Zimmerman's lawyers drop him

[Glocktogo]

Upon further review, it turns out that stand your ground DOES apply to people that flee before using deadly force, sometimes even if they're the aggressor: Here's a little snippet from Florida law:

2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[21]
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.
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:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(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.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. -The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(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.

Turns out that it's not a wishful optimistic interpretation but rather something that's written in black and white.

You're in the crosshairs now! You just popped a lot of bubbles!

 

[RidgeHunter]

Cops don't do what Zimmerman did. Cops notify the dispatcher of their location and initiate a field contact of the subject.

True, real cops generally don't behave like wannabe cops.

Zimmerman notified the 911 dispatcher of his location and then conveyed his disgust with the "assholes always getting away" and "f*cking punks" and then a short time later he's involved in a deadly-force encounter with someone who I feel I can safely say he could and should have avoided contact with.

I have no idea what happened besides that. Very likely Martin got the upper hand and Zimmerman's only recourse was to shoot him in order to escape. Who knows.

I'm fully aware that the "aggressor" can become the victim in a given situation. I'm fully aware that could have likely happened in this situation. I just feel like Zimmerman's stupid behavior should come with some sort of consequence. Using the reasonable person standard, I'll paint myself in a picture. I see violent felons and criminals daily. I live next door to one when he's not in prison (he lives with mommy when prison won't have him). I know that if I in any way hassle the people I see on a daily basis for being "suspicious", a physical confrontation will likely ensue. If I was armed I might find it necessary to use deadly force to escape with my life and/or the ability to tie my own shoes. So I simply avoid situations like that.

I see some rough mofos every day. If I even started staring at them, or following them, I know they're likely to turn around and say "What the *&*% are you doin, boy?!" and things would go downhill from there. Zimmerman got in over his head with his "patrolling", and that's why he's a movie star and we're sleeping in our own beds. Maybe he'll be aquitted and his infamy will be his (arguably unjust) cross to bear. Either way, I'm not worried about ever being in his shoes. Just like I wasn't worried about being in Starfleet Commander Ersland's shoes like so many people here were.

 

[soonerwings]

You're in the crosshairs now! You just popped a lot of bubbles!

It's all good, my USAF issue "thick skin" is fairly flame retardant.

 

[SMS]

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(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.

Turns out that it's not a wishful optimistic interpretation but rather something that's written in black and white.

Good find...it speaks to my position. Of course the prosecution will have to be able to show that Zimmerman was the aggressor and provoked Martin's use of force against him etc...it remains to be seen if they can do that. Heck, some of the legal folks out there think it won't even make it to actual trial.

 

[Shadowrider]

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(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.

Turns out that it's not a wishful optimistic interpretation but rather something that's written in black and white.

That's the best example of statute construction I think I've ever seen. You know, that whole written in black and white thing. We need to see more of that.

Sorry, I've been on the BLM's site most of the day so I'm in a crappy mood. Carry on....

 

[inactive]

T I just feel like Zimmerman's stupid behavior should come with some sort of consequence.

This is pretty much my thought as well. I'm not sure Zimmy violated any laws here. I'm pretty confident he acted stupidly and even recklessly. I'm not decided about the consequences I think he should face (assuming his actions are deemed lawful). Maybe the hell on earth he is living now is worse than any adjudicated consequence.

 

[SMS]

I'm not decided about the consequences I think he should face (assuming his actions are deemed lawful).

I think he's already facing said consequences...his life will not be the same for a very long time, if ever. Something everyone who carries a gun needs to think about every day, in every situation.

 

[Stephen Cue]

Upon further review, it turns out that stand your ground DOES apply to people that flee before using deadly force, sometimes even if they're the aggressor: Here's a little snippet from Florida law:

2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[21]
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.
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:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(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.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. -The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(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.

Turns out that it's not a wishful optimistic interpretation but rather something that's written in black and white.

Dude seriously? Im assuming you are reading my posts but are you reading them fully and in context?

All of the Fla. law you quoted was NOT SYG, only 776.012. Which did not contradict what I have stated.

Section 776.041 is not SYG, that is self-defense when one cannot escape the threat, not deciding to stand and confront the threat.

Also, please repost where I said one CANNOT use SYG after they retreat, I merely said it is not necessary and does not apply if one is attacked after they retreat....THEY DO NOT NEED SYG BECAUSE THEY RETREATED!

SYG ONLY STATES ONE DOES NOT HAVE TO RETREAT!

Plus, never said Fla. law was wishing optimistic interpretion. Please re-re-re-re-read my posts!

Its seems to me you are looking for a disagreement with me but I cannot find one other than you mis-quoting me.

 

[Glocktogo]

I think he's already facing said consequences...his life will not be the same for a very long time, if ever. Something everyone who carries a gun needs to think about every day, in every situation.

He'll forever be the guy who gunned down a kid in cold blood, regardless if that's what actually occurred or not. If acquitted, I'd be looking for a new country if I were him.

If he's acquitted or the charges are dismissed, I don't know if he has any civil jeopardy. If so, it would be up to a jury to assess his percentage of the blame. While this is a textbook cautionary tale for how to act responsibly when carrying, I think it should also be a cautionary tale for those who would allow the so-called "thug life" to dictate their public actions. It takes everyone to reduce the likelihood of events like this. Having a community at odds with itself doesn't help.

 

[soonerwings]

All of the Fla. law you quoted was NOT SYG, only 776.012. Which did not contradict what I have stated.

Section 776.041 is not SYG, that is self-defense when one cannot escape the threat, not deciding to stand and confront the threat.

Actually, if you read 76.041, you'll notice that it says that the preceding sections (that would include 776.012 which you're labeling as the whole of SYG) do in fact apply if someone retreats.

Also, please repost where I said one CANNOT use SYG after they retreat, I merely said it is not necessary and does not apply if one is attacked after they retreat....THEY DO NOT NEED SYG BECAUSE THEY RETREATED!

Saying that it doesn't apply is pretty much the same thing as saying that you can't use it. As the law clearly states, it does apply.

I

ts seems to me you are looking for a disagreement with me but I cannot find one other than you mis-quoting me.

I'm sorry if you feel "picked on" because I don't agree with your analysis. I have never done anything but directly quote your posts and have never altered them in any way so you can't exactly claim to be mis-quoted.