Florida, where murder is legal

Post Reply New Topic

As someone who carries a weapon for self defense, I'm in support of the 'stand your ground'/'castle doctrine' laws. However, if Florida's stand your ground law provides an affirmative defense for a man who shoots an unarmed person that he himself initiated the confrontation with, then that's just plain wrong.
To claim a defense of "justifiable homicide" you have to prove not just that you were threatened, but that you had a reasonable reason to fear for your life. That usually boils down to being threatened with some kind of deadly weapon.
I believe that Mr. Zimmerman is probably a good person, who carried a gun and didn't bother to train themselves on things like the appropriate use of deadly force, and the difference between a justified use of deadly force in self-defence and manslaughter. This was, for a variety of reasons, a "bad shoot" - and he should be held accoutable for his actions. He tarnishes the reputation of all of us who carry a weapon responsibly and - barring major evidence to the contrary - is absolutely guilty of manslaughter.

By your country's laws he's allowed to be a seemingly racist vigilante who can carry a concealed weapon and shoot (and kill) someone who is trespassing on his property or neighbourhood. He's living out his American Dream.

This is what happens when Americans hide behind a document that is over two centuries old, still clinging to the absurdities of parts of it that contain little to dangerous relevance in today's society.

The price that lad has unfortunately paid for living in the land of the free and the home of the gun wielder.

sliqua-jcooter;

My thoughts exactly.


Paulie_C wrote:

Gee, that made a lot of sense……….NOT!


Hide behind it? I’ll stand in front of it, too.
What you’re saying is that the constitution is irrelevant based on its age and for that reason we have NONE of the rights that it recognizes.


Yes, we could live in the U.K. where we’re not allowed to protect ourselves and the police are afraid to protect us. Did you notice those riots in London or did you elect to turn a blind eye to them?
Here’s something else to chew on while you sit in blind judgment:

Violent crime in the U.K.

Self defense laws do not give a paranoid unbalanced idiot with no badge and zero law enforcement training the right to run around with a 9mm playing cop. That guy is guilty of murder, straight up.

Self defense laws do not give a paranoid unbalanced idiot with no badge and zero law enforcement training the right to run around with a 9mm playing cop. That guy is guilty of murder, straight up.

2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[14]
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.
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.
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).
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.

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.

Because Mr. Zimmerman was the one who initially confronted the other young man, this is the only part that is relevant:


So, lets break this down.

Did he reasonably believe that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm? No - because he was in a fist fight. Statistically speaking, one unarmed person beating on another unarmed person results in death or serious injury less than 1% of the time.

Did he withdraw from physical contact with the assailant? Again, no - especially since it is believed that Trayvon is the one calling for help on the 911 tapes, it certainly seems like the opposite is true.

But, basically what that part of the law states is that "stand your ground" doesn't apply if you are the one that instigates the attack.

In Britain, an affray is considered a violent crime, while in other countries it will only be logged if a person is physically injured.

can you post what you are referring to specifically

Probably second degree murder, at most. The people who set up Neighborhood Watch particularly in a state like Florida where the dangers are really real, ought to have an air tight method of vetting the the participants and operative. People have a right to self defense, they have no right to be irresponsible.

ruveyn

Personally I think it is a good law and should remain. It makes people think more than twice before doing something royally stupid and it also makes thiefs and criminals know that they are now fair game.

Exactly. This law was written to allow people to defend themselves against somebody who attacks them. In this case, Zimmerman is the one doing the attacking, so how can he claim it was defensive? As the victim of an armed attacker, it would have actually been Martin, rather than Zimmerman who would have been justified in fighting back. It is the height of irony that Zimmerman is citing this law given that is meant to protect other people from him.

LOL you linked to the Daily Mail to back up your point

The outdated figures in that article are inaccurate because, as it says:



Don't believe everything you read in the papers (and don't believe anything you read in the Daily Mail)