This whole Trayvon Martin thing has me perplexed...

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/395946/this-whole-trayvon-martin-thing-has-me-perplexed/120#post_3527507
You guys are not understand how stand your ground laws are implicated and determined.
Florida's statute reads "(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."
At which point was Trayvon Attacked? Stand your ground does not come into play unless physically attacked. Not a "perceived" threat. One must be attacked first.
Yep, the use of force if you simply feel threatened only applies if someone breaks into your home, car or I believe place of business. I really don't think the law goes too far if you really read it.

 

[bang guy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/395946/this-whole-trayvon-martin-thing-has-me-perplexed/120#post_3527507
You guys are not understand how stand your ground laws are implicated and determined.
Florida's statute reads "(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."
At which point was Trayvon Attacked? Stand your ground does not come into play unless physically attacked. Not a "perceived" threat. One must be attacked first.
I understand perfectly well. You're incorrect, it is a perceived threat, it does not have to be an actual threat. Trevon may have believed George was a child molester.
Quote:
reasonably believes
Quote:
to prevent the commission of a forcible felony

 

[2quills]

Perceived threats need to be more clearly defined. People should have the right to defend but what is seen as aggressive behavior by one person may not seem so aggressive to another.

 

[bang guy]

I agree, the Florida law sucks as it is written. NY law goes too far in the other direction. I would like to live in a location that has something in the middle.

 

[beth]

Also, while stand your ground was not the defense's way of dealing with GZ case, the law of stand your ground is given to jurors in their instructions. It very likely went a long way to clear GZ.

 

[reefraff]

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
You guys seem to be overlooking the phrase in bold. I really don't see how the law goes too far. If you have someone break into your home or car You pretty much have the right to pop em. If someone looks at you mean on the street you don't. They have to attack you.
If someone breaks into your house or car with you in it they deserve whatever happens to them in my world.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/395946/this-whole-trayvon-martin-thing-has-me-perplexed/140#post_3527513
Also, while stand your ground was not the defense's way of dealing with GZ case, the law of stand your ground is given to jurors in their instructions. It very likely went a long way to clear GZ.
Did they read the SYG law or self defense? If the judge did read the SYG law that was yet another judicial error on her part because that should only come into play at a pre trial hearing. If SYG is found to be applicable the case is tossed before the trial ever starts.

 

[darthtang aw]

I understand perfectly well.  You're incorrect, it is a perceived threat, it does not have to be an actual threat.  Trevon may have believed George was a child molester.
"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked"
How does one gather ONLY perceived threat and omits the part where one MUST be attacked?

 

[beth]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/395946/this-whole-trayvon-martin-thing-has-me-perplexed/140#post_3527517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/395946/this-whole-trayvon-martin-thing-has-me-perplexed/140#post_3527513
Also, while stand your ground was not the defense's way of dealing with GZ case, the law of stand your ground is given to jurors in their instructions. It very likely went a long way to clear GZ.
Did they read the SYG law or self defense? If the judge did read the SYG law that was yet another judicial error on her part because that should only come into play at a pre trial hearing. If SYG is found to be applicable the case is tossed before the trial ever starts.
They most certainly read SYG instructions given by the judge. They are given written instructions which includes the definitions of the potential verdicts and the laws of self defense, and in FL, SYG. Here are the instructions given in GZ trial.
http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf

 

[darthtang aw]

Yep, the use of force if you simply feel threatened only applies if someone breaks into your home, car or I believe place of business. I really don't think the law goes too far if you really read it.
Correct.....

 

[bang guy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/395946/this-whole-trayvon-martin-thing-has-me-perplexed/140#post_3527518
"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked"
How does one gather ONLY perceived threat and omits the part where one MUST be attacked?
You are excluding the part of the law that I quoted.
The key part is the word "or". You are thinking that last phrase has the word "and".

 

[2quills]

As far as I'm concerned verbal threats no matter how bad do not warrant physical altercation. My personal philosophy is that if you're being threatened and that person aggressively comes toward you and enters your range of reach or throws something at you then all bets are off. Hawking someone shouldn't necessarily warrant a physical attack. It should have been nothing more than a verbal exchange of words on both sides.

 

[bang guy]

Also, it does not state "physically attacked" as you claimed, it only states "attacked". Again, it becomes vague.

 

[beth]

FL Law
Quote:
EXCUSABLE HOMICIDE
The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the three following circumstances:
1. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or
2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or
3. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the attempted killing is not done in a cruel and unusual manner.

 

[darthtang aw]

Also, it does not state "physically attacked" as you claimed, it only states "attacked".  Again, it becomes vague.
*sigh*
" 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"
If a person is yelling at you...is deadly force warranted because you might be killed by their words? Attacked is implied and defined in the law as a physical altercation.
There is common sense. And there is a statute under Florida law that if used MAY have convicted Zimmerman. The only question would have been Trayvon had went home and made it safely then went out after Zimmerman to inflict harm.
"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."
Subsection A then would come into play. However, since Trayvon made it home safely and then went back out seeking a fight...even this prosecution is questionable.....Had Trayvon NOT made it home, this discussion would be completely different in my eyes.

 

[2quills]

The law did what it could in this case. Problem was and has always been the sheer lack of evidence to say who did what first and to what degree. Leaves the whole situation wide open to speculation. What little evidence that there was IMO gave the most credence to a self defense case.
The Hawking thing is what seems to be debatable. That's probably a personal decision that should be taken up by folks in their own communities or states. This shouldn't be a federal issue.

 

[reefraff]

Bang. It seems like you think someone should have to have some sort of weapon before someone has the right to use deadly force against them. I can see where you are coming from BUT there are instances where people have died in fist fights. I'd be willing to take a butt kicking not to have to deal with the circus of having to shoot someone but if my head were being beat on the sidewalk I might have a different attitude at the time.
I know in 89 my brother got gutted by a guy with a survival knife who thought my brother was going to beat him to death. That was back in my brother's heavy drinking days and I am sure he probably did tell the guy he was going to kill him but he had no weapon and never had a chance to hit the guy before he whipped out the knife. Sounds BS that he got off BUT if my brother hadn't approached the guy.......

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/395946/this-whole-trayvon-martin-thing-has-me-perplexed/140#post_3527530
The law did what it could in this case. Problem was and has always been the sheer lack of evidence to say who did what first and to what degree. Leaves the whole situation wide open to speculation. What little evidence that there was IMO gave the most credence to a self defense case.
The Hawking thing is what seems to be debatable. That's probably a personal decision that should be taken up by folks in their own communities or states. This shouldn't be a federal issue.
That is why laws take into account the intent. Zimmerman wasn't breaking any laws when this happened so absent any evidence to show he started the physical fight and the fact he was obviously assaulted murder and manslaughter couldn't be proven.

 

[bang guy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/395946/this-whole-trayvon-martin-thing-has-me-perplexed/140#post_3527531
Bang. It seems like you think someone should have to have some sort of weapon before someone has the right to use deadly force against them. I can see where you are coming from BUT there are instances where people have died in fist fights. I'd be willing to take a butt kicking not to have to deal with the circus of having to shoot someone but if my head were being beat on the sidewalk I might have a different attitude at the time.
I know in 89 my brother got gutted by a guy with a survival knife who thought my brother was going to beat him to death. That was back in my brother's heavy drinking days and I am sure he probably did tell the guy he was going to kill him but he had no weapon and never had a chance to hit the guy before he whipped out the knife. Sounds BS that he got off BUT if my brother hadn't approached the guy.......
I don't think a weapon is required. I can see a case where under the right circumstances if someone was coming at me and threatening me I would consider myself attacked though there was no physical contact. In that circumstance I personally would probably try to retreat but I believe in Florida I would not be required to if I felt I was in danger of "great bodily harm".

 

[mohawkninja]

I have a feeling that gun owners almost have special rights when it comes to self defence.I think it is because it is one shot. Boom. The person who was a threat can't do anything if you have a gun. Unless you have another weapon, or you are trained in a martial art, standing your ground wont end up with the other person dead.