[nathanbedford]

When GZ decided to follow TM after the 911 operator told him it was not necessary he entered a legal no man’s land.

Rubbish!

1. The dispatcher is without authority to order Zimmerman to do or refrain from doing anything.

2. In fact, the dispatcher did not order Zimmerman to refrain from following Martin, read the actual words, they are close but not to the same as the ones you posted.

3. There is no such place as "legal no man's land."

4. Even if the dispatcher had authority, contrary to law, to order Zimmerman to refrain from following Martin, and even if the dispatcher had, contrary to the facts, exercised that authority and ordered Zimmerman to refrain from following Martin, Zimmerman had an absolute right to follow Martin without diminishing his right to act in self-defense. Your analogy of entering a bar and provoking a fight so that one can shoot his antagonist in self-defense simply is not applicable. Following someone, apart from a court order of restraint, is perfectly legal. A dispatcher's order even if considered to be somehow binding on Zimmerman, has absolutely no bearing on his right to exercise self-defense. Following someone, even in violation of a dispatcher's mandate to refrain from doing so and even if one considers that legally binding, does not cause forfeit of our right to self defense that right is dependent on, and only upon, Zimmerman's reasonable apprehension of imminent "great bodily harm."

Florida Statute:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter 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 [even if (A) Zimmerman had been ordered to refrain from following Martin (B) and the dispatcher had the legal authority to do so, and (C) Zimmerman had in fact followed Martin after a mandate not to do so-for which there is no evidence, Zimmerman still have the right to use deadly force if he reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of great bodily harm and having one's nose broken, being pummeled from someone on top of oneself, and having one's head bashed into the concrete, inarguably justified Zimmerman in a reasonable belief that he was in imminent danger of great bodily harm]

(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. [You will note in your bar fights scenario the armed user of deadly force must first withdraw-not to be confused with the failure to refrain from following Martin]

What do the "proceeding sections of this chapter" say?

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. A76.013. (Emphasis supplied)

[boatbums]

Here's a case study pursuant to the Florida Stand your Ground Statute (enacted in 2005) but which occurred in 1980 in Florida:

An military veteran, with multiple tours in Viet Nam, and his wife, along with their young son, are settling in for the night. The wife is in the home's laundry room adjacent to the attached closed garage. The vet was in the garage and happened to be standing between the two parked family cars when suddenly another car crashed through the closed garage door shoving the left car into the freezer and the right car through the laundry room wall. The wife was bombarded with crashing bottles and cans that were on shelving of the wall and both the door to the garage as well as to the kitchen were damaged so that they were unable to be closed. The vet, luckily, was between the two cars because he would have been crushed by the oncoming car. This car then backed up, revved the engine and smashed into the garage again. At that point, the stunned vet yelled to his wife to get their son and run to the back bedroom and hide as well as call the police. She did.

The vet then ran to the master bedroom and got his pistol unsure of either the motive for the attack or how many people were involved in the assault. As he raced to the front entrance of the house, the driver had backed up a third time and was gunning the engine to ram the house a third time. The vet did not know how many people he would be facing nor how many had already entered the house from the now broken open doors to the house from the garage. The vet went out the front door which faced the driveway into the garage and saw the car as the driver was readying to ram the house again. The vet fired five shots from his pistol at the driver of the car to stop him from the third assault as well as to try to prevent any possible explosion that could result. The vet was in fear that he would also be facing additional assailants that had already entered the house. The driver was killed and there were no other assailants with him.

The driver was a nineteen year old kid who was drunk and had been driving through the yards of homes when he came up on the driveway from the side yard of the vet's house. All of this was unknown in the few minutes and seconds between the first crash through the garage and the shot that stopped further crashing.

The vet was charged with second degree murder. The prosecutor wanted to plea-bargain to manslaughter, but the vet insisted he was protecting his and his family's life and would face the murder charge. The jury found him guilty of murder in the second degree.

This was BEFORE the SYG law was enacted in Florida but was conducive to its justification. Thankfully, the judge overruled the jury verdict with a directed verdict of involuntary manslaughter. The vet was fined and placed on five years probation. He saw no jail time as he was an upstanding member of the community and had no record.

Today, I believe, that same kind of incident would not have been prosecuted as it was a clear cut case of using force against force where there was imminent danger of great bodily harm.

Any thoughts on this?