I guess Zimmerman could try to make the case that this was a gated community, so in a sense he was on his property and therefore had a right to defend himself. However, it was not his personal property but common property, so in my mind, that is still a stretch. Since he is not in full control of who is admitted there, he still has no reasonable assumption that any stranger he sees is an intruder.
It sure sounded to me like he said what they say was said. I do not know what I think on this incident. Surely the man needs to be charged in this death and receive some sort of punishment. I do not think he set out to kill this kid. I think it is a case of a stupid man with a gun trying to play cops and robbers. He panicked for some reason at the end and killed an innocent kid. As I understand this, it would be voluntary manslaughter. No self-defense.
I remember a case in the 80’s in Maryland, I think, (I don’t know that I can find a reference for it, since it was so long ago) where a woman was at home with her baby and an intruder broke in. She had the chance to retreat, but didn’t because it would have left her baby (infant) with the intruder. She ended up hurting the intruder in some way and was sued by him. The claim was that she should have retreated and didn’t. The law was on the side of the intruder.
If you would have said this a year ago, I would have argued that it is no longer true. The internet has shown me that there is still a dark side that many people have when the can be anonymous in their comments. The audio of this incident show that it can also come out in times of stress. This is truly a fallen world in which we live.
Under current FL law, it does not have to be private property or your own property. There is no duty to retreat in FL, even in a public place. All that is required is that the killer was somewhere he was legally allowed to be (i.e. not a trespasser himself), and that he reasonably believed he was threatened.
What would cause a grown man, straddling the back of a teenager according to eyewitness accounts, to panic?
That is a completly different situation. First, most states do not have a duty to retreat from your own home–FL says you never have any duty to retreat anywhere, period. Second, the lady in your case was protecting another, that is not the case in the FL case. Finally, the FL law does not restrict the use of force to reasonable force. Taken together, if someone feels threatened in a public place in FL they are justified to draw down and start shooting - even if they could choose to just walk away instead. That is a terrible law and it needs to be changed.I remember a case in the 80’s in Maryland, I think, (I don’t know that I can find a reference for it, since it was so long ago) where a woman was at home with her baby and an intruder broke in. She had the chance to retreat, but didn’t because it would have left her baby (infant) with the intruder. She ended up hurting the intruder in some way and was sued by him. The claim was that she should have retreated and didn’t. The law was on the side of the intruder.
The new law is a good one. I shouldn’t have to run and hide; I should be able to stand my ground and defend myself.
Applying that law in this case seems to be a stretch.
Adrenaline. Did you hear his voice? Maybe panic isn’t the best term, but he was far from rational.
‘Frenzy’ might be more appropriate; in a frenzy to stop a kid from walking along a sidewalk simply because of what that kid looked like.
example:
My point, though, is that this incident pertains in no way to self-defense. When you go out of your way to involve yourself in a crime, especially when it’s not unambiguously a crime, you are no longer self-defending. He cannot even claim he was acting to defend another, in which case such an act might be understandable.
I’m sorry but that is just completely false. You are not justified under this law to use deadly force simply because one “feels threatened”. There must a reasonable threat of death or serious bodily harm to use deadly force. Stand your ground, does not mean using deadly force against an unarmed person who hasn’t attacked you.
You would be defending someone else, so you would be justified, but simply standing your ground for any or no reason sounds very much like “bring it on” to me. The law is too broad from what I’m hearing in this discussion. Racial profiling needs to be banned, beginning with Florida.
Different situation, but the law wasn’t on the poor woman’s side.
I agree that the law should not apply in this circumstance, but apparently the shooter invoked the law when the police came, and the police accepted that and did no further investigation. At a minimum, the law is being enforced improperly.
Because killing is wrong and should be avoided when possible? Should you be allowed to walk around packing heat and blowing away anyone that gives you trouble? That may be cool in Dirty Harry movies, but its not a country I want to live in.
Which priorities, the legal complexities of murder vs self-defense or the lives of real boys who walk out our doors everyday in much the same way Trayvon did?
