Posted on 04/19/2012 1:27:33 PM PDT by Aunt Polgara
The shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman has spurred national outrage over Florida's Stand Your Ground law. Unfortunately, the discussion of this law has been marred by misinformation. Jeffrey Toobin, CNN senior legal analyst, erroneously claimed that the law "allows a disproportionate response; if someone comes at you with a fist, you can reply with a gun."
Many have asserted that in Florida anyone who believes he is in danger can use deadly force, no matter how unreasonable his belief. These perceptions of the law are wrong. As compared with other states, Florida's Stand Your Ground law is neither extreme nor an outlier.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
The author is still assuming things not known to the public.
As well as getting his facts wrong (no 911 call) and mischaracterizing what the dispatcher said.
If Kala had been armed, perhaps she could have defended herself.
As it is, the silence from President Obama, Jessie Jackson, and other race-baiters has been deafening.
Perhaps the fact that Keegan did not look the way the president's son might have looked, if he had a son, was the reason. Strange, because Verna McClain looks like she could have been the president's sister.
>>The author is still assuming things not known to the public. <<
Yes, but I think his analysis of the stand your ground law is probably pretty accurate, but I’m no attorney.
It would have been better if he had left out the demagoguery, deliberate distortions and outright falsehoods. If he hands in a paper like this to his professors he should get an F on it.
Here’s something I never understood about this stuff in general:
You can shoot if it’s to stop a felony, such as robbery, but, otherwise, if someone’s coming to just “beat you up” you can’t.
Robbery is the forcible taking of property from your person and does not have to involve a weapon. Still a felony unarmed.
So why would someone trying to beat you up not be shoot-worthy when it is if they also try to take your wallet or sneakers or what not?
Not completely accurate. Even if Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, that is irrelavant if he breaks off contact and retreats.
There is no need to exaggerate the leniency of Florida law. Regardless of whether he should have walked away, Mr. Zimmerman now must show that an average person in his circumstances would have viewed Martin as a mortal threat.
Kind of hard to walk away when someone is sitting on your chest and smashing your head into the concrete.
It's not.
Not to mention that if you let it go that far it's highly probable that your attacker will have noticed that you're carrying a gun and since you let him beat you nearly to unconsciousness how are you going to retain it?
Didn’t Zimmerman say “OK”?
It has to be a forcible felony. Robbery is on the list.
The law allows you to meet force with equal force, but puts fairly tight limits on being justified in the use of deadly force.
-- So why would someone trying to beat you up not be shoot-worthy when it is if they also try to take your wallet or sneakers or what not? --
Good question. I don't have a good answer, except the law reflects a policy decision. At the same time, if the beating is of a nature that would put a reasonable person in fear of death or serious injury, then deadly force in response is justified. Being slapped, not justification for a shoot. Overwhelmed with physical force, or the opponent shows a knife or gun, or the beating continues for a length of time, etc. - the judge or jury will decide if it's reasonable to be in fear for your life. There is a recent FL case where a guy was justified in shooting at an adversary who was throwing beer bottles at his head - the throwing was a felony and justified the shoot.
Yes, Zimmerman said “OK” but, as we know, the dispatcher did not “instruct” Zimmerman to stop following Trayvon and had no authority to “instruct” him to if he had. The author is trying to strengthen the Lynch Mob Media meme.
This is a much better article.
“Now that prosecutors have brought charges against George Zimmerman, you probably think that a jury is going to hear the facts and decide the case. Think again. Under Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, if George Zimmerman can convince a judge that he acted justifiably, he is entitled to immunity from prosecution. That means no jury; no conviction; no jail. Think of it as a big “Get Out of Jail Free” card. It is worth repeating: Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law does not just provide an affirmative defense; it provides immunity. The distinction is extremely significant.”
I realize that the dispatcher has no authority I was just challenging the author’s assertion that Zimmerman did not comply.
What is interesting is that the author puts forward the notion that Zimmerman leaving his truck in and of itself makes him responsible for Martin’s death. This nonsense was advanced in an article I read earlier where Crump (Martin family lawyer) contends that even if Martin threw the first punch Zimmerman is still ultimately responsible.
I have something to say to any “Zimmerman left his truck so he is ultimately responsible” tards still here at FR. You’re logic is deeply flawed.
I sincerely hope this is the line the prosecution takes. They`ll be laughed out of court.
From the article: "Mr. Zimmerman had called 911, and the dispatcher instructed Mr. Zimmerman not to pursue Martin. Had Mr. Zimmerman complied, no one would have been hurt. Before Stand Your Ground, prosecutors could have relied on Mr. Zimmerman's opportunity to retreat in order to help rebut his claim of self-defense." (pure garbage in my never to be humble opinion. Following Trayvon was not illegal, maybe unwise, but not illegal.)
I guess this is the part that I thought was well-written: "This is not to say that eliminating the retreat requirement has no drawbacks. Eliminating the duty to retreat often makes it difficult to prosecute cases involving shady self-defense claims—such as bar fights and gang conflicts—when both parties should have simply walked away. Prosecutors have an easier time proving that a combatant could have safely withdrawn than they do convincing juries, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the person did not reasonably believe that he was in danger."
>>Under Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, if George Zimmerman can convince a judge that he acted justifiably, he is entitled to immunity from prosecution.<<
That’s a pretty big IF. He not only has to convince the judge, but he has to have a judge who is brave enough to rule that way.
>>There is a recent FL case where a guy was justified in shooting at an adversary who was throwing beer bottles at his head - the throwing was a felony and justified the shoot.<<
As it should be. My husband was on a jury where a cop had a beer bottle thrown at him, and it left him seriously brain damaged.
I know you know that. I was just re-stating the obvious to challenge the author's assertions as well. :-)
I think it will be come clear at trial that asking someone what they're doing isn't reasonable cause to start beating them senseless and that being beaten senseless is reasonable cause to defend yourself with deadly force. Especially if testimony and forensics support the case that Trayvon tried to take the gun from Zimmerman.
I hope Z's lawyer makes that case well and I hope the jury (if it gets that far) isn't composed of politically correct Zombies.
“And Mr. Zimmerman will have to show that he was not the initial aggressor.”
Zimmerman, NW Volunteer Captain, held no legal police power.
So if he mistakenly initiated something because he felt (incorrectly) he held police power, negates his self-defense defense.
I predict that will, in a nutshell, be the deciding theme of the trial.
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.