjecting assumptions and speculation where you have no facts to back up your opinions.
Another important tidbit about the call to police dispatch (it was not a 911 call, Zimmerman called the non-emergency police number, hence why the dispatcher hung up long before the police arrived on scene at Zimmerman’s location)…
The dispatcher asks Zimmerman if he is following Martin, he replies “Yeah.” The dispatcher then advises Zimmerman that he shouldn’t do so. Zimmerman THEN REPLIES “OKAY.” Listening to the rest of the conversation, it is clear that Zimmerman is looking for a street sign or address to give his location to the dispatcher and then planning to stay put at his vehicle until police arrive.
Brutus,
There was no such thing as “The Wild West”… that was a figment of East Coast dime novelist imaginations.
At no point from 1850 to 1900 did any frontier town have a per capita homocide rate that challanged that of Boston, New Youk or Philadelphia.
Your average “mature family man” of The West from 1868 to 1890 was a Civil War veteran….People who’d seen a thousand men killed in an afternoon. People who marched against cannons held by determined enemies.
The notion that they would tolerate a few drunken “boys” riding into town, who would (laugh snicker, knee slap) shoot a few PISTOLS into the AIR as a means of intimidation (laugh snicker, slap them senseless), is the biggest farce purportrated by the (then and now) dishonest media.
Sure, banks got robbed, shit got stolen, people got shot.
But amazingly (then and now) it was more common in the “eastern cities” which started pushing gun control by 1870, than it ever was in the “the redneck areas of the west where everyones armed”
Go figure.
Thank you for the excellent article, Mr. McDaniel. Too bad the “mainstream media” are not as concerned with the facts…but then the facts do not fit their agenda. The law was designed to allow law abiding citizens to defend themselves without fear of absurd lawsuits or overzealous/anti-gun prosecutors. As with any law, there will be those who attempt to misuse it. That is a job for the legal system to sort out. There is nothing in the law that gives anyone immunity if they have acted illegally. I am really surprised by a few of the comments here. pjmedia commenters generally exhibit a higher capability for reasoned thought based on facts rather than biased media reporting.
Eric Holder and Obama have already decided that the “Stand your ground” statute is invalid in this specific instance, because the ‘evidence’ shows Zimmerman was on his back and not standing. I think this is within their authority to declare a “rescindment”.
And Zimmerman could resemble Obama’s son with the same possibility as Martin, since Obama’s recessive white genes may have been prevalent. Who really knows what genetic history Obama really has.
You can call me anything; But, you won’t call me late for supper.
While this is a tragic case where a young man met his demise I do find some humor in the aftermath. Sharpton and Jackson elbowing each other for press time has to be one of the sickest shows on earth. The ambulance chasing race baters are once again battling for relevance and prime time appearances. They have no shame.
On a more somber note the idiot New Black Panthers have issued a fatwa of sorts in having hung a $10,000 reward for the ‘capture’ of Zimmerman. I wonder what they mean by ‘capture’? Not a peep from Obama or his ‘justice’ department on the issuing of a death warrant by the NBP’s. Seems they care little for Zimmerman’s life. Too bad he isn’t black – he’d get all the protections the law could afford.
This is what its come to…
Actually, I’m glad the Black Panthers have issued their bounty. It fortifies the necessity for keeping the current legislation in place without any revisions.
Mr. McDaniel; you have written a very concise essay that addresses the legitimate basis of the incident.
But, that is not enough.
The black race industry is taking advantage of the opportunity to capitalize on this incident to promote their racial propaganda of their being severely mistreated on a routine basis.
If you live within their manufactured realm of existence, this seems like a confirmed reality. (Which, actually resembles revenge more than any other quality).
Thankfully, I do not. I don’t like living within my own ethnic reality. If I did, I would be classified as a militant supremacist.
Militant supremacy is becoming vogue, thanks to an immature, petulant, juvenile, and unabashedly ignorant president that attempts to make these situations personal, when he should know better with the education he has had to experience.
In fact, given the amount of education he has received, he is even more egregious in his actions in this situation.
Th actions and threats from the Black Panthers only support the premise of the Florida legislation in it’s present, unadulterated verbiage. With the publication of their intentions, no change to the legislation is warranted, or shall be attempted.
But, “RESCINDMENT”? Is this a new term used by the legal profession on Twitter?
It might be good to remember that “disparity of force” is an extremely important issue if the eye witness report and the reports of the officers on the scene are to be believed.
If one is on the ground, being pounded into the pavement, there is a reasonable fear that if one loses consciousness the attacker will then be able to use one’s weapon against one.
The use of lethal force to prevent that happening becomes justified while the victim is still able to function.
TC,
Exactly, 100% correct, great observation…security of your weapon is a very big responsibility when you are armed…
Thats why decisions you MAKE when you are armed (like, leave the security of a locked car?) to go into the wild on foot (when you are NOT a sworn law enforcement officer?) that severely INCREASE the risk of that firearm falling into the wrong hands, (by leaving you more EXPOSED to an assault?) are generally called “stooopid” by firearms instructors such as myself.
Zimmerman had every RIGHT to walk down the street to observe…but it sure wasnt SMART, was it?
rjh.. I don’t believe ‘grammar’ means what you think it means.
Jason is CORRECT. He didn’t address the former poster’s spelling but his FALSE claim of ‘stand your ground’ not being in the law.
Though your wrong, unfunny comment duly noted.
Paul, I know what grammar means, and you are correct, I should have chosen a better word. My obvious goal was to point out that nit picking terminology does not change the meaning of the law. By the way, Paul, grammar does not mean spelling.
There’s an interesting video, purporting to analyze the issue of the “Stand Your Ground” laws from the point of game theory. It would be interesting, if it had any connection whatsoever with what is actually happening.
Game Theory 101: Trayvon Martin and Stand Your Ground Laws:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzAY5ZbR0os
The game it analyzes boils down to this:
-There are two parties, called Player 1 and Player 2.
-When one player comes across the other player they both have the same choice: They can be nice to each other (peace) or try to hurt them (pre-empt).
-If both act peacefully, neither player gets hurt.
-If both act to hurt the other player, they both get hurt, but less than they would if they didn’t defend themselves.
-If one player acts peacefully, and the other acts to harm, then the peaceful player gets seriously hurt (even murdered), while the attacking player doesn’t make any gains.
He analyzed the game with this as his concept of a “Stand Your Ground” law, and then compares it to a game theory analysis of the same situation without this idea of a “Stand Your Ground” law. The instructor then shows that the latter situation is rationally better and preferable.
The basic problem is that he’s turned the idea of a “Stand Your Ground” law into a game of “guess whether the other player is going to initiate harm” (For those of you who know game theory, this is basically a stag hunt).
He seems to have missed the entire point that the Castle Doctrine law doesn’t even go into effect until you’ve been attacked!
“The instructor then shows that the latter situation is rationally better and preferable.”
Then the man screwed the “game” up, because absent a recognition you have the right to SYG, the overwhelming advantage is given to the criminally minded who do not shrink from violence in the first place.
The game as written presumes both parties have the same predisposition to violence, and assumes no odds of such.
Try a recursive Monte Carlo run with several thousand pairs, with clustered recombination, and assign a stronger time preference to a small number of players, say 3% along with a 10 to 24 fold tendency to violence in those player. Watch the mayhem as the 3% profit at the expense of everyone else, while most people never hurt a fly. Try it with and without SYG, and include reasonable penalties for self defense in it’s absence.
G’head. You design a game with a basis in history and known statistics, and I’ll put up $500.00 it demonstrates society and peaceable individuals are better off with SYG.
Eh. Now the coffee permits to comprehend the last sentence. I think you and I are in vehement agreement.
Mr. McDaniels,
I noticed an error in your article and was wondering if you could edit it to avoid confusion. In the 3rd paragraph, first word of the second sentence; you wrote “Martin claimed self defense,…”. Should it not be Zimmerman claimed self defense?
The law looks fine.
About the same as we have here in California, though the “stand your ground” part isn’t codified in the California Penal Code.
It doesn’t apply in the Zimmerman case, IMO, but the law looks good.
“Castle Doctrine laws are a well-reasoned and necessary response to abuse of the lawful right of self-defense by politically motivated or lazy prosecutors. In many cases, such cavalier prosecution has ruined the lives of the innocent.”
It would be helpful to have a list of these “self defense” cases in which the prosecution was over the top. I recollect instances like this but couldn’t locate any specific examples except for the two women who shot intruders,(on separate occasions) in Oklahoma. As far as I know they were not persecuted. We also had the case of Anthony McKay in Massachusetts recently, but it didn’t rise to the level of the Florida event. Anyone?
Ty Cobb’s mother shot his father to death climbing through the window when he forgot his keys or something like that. Did it unbalance the boy so he became the most feared competitor ever known to the game? Cobb was an SOB his whole life with some suspecting he knew his mother used the castle doctrine to resolve some marital issues or something. I doubt she was ever prosecuted. Somewhat off topic, but it popped into my mind.
Unsaid and sad reality: If BOTH of them had been young, black, and wearing hoodies, it would have been “just another day” and the president, Al Sharpton, and the rest would not have cared in the least.
That happens a couple times a week, on average, in Philadelphia. No comment, Mister President? How many of them looked like the son you don’t have? No speeches, Mister Sharpton? Do 242 black murder victims (2011) not move you?
Only the “Us vs Them” aspect of it draws their interest.
The president, Big Al, media celebs, lefties, and over zealous prosecutors are all the same thing:
Statists. Statist who see. THEMSELVES as players/participants in the ruling class.
Big Als just trying to get his own “in” to feather his nest…media folks cut him slack so their pet sociology rules will be enforced by the gun. Procecutors cant allow self defense, because it undermines the “death star” magnitude of The All Powerful State.
All will tolerate the other, throw the other a bone, in order to advance their own position.
“the enemy of my enemy, is my friend”
Unfortunately, WE are their enemy. So they join forces against us at every turn, even when it appears to contradict their own (stated) positions.
Free will Hippe Hollywood rooting for jack booted facists to steamroll “the right wing militias”, gang bangers and “the man” teaming up to punish politically incorrect self defense shootings, and so on.
First, I find it odd that a group which has suffered informal justice (Strange Fruit comes to mind) in such a hurry to judge and punish.
Why should anyone have to take a beating so the people who have posted above can show their true moralistic piety at another’s expense?
I think the race baiters see another chance for a Rodney King moment in the name of group solidarity.
There is always the possibility that Reverend Al and his stooges may over reach: next time, victims may be told to call him and leave the rest of us alone.
For all of you who believe that because this kid supposedly smashed this man’s head on the concrete….did you ever stop to think that if he had kept his behind in his vehicle like the 911 operator told him to, he wouldn’t have had his head banged on the ground? Shoot that if you really need something to shoot…
Read the thread jenny-poo
Its been addressed
Excellent article, but for some reason the author did not go further into Statute 776 — namely, to the section regarding the use of force by an aggressor. Since several people here have been trying to paint Zimmerman as the aggressor (falsely, IMO) and others have tried to claim any mugger, rapist, etc. could invoke the SYG law (also false), here’s the relevant text. Note that the initial aggressor can, in certain circumstances, regain the ability to use deadly force.
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 was sitting at a stop light today and the car in front of me failed to go on green for several seconds.. She just didnt notice the light had changed.. I gave quick toot to alert her and I got the finger back.. Oh well..
I just drove to where I was going, but coincidentally we were both going to the same store..
When I parked and got out she also got out and started into me about me following her and went absolutely apoplectic.. She was literally foaming at the mouth.. All I was doing was going to the pharmacy but in her mind I was “stalking” her.. She felt threatened…
All you numb skulls who have defended Trayvon for “retaliating” on Zimmerman just gave this woman Carte Blanche to bust a cap in my ass.. Yes, I was following her.. Thats how it works on roads.. Yes, I got out of my car.. Thats how you get into the store.. BUT I had no intention of harming this woman … I guarantee you if she had had a gun she would have shot me.. And some of you (Sam, Jesus Christ Guys)seem to think thats OK… But she would have murdered an innocent man..
I too would have shot Trayvon, more than once, if he had attacked me and was beating my coconut on the concrete for following him in my own neighborhood, or anywhere else for that matter.. And I would have been right for doing that.. Trayvon thought he was above the law.. He had no regard for anyone elses life.. He forfeited his life as penalty for that arrogance..
I just left comment 25.. I didnt mean to leave an anonymous comment.. My name is Oscar.. I live in Queensland Australia.. We have strict gun control and a lot of crime.. Guns arent the problem.. People believing that crime bears no liability is the problem.. If everyone in the US and OZ truly believed that if you harm another human a bolt of lightning would come from the heavens and smote your ass(or you will be shot dead on the spot) there would be very little crime.. The Robert Heinlein quote really made me think about a world where everyone was armed.. Of course there would be the occasional nut jobs who freak out and kill a few but I really think that most crime would go away.. Most criminals are cowards..
I’ve read the thread. All very interesting. Sadly enough, everyone’s right because we just don’t know enough to make an intelligent decision. In this case, what “should” have happened didn’t; both could have “felt threatened” and reacted accordingly. One young life is lost, the nation is gripped in emotional indignation, and the world thinks white bigotry is running rampant in America. Newspapers and magazines are selling like hotcakes and advertisers are paying a premium to be seen on major news channels. This has all the earmarks of a Fellini one-act play.
The shooter is “white” but appears to be Hispanic and speaks Spanish. A skinny youth attacked a man 100 pounds heavier, pinned him to the ground, and inflicted bodily injury. The deceased was wearing a “hoodie,” which may have obscured his age and race, given the darkness. “Profiling” is suspected. The “Castle Doctrine” is being misquoted, misunderstood and blamed. The accused “vigilante” is being pursued by a nation of emotional vigilantes. Racial polarity is running rampant; the same kind of polarity that had deadlocked our politicians and prevents so many from “seeking to understand before seeking to be understood.”
Concepts like “reality” and “perceived threat” perhaps play a key role is all of this. Anonymous’ analogy of the woman he “followed” is a great example of how “reality” doesn’t exist. Our reality is what we perceive it to be, not what is. Had his appearance or behavior coincided with the woman’s expectation of heightened threat, if armed, she might have shot him in fear for her own safety; in “self defense.” The continuum of perceived threat can shift significantly in the nearly unlimited combinations of circumstances: clothing, lighting, tone of voice, facial expressions, physical size, speed of movement, violation of personal space, body language, etc.
I tend to agree with those, all still unaware of the real facts, who see this incident as a huge case of “bad judgment.” It was a sad case of, perhaps, inexperience, fear, machoism, bad decisioning, even racial stereotyping. But I don’t believe it was a murder motivated by racial hatred. In all fairness, though, I just don’t have enough knowledge of the facts to decide. I can only feel sadness for a lost youth, his family and the man who pulled the trigger.
27. Rich definately bad judgement all around.
latest correction zimmerman was only 20 pounds heavier than martin but considerably shorter.
if martin had used the langauge of civilized people and when asked why he was in the nieghborhood had said im in the nieghborhood becuase I have family living here and im visiting and smiled. this might have de-escalated the situation.
but bravado and muchismo won the day instead.
The Stand Your Ground law applied to both of them. Both felt mutually threatened and used the force allowed by law to protect themselves (well, who will ever know the truth now?). One man dead, one man in prison for life. That’s the result of the “Stand Your Paranoia” law. Watching this from France, it certainly does not want me to go and live in the States. Pure paranoia – and laws like this can only cause the paranoia to spiral out of control. Not a nice society. Sick.
If you are looking for a personal injury lawyer in albuquerque,
check here for a listing of the top firms and get free tips on parts of law.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nbc-news/47903601