Under FLA's Stand Your Ground Law, An African American Man Can Shoot Zimmerman

[Yavin4]

because he will feel threatened and scared when he sees him on the street. Is that correct?

[no_hypocrisy]

1. And it would still be a violation of the victim's civil rights.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. If it were any other state, I could see concerned legislators gathering to

discuss just how bad of a law it is, and how it is bound to lead to blood in the streets.

But, this being Florida, I suspect we shall see them hugging the NRA, and screaming, "Guns don't kill, he was acting in self-defense!" Nothing good can come from this law, unless you own undertaker stock.

[TheWraith]

16. Almost every state has "stand your ground" type laws.

And the reality is that it has never lead to "blood in the streets" because it very expressly does NOT mean anything close to what's being described here.

[csziggy]

50. It has had a chilling effect here in Florida

The trouble with Florida's 'stand your ground' law
A Times Editorial
In Print:: Tuesday, March 20, 2012

<SNIP>

The Florida Legislature passed the law in 2005 at the behest of the National Rifle Association but over the staunch objections of law enforcement. The law allows the use of deadly force when a person is in a place he has a right to be and feels reasonably threatened with serious harm. Opponents dubbed it the "shoot first" law because people have no duty to attempt to retreat from a threat of violence even if they could do so safely. History has borne them out.

Since the law went into effect, reports of justifiable homicides have tripled, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. It has been used to absolve violence resulting from road rage, barroom arguments and even a gang gunfight. In 2008, two gangs in Tallahassee got into a shootout where a 15-year-old boy was killed. The charges were dismissed by a judge citing the "stand your ground" law.

In a high-profile Tampa Bay case, Trevor Dooley is using "stand your ground" as his legal defense, claiming that he was entitled to shoot and kill David James, his Valrico neighbor, during an argument over skateboarding on a basketball court. Hillsborough Circuit Judge Ashley Moody will consider Dooley's motion to dismiss the charges against him on April 26.

More: http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/article1220845.ece

Check out the Trevor Dooley case where a man flashed a gun in front of some children and then ended up shooting the adult who objected through the heart, killing him instantly. The way the Florida law is written it is a bad law and will only lead to more killing.

[ieoeja]

63. It tripled "justifiable homicides". I believe that officially qualifies as "blood in the streets".

[TheWraith]

68. No, it didn't.

You had an "additional" 70 cases where people tried to claim self defense. Most of those still got convicted of murder.

[johnnie]

3. But would people call it a hate crime

Because Zimmerman is Hispanic?

[csziggy]

52. No, they'd call it a hate crime because of Zimmerman's own comments on tape

Of the 911 call from that night and because of his history of calls on African American men in the past.

[Politicalboi]

4. Sounds right to me

And they would have more of a reason to feel threatened. He's already killed before.

[tularetom]

5. No, only caucasians have the right to shoot anybody under this law

I realize the text of the law doesn't say that, but hey, wink wink nudge nudge, we all know what's really going on here.

[Journeyman]

8. Then how did it apply to Zimmerman, an Hispanic? . . .

[EFerrari]

12. Because Latinos come in every shade of the rainbow

and (we) are used as honorary whites when convenient?

[tblue37]

21. He is a white Hispanic, just as Salma Hayek is an Lebanese Hispanic, and

some Hispanics are Black, like Sammy Sosa, or Asian, like Alberto Fujimori, the former president of Peru, whose family came to Peru from Japan.

Hispanic = ethnicity, NOT race.

If a German or Germanic (white) couple named, for example, Heinrich or Zimmerman, immigrates to, say, Mexico and they have kids who then grow up speaking Spanish as their main language and thinking of Mexico as their home country and Mexican culture as their primary culture, then those kids are Hispanic, but still white.

[provis99]

33. he is not white, he is mestizo.

Last edited Sat Mar 31, 2012, 07:58 PM - Edit history (1)

half white, half Peruvian Indian.

[1StrongBlackMan]

6. No ...

You must read in the implied African-American Exclusion Clause that is operative in so many state laws.

[BlueJazz]

7. If this asshat gets away with murder, it's going to set race relations back 50 years.

Plus, it won't surprise me at all if he meets his maker (or whatever) sooner then he thinks.
I DO NOT condone such actions but add the sad state of the poor and/or Blacks in this country
and the pot is ready to boil over.

Lots and Lots of anger going on over this one...

[EFerrari]

9. On Amy's show today, I heard that nearly half the states have similar laws. n/t

[zipplewrath]

10. Not entirely, but close

He'd have to tell a slightly better story than just "I saw him and was scared".

However, the reality is that he can leverage his "fear" to induce a hostile act on the part of someone else which then that hostile response becomes the justification for him "standing his ground".

If they can piece together his actions, he could actually be in some legal trouble. If he knows how to lie well, he could "get off" because of the benefit of the doubt.

[JI7]

11. the real world doesn't work like that

[kdmorris]

13. Under the law, technically, yes

But they would NEVER get away with it. If Trayvon Martin had been the one to shoot Zimmerman, he would be in jail for 1st degree murder, charged as an adult and they would likely be seeking the death penalty for aggravated murder (chasing him down and beating him before shooting him).

[Baitball Blogger]

15. That's the conclusion we reached in another thread.

Also, Travyon was a minor so he would have been held accountable for carrying a gun in the first place.

[fascisthunter]

32. If he had a gun, they would use it as proof he was looking for trouble

[Baitball Blogger]

36. Yup.

There was no scenario where he was going to win.

[spin]

23. The Florida law does NOT state that ...

read it for yourself.

The 2011 Florida Statutes
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

776.013?Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

1)?A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

***snip***

(3)?A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and 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 or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

If you are interested you might also check out the Sate of Florida's web page on concealed carry titled 'Use of Deadly Force for Lawful Self-Defense'

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

[kdmorris]

40. Does not state what?

If Zimmerman comes at me and I already know that he has a gun and has used it to kill someone, I am reasonably in fear of my life and could certainly shoot him. "has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and 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"

I would likely be convincing that it was in self-defense. I'm white. An African American would not. They would be arrested.

My point was and remains that the LAW is unfairly applied based on race. I am appalled that, given the evidence, Zimmerman can chase down a teenager and then use this law to justify his actions. And, yes, I still contend that if the roles had been reversed, the African American would have been (rightfully) arrested and would further be facing the death penalty. Zimmerman wasn't even arrested - because he is not an African American.

[spin]

43. The enforcement of the law should be fair ...

The fact that you are rich or poor, black or white should be irrelevant.



Notice how Lady Justice is wearing a blindfold.

We do have a long way to go before we achieve equality in our court system. We are making some headway, but perhaps Sanford Florida is lagging far behind.

[kdmorris]

47. Most of the time, I feel like all of Florida is lagging behind

The weather is great, but there is so much wrong with this state... starting with our Senators and Governor... maybe one day.

And yes, it should be fair (color blind, if you will).

[slackmaster]

28. You are intentionally ignoring the requirement of reasonableness that is explicitly in the law

You can't act unreasonably and use Stand Your Ground as an excuse. An UNREASONABLE fear does not justify use of deadly force.

[provis99]

34. "reasonable" is from the point of view of the shooter.

Zimmerman claims he had a reasonable fear, and therefore he is justified in shooting Martin.

The standard that reasonableness is decided by the shooter's opinion has already been established in Florida law, by the previous hundreds of cases similar to this one that have not been prosecuted.

[slackmaster]

37. No, reasonableness ultimately gets decided by a jury in a criminal trial

It's very common for jury instructions to be phrased as whether or not a "reasonable person" would do what a defendant did in a particular set of circumstances.

[ellisonz]

38. Which is why Zimmerman is being charged by the local authorities...

really

[slackmaster]

42. The case has been handed over to a grand jury

Standard procedure for a criminal investigation.

Try to be patient. Criminal prosecutions don't and shouldn't be conducted at Internet speed.

[ellisonz]

44. No but criminal investigations should be...

We probably won't ever know if Mr. Zimmerman had been drinking or was otherwise under the influence, we won't have timely witness statements, and who knows what else

[slackmaster]

49. George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin should have been given toxicology tests

As far as I know, neither party was.

[ellisonz]

51. Trayvon Martin would be as part of the autopsy. n/t

[yardwork]

57. The family's attorney stated that toxicology tests were run on Trayvon's body. They were negative.

The family's attorney also stated that no such tests were done on Zimmerman.

[yardwork]

56. The ONLY reason this case was finally handed to a grand jury is due to public outcry.

The police were getting ready to close this case. The police chief was quoted in early news reports as saying that his department had done an investigation and found no reason to charge Zimmerman. They could find no evidence showing that this was not self-defense. That's where it would have ended if not for the public outcry. The public outcry was a direct result of the family have the means to hire private attorneys and hold press releases. Eventually the public pressure caused the Sanford police force to release the 911 tapes, at which point hundreds of thousands of people started paying close attention.

If this family were poor or uneducated, there would be no grand jury.

[slackmaster]

58. Are you saying that the Florida SA doesn't review all homicides?

Help me out. This is the part I really don't understand. The DA in my area looks into all unnatural deaths even if no LE agency has made an arrest.

[yardwork]

59. The police chief was quoted as saying that the DA saw no evidence to press charges.

I don't have a link handy, but it was a quote in a news article linked in one of the earliest threads about this case.

That's what got my attention in the first place. Here's a dead kid and the police chief and DA are saying nothing to see here, move along, no evidence that this was not self-defense.

[slackmaster]

60. Wow. If that's true the problem is much bigger than Sanford PD.

It's outside of anything I've dealt with. Thanks.

[yardwork]

61. The last three paragraphs in the article at this link:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-17/news/os-trayvon-martin-shooting-911-call-20120316_1_deadly-shooting-shot-man-reports

Investigator Chris Serino of Sanford police said Friday the agency has worked closely with prosecutors, and have not arrested Zimmerman because prosecutors have consistently told them they do not have enough evidence to win a manslaughter conviction.

That's because Zimmerman says he was defending himself, something he's allowed to do under Florida law.

The best account of what happened came from Zimmerman, Serino said. Other witnesses who saw or heard parts of what happened corroborate his version of events, the investigator said.

Note that the 911 tapes didn't corroborate Zimmerman's account at all, and neither do the witnesses who have come forward since then.

Edited to add another link to a different article that quotes the chief of police:

http://www.12newsnow.com/story/17154848/fatal-shooting-of-florida-teen-turned-over-to-state-attorney

Police said they have not charged him because there are no grounds to disprove his story of what happened.

"The evidence and testimony we have so far does not establish that Mr. Zimmerman did not act in self defense. We don't have anything to dispute his claim of self-defense, at this point, with the evidence and testimony that we have," [Sanford Police Chief] Lee said.

[slackmaster]

62. A lot of people are going to be very disappointed if Zimmerman isn't charged with a crime

IMO that is still a possibility even with all of the attention the case is getting.

I've come to the conclusion that he's a dirtbag and there is no chance the shooting was morally justified BTW. It's possible that all of the powers that be will end up deciding that it was legally justified. I think that is unlikely, but if it does happen there is going to be a shitstorm.

[yardwork]

65. I agree that it's still a possibility and if so, it will cause a huge ruckus.

I will participate in that ruckus. Something is foul rotten in that little town and it needs to be cleaned up.

[laundry_queen]

45. I don't know if it is the same

in the US, but in my law class here in Canada I was taught that 'reasonable' doesn't mean what your average Joe would do. Reasonable person basically refers to an above average person both in smarts and common sense and if THAT person would do the same thing - not if ANYONE *could* possibly do the same thing. . By this definition there really is no question that what he did was unreasonable. Unfortunately many juries are not instructed about the reasonable person assumptions.

[slackmaster]

48. What you have articulated sounds exactly the same as jury instructions I've gotten in the USA

I agree that what Zimmerman did was unreasonable based on what I've read and seen and heard, but keep in mind that juries are arbitrarily restricted on what is presented to them, and are often told to disregard things presented at trial. I think the Canadian and US criminal justice systems are very similar in that respect.

[laundry_queen]

53. I'm glad you got those jury instructions

I didn't get them when I served on a jury here in Canada. I learned them in law class 15 years after I served on a jury. Yeah, I think our systems have many of the same basic benchmarks.

[kdmorris]

39. I am not intentionally ignoring anything.

Of course there isn't justification for use of force when there is an unreasonable fear. The ONLY point of my statement was a black man WOULD have been arrested. The white man was NOT arrested.

Perhaps in the future, try not to be so snarky to people who are on the same side as you?

[Baitball Blogger]

14. We just had that discussion.

It doesn't go well in Trayvon's case.

See Link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=446328

[leveymg]

17. You didn't read the statute? Says that only "scary" people can be shot by "scared" property-holders

The Florida "Stand Your Ground Law":
A Statute for Shooting Scary People without Property; a Law for Scared Property-Owners Who'd Rather not Have Scary People Out at Night.

Inasmuch as "scary" people wearing hoodies walking the streets at night in gated neighborhoods where they do not own property are inherently presumed to be armed and dangerous within the State of Florida, they aren't covered by the immunity to prosecution granted to gun-owning property-holders by this statute entitled, the Florida Stand Your Ground Law.

For the statutory history, definition of terms, and mind-set of the State Legislature in passage of the Florida Stand Your Ground Law, consult the following illustration:

[ingac70]

18. He's already be under a prison somewhere. n/t

[doc03]

19. I listened to Faux a few minutes ago and they are saying

Zimmerman was bloodied. So in to the Faux Newsbots he was justified in shooting Martin..

[CakeGrrl]

22. Zimmerman should never have stepped his racist ass out of his vehicle as DIRECTED by 911.

Fox will ignore that until they turn blue.

They can cry a river when/if Zimmerman gets what he deserves.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. Direction by 911 operators is not required to be followed

Last edited Wed Mar 21, 2012, 12:17 AM - Edit history (1)

Its not a legal issue but it may weigh heavily with the jury.

If Zimmerman cannot show reasonable fear of loss of life/great bodily harm, he should go to jail.

Stand Your Ground is not relevant here.

[yardwork]

24. I wonder how Zimmerman got bloodied. Probably while he was attacking Trayvon.

But I wouldn't put it past Zimmerman to have hit himself in the nose after he murdered the child, just to make it look like self-defense.

In any case, the 911 call recordings prove that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon.

[ScreamingMeemie]

54. Me either. Especially when you listen to the two women (it's playing on CNN)

who say they came out onto their porch and saw Trayvon on the ground with Zimmerman straddling him.

[yardwork]

55. Are those the witnesses that the police kept "correcting?"

Apparently while the police were taking statements from witnesses they kept telling the witnesses that they had seen the opposite of what they saw.

[spin]

20. No. He has to have reason to expect an imminent attack that would ...

cause serious injury or death.

The 2011 Florida Statutes
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

776.013?Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

1)?A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

***snip***

(3)?A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and 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 or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

Use of Deadly Force for Lawful Self-Defense

***snip***

2. The amount of force that you use to defend yourself must not be excessive under the circumstances.

Never use deadly force in self-defense unless you are afraid that if you don't, you will be killed or seriously injured;
Verbal threats never justify your use of deadly force;
If you think someone has a weapon and will use it unless you kill him, be sure you are right and are not overreacting to the situation.

3. The law permits you to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense. Carrying a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman or a "good samaritan."
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

I suspect the law will be revised in the future so as to make it far easier to prosecute someone who uses the "Stand Your Ground" defense when there are reasonable questions that ask if the individual acted reasonably. Several jury trials have already occurred and in some the defense was successful and in others it failed and the defendant was convicted.

In the Travon Martin/George Zimmerman incident, I can't for the life of me understand why Zimmerman hasn't been charged. I fault the police department more than I do the law as, while I am not an attorney, it seems that Zimmerman pursued Martin after being told not to confront him. Chasing someone down is in no way standing your ground. The more reports that I read and hear on the news, the more I feel that the investigation was poorly conducted and that the Sanford police department is either incompetent or racist.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. Not at all

[slackmaster]

27. No, and I feel it is counterproductive for you to post such hysterical hyperbole on this forum

[randome]

30. Seconded.

[malaise]

29. Should have been my son

There would be two funerals

[fascisthunter]

31. yup.... he stalked him

[X_Digger]

35. It's not about 'feeling threatened', as much as *some* media has been portraying it as such.

http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/776.012.html
[div class='excerpt']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. 776.013.

If Zimmerman grabbed Martin, or started a physical confrontation, or pulled a gun without justified cause- basically actions that would give a reasonable person cause to believe that imminent death or great bodily harm was imminent- then Martin would have been justified in using deadly force against Zimmerman.

[Doctor_J]

66. But since it's been a month with no arrest,

we can comfortably assume that the authorities are extending this to appease the gun-crazy FL culture. Martin was unarmed and tried to get away from Zimmerman, who was told by the police not to attack. On the topic of this thread, it would certainly seem reasonable for any black person to treat Zimmerman as a lethal threat, and deal with him accordingly.

[X_Digger]

67. It's the Sanford PD that's the root of this..

Whether it's 'good ol boy'-ism, downright racism, his father (apparently a prominent attorney) pulling strings, or some other reason that the PD didn't charge him- I'm not sure we'll ever know.

I don't think we can assume *anything* at this point.

[ecstatic]

41. He'd be under the jail

Given life with no parole.

[fluchen]

46. When in America's 236 year history would it be ok for a black man

to kill a white man and get away with it?

[CakeGrrl]

64. Thoretically. Realistically? Black man arrested in a nanosecond. -nt

[socialist_n_TN]

69. I've said this exact thing since I first read about this.........

If I were black and around Zimmerman, I would be in fear for my life. And since he's killed an unarmed black person before, I would REASONABLY be in fear for my life. Hell, as an old white guy, I'd probably be in fear for my life.

But in the real world south (outside of the cities anyway), the black guy who kills Zimmerman will be UNDER the jail. Until he's executed.