Zimmerman Found Not Guilty

[4thlittle]

I don't think I will move on until the laws are changed so that murders similar to the one GZ committed are punished as criminal behavior. 

How, exactly, would you rewrite the law?

Good question.  Each state has murder, manslaughter, and self-defense laws.  Is there a state statutory scheme on those issues that should be Florida's model?

[NotNow]

Here you go:

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.
(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.

776.031 Use of force in defense of others.—A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

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.



These are the statutes that I believe apply to civilians.  To see all of Chapter 776:

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/Chapter776

[MEGATRON]

and what are we being told about the child killing?

He deserved to die

You are better than this sort of hyperbole.

um.  a little late to the ball game.  look up and check out the above statements.

No, I was addressing what you really meant to say: that we are told that Martin deserved to die.  No one has said anything resembling that statement.

[MEGATRON]

The traditional requirement to avoid lethal force served us pretty well for a hundred years or so.  what was wrong with that?

For the record, I am in complete agreement with this statement.

[Demosthenes]

and what are we being told about the child killing?

He deserved to die

You are better than this sort of hyperbole.

Is he?

[4thlittle]

The traditional requirement to avoid lethal force served us pretty well for a hundred years or so.  what was wrong with that?

Did it? I don't know whether that is the case or not.  Avoid lethal force: (1) completely?; (2) unless you reasonably fear that you will die if you don't use lethal force?; (3) unless you reasonably fear that you will die if you don't use lethal force AND something else -- you did not (a) cause; (b) provoke; or (c) escalate the situation?

I suspect these legal standards have always been controversial, especially since they deal with matters of life and death. 

[sheclown]

The question is. "Is self defense color blind?"

[MEGATRON]

The question is. "Is self defense color blind?"

How is that the question?

[strider]

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.

This is the part that I believe would be relevant to Zimmerman.  I think that it is a given that he was initially the aggressor and so the passage above gives him the protection even though he initialed the conflict. It is why I think that under the current law, the protection of "stand or ground" or what actions can be defined as self-defense switch back and forth between two in conflict depending upon whom is winning. Of course, accurate and honest eye witness testimony would also determine that but without real evidence to the contrary, it ends up being the one who wins to tell his story.  Doesn't seem like a very well written law to me.

[strider]

The question is. "Is self defense color blind?"

How is that the question?

If Martin had knocked out Zimmerman with his first punch and put him in the hospital, would Martin be in jail right now?

[fsquid]

Already there are boycotts called against Florida and its merchants. 

I doubt many will cancel Disney plans because of this.

[BridgeTroll]

Already there are boycotts called against Florida and its merchants. 

I doubt many will cancel Disney plans because of this.

My plans for Sanford are on hold though...

[BridgeTroll]

In those other threads most who took great issue with the outcome of the trial defined Zimmerman as the aggressor.  Meaning that the act of following someone deemed suspicious is enough to warrant the label as "aggressor".  IMHO the only modification to the law would be to more clearly define aggressor.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—

[Jameson]

When some psychotic white guy kills classrooms full of small children, we are told not to worry:  its just a psycho---not typical, not rational, doesnt pertain to the rest of responsible gun owners.

And people, while hesitant, reluctantly decide on the side of reasonableness and optimism and acquiesce.

But here is an example of a person who has shot another child to death, a person who we are now being assured is a reasonable, typical, and rational gun owner, and what are we being told about the child killing?

He deserved to die, and the killer should have no consequences.

In a country where reasonable people are already uneasy about these murders happening with accelerating frequency, its really shocking how tone deaf the radicals are.

The Aurora Movie theater shootings and the Newtown shootings were both committed by mentally unstable people.

In Aurora, they already had the strictest gun laws. Holmes knew that when he stood up and started shooting in the theater that there was going to be no one shooting back at him. Do you think he would have attempted the same stunt if the possibility was there of 3-4 people might have opened fire back at him? No. He wouldn't. Because he is a coward.

A week after Aurora, this happened. A "gun nut" saved lives:

http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

In Newtown, Adam Lanza killed his mother and stole her guns to commit his disgusting act. He was a crazy person who obtained his guns illegally - by killing someone else and taking guns from their home. How would stricter gun laws have prevented that? It wouldn't. He was mentally ill. And just like Holmes, he knew that when he got to his destination, that there would be no one there to stop him. No resource officer, no security, nothing. And when he started to hear police sirens, he off'd himself. Coward.

The real issue in regards to Holmes and Lanza is mental illness. How many times have people come out after the fact and said "I wish I would have said something"? It is up to us to be aware of our surroundings and report odd behavior if we see it. Along with that, no one seems to want to talk about the side effects of the medications they were on. Nope. Because it's all about guns.

Would stricter gun laws have stopped Herman Pickens from killing Robert Sutton at Mojo No.4 a couple of weeks ago? He was a convicted felon who has been arrested every year of his adult life who used a stolen gun.

Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country yet 54 people were shot dead during the Zimmerman trial. The majority of their murders are gang, robbery, or drug related. You think that gang members go through background checks to obtain their weapons?

Just last week, a 16 year old was shot dead for refusing to join a gang. (Did Chicago hold a rally to show their disdain about his senseless killing? No. But they did have a rally to protest the Zimmerman verdict over 1,000 miles away.)

You say: "But here is an example of a person who has shot another child to death, a person who we are now being assured is a reasonable, typical, and rational gun owner, and what are we being told about the child killing? He deserved to die, and the killer should have no consequences.[/b]"

Maybe I've missed something in the 30+ pages of this thread, but at NO point have I read anyone say that Trayvon "deserved to die". People pointing out facts about Trayvon's past (just like you have done to Zimmerman as far back as page 2) does not mean that the kid deserved to die.

It's a tragedy. No one wins.

[Jameson]

When some psychotic white guy kills classrooms full of small children, we are told not to worry:  its just a psycho---not typical, not rational, doesnt pertain to the rest of responsible gun owners.

And people, while hesitant, reluctantly decide on the side of reasonableness and optimism and acquiesce.

But here is an example of a person who has shot another child to death, a person who we are now being assured is a reasonable, typical, and rational gun owner, and what are we being told about the child killing?

He deserved to die, and the killer should have no consequences.

In a country where reasonable people are already uneasy about these murders happening with accelerating frequency, its really shocking how tone deaf the radicals are.

The Aurora Movie theater shootings and the Newtown shootings were both committed by mentally unstable people.

In Aurora, they already had the strictest gun laws. Holmes knew that when he stood up and started shooting in the theater that there was going to be no one shooting back at him. Do you think he would have attempted the same stunt if the possibility was there of 3-4 people might have opened fire back at him? No. He wouldn't. Because he is a coward.

A week after Aurora, this happened. A "gun nut" saved lives:

http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

In Newtown, Adam Lanza killed his mother and stole her guns to commit his disgusting act. He was a crazy person who obtained his guns illegally - by killing someone else and taking guns from their home. How would stricter gun laws have prevented that? It wouldn't. He was mentally ill. And just like Holmes, he knew that when he got to his destination, that there would be no one there to stop him. No resource officer, no security, nothing. And when he started to hear police sirens, he off'd himself. Coward.

The real issue in regards to Holmes and Lanza is mental illness. How many times have people come out after the fact and said "I wish I would have said something"? It is up to us to be aware of our surroundings and report odd behavior if we see it. Along with that, no one seems to want to talk about the side effects of the medications they were on. Nope. Because it's all about guns.

Would stricter gun laws have stopped Herman Pickens from killing Robert Sutton at Mojo No.4 a couple of weeks ago? He was a convicted felon who has been arrested every year of his adult life who used a stolen gun.

Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country yet 54 people were shot dead during the Zimmerman trial. The majority of their murders are gang, robbery, or drug related. You think that gang members go through background checks to obtain their weapons?

Just last week, a 16 year old was shot dead for refusing to join a gang. (Did Chicago hold a rally to show their disdain about his senseless killing? No. But they did have a rally to protest the Zimmerman verdict over 1,000 miles away.)

You say: "But here is an example of a person who has shot another child to death, a person who we are now being assured is a reasonable, typical, and rational gun owner, and what are we being told about the child killing? He deserved to die, and the killer should have no consequences.[/b]"

Maybe I've missed something in the 30+ pages of this thread, but at NO point have I read anyone say that Trayvon "deserved to die". People pointing out facts about Trayvon's past (just like you have done to Zimmerman as far back as page 2) does not mean that the kid deserved to die.

It's a tragedy. No one wins.

thank you for proving my post, literally point by point.

Because I point out the fact that your chest-pounding for stricter gun laws would have prevented none of the above because the issue is much deeper than that? Got it.

The fact that will ignore the illegal gun exploits of people like Herman Pickens and Chicago gang members while at the same time trying to lump people like Adam Lanza, James Holmes, GZ, and Joe Anybody who happens to be a law-abiding citizen with a concealed weapons permit who is a gun enthusiast who only uses his guns at the range or to go hunting and has never been accused or convicted of any crime - much less one involving a gun - together into the same category to fit your "gun nut" argument is not only ridiculous, but stereotypical.

But hey, stereotypes are a real time-saver.