Castle doctrine

[Double D]

I sure would like to know how my thread got hyjacked.

[norahc]

Originally Posted by Double D

I sure would like to know how my thread got hyjacked.

I think it started at about post #4...and I'm just as guilty as everyone else for continuing it.

[Double D]

Originally Posted by norahc

I think it started at about post #4...and I'm just as guilty as everyone else for continuing it.

No, I dont think carver read my original post before posting and then everyone else followed suit.

[BobMcG]

Ya gotta love how T.M. is always referred to as "the unarmed black teenager". Not "the unarmed teenager", mind you, but "the unarmed black teenager". You see and hear it over and over again. What a load of race baiting crap.

[Caneman]

Originally Posted by Double D

I sure would like to know how my thread got hyjacked.

what is interesting is that the "castle doctrine" is not uniform and has different flavors depending upon which state you are in...

FL - the castle doctrine applies to your home and extends to your car

CA - only applies inside your home

NY - applies inside your home only, and you must make an attempt to "retreat" before you can use lethal force to defend yourself

TX - applies inside your home, outside on your own property, extends to your car, and also you can pursue a thief who steals your belongings from your property and use lethal force!

[Ed~]

Originally Posted by Double D

Another good story about the NRA working for gun rights and putting pressure on dems.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47038437.../#.T4g7bdlqPIU

That was a very good article DD. It gave me a better understanding of history of the Castle Doctrine and it's current developments.

It doesn't come out and say it but implies exactly why Zimm- is facing 2nd Degree Murder rather than Manslaughter: the prosecution is using this case to limit the Castle Doctrine pushers. As the article states, the NRA and ALEC were/are pushing to allow shootings beyond your house and yard to any place one has a right to be. That means Shootouts At The OK Corral again folks.

Now I live in a fairly gun-friendly state (30 mins from Tombstone...) where folks are sometime seen open-carrying on the streets for no obvious reason (not on their farm, the range, or out in the back-country) even though it is legal to conceal-carry without a CCW. They do it for show. Police here have to file a report every time they unholster their weapon but obviously Civies don't. I have no desire to have any organization tell me what I can or cannot do, but the work of the NRA and ALEC is just plain dangerous and leads exactly to unjustified shootings as the Zimm- Martin case.

Stupid folks like Zimm- give all gun owners a bad rap. But stupid laws are far worse: they give stupid people the idea that they are free to wreak havoc in society and hurt folks if they can prove it was justified. Problem being they almost never can, will spend their lives in jail (food, shelter, and healthcare on our tax dollars), but someone still stays shot or killed.

The Castle Doctrine gives protection for homeowners and belongs at HOME. Do some research on the bills it sponsors and you'll discover ALEC does everything it does simply to stir up controversy and pit folks against each other so we ignore that we are being raped and looted by an Oligarchy. The NRA is just one of their political whores stealing the limelight for influence to exist.

To hell with the Dems... and Repugs!

[Caneman]

"Castle Doctrine" and "Stand Your Ground" are not the same thing... SYG is a provision for self-defense laws, and can also be included in CD laws...

the CD does not apply to Zimmerman, but SYG does... FL does not require someone to retreat before they can defend themselves using a lethal weapon (they can "stand their ground" and retreat is not required) if they are are in "fear of their life, or great bodily harm"...

Zimmerman's problem is a imbalance of force issue, imo... was his use of force disproportiate to the attackers? These are all imbalance of force issues: teenager attacking an old man, any man attacking a woman, professional fighter/boxer attacking any man, etc... but did an unarmed Martin impose an imbalance of force when he attacked Zimmerman? And was Zimmerman at the point of being in "fear of his life, or great bodily harm"? IMO, those are the legal arguments, all the rest are just side issues... I personally believe Zimmeran has a strong case in his support, but with the FL legal system you never really know... remember Casey Anthony?

[Alpo]

>"Castle Doctrine" and "Stand Your Ground" are not the same thing<

I was beginning to wonder if anyone besides me realized that.

>where folks are sometime seen open-carrying on the streets for no obvious reason (not on their farm, the range, or out in the back-country) even though it is legal to conceal-carry without a CCW. They do it for show.<

Or maybe they do it because they do not like having to carry concealed. I carry a gun all the time. I have a 5-shot 38 in my pocket. Why such a small caliber, small capacity gun? Because it has to be concealed. If open carry was legal in Florida, I'd walk around with a 1911 on. But that 1911 is kinda hard to hide, especially in t-shirt and shorts weather.

[norahc]

Originally Posted by Alpo

>where folks are sometime seen open-carrying on the streets for no obvious reason (not on their farm, the range, or out in the back-country) even though it is legal to conceal-carry without a CCW. They do it for show.<

Or maybe they do it because they do not like having to carry concealed. I carry a gun all the time. I have a 5-shot 38 in my pocket. Why such a small caliber, small capacity gun? Because it has to be concealed. If open carry was legal in Florida, I'd walk around with a 1911 on. But that 1911 is kinda hard to hide, especially in t-shirt and shorts weather.

Or they are attempting to show people that just because somebody is carrying a gun does not mean that they are a bad guy or breaking the law.

[whirley]

Here's the latest.. The Feds have now charged Zimmerman with second degree murder. it's now possible that Zimmerman could be found not guilty in Fla. court and then retried in Fed court. You think that's double jeopardy? Wrong..I believe it was used against some police officers in California, and the cops lost to the feds. The cops did time. But don't worry, Obama won and he'll do whatever he wants to do! Ask any black panther, they're gonna give that honkie what he deserves.

[norahc]

Originally Posted by whirley

Here's the latest.. The Feds have now charged Zimmerman with second degree murder. it's now possible that Zimmerman could be found not guilty in Fla. court and then retried in Fed court. You think that's double jeopardy? Wrong..I believe it was used against some police officers in California, and the cops lost to the feds. The cops did time. But don't worry, Obama won and he'll do whatever he wants to do! Ask any black panther, they're gonna give that honkie what he deserves.

Source? The reason I ask is that Martin was not in one of the groups that would allow the feds to charge Zimmerman with Murder 2 (federal law enforcement officer, judge, etc...). That would mean that the murder charge would be a state charge.

The more likely scenario is that they've charged him with a civil rights violation, which is what they actually charged the LAPD officers with in the Rodney King incident.

[Ed~]

Excerpts rom Wikipedia on Stand Your Ground with regard to Zimmerman's defense:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[21]
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.—
(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.

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.

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.

Apparently the prosecution will try to prove that Zimmerman did not fulfill the requirements of immunity under this law because:
1) Zimmerman failed to withdraw from physical contact nor exhausted all means of escape;
2) Was not actually in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm;
3) Initially provoked the confrontation when told to stay in the car and wait for the police.

They chose 2nd Degree murder because it is criminal homicide, exactly what this SYG law is designed to protect defenders from. The bar is set reasonably high enough so that most people in their own homes would pass but vigilantism would not.

Given what I've read above, I don't see how Stand Your Ground, as it is written in FL, will provide Zimmerman from immunity.

But neither do I believe that they will hurt SYG laws with this case. If anything, it will show the public how such laws work to protect true defenders but not vigilantes.

On the other hand, if Zimmerman does get off based on some part of SYG, you can believe a wave of public anger will go after the law itself.

Kind of a Catch 22 situation don't you think?

[Alpo]

From your own post.

>776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(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.<

So, why should this matter?
>1) Zimmerman failed to withdraw from physical contact nor exhausted all means of escape;<

The law specifically states you don't have to try to escape.

As to your other two points
>2) Was not actually in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm;
3) Initially provoked the confrontation when told to stay in the car and wait for the police.<

Since you weren't there, you have no idea whether he was in imminent danger or not. and
As has been said, numerous times in this thread already, he was not told "STAY IN THE CAR", he was told, "We don't need you to follow him". There is a difference.

And even if he HAD been told to stay in the car, the guy/girl at 911 is a flippin' telephone operator. Not a cop. A telephone operator. Has no authority of any kind to tell someone to do or not do something.

[carver]

Originally Posted by Double D

No, I dont think carver read my original post before posting and then everyone else followed suit.

I read it, and I apologize for the thread drift, but I was responding to the link on the Zimmerman case in the article, which is where I thgought you were going! Again I apologize!

[Ed~]

Yes, Alpo, you are completely right. I wasn't there. I was merely thinking out loud what the prosecution would have to show to strip SYG immunity from Zimmerman in this case.

Having said that, it doesn't appear hard for the prosecution to do. 2nd Degree Murder, on the other hand, would be a higher bar for the prosecution to reach and they may accept a plea-bargain before this is over.

In either case, SYG will probably not protect Zimmerman from going to jail IMHOpinion.

BTW... reread line 2a in Statute 776.041 unless you willingly fail to understand the requirements of SYG. You will find it says, "exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger," which I interpreted as Zimmerman has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger before shooting an unarmed assailant.

Stand-Your-Ground still includes the requirement to withdraw in the case where one provokes the confrontation, which is what Zimmerman did. Ironic isn't it? That last part probably included to appease those damned bleeding hearts who just don't have the balls to met justice most efficiently: one-man judge, jury, and executioner.

[mintaka]

I have a question..if zimmerman had every right to be where he was, was attacked and beaten up in a life threatening manner, used his legal firearm to save his life,....what is he doing in jail?..
I have strong opinions on his following on foot, and why it was not what he should have done, but why is he in jail?..

[Alpo]

Line 2a in Statute 776.041 applies if you are the aggressor.

Did Zimmerman start it? Did Zimmerman run over to Martin, slap him upside his head and demand, "Hey, Boy, what you doing in my neighborhood?" Is that what happened? Did you see that? Are you a witness?

No? You didn't see it? Then you don't know what the heck happened, do you? You know what the news say happened, but they've been changing their stories almost daily. You know what Jackson and Sharpton and the other "alas, alack, the white man keep the brother down" asshats say. But you don't know what happened.

So, I repeat, why do you think he needed to retreat?

[Alpo]

Originally Posted by mintaka

I have a question..if zimmerman had every right to be where he was, was attacked and beaten up in a life threatening manner, used his legal firearm to save his life,....what is he doing in jail?..
I have strong opinions on his following on foot, and why it was not what he should have done, but why is he in jail?..

Because the States Attorney is afraid of nationwide race riots.

[mintaka]

I think the riots will be worse if he was arrested and then freed, then if they stood by the original scenario by not arresting him...but that's just my opinion..

[ampaterry]

Allright everybody, stay in your seats and keep quiet.
This thread is going to CUBA!!

Oh - wrong kind of hijacking -

Sorry -

[Cuba]

Cigars any one.

[Cuba]

Yea, I got every bit of it, more sugar please. I think that the 911 recordings from the residents indicate that Zimmerman was getting his a$$ kicked while screaming like a bitch, it is safe to assum that he feared losing the gun and being shot himself, thats my assessment and I'm sticking to it.

[Ed~]

Originally Posted by ampaterry

Allright everybody, stay in your seats and keep quiet.
This thread is going to CUBA!!
Oh - wrong kind of hijacking -
Sorry -

Ha ha ha ha! That was a good one, Terry! -From Left Field, I laughed my ass off when I read this.

[Caneman]

Originally Posted by Alpo

Line 2a in Statute 776.041 applies if you are the aggressor.

curious on how the law defines the "aggressor"... is this the first person to make physical contact? or the person who "started" the verbal confrontation? it will be interesting to see how the court decides this... i have always thought that the first person to make physical contact is the aggressor, and at that point the other person has a right to defend themselves...

[Ed~]

Alpo, you are right. I wasn't there.

In fact I now feel any further comments I make on this case does a disservice to both Zimmerman and Martin. My sincere feelings are that of sadness for this shooting. Martin was just a kid, stupid and troubled as many of us were at that age, but still just a kid. Zimmerman was in college studying to become a police officer when this shooting occurred.

The whole thing just sucks. It shouldn't have happened. I just feel sad for all of it.