Debate Rages Over 'Stand Your Ground' Law

[SayMyName]

OK, let's check this out...


1. It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.

Neither Zimmerman or Martin attempted to break into a residence or vehcile so this does not pertain to this case.
​

2. In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “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 to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

So, what you saying here is that Martin had a right to be where he was since he was visiting his father and spending the evening at her home while they went out to dinner. He had a right to walk to 7-11 for some ice tea and Skittles. He had a right to then walk home to where he was staying.

Since Martin had a "right to be" in that location, at that time - then if Zimmerman initiate hostilities then Martin would be justified in standing his ground and attempting to use lethal force against his attacker.

Correct?​

3. In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.

Law enforcement has determined that there was probable cause and submitted an affidavit to the court stating same.​

4. If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.

Can't comment on this one as the ability to file and succeed in a civil suit would need to wait until the court determines if the event resulted in a justifiable homicide or if the homicide was unlawful. We won't know that for some months, maybe a year.​

>>>>

Law enforcement in fact at first issued no affidavit. Only after 45 days, with public preassure from one ethnic group, did the DA present without. The case stands to be thrown out. The DA knows this, and that is why she asked for a 2nd Degree charge. She knows it won't hold, but looks like she went for it. Either way, she gets re-elected.

Zimmerman walks, as he should. Case closed.

Anyone seen or heard about any of these Facebook rants of Tryvon bragging about beating up the bus driver days before this incident. Please share if you find them.

Let's get back to the event, if Zimmerman attacked Martin - would the Stand Your Ground Law under the conditions posted by "T" apply to Martin, could he defend himself?


>>>>

No. Zimmerman should hang regardless if he violated the "spirit" or letter of the law. It compromises all of us should he have done so. If I was on his jury, I would up the anty myself and press for his gassing. I do not want anything to jeopardize my right to "Stand My Ground."

 

[freedombecki]

The Florida law is a self-defense, self-protection law. It has four key components:

• It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.
• In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “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 to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
• In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.
• If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.

________________________

Another Link

It sounds like Zimmermann's indictment violates the law.

The prosecutors threw out a flag to prevent a race war. The more days that pass with nothing being done, in a few days after they say "there's nothing we can do" will result in fewer disputations from the offended if they use a few tactics that seems to favor the ones in the wrong. I don't think I'd like to see six neighborhoods being burned up for nothing with a bill into the half billion dollar range. I just can't read minds...

 

[The T]

I was responding to the post you made, is there anything specific you disagree with from a logic standpoint or you do you just have a need to hem, haw, and rant?


>>>>

Froget *I* ever spoke to YOU.

>>>>

Ah, I see, a question you don't want to answer because it appears to not conform to your preconceived bias in the case.

Having a hard time thinking in terms of Martin being the one exercising his right to self-defense under Stand Your Ground?


>>>>

You see NOTHING of the sort. I am asking questions...YOU however are a presumptive SOB.

 

[Liability]

“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 to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

Which was?

You mis-read it.

Highlight this part: "* * * if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself * * * *"

And the answer then appears to be (assuming it's true) "the guy was slamming my skull onto the concrete leading me to surmise in that instant that I was either gonna die or have my brains splattered in such as a way as to constitute great bodily harm."

So why the 2nd Degree Murder charge?

I dunno. I have effectively NONE of the forensic evidence which is presumably in the possession of the special prosecutor.

So, it MIGHT be that the forensic/scientific FACTS are inconsistent with Zimmerman's account. If that's the case, it seems proper to charge him.

On the other hand, it is possible that the forensic/scientific evidence DOES support Zimmerman's account. If that's the case, then I would consider the bringing of charges by the special prosecutor to have been irresponsible. Thankfully, it would still leave the accused with the judge and/or the jury to straighten things out.

 

[Liability]

"the guy was slamming my skull onto the concrete leading me to surmise in that instant that I was either gonna die or have my brains splattered in such as a way as to constitute great bodily

But the police decided he didn't need medical care, does not sound like DEADLY FORCE............................

I don't know that the police came to ANY such conclusion. I don't know that the thing I saw on the back of Zimmerman's head wasn't related to the alleged pounding. I don't know whether or not Zimmerman HAD any broken nose.

I don't think any of us presently KNOW any such thing one way or the other.

 

[Erand7899]

Just my 2 cents. To me, "stand your ground" means you draw a line in the sand and tell the other guy not to cross it. If the other guy walks away and you follow him, then aren't you the one who's crossing the line?

That is not the Stand your Ground Law at all. Stand your ground means that you are not required to run or hide when under assault by another person. Under normal self defense statutes, you are often required to seek an out, an escape route, before you attempt to defend yourself.

Stand your ground is not applicable in the Zimmerman/Martin case, unless facts arise that we are not aware of. Zimmerman claims he was acting in self defense, and had no chance to avoid being assaulted. If that is true, and if Martin did not cease his attack when Zimmerman pulled his gun, then self defense applies.

Whether being followed, or not, Martin had no legal right to assault Zimmerman. If he thought his life was in danger, he should have gotten off the phone with his girl friend and called the police.

 

[The T]

You mis-read it.

Highlight this part: "* * * if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself * * * *"

And the answer then appears to be (assuming it's true) "the guy was slamming my skull onto the concrete leading me to surmise in that instant that I was either gonna die or have my brains splattered in such as a way as to constitute great bodily harm."

So why the 2nd Degree Murder charge?

I dunno. I have effectively NONE of the forensic evidence which is presumably in the possession of the special prosecutor.

So, it MIGHT be that the forensic/scientific FACTS are inconsistent with Zimmerman's account. If that's the case, it seems proper to charge him.

On the other hand, it is possible that the forensic/scientific evidence DOES support Zimmerman's account. If that's the case, then I would consider the bringing of charges by the special prosecutor to have been irresponsible. Thankfully, it would still leave the accused with the judge and/or the jury to straighten things out.

And that's what we need to watch...I am curious though that is to ask if this was politically motivated to avert racial strife as was threatened by so many...

I guess we'll have to stay tuned.

Thanks for the answer, L.

 

[Peach]

"the guy was slamming my skull onto the concrete leading me to surmise in that instant that I was either gonna die or have my brains splattered in such as a way as to constitute great bodily

But the police decided he didn't need medical care, does not sound like DEADLY FORCE............................

I don't know that the police came to ANY such conclusion. I don't know that the thing I saw on the back of Zimmerman's head wasn't related to the alleged pounding. I don't know whether or not Zimmerman HAD any broken nose.

I don't think any of us presently KNOW any such thing one way or the other.

Good points, the prosecution has the evidence, the Judge found only PROBABLE CAUSE. We will learn later what the evidence is.

 

[initforme]

If I am walking through a neighborhood, down the street, and someone mistakenly perceives me as a threat and confronts me, yet nobody gets hurt, I CAN still prosecute them for breaking my rights correct? Just wondering. Or perhaps I simply walk away and they are yelling at me. This is also abled to be prosecuted against correct?

 

[freedombecki]

I could be dead wrong, but the cops at the scene let Zimmerman go. The talk he talked matched the evidence they found.

They saw early things no one else saw. The rub is the first thing you know, Sharpton, Jackson, et al are competing for coup with no evidence whatever. It made people angry at the man who the cops thought had been wronged and shot a man trying to do severe bodily harm to him in self defense. His description, said the cops, matched the evidence at the crime scene pretty well.

That doesn't happen with liars. And the flies in the ointment get them.

 

[Liability]

"the guy was slamming my skull onto the concrete leading me to surmise in that instant that I was either gonna die or have my brains splattered in such as a way as to constitute great bodily

But the police decided he didn't need medical care, does not sound like DEADLY FORCE............................

I don't know that the police came to ANY such conclusion. I don't know that the thing I saw on the back of Zimmerman's head wasn't related to the alleged pounding. I don't know whether or not Zimmerman HAD any broken nose.

I don't think any of us presently KNOW any such thing one way or the other.

Good points, the prosecution has the evidence, the Judge found only PROBABLE CAUSE. We will learn later what the evidence is.

A judge found that an affidavit alleged probable cause.

That's not really much of anything to base any conclusion on.

It amounts to a determination that IF the prosecutor's allegations are established, then there is probable cause to arrest an accused. But no judge has yet heard any actual evidence to determine whether or not the prosecutor's allegations ARE established or even able to BE established.

Ultimately, we may know. Right now, for the most part, we barely know diddly dog.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You mis-read it.

Highlight this part: "* * * if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself * * * *"

And the answer then appears to be (assuming it's true) "the guy was slamming my skull onto the concrete leading me to surmise in that instant that I was either gonna die or have my brains splattered in such as a way as to constitute great bodily harm."

Serious question...

**IF** Zimmerman attacked Martin and Martin was in fear of imminent death or great bodily injury - would he be justified in the use of force and even lethal force under FL Statute 776.012 to defend himself?



>>>>

Serious answer:

I see zero evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin (except for the final shot).

But, as a purely hypothetical question, IF Zimmerman had attacked Martin, according to the Florida Law it sure appears that YES he would have been within his legal right to stand his ground and meet the use or threatened us of force with a forceful response. Indeed, if the fear of death or great bodily injury reasonably existed, the right to use force in response would have included the use of deadly force.

It would be (in most cases) for a judge and or a jury to determine whether or not the justification defense was warranted, though.

Thank you very much for the serious answer.

The problem we in the public have right now is that we are not privy to all the evidence that has been developed in this case, much of it probably developed AFTER the event. Given the information we have available there is a critical gap in determining exactly (a) who initiated hostilities, and (b) if at any time during the course of hostilities EITHER Zimmerman or Martin had the chance (as an aggressor) to disengage and apply the reasonable person requirement to flee prior when the event escalated to the point of imminent death or great bodily injury. Such things as:

• The autopsy report showing the bullets path of travel and where Zimmerman would have had to be in relationship to Martin for that path (Under Martin? Over Martin? At some distance from Martin?).
• Toxicological report on Martin, was he under the influence of any drugs or alcohol? (If he was, then that lends credibility to Zimmerman's Dispatcher call, if not, then that shows Zimmerman may have been embellishing the initial call to produce a police response.) To bad there was no toxicological tests run on Zimmerman to see if he was under the influence.
• Forensic analysis for Martins clothes pertaining to the the gunshot. (Was the gun in contact with the clothes? Did it occur at some distance?)
• Forensic analysis of Martins phone. If it was a "smartphone" was GPS enabled, if yes were their GPS logs on the phone showing Martin's position during the event. If there were and the showed Martin continuing to move away from Zimmerman's truck, then that undercuts Zimmerman's story that he was proceeding back to the truck and Martin ambushed him.
• Etc.

Given the information available to the public and lack of evidence forthcoming, than if I was on the jury and had to make a call right now, I'd vote "Not Guilty" because their is a reasonable doubt. That opinion could change though if new information come available.


>>>>

 

[Douger]

OK. Here we go. Flame suit on !!! Zimmerberg should have capped his ass and drove to Taco Bell for a burrito. Problem over. Who in their right mind would ask Nazi's for attention or "help" ?
The "news" would have read " Guy in hoodie killed last night, gang activity suspected". Nothing more.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Law enforcement in fact at first issued no affidavit. Only after 45 days, with public preassure from one ethnic group, did the DA present without. The case stands to be thrown out. The DA knows this, and that is why she asked for a 2nd Degree charge. She knows it won't hold, but looks like she went for it. Either way, she gets re-elected.

Zimmerman walks, as he should. Case closed.

Anyone seen or heard about any of these Facebook rants of Tryvon bragging about beating up the bus driver days before this incident. Please share if you find them.

Let's get back to the event, if Zimmerman attacked Martin - would the Stand Your Ground Law under the conditions posted by "T" apply to Martin, could he defend himself?


>>>>

No. Zimmerman should hang regardless if he violated the "spirit" or letter of the law. It compromises all of us should he have done so. If I was on his jury, I would up the anty myself and press for his gassing. I do not want anything to jeopardize my right to "Stand My Ground."

Sorry I disagree.

I assume this post is intended to either be hyperbole.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Froget *I* ever spoke to YOU.

>>>>

Ah, I see, a question you don't want to answer because it appears to not conform to your preconceived bias in the case.

Having a hard time thinking in terms of Martin being the one exercising his right to self-defense under Stand Your Ground?


>>>>

You see NOTHING of the sort. I am asking questions...YOU however are a presumptive SOB.

Sometime a lack of answer and resorting to personal insults is all the answer that is required.


>>>>

 

[SayMyName]

Let's get back to the event, if Zimmerman attacked Martin - would the Stand Your Ground Law under the conditions posted by "T" apply to Martin, could he defend himself?


>>>>

No. Zimmerman should hang regardless if he violated the "spirit" or letter of the law. It compromises all of us should he have done so. If I was on his jury, I would up the anty myself and press for his gassing. I do not want anything to jeopardize my right to "Stand My Ground."

Sorry I disagree.

I assume this post is intended to either be hyperbole.


>>>>

Please then explain. I thought I understood the reading of your post correctly.

 

[Erand7899]

I will wait for the facts to be presented. However, if I am walking through a neighborhood and someone is following me, do I not have the right to "Stand my ground"? Can I use a gun at that point? I'm a 74 year old white male. I have a conceal carry license in the state I live in which I believe was a good piece of legislation. Now, if I'm walking down the sidewalk, and I know or believe someone is following me. 1) Is this not an invasion of my rights? 2) At that point, according to the law, can I use legal force like a gun?

Again, I will wait for the facts to be presented. But if I am being followed because I am in someones neighborhood, I do have the right to stand my ground correct? Just wondering.

Someone following you down a public street is not a violation of your rights, and no, you cannot legally shoot the person following you down the street. You cannot legally assualt them in any way, unless a reasonable person would agree that you were in grave danger of death or serious bodily harm from that person. You can only use deadly force when that is the only alternative to death or serious bodily harm.

If you turn and assault the person following you, sucker punching him, and jumping astradle of him to punch him and pound his head into the concrete, then he may well be justified in using deadly force against you.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Just my 2 cents. To me, "stand your ground" means you draw a line in the sand and tell the other guy not to cross it. If the other guy walks away and you follow him, then aren't you the one who's crossing the line?

That is not the Stand your Ground Law at all. Stand your ground means that you are not required to run or hide when under assault by another person. Under normal self defense statutes, you are often required to seek an out, an escape route, before you attempt to defend yourself.

Stand your ground is not applicable in the Zimmerman/Martin case, unless facts arise that we are not aware of. Zimmerman claims he was acting in self defense, and had no chance to avoid being assaulted. If that is true, and if Martin did not cease his attack when Zimmerman pulled his gun, then self defense applies.

Whether being followed, or not, Martin had no legal right to assault Zimmerman. If he thought his life was in danger, he should have gotten off the phone with his girl friend and called the police.

And if Zimmerman attacked Martin, would he be required to flee or would he be able to use force against Zimmerman?


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

You mis-read it.

Highlight this part: "* * * if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself * * * *"

And the answer then appears to be (assuming it's true) "the guy was slamming my skull onto the concrete leading me to surmise in that instant that I was either gonna die or have my brains splattered in such as a way as to constitute great bodily harm."

So why the 2nd Degree Murder charge?

I dunno. I have effectively NONE of the forensic evidence which is presumably in the possession of the special prosecutor.

So, it MIGHT be that the forensic/scientific FACTS are inconsistent with Zimmerman's account. If that's the case, it seems proper to charge him.

On the other hand, it is possible that the forensic/scientific evidence DOES support Zimmerman's account. If that's the case, then I would consider the bringing of charges by the special prosecutor to have been irresponsible. Thankfully, it would still leave the accused with the judge and/or the jury to straighten things out.

Well said.

That's my position as well. We don't know the evidence that is available to law enforcement.


>>>>

 

[SayMyName]

Just my 2 cents. To me, "stand your ground" means you draw a line in the sand and tell the other guy not to cross it. If the other guy walks away and you follow him, then aren't you the one who's crossing the line?

That is not the Stand your Ground Law at all. Stand your ground means that you are not required to run or hide when under assault by another person. Under normal self defense statutes, you are often required to seek an out, an escape route, before you attempt to defend yourself.

Stand your ground is not applicable in the Zimmerman/Martin case, unless facts arise that we are not aware of. Zimmerman claims he was acting in self defense, and had no chance to avoid being assaulted. If that is true, and if Martin did not cease his attack when Zimmerman pulled his gun, then self defense applies.

Whether being followed, or not, Martin had no legal right to assault Zimmerman. If he thought his life was in danger, he should have gotten off the phone with his girl friend and called the police.

And if Zimmerman attacked Martin, would he be required to flee or would he be able to use force against Zimmerman?


>>>>

He would be able to use force if Zimmerman threatened him with bodily harm.