Skip to comments.Stand Your Ground Law Is Not What We Are Being Told - Its A Pack Of Lies
Posted on 03/27/2012 10:49:38 AM PDT by Sasparilla
What does Floridas Stand Your Ground Law actually say self defense with deadly force really is? Stand your ground laws are being spun by politicians and anti gun rights groups to say that they create a license to kill. This assertion is not the truth anywhere in the US. They also say they should be eliminated. They say that the laws should expressly say that the person using deadly force cant be the aggressor. It already does that in Florida. Just read the actual law below.
Those attacking the law as a license to kill have not read the law or are parroting those who are saying that is. Its obvious that those who attack the law have not read it. Its even more obvious that those making the claim against the law could care less whether what their claim is true or not. But, it makes good campaign rhetoric and fundraising for anti gun rights causes.
The Florida law is quite clear on the legal use of deadly use of force in self defense. It is concise, being just three short paragraphs long. It explicitly states when the law can be used and when it is no defense.
The only justification for deadly self defense there is that there must be a "reasonable belief" that the person using deadly force believes that there will be imminent death or great bodily harm if the other person is not stopped. If that reasonable belief is not present, then deadly force is expressly prohibited. And, if that is the case, then a crime has occurred if deadly force is used. The person can be charged with any relevant crime up to murder.
What other additions could be made to the law to make that fact more clear?
That reasonable belief is a...
(Excerpt) Read more at armedselfdefense.blogspot.com ...
Honest question - In general, current shooting aside, can’t both parties in an encounter feel threatened and invoke the law?
So, are you saying Zimmerman had just legal cause to shoot?
Somebody has to be the aggressor. I was told in my CCW class that he who dials 911 first is NOT the aggressor.
IMO the law is well thought out, explicit enough, therefore it’s obvious not enough rabble rousers read it to know they haven’t a leg to stand on, or they just don’t give a damn.
They think they will muscle their way through it all with the power of manufactured emotions.
When the dust clears, only one of the two can possibly be found to have justifiably used self defense.
Three paragraphs long? I beg to differ. It's codified as Chapter 776 of the Florida Statutes. The Act added or amended at least Sections 776.012, 776.031, 776.041, 776.05, 776.051, 776.06, 776.07, and 776.08 when you look at the history of those sections.
776.012 is three paragraphs long. 776.041, which states when the defense can't be used by someone who provoked an attack, and when it can, is five paragraphs long.
It's codified as part of Justifiable Use of Force in the Florida Statutes, which you can read in it entirety here.
If Zimmermans account of the attack is correct, that Trayvon attacked him, then yes he had the legal right to use force. He was on the ground knocked there by Trayvon, being beaten and Trayvon was trying to forcefully take his weapon, that is grounds for killing.
Good to know. If someone was slamming my head against the sidewalk I would presume he was trying to kill me too.
Some say well if someone is following you, you can attack them. Just on the face of it that claim is bogus.
Some say Zimmerman had his weapon out (brandishing it, but have no proof of it. Also if that was the case how did Trayvon get Zimmerman on the ground without the pistol firing.
I would have to say Zimmerman's story seems reasonable and plausible
A better symbol for the Democrat party than a jackass, would be a jackass body with a parrot head...that's what they do best.
In most cases, one of the parties would be determined to be the aggressor. The aggressor in altercation can change if the original aggressor physically separates himself from the other party and indicates clearly that he does not wish to continue. If the other party continues at the point, then the other party becomes the agressor.
The Florida Stand Your Ground act addresses what happens when somebody is the aggressor.
That's in Section 776.041(2) of the Chapter in which the Stand Your Ground Act was codified. (I linke the law above) It says that the right to use deadly force of force likely to cause great bodily harm is not available to a person who:
(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.
“Somebody has to be the aggressor. I was told in my CCW class that he who dials 911 first is NOT the aggressor.”
It can’t hurt, but that can’t be relied on to keep you out of jail. People try that all the time in Domestic cases too and they are the one who goes to jail.
That’s also like saying if he was outside, “drag him in” CSI technology has progressed way past that. And, juries love CSI evidence.
What can be relied on to a great extent, but not dispositively is the statement - said first thing on police arrival, “I was afraid that he was going to kill me.” Or, “ I thought I was going to die.” Or, I believed he was going to use that (name the weapon) on me and I would be hurt badly. Except, perhaps in a Political football case like this.
Or, you are free to say “talk to my lawyer.” Don’t be afraid to assert your right to remain silent if you want to. Depending on what they see as evidence, you could get a ride too if they believe there is probable cause to arrest you. But, silence itself does not incriminate you.
Sometimes the evidence speaks best for itself, like a dead burglar in your home, or an an armed person lying on the ground.
Obama’s campaign is selling Obama 2012 Hoodies like Trayvon’s now for $40.00. But, he’s not making it racial at all, e.g., “If I had a son he would look like Trayvon,” whatever the inference of that is.
I wish the Justice department was at my beck and call too.
if he was in fact being beaten to a pulp with an already broken knows etc., then yes.
it would be analogous to a woman being raped stopping her unarmed attacker.
domestic cases are a bad comparison since police generally rule against whoever has the testicles regardless.
If this is correct, it’s a tough call. I would say that Zimmerman was the original aggressor, as he pursued Martin wih his car and when Martin tried to lose Zimmerman by quickening his pace and leaving the road, Zimmerman got out of his car and persistently pursued Martin on foot, at night, in the rain. After that, all we are sure of is that Zimmerman was losing the physical altercation when he shot Martin.
I can’t imagine that the law was meant to protect someone who starts a fight, proceeds to lose the fight, and then pulls a weapon to win the fight. It just sounds like a bad shoot to me.
Read the phone call transcripts. Zimmerman is in his truck. He reports Martin. Martin looks at him. Martin runs. Zimmerman exits truck to pursue. HE LOSES SIGHT OF MARTIN. How does he initiate a confrontation if he doesn’t know where Martin is?
I'll water that being the 'aggressor' and 'provoking' the altercation would be interpreted by a Florida appellate court to mean something that justified physical violence by the responding party.
People on this board will have difference opinions as to whether following somebody with in a car justifies physical violence against them, or following them on foot with a handgun. A lot would depend, for me, on what, if anything, Zimmerman said or what Martin overhead on the call by Zimmerman in which you can hear somebody calling for help.
Even then, Zimmerman, if the original aggressor, may still have the section of the law available to them that permits the initial aggressor to use deadly force if he is subjected to deadly force or force likely to cause grievous bodily injury, and he has tried every reasonable means to escape other than use of deadly force or force likely to cause grievous bodily injury against his assailant (it's either or, he doesn't have to start with force likely to cause grievous bodily injury and then escalate to deadly force under the Florida law).
I can see issues with that 'aggressor' part. Big, strapping, bully starts to beat on a three small guys in a bar with an iron pipe, to impress his rowdy friends. He beats two to a pulp. The third small guy is a battle hardened Ghurka, who yanks the pipe away, engages the guy for a while, then gets the upper hand and snaps the bully's knee, then an arm (so he'll remember not to do this again). As this is going on, the bull pulls a small handgun out and kills the Ghurka. "I had no reasonable means of escape and I was in danger of grievous bodily injury" is the bully's defense under Stand Your Ground. At that point, it becomes a question of facts, and the Ghurka a 'foreign fella.'
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.