Trayvon Martin: 'Shoot first' law under scrutiny

[Dawnia]

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

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.
See section 776.032 below.

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.

I think the relevant statutes that would apply to this case are 776.012, 776.032 and 776.41.

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).
History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27.

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

 

[SamH]

I guess I can post the information but I can’t make people read it.

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.

So anyone who defends themselves under circumstances that fall under 776.012 or 776.013 gets treated the same.

. 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.—.

Unless you choose to read 776.032 that groups them together.

 

[SamH]

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.

How does it remove the duty to retreat if you can still be proscuted for it? Using your “logic” the law is meaningless and changed nothing.

 

[Lujack]

How does it remove the duty to retreat if you can still be proscuted for it? Using your “logic” the law is meaningless and changed nothing.

No, it changes a lot, and I’m not sure why you can’t seem to understand that. Maybe this will make more sense.

Claiming Self-Defense outside the home pre-stand your ground law

You shoot a suspicious man on the street, claiming self-defense. You have to demonstrate that:

1. A reasonable person would have felt threatened for their life.
2. There was no way out; you couldn’t get away safely. A reasonable person would have felt that running away was not an option. The prosecutor can ask you “Why didn’t you run, instead of shooting him?” and you have to come up with a good reason.

Claiming Self-Defense Outside the Home under Stand Your Ground Law

You shoot a suspicious man on the street, claiming self-defense. You only have to demonstrate that a reasonable person would have felt frightened for their life. If the prosecutor asks you “Why didn’t you run, instead of shooting him?”, you can say “It doesn’t matter. I felt threatened.” You still have to prove that you felt threatened.

If you were able to claim self-defense and didn’t even have to prove that you felt threatened, then you would be able to walk down the street shooting random people, claim you feared for your life, and the prosecution would have burden of proving that each one of them was not a threat. That’s not the way the law works.

 

[Lujack]

I guess I can post the information but I can’t make people read it.

I don’t see why you feel the need to throw nasty remarks into every single one of your posts.

So anyone who defends themselves under circumstances that fall under 776.012 or 776.013 gets treated the same.

They get treated the same…with regards to the provisions in that section. “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”…there is nothing in that phrasing that refers to how you have to demonstrate that your use of force was permitted. Under 776.013, the burden of proof is shifted to the prosecution. It is not shifted anywhere else, and this section doesn’t make any reference to that.

Unless you choose to read 776.032 that groups them together.

They group them together for the purposes of that section, not for all sections.

 

[Dawnia]

No, it changes a lot, and I’m not sure why you can’t seem to understand that. Maybe this will make more sense.

Claiming Self-Defense outside the home pre-stand your ground law

You shoot a suspicious man on the street, claiming self-defense. You have to demonstrate that:

1. A reasonable person would have felt threatened for their life.
2. There was no way out; you couldn’t get away safely. A reasonable person would have felt that running away was not an option. The prosecutor can ask you “Why didn’t you run, instead of shooting him?” and you have to come up with a good reason.

Claiming Self-Defense Outside the Home under Stand Your Ground Law

You shoot a suspicious man on the street, claiming self-defense. You only have to demonstrate that a reasonable person would have felt frightened for their life. If the prosecutor asks you “Why didn’t you run, instead of shooting him?”, you can say “It doesn’t matter. I felt threatened.” You still have to prove that you felt threatened.

If you were able to claim self-defense and didn’t even have to prove that you felt threatened, then you would be able to walk down the street shooting random people, claim you feared for your life, and the prosecution would have burden of proving that each one of them was not a threat. That’s not the way the law works.

The difference is that pre-stand your ground, the defense is done at a trial. With Stand Your Ground, the defense is used during the investigation to avoid trial.

 

[Lujack]

The difference is that pre-stand your ground, the defense is done at a trial. With Stand Your Ground, the defense is used during the investigation to avoid trial.

There’s nothing in the law to indicate this unless your home has been invaded. The police need probable cause to suspect that the force used was unlawful in order to make an arrest, but that’s always the case.

 

[Dawnia]

There’s nothing in the law to indicate this unless your home has been invaded. The police need probable cause to suspect that the force used was unlawful in order to make an arrest, but that’s always the case.

I think you need to read the law again. The immunity clause clearly states the person using force can’t even be arrested, let alone tried under Stand Your Ground.

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.

 

[SamH]

There’s nothing in the law to indicate this unless your home has been invaded. The police need probable cause to suspect that the force used was unlawful in order to make an arrest, but that’s always the case.

I guess you still didn’t read this section of the law:

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.

Just so you know - a trial is criminal prosecution.

 

[SamH]

I think you need to read the law again. The immunity clause clearly states the person using force can’t even be arrested, let alone tried under Stand Your Ground.

I hope you have more luck than I did.

 

[Dawnia]

I hope you have more luck than I did.

I’m sure I won’t.

 

[Lujack]

I guess you still didn’t read this section of the law:

Just so you know - a trial is criminal prosecution.

Yes, they are immune from criminal prosecution if their use of force was justifiable. You can’t be charged with a crime if you haven’t committed a crime.

I don’t see what you are driving at.

 

[Lujack]

I remember now why I left in the first place-you just get ganged up on and insulted if you take any line outside the Republican Party line.

 

[Lujack]

I think you need to read the law again. The immunity clause clearly states the person using force can’t even be arrested, let alone tried under Stand Your Ground.

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.

Again, this interpretation doesn’t make any sense. So now, under Florida law, if you claim to have used self-defense…you can’t ever be charged with a crime?

 

[Bocephus]

Again, this interpretation doesn’t make any sense. So now, under Florida law, if you claim to have used self-defense…you can’t ever be charged with a crime?

If evidence is present to support your claim at the scene of the crime. From what it sounds like to me, George was not charged because there was not sufficient evidence to prove it was not self defense. Two people saw part of the event, one of them said it was too dark to be sure and the other could tell by their shirt color which was on top/bottom.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

NBC apologizes for editing 911 call:

news.slashdot.org/story/12/04/04/178234/nbc-apologizes-for-editing-zimmerman-911-call

It seems that at least one network is not reporting the complete truth.

 

[PrincepsAuguste]

news.yahoo.com/nbc-news-apologizes-editing-tape-911-call-014743826.html

I wonder what else has been “edited” out of this story. At least one thing has been edited in: the idea of a “white hispanic.” I have never heard of such a thing until now. But “hispanic” wouldn’t fit the race baiting bill.

 

[SamH]

Again, this interpretation doesn’t make any sense. So now, under Florida law, if you claim to have used self-defense…you can’t ever be charged with a crime?

Now we are back to post 886.

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

The “Stand Your Ground” Law introduced two (2) conclusive presumptions that favor a criminal defendant who is making a self-defense claim:

The presumption that the defendant had a reasonable fear that deadly force was necessary; and

The presumption that the intruder intended to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

These two presumptions protect the defender from both civil and criminal prosecution for unlawful use of deadly or non-deadly force in self-defense. In addition, the defender/gun owner has no duty to retreat, regardless of where he is attacked, so long as he is in a place where he is lawfully entitled to be when the danger occurs.

In passing the “Stand Your Ground” Law, the Florida Legislature expressed its intent that no person should be “required to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack." The “Stand Your Ground” Law effectively expands the “Castle Doctrine” by expanding what is meant by the concept of one’s “castle” to include any place where a person is lawfully entitled to be.

Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law now provides immunity from prosecution, as opposed to an affirmative defense that you would need to assert in Trial (after being arrested and charged by the State of Florida).

 

[Jerry_Miah]

NBC apologizes for editing 911 call:

news.slashdot.org/story/12/04/04/178234/nbc-apologizes-for-editing-zimmerman-911-call
It seems that at least one network is not reporting the complete truth.

Yeah they made a dumb mistake. But look at all the stuff in the media trying to blame the dead kid. Look at FOX giving the killer’s father a platform to make any charge he wants, make nonsense claims, unchallenged. The killer’s father actually said “I never foresaw so much hate coming from the president…” What?

Look at ABC showing an “enhanced” video image showing a little mark on Zimmerman’s head, and they show only one frame, as if that proves something. (That whole thing is ridiculous – if Trayvon bashed Zimmerman’s into concrete, Zimmerman would have gone to the hospital. EMT would not have let Zimmerman just walk away like they did, due to liability issues for the EMTs and the police. Zimmerman was examined briefly and cleared to leave; very minor injuries at most, obviously.)

There’s been bad reporting on both sides. But there was only one person packing a gun and literally looking for trouble, and there was only one person, unarmed, left dead. The only reason we are discussing it is because the police bungled the investigation (forcing the Police Chief to resign "temporarily) and the DA mysteriously refused to charge the killer. The lead investigator wanted a manslaughter charge against Zimmerman. If that had happened, this would be a minor story (albeit still a tragedy) and the truth would come out in a trial. Instead it’s a national scandal.

 

[scipio337]

There’s been bad reporting on both sides. But there was only one person packing a gun and literally looking for trouble, and there was only one person, unarmed, left dead. The only reason we are discussing it is because the police bungled the investigation (forcing the Police Chief to resign "temporarily) and the DA mysteriously refused to charge the killer. The lead investigator wanted a manslaughter charge against Zimmerman. If that had happened, this would be a minor story (albeit still a tragedy) and the truth would come out in a trial. Instead it’s a national scandal.

He was carrying the gun legally, and what are Neighborhood Watch supposed to do, besides “look for trouble?”

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