Zimmerman Found Not Guilty

[JayBird]

Some posts on other threads have touched on this and when it passed into law I had a feeling it would only be a matter of time until tragedy happened.

As a disclaimer, I do not own any firearms however I do support people's right to carry. I do not support Stand Your Ground as it is written.

Stand your ground laws are irresponsible gun ownership.

Guns are meant for self-defense. If you are a responsible conceal carry holder, and you are jumped, hit, and you think someone is reaching for your gun... you are defending yourself.

Though I am a proponent of Right to Carry, I do not believe in Stand Your Ground. A study done by a Tampa newspaper proves its faults outweighs its benefits IMO. http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133

Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

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.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.


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.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.


776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting 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 was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27


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.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

What are your thoughts? Is this a necessary law? Is it the media just blowing it out of proportion? Is it the conservatives trying to keep votes?

[Cheshire Cat]

dude, guns arent meant to be a negotiation point in day to day living.  To treat them as such is irresponsible, and downright dangerous.

And I would totally suggest that you reconsider your fairly silly claims about my words.  I have said from the beginning that its about another gun owner murdering someone in cold blood, but getting away with it legally.

The race discussion was started by a fairly racist troll, and I responded to him.

Sorry that you are having trigger word issues.

You on page 19: "NO ONE questions the fact that profiling happened, and thats about as racist as it gets."

yes.  your trigger word.  If you don't actually know anything about the case, the context, or what people have actually said, why on earth are you debating this, Jameson?  You arent asking questions, you are making statements, and they don't make you seem either informed or terribly engaged. 

In fact they make you seem the opposite.

Truth is a lot of people are making statements about this case all across the country and beyond who don't know the particulars which is why we have a court of law and a jury.  The jury listened for 5 long weeks to testimony and evidence on both sides and were charged to come up with a verdict under Florida Law.  They did so and rendered a not guilty under the law.  This does not mean they did not think the first error was Zimmermans, they did. 

I was very interested to hear the words of the juror who spoke to Anderson Cooper on CNN last night.  It explains why the jury came up with the verdict and what they thought happened.  At the very least I think people can go to the CNN site and listen to what the jury thought.  That in many ways can bring folks up to speed on what happened in this trial.

[JeffreyS]

Last resort??? where as I have disagreed on a lot of your points none seemed foolish until this one but it is ridiculous.  He had lots of other options including minding his own damn business, firing a warning shot and my favorite don't use a gun in a fist fight.

Fire a warning shot?  So you suggest wildy failing a gun around while beating beaten and pulling the trigger at random?

No I am suggesting he intentionally murdered Trayvon Martin.

[I-10east]

Stephen, please do not use phrases like 'racist troll' just because someone disagrees with you. I know that you are 100% in that liberal media bubble like alot of people are, but speaking facts doesn't make one 'racist'.

[acme54321]

I am glad you are back to making reasonable points. I agree the laws are the biggest problem in this case.

I am still wondering when he cocked that slide? Certainly the contention isn't that he pulled the gun during the fisticuffs (that were in this one magical instance going to lead to death), released the safety, operated the two hand action of the slide but then couldn't execute a warning shot or a leg shot  instead of a perfect "one shot one kill" style shot to the middle of TM's heart.

Serious question:  Have you ever fired a pistol?  Or a firearm? 

[Cheshire Cat]

No one is disputing the fact that he should have stayed in the car.

then thats the end of the story.

Respectfully Stephen, that is not the end of the story.  It should have been but it wasn't and the law cannot convict someone for being stupid enough to follow someone they thought was suspicious. 

[acme54321]

Last resort??? where as I have disagreed on a lot of your points none seemed foolish until this one but it is ridiculous.  He had lots of other options including minding his own damn business, firing a warning shot and my favorite don't use a gun in a fist fight.

Fire a warning shot?  So you suggest wildy failing a gun around while beating beaten and pulling the trigger at random?

No I am suggesting he intentionally murdered Trayvon Martin.

So?  I'm questioning where you said one of his alternate options would have been to fire a warning shot.

[Jameson]

dude, guns arent meant to be a negotiation point in day to day living.  To treat them as such is irresponsible, and downright dangerous.

And I would totally suggest that you reconsider your fairly silly claims about my words.  I have said from the beginning that its about another gun owner murdering someone in cold blood, but getting away with it legally.

The race discussion was started by a fairly racist troll, and I responded to him.

Sorry that you are having trigger word issues.

You on page 19: "NO ONE questions the fact that profiling happened, and thats about as racist as it gets."

yes.  your trigger word.  If you don't actually know anything about the case, the context, or what people have actually said, why on earth are you debating this, Jameson?  You arent asking questions, you are making statements, and they don't make you seem either informed or terribly engaged. 

In fact they make you seem the opposite.

Really, Stephen? Because on Page 2 of this thread you link to and quote and article from HuffPo in reply to no one about Zimmerman and his family being a bunch of racists.

[Cheshire Cat]

Last resort??? where as I have disagreed on a lot of your points none seemed foolish until this one but it is ridiculous.  He had lots of other options including minding his own damn business, firing a warning shot and my favorite don't use a gun in a fist fight.

Fire a warning shot?  So you suggest wildy failing a gun around while beating beaten and pulling the trigger at random?

No I am suggesting he intentionally murdered Trayvon Martin.

The jury who listened to the evidence thought he did not Jeffrey.  To say that he did is an assumption especially not having had been privy to all the testimony and facts.  No one disputes the fact that Zimmerman got out of the car and that he shot Trayvon and that Zimmerman's initial actions opened the door to a final confrontation, so in that way he has fault, but those actions are not illegal.  Floridians and society need to look at our laws at this point because the whys and hows behind Trayvon's death and Zimmermans actions cannot be undone.  I would also remind everyone that Trayvon's family will be suing Zimmerman in civil court and the outcome there may be very different in that testimony not given in this trial as to character and background can and will come out and Zimmerman if called, must testify.  Remember OJ Simpson was found not guilty in criminal court but guilty in civil court and civil action can include jail time. 

[JeffreyS]

I am glad you are back to making reasonable points. I agree the laws are the biggest problem in this case.

I am still wondering when he cocked that slide? Certainly the contention isn't that he pulled the gun during the fisticuffs (that were in this one magical instance going to lead to death), released the safety, operated the two hand action of the slide but then couldn't execute a warning shot or a leg shot  instead of a perfect "one shot one kill" style shot to the middle of TM's heart.

Serious question:  Have you ever fired a pistol?  Or a firearm? 

Shotguns many times, a rifle twice and the only hand guns were for BBs and pellets.  Clay pigeons and a few failed hunting trips.

My question was serious as well is that not a two hand action gun?

[JeffreyS]

Last resort??? where as I have disagreed on a lot of your points none seemed foolish until this one but it is ridiculous.  He had lots of other options including minding his own damn business, firing a warning shot and my favorite don't use a gun in a fist fight.

Fire a warning shot?  So you suggest wildy failing a gun around while beating beaten and pulling the trigger at random?

No I am suggesting he intentionally murdered Trayvon Martin.

The jury who listened to the evidence thought he did not Jeffrey.  To say that he did is an assumption especially not having had been privy to all the testimony and facts.

We are not in the jury's shoes living life often requires making reasonable assumptions. I believe he did I stated it as such.

[JayBird]

No one is disputing the fact that he should have stayed in the car.

then thats the end of the story.

Respectfully Stephen, that is not the end of the story.  It should have been but it wasn't and the law cannot convict someone for being stupid enough to follow someone they thought was suspicious.

Respectfully Diane. 

In the conversation with Jameson over why Zimmerman should have been tried and/or convicted, if no one disagrees that Zimmerman should have stayed in the car, then everything that happens after that is Zimmermans responsibility.  End of story.

So you are subscribing to the mind my own business and if its not my house they're breaking into I know nothing attitude?

[Traveller]

So, you are walking down the street and some stalker walks up and grabs you in your privates.  You resist and you hit the guy in the face.  He pulls a legal gun and shoots you.  Today there is a very good chance he will get away with it.

Not under the language of the "stand your ground" statute as I understand it.

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. Section 776.013(3), Florida Statutes.

I would argue grabbing someone else's privates without their consent constitutes an unlawful activity, rendering the stand-your-ground defense inapplicable.

The offense of battery occurs when a person actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other. Section 784.03(1)(a)1., Florida Statutes.

Granted, without living witness, how can the state prove that the shooter committed the initial battery?  Under the prosecutorial immunity provision of Section 776.032, the police can't even question the shooter once he claims self defense unless they have probable cause that shows otherwise.  This is the statute that demands revision in my opinion.  Under centuries of common law, the burden was on the defendant to prove self-defense based on a preponderance of the evidence.  Now, the state must prove lack of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.  This burden is nearly impossible to meet without a living witness to testify.

[Cheshire Cat]

I am glad you are back to making reasonable points. I agree the laws are the biggest problem in this case.

I am still wondering when he cocked that slide? Certainly the contention isn't that he pulled the gun during the fisticuffs (that were in this one magical instance going to lead to death), released the safety, operated the two hand action of the slide but then couldn't execute a warning shot or a leg shot  instead of a perfect "one shot one kill" style shot to the middle of TM's heart.

Serious question:  Have you ever fired a pistol?  Or a firearm? 

Shotguns many times, a rifle twice and the only hand guns were for BBs and pellets.  Clay pigeons and a few failed hunting trips.

My question was serious as well is that not a two hand action gun?

There was testimony in the trial about this Jeffrey.  I don't know much about gun's by my recollection is that the guy was ready to fire once the trigger was pulled.

[I-10east]

If Trayvon Martin didn't attack Zimmerman first he still lives today, end of story.