Trayvon Martin: 'Shoot first' law under scrutiny

[Scott_Lafrance]

Evidence is gathered during the investigation and the facts are determined in court. Seeing how there are two sides to every case, and both will have their own set of “facts”, it’s hard for both of them to be right. The Judge or jury is who decides what the real facts of the case are.

Right, facts are presented at court. The jury decides how relevant they are.

 

[scipio337]

If the FBI, DoJ, and DA come to the same conclusion: that there isn’t enough evidence to charge Zimmerman, will you be satisfied?

Seekerz, Jerry Miah, those who want to see an immediate trial, how about it?

 

[Lujack]

From my understanding, Zimmerman was “retreating” to his car and had not initiated any confrontation. It was Martin who initiated the actual confrontation between the two.

From your understanding of Zimmerman’s claim, a claim that doesn’t line up with a lot of the other evidence out there.

 

[Lujack]

You do understand that the law requires the threatened person must be resonably sure they are threatened? And that they cannot use deadly force unless they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm themselves?

No, they cannot use deadly force unless a reasonable person would believe they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm themselves. You see I’m carrying a gun; I see you’re carrying a gun. Its a dark alley and you look threatening. I also look threatening.

Now, if we’re smart we wouldn’t have been walking down dark alleys at night…but let’s say we are. And it is a high-crime area, which is why we both have guns.

 

[Lujack]

Just because it’s your personal opinion doesn’t mean it applies to a legal situation.

1. Self-defense is an affirmative defense and requires a higher standard of proof. That is fact and not my opinion.
2. I am of the opinion that self-defense cases outside the home should typically go to trial. That is an opinion, and I acknowledged that.

 

[SamH]

1. Self-defense is an affirmative defense and requires a higher standard of proof. That is fact and not my opinion.
2. I am of the opinion that self-defense cases outside the home should typically go to trial. That is an opinion, and I acknowledged that.

Source of this fact?

In Florida the “Stand your ground law” allows the defense need only be asserted, and the prosecution has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense is not applicable.

 

[Lujack]

Source of this fact?

www.law.cornell.edu/wex/affirmative_defense

I look forward to your response.

Also, I’ll note that while the “Stand Your Ground” law removes the duty to retreat, it is still an affirmative defense-the defendants has to show that they felt reasonably threatened, and they are still required to use evidence to affirm that claim.

 

[Bocephus]

From your understanding of Zimmerman’s claim, a claim that doesn’t line up with a lot of the other evidence out there.

What evidence?

 

[iamrefreshed]

No, they cannot use deadly force unless a reasonable person would believe they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm themselves. You see I’m carrying a gun; I see you’re carrying a gun. Its a dark alley and you look threatening. I also look threatening.

Now, if we’re smart we wouldn’t have been walking down dark alleys at night…but let’s say we are. And it is a high-crime area, which is why we both have guns.

The law is the law. “Reasonable” will be determined by the evidence at the scene, eyewitness reports and statements of the involved parties. Then the DA will look at the evidence and see if charges will be pressed.

That is due process and why America is a great place to live.

The community at large does not define “reasonable” on a case by case basis.

That’s called viligante justice.

 

[jen_fla]

here are two maps. as you can see in both, people have different ideas as to which paths were taken by gz and tm.

what we can tell is that george got out of his car while on the phone with the dispatcher and continued to walk. again that is not illegal. upon looking at the map and realizing how much ground can be covered in a minute or two, i’ve concluded that we can’t know for sure if george was on his way back to his truck or not.

and we certainly can’t tell who approached who. and even if we knew that, we still don’t know who put the other person in imminent fear for their life first. it does appear that trayvon had enough time to make it back home, but even if he chose to stop and ask gz what he was doing, that still doesn’t mean tm is guilty. same goes the other way around.

911 conversation:

orlandosentinel.com/videogallery/68871920/News/George-Zimmerman-911-call-reporting-Trayvon-Martin

map:

bcclist.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-path.jpg

another map with a different take

bcclist.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-path.jpg

 

[SamH]

www.law.cornell.edu/wex/affirmative_defense

I look forward to your response.

Also, I’ll note that while the “Stand Your Ground” law removes the duty to retreat, it is still an affirmative defense-the defendants has to show that they felt reasonably threatened, and they are still required to use evidence to affirm that claim.

In Florida the “Stand your ground law” allows the defense need only be asserted, and the prosecution has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense is not applicable. That was the entire point of passing the law.

 

[Bocephus]

here are two maps. as you can see in both, people have different ideas as to which paths were taken by gz and tm.

what we can tell is that george got out of his car while on the phone with the dispatcher and continued to walk. again that is not illegal. upon looking at the map and realizing how much ground can be covered in a minute or two, i’ve concluded that we can’t know for sure if george was on his way back to his truck or not.

and we certainly can’t tell who approached who. and even if we knew that, we still don’t know who put the other person in imminent fear for their life first. it does appear that trayvon had enough time to make it back home, but even if he chose to stop and ask gz what he was doing, that still doesn’t mean tm is guilty. same goes the other way around.

911 conversation:

orlandosentinel.com/videogallery/68871920/News/George-Zimmerman-911-call-reporting-Trayvon-Martin

map:

bcclist.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-path.jpg

another map with a different take

bcclist.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-path.jpg

Thanks Jen, those appear to be the same maps from a glance though.

 

[SamH]

[Also, I’ll note that while the “Stand Your Ground” law removes the duty to retreat, it is still an affirmative defense-the defendants has to show that they felt reasonably threatened](Also, I’ll note that while the “Stand Your Ground” law removes the duty to retreat, ), and they are still required to use evidence to affirm that claim.

That is not how the law was written nor how it has been applied.

Florida Law After the Enactment of the “Stand Your Ground” Law

 

[Godfollower]

That is not how the law was written nor how it has been applied.

Florida Law After the Enactment of the “Stand Your Ground” Law

No, that presumption is for when you kill someone who broke into your house or occupied car:

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.

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

Zimmerman’s story appears to be that he was suddenly attacked while walking on the street returning to (i.e., not already inside) his car. So the presumptions based on someone breaking into his house or occupied car would not apply.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR WARNING

I am starting to issue infractions. Participants are strongly reminded that charity is essential to our discussions here. Please discuss the issues, not each other.

If you wish to review the subject, please see Charity for specifics, or CAF rules for an overview, both of which are located in the Rules of the Road sub-forum.

 

[SamH]

No, that presumption is for when you kill someone who broke into your house or occupied car:

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

Zimmerman’s story appears to be that he was suddenly attacked while walking on the street returning to (i.e., not already inside) his car. So the presumptions based on someone breaking into his house or occupied car would not apply.

Did you not read the first section of the law you are quoting?

Try reading 0776.012

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.

Why did you edit that section from your post?

 

[ringil]

What does it say that this either is, or may be, the longest running thread in CAF history?

 

[Godfollower]

Did you not read the first section of the law you are quoting?

Try reading 0776.012

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:

Yes – but that isn’t a presumption as set forth in your earlier post. I’m just saying that the two presumptions you cited:

The presumption that the defendant had a reasonable fear

don’t apply in this particular case because not even Zimmerman claims that Martin was trying to break into a house or occupied car.

The statute you’re citing now says you can use deadly force if you reasonably believe that your life is in danger. That’s the law (in fact, it’s always been the law; the only recent change is that Florida has removed the duty to retreat). But Zimmerman doesn’t get the benefit of a legal presumption in his favor. He has to demonstrate that he actually had such a fear, and it was objectively reasonable.

Why did you edit that section from your post?

I didn’t. You were talking about the legal presumptions, and the statute that addresses them is Section 776.013. Now you’re relying on a different statute (Section 776.012), which has no such presumption.

 

[Lujack]

In Florida the “Stand your ground law” allows the defense need only be asserted, and the prosecution has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense is not applicable. That was the entire point of passing the law.

No, that wasn’t the point of passing the law. The point of passing the law was removing the duty to retreat; the defendant still needs to show that a reasonable person would have felt threatened. If you read the text of the law, it shifts the burden of proof once-in cases of home invasion:

*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. *

Nowhere else does it grant that presumption; it only removes the duty to retreat. So you are incorrect on that claim.

 

[Lujack]

Did you not read the first section of the law you are quoting?

Try reading 0776.012

I see I was beaten to it. Anyway, as Godfollower has pointed out, that doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not this is an affirmative defense. 0776.012 only removes the duty to retreat.