So have Asian shopkeepers in defense of their stores.
Posted on 05/17/2012 12:59:33 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
ABC-TV news reported this week that George Zimmerman had a broken nose, two black eyes and lacerations on the back of his head the day after his fatal confrontation with 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. ABC said it had obtained a medical report that documents Zimmerman's injuries. The injuries could back up Zimmerman's claim that he was defending himself from an attack by Trayvon when he pulled the trigger. Florida's stand your ground law allows people who feel threatened by death or serious injury to respond with deadly force....
(Excerpt) Read more at articles.orlandosentinel.com ...
Apparently nothing in the “Stand your Ground” law actually spells this out - and one CAN start a fight - determine you are losing the fight - and then kill the person you started the fight with. I was wrong with how the law was written - but the intent - according to it's authors - was that such a defense was predicated upon being the victim of an aggressive attack - not the initiator of it.
The problem is that nothing in Peadon and Baxley’s law says this. It provides that any person may use deadly force when “he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.” So long as someone reasonably thinks he or someone else is in danger, he can shoot to kill, regardless of whether the shooter is the one who initiated the hostile confrontation.
That pig in the second picture needs to eat less and move more. He’s in absolutely no shape to be carrying out his militia duties.
I do, however, commend him for trying.
The young lady in the first picture could be my daughter (but she’s not).
“What evidence points towards Martin being the aggressor?”
The question is, “what evidence points toward Zimmerman being the aggressor?” State has to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.
So far there seems zero evidence of who - once they met up - started the violence.
And it may be a moot point - apparently if the law is interpreted as written - a person can start a fight, determine that their life is in danger if the fight continues, and then draw a gun and use deadly force to stop the fight.
Well, how about the fact that Zimmerman had the injuries to his face, head and back, while Martin's only injuries were to his hands (indicating he was the one doing the hitting) and the gunshot wound...
There is also the small fact that Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin a full 2-3 minutes before the final confrontation, and Martin was only about a football field away from where he was staying when Zimmerman lost sight of him. It would have taken Martin less than 30 seconds walking at a fast pace (not even running) to cover that distance. So how is it that the confrontation occurred less than 40 yards from Zimmerman's vehicle? Isn't it likely that, rather than go home, Martin circled around and confronted Zimmerman?
I believe it's one of those cases where you have two equally viable defenses. Self-defense is more powerful because it's a common law defense and not dependent on the Florida legislature or on a court's interpretation of an issue of first impression under the statute.
The common law is well-established and draws on nationally accepted legal standards to fill in the blanks in Florida law.
That’s just the statutory law, too, 2ndDivisionVet. Hidden among the dusty tomes of the Southeastern Reporter (and S.E.2d, S.E.3rd, etc.) and the individual Florida variants, you’ll find common law rights of self defense that are independent of those statutes.
Self defense predates Noah, much less the Magna Carta.
well maybe not, I think I would like to know all the facts all at once
The injuries were consistent with Zimmerman losing the fight - but can bear no light on who started the confrontation.
So circumstantial evidence that Martin might have been following Zimmerman is evidence that Martin started the fight - but direct evidence of Zimmerman following Martin is not evidence that Zimmerman started the fight.
Isn’t that a double standard?
So far there is zero evidence of who started the fight - and the “who was following who” question hardly settles it.
And apparently according to the “stand your ground” law as written - one CAN start a fight, determine that they are losing said fight, and then use deadly force to stop the fight.
I don’t think that SHOULD be the law - but apparently it is (for now) in Florida.
“I’d tend to think it’d change momentum and put Zimmerman’s would-be lynchers on the defensive. Then again, I’d tend to believe the evidence and lackthereof beforehand would’ve put them on the defensive, too. So what do I know?”
Evidence? What do they need that for?
Zimmerman is a racist and a hater, and he shot Trayvon, so he’s guilty, and that’s it.
Now you know....
You know, WHITE people have been known to riot too.
So have Asian shopkeepers in defense of their stores.
See Three Helpless Sheep v. Ooog, 17 B.C. 251 (Southern Europe 11,248 B.C.)
As a lawyer, I can tell you that is not true.
It differs from state to state - and it's even codified as part of Stand You Ground (Florida Statutes 776.041; which is different than common law) - but the attacker can declare the right is over, physically separate, stop - and if the other party continues, the initial attacker can draw the gun. 776.041 is even tougher. If you can't separate because you can't retreat, you can fire.
I'm just telling you the law. Read it; don't believe me. I learned it in law school years ago and I've read it multiple times since Zimmerman.
You are correct - while most self defense claims (it varies State to State as you pointed out)are somewhat predicated upon being the victim of an attack and not the initiator of the attack - this is not the case with the “stand your ground” law.
My post #50:
And apparently according to the “stand your ground” law as written - one CAN start a fight, determine that they are losing said fight, and then use deadly force to stop the fight.
I don’t think that SHOULD be the law - but apparently it is (for now) in Florida.
“And it may be a moot point - apparently if the law is interpreted as written - a person can start a fight, determine that their life is in danger if the fight continues, and then draw a gun and use deadly force to stop the fight”
I think this greatly exaggerates what the law says. A person is entitled to stand their ground if, but only if, they are where they are legally entitled to be and doing what they are legally entitled to do. Assaulting another person (i.e., starting a fight) sort of takes them out of the later category.
OTOH, if Zimmerman yelled at Martin: “What the heck are you doing here—get out of our neighborhood.” And then Martin jumps him, Zimmerman probably has a valid defense.
It’s not an easy line to draw because in the last paragraph, Martin is asking for trouble. But stand your ground laws mean you can go where you want and do what you want (legally) and that does not violate a common law “duty to retreat.” OTOH, liberal hate stand your ground laws because they want citizens to cower in their cars or homes when possible bad guys are out there. Otherwise, it’s the good guys fault for going into a possibly dangerous situation. For example, is the good guy not retreating when the bad guy says: “Who you looking at,” and the good guy says: “F**k off,” and the the bad guy jumps him? Under a lot of non-stand-your-ground-laws, if that situation results in the bad guy getting shot, the good guy is guilty because he did not retreat.
That, of course, is a recipe for turning over nice neighborhoods that have gone Section 8 to the bad guys hanging on the corner. Why should the good guys have to cross the street or stay at home just because they could have avoided getting the **** beat out of them?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.