So not to hijack Ron's thread asking for opinions from outside the U.S. regarding the Zimmerman trial and verdict. I have included various Florida statutes (and did not cut to omit anything) that may help to shed some light. I do not claim to be an expert on this case, only to share some on the statutes that may shed some light on it as well as offer some generally taught self defense guidelines.
Jim R asked, "As a person who knew he was carrying a gun, he had a reason to expect that he was equipped to defend himself- therefore, why provoke a confrontation? And why didn't he show the gun to Martin, who might have stepped back and not attacked him? Why did he wait to take out the gun?"
Generally taught guideline is, never show firearm unless you have to use deadly force (whether one has to actually it or not). Therefore Zimmerman did not show firearm until (as evidence presented shown) he was being beaten.
In addition, if he had shown/presented firearm prior, he could have been in violation of the following.
790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms.—If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
In addition, had he violated the above statute, he could also have been in violation of the following and therefore his use of deadly force probably not justified.
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.
Jim also expressed that Treyvon was a child, while most could argue the definition of child versus adult... In Florida per the following statute, Treyvon was not a minor. I'm not sure if that places additional onus on Treyvon for his actions, but it is possible.
877.21 Definitions; ss. 877.20-877.25.—As used in ss. 877.20-877.25, the term: (1) “Emergency” means an unforeseen combination of circumstances which results in a situation that requires immediate attention to care for or prevent serious bodily injury, loss of life, or significant property loss. The term includes, but is not limited to, a fire, a natural disaster, or an automobile accident. (2) “Establishment” means a privately owned place of business to which the public is invited, including, but not limited to, a place of amusement or a place of entertainment. (3) “Minor” means any person under 16 years of age. (4) “Parent” means a person who has legal custody of a minor as a: (a) Natural or adoptive parent. (b) Legal guardian. (c) Person who stands in loco parentis to the minor. (d) Person who has legal custody of the minor by order of the court. (5) “Public place” means a place to which the public has access, including, but not limited to, streets, highways, public parks, and the common areas of schools, hospitals, apartment houses, office buildings, transportation facilities, and shops. (6) “Remain” means to stay unnecessarily in a particular place.
Now as someone with multiple concealed carry licenses, I hope to GOD that I am not put in a position to use deadly force, however if there is no other option to protect my life, I will protect myself. I have the obligation to do so. We all do. With that said, I agree with what Al said that they (Zimmerman/Martin) both used bad judgement. When I carry, I try my best to avoid situations where it could turn bad. That is just being prudent. Due to physical issues, I could appear to be an easier target for those intent on doing harm. 95% of the public wouldn't pick up on my bad genetics, I worry about the portion of the 5% who look for and target others. Back to Zimmerman...
But as there were no eye witnesses who witnessed everything that happened, we can only go on evidence presented and the statements of Zimmerman.
Under Florida law, Zimmerman, could use force to defend himself ---WHEN JUSTIFIED.
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.
AND... I believe the Sanford's police department concluded that force was justified and followed the following statute, UNTIL MEDIA/NATIONAL POLITICAL pressure forced the district/state's attorney to press charges. I also believe that everyone (politically/media wise) who got involved mucked up the case and should be held accountable for any demonstrations where there was any personal injury or property damage.
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).
The NAACP/Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton/President Obama, AG Eric Holder types need to keep their big traps shut and stop trying to race bait. And since Zimmerman was acquitted by a jury, it reasons that they agreed with the initial investigation. Therefore Zimmerman should be afforded the protection of the above statute regarding civil action.
And anyone/ group instigating civil action against Zimmerman that violates the above would most likely be violating the statute below.
877.01 Instigation of litigation; penalty.—(1) Whoever gives, promises, offers or conspires to give, promise, or offer, to anyone any bribe, money, goods, presents, reward, or any valuable thing whatsoever with the intent and purpose of stirring up strife and litigation; or with intent and purpose of assisting, seeking out, influencing, or advising the accused, sick, injured, uninformed, or others to bring suit or seek professional legal services or advice, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. (2) Whoever, in any way, solicits, receives or accepts or agrees to receive or accept, or who conspires to receive or accept, any bribe, money, goods, presents, reward, or any valuable thing whatsoever, or any promise, contract, or agreement whatsoever, with the intent and purpose of stirring up strife and litigation; or with the intent or purpose of seeking out, influencing, assisting, or advising the accused, sick, injured, uninformed, or others to bring suit, or seek professional legal services, counsel, or advice, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. (3) Any person violating the provisions of this section shall not be privileged from testifying, but if the person does testify in response to a subpoena issued by the state attorney or court having jurisdiction of such offense, nothing said by the person in his or her testimony shall be admissible in any civil or criminal action against him or her, nor shall the person be subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any such testimony or evidence so given or produced. (4) Nothing herein shall apply to the division of legal fees by and between attorneys at law. (5) This section shall be taken to be cumulative and shall not be construed to amend or repeal any other valid law, code, ordinance, rule, or penalty now in effect.
And where are those voices expressing outrage over this event?
The Baltimore Sun
Where are those voices denouncing ALL violence?? Or when O.J. was acquitted of murder, when PUBLIC opinion was that he was guilty and the jury thought otherwise.
The simple fact on the Zimmerman trial is (whether we like it or not) is that a jury acquitted him per due process. And for those that do not like it, it does not give anyone permission to act criminally (vandalism/assault/violence.)
Jim R asked, "As a person who knew he was carrying a gun, he had a reason to expect that he was equipped to defend himself- therefore, why provoke a confrontation? And why didn't he show the gun to Martin, who might have stepped back and not attacked him? Why did he wait to take out the gun?"
Generally taught guideline is, never show firearm unless you have to use deadly force (whether one has to actually it or not). Therefore Zimmerman did not show firearm until (as evidence presented shown) he was being beaten.
In addition, if he had shown/presented firearm prior, he could have been in violation of the following.
790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms.—If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
In addition, had he violated the above statute, he could also have been in violation of the following and therefore his use of deadly force probably not justified.
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.
Jim also expressed that Treyvon was a child, while most could argue the definition of child versus adult... In Florida per the following statute, Treyvon was not a minor. I'm not sure if that places additional onus on Treyvon for his actions, but it is possible.
877.21 Definitions; ss. 877.20-877.25.—As used in ss. 877.20-877.25, the term: (1) “Emergency” means an unforeseen combination of circumstances which results in a situation that requires immediate attention to care for or prevent serious bodily injury, loss of life, or significant property loss. The term includes, but is not limited to, a fire, a natural disaster, or an automobile accident. (2) “Establishment” means a privately owned place of business to which the public is invited, including, but not limited to, a place of amusement or a place of entertainment. (3) “Minor” means any person under 16 years of age. (4) “Parent” means a person who has legal custody of a minor as a: (a) Natural or adoptive parent. (b) Legal guardian. (c) Person who stands in loco parentis to the minor. (d) Person who has legal custody of the minor by order of the court. (5) “Public place” means a place to which the public has access, including, but not limited to, streets, highways, public parks, and the common areas of schools, hospitals, apartment houses, office buildings, transportation facilities, and shops. (6) “Remain” means to stay unnecessarily in a particular place.
Now as someone with multiple concealed carry licenses, I hope to GOD that I am not put in a position to use deadly force, however if there is no other option to protect my life, I will protect myself. I have the obligation to do so. We all do. With that said, I agree with what Al said that they (Zimmerman/Martin) both used bad judgement. When I carry, I try my best to avoid situations where it could turn bad. That is just being prudent. Due to physical issues, I could appear to be an easier target for those intent on doing harm. 95% of the public wouldn't pick up on my bad genetics, I worry about the portion of the 5% who look for and target others. Back to Zimmerman...
But as there were no eye witnesses who witnessed everything that happened, we can only go on evidence presented and the statements of Zimmerman.
Under Florida law, Zimmerman, could use force to defend himself ---WHEN JUSTIFIED.
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.
AND... I believe the Sanford's police department concluded that force was justified and followed the following statute, UNTIL MEDIA/NATIONAL POLITICAL pressure forced the district/state's attorney to press charges. I also believe that everyone (politically/media wise) who got involved mucked up the case and should be held accountable for any demonstrations where there was any personal injury or property damage.
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).
The NAACP/Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton/President Obama, AG Eric Holder types need to keep their big traps shut and stop trying to race bait. And since Zimmerman was acquitted by a jury, it reasons that they agreed with the initial investigation. Therefore Zimmerman should be afforded the protection of the above statute regarding civil action.
And anyone/ group instigating civil action against Zimmerman that violates the above would most likely be violating the statute below.
877.01 Instigation of litigation; penalty.—(1) Whoever gives, promises, offers or conspires to give, promise, or offer, to anyone any bribe, money, goods, presents, reward, or any valuable thing whatsoever with the intent and purpose of stirring up strife and litigation; or with intent and purpose of assisting, seeking out, influencing, or advising the accused, sick, injured, uninformed, or others to bring suit or seek professional legal services or advice, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. (2) Whoever, in any way, solicits, receives or accepts or agrees to receive or accept, or who conspires to receive or accept, any bribe, money, goods, presents, reward, or any valuable thing whatsoever, or any promise, contract, or agreement whatsoever, with the intent and purpose of stirring up strife and litigation; or with the intent or purpose of seeking out, influencing, assisting, or advising the accused, sick, injured, uninformed, or others to bring suit, or seek professional legal services, counsel, or advice, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. (3) Any person violating the provisions of this section shall not be privileged from testifying, but if the person does testify in response to a subpoena issued by the state attorney or court having jurisdiction of such offense, nothing said by the person in his or her testimony shall be admissible in any civil or criminal action against him or her, nor shall the person be subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any such testimony or evidence so given or produced. (4) Nothing herein shall apply to the division of legal fees by and between attorneys at law. (5) This section shall be taken to be cumulative and shall not be construed to amend or repeal any other valid law, code, ordinance, rule, or penalty now in effect.
And where are those voices expressing outrage over this event?
The Baltimore Sun
Where are those voices denouncing ALL violence?? Or when O.J. was acquitted of murder, when PUBLIC opinion was that he was guilty and the jury thought otherwise.
The simple fact on the Zimmerman trial is (whether we like it or not) is that a jury acquitted him per due process. And for those that do not like it, it does not give anyone permission to act criminally (vandalism/assault/violence.)
