776.041 Use of force by aggressor

[cthulu2016]

Florida standard of use of deadly force in self defense in an instance where an altercation is provoked by the person later claiming self defense:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who... 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.

[TheWraith]

1. This is why anyone talking about "stand your ground" is wrong.

There is nothing in the law of Florida or any other state which either has anything to do with "feeling threatened" or allowing someone to provoke a fight then kill someone in self defense. And yet, a lot of people who are apparently clueless about the law keep repeating things like that, as if the law actually gave some validity to Zimmerman's actions.

This is also why it's painfully obvious that there was an attempt to cover this up at first, otherwise nobody in their right mind would have accepted Zimmerman's self defense claim.

[Xipe Totec]

2. The problem is that some of those clueless people happen to wear badges. nt

[bongbong]

4. Nope

Here is the Florida law text:

"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..."

So, yes, if you feel "threatened" you can pull the trigger. Unless you think that

"reasonably believes"

somehow doesn't equal

"feels threatened"

Keep trying to rewrite history!

[cthulu2016]

5. You are quite mistaken

Reasonability is a key concept in American law. The phrase "reasonably believes" means that the state of mind of the accused is irrelevant. The state of mind being weighed is the state of mind of the legal hypothetical "reasonable man."

I makes no difference what Zimmerman thought. The law pertains to what a reasonable person would have thought in the same circumstances.

Reading statutes requires some understanding of law, because statutes are written in the overall context of law.

[bongbong]

6. Nope

> The law pertains to what a reasonable person would have thought in the same circumstances.

Dead men tell no tales. The murderer is the only one who can tell the story. Unless they start admitting Ouija Boards as evidence.

[COLGATE4]

7. You either misunderstand or are deliberately

misunderstanding the explanation that Cthulu just gave you. His/her explanation is absolutely correct. The jury is instructed that it must determine if a reasonable person in the shooter's circumstances would have acted as the shooter did. It's irrelevant what the shooter says he felt/thought. It's a standard feature of tort law that has been used since well before the Revolutionary War and is used by juries every day.

[bongbong]

18. Hmmmm

> if a reasonable person in the shooter's circumstances would have acted as the shooter did. It's irrelevant what the shooter says he felt/thought.

Irrelevant? What if the murderer is the only guy telling the story about what happened? My quip about the Ouija Board is quite appropriate.

I just can't believe the gun-lovers can't see this simple fact. Even with examples they keep their head in the sand.

[COLGATE4]

22. That's why we have a Prosecutor, who presents the

State's side of the case. Or is it your belief that, because the other person isn't available to testify that no conviction is ever obtained in a murder case?

[cthulu2016]

12. Now you are even more mistaken

The first time you were just unaware of what the word "reasonable" in a criminal law.

But now you are willfully wrong in the face of a perfectly reasonable and informed explanation.

So it appears that this is something that you want to believe, and no further explanation can shake that conviction.

[TheWraith]

8. Your interpretation is completely, totally wrong.

"Feeling threatened" and "A reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death" are so far apart that it's hard to see one from the other. A simple, plain text reading of the English language shows that you are wrong.

[bongbong]

11. Nope

> "Feeling threatened" and "A reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death" are so far apart that it's hard to see one from the other. A simple, plain text reading of the English language shows that you are wrong

Nope. It's so easy for me to see they are exactly equal that I'm astounded at how "head-in-the-sand" you are.

I guess those poor defenseless guns need lots of support!

As long as the victim is dead, and there are no videos or evidence, the murderer will get away with murder. I can think of thousands of scenarios where this will be true. I'm absolutely amazed you can't!

Let's say two guys are walking, one ahead of the other, at night. They are in a place with no video cameras, it's not raining, and both are carrying guns. THe 2nd guy is walking faster than the first guy, and will overtake him soon. But the 1st guy hears the footsteps and thinks its a mugger. He turns, shows his gun, and then the 2nd guy, thinking the 1st guy is a mugger, shoots him. According to SYG law, no one is guilty of anything.

Geez, that was easy. Again, I'm astounded at how "head-in-the-sand" you are.

[Solomon]

14. LOL. You are so wrong its ludicrous. Do us a

favor and never ever apply for a job in law enforcement or prosecution. (Or non-prosecution in your case).

[bongbong]

19. Another non-answer from you

So you have no rebuttal for my example. Fine. I know you gun-lovers don't. It's a religion with you. An act of faith.

[cthulu2016]

20. Do you call everyone who exposes your ignorance a "gun lover"?

You just don't have a clue about anything... you keep saying inane gibberish about the law, despite being corrected by three different knowledgeable posters, and seem to think that name-calling people as "you gun lovers" legitimizes your shtick somehow.

Elsewhere in this thread you referred to me as a "gun lover"... Do you think you fucking know me? I have never owned a gun.

Incredible.

[bongbong]

21. Yawn

So you hate what I say, and what I prove, and my logic. So you call it "inane". That's your opinion, and you're wrong. Sorry.

> Elsewhere in this thread you referred to me as a "gun lover"

That's, ummm, a lie. Which post of mine did that?

[COLGATE4]

23. Arguing legal issues with a non-lawyer

is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It doesn't get you anywhere and it just irritates the pig.

[cr8tvlde]

3. The bill's authors publically stated that in this case SYG DID NOT APPLY

Somehow they felt they had enough information early on to make that statement.

[TheWraith]

9. No doubt because anyone with an IQ above that of a rutabega could see so.

The "self defense" claim was a pathetically thin veneer over top of a murder and police coverup.

[ctaylors6]

10. SYG applies to the case in 2 ways

The Florida SYG law added 2 main things to law:
1. took away duty to retreat if you're somewhere you're allowed to be
2. provided immunity (as opposed to an affirmative defense)

Assuming Zimmerman's attorney files motion for it, judge will have hearing as to whether Z should be granted immunity from prosecution based on self-defense. I believe the standard is preponderance of the evidence. If judge rules against Z, then it goes to trial and Z can still claim self-defense (which includes the SYG provision of no duty to retreat).

The authors of the bill have said "stand your ground" doesn't mean and has never meant someone can pursue someone then claim self-defense. That's what they meant when they said SYG did not apply.

The 2 provisions of law that seem to be particularly in dispute here are (1) whether Z reasonably believed he needed to use deadly force, and (2) whether Z was the initial aggressor (ie provoked Trayvon) AND that none of the exceptions to the aggressor rule apply (subparts 2a & 2b of cited provision). Those exceptions to the aggressor rule are not part of SYG either - that's again why authors say doesn't apply. Still matters until the initial aggressor provision what Z did.

[cr8tvlde]

13. He pursued and claimed self-defense.

When the other "voice" is dead, showing no signs of struggle per the funeral home, unarmed, talking on the phone and heading towards/near his own home, and also leaving race out of it, aggressor has no "grounds" upon which to stand. In fact, he had to get out of his vehicle to get "on the ground" and pursue.

[ctaylors6]

15. I'm not sure

what you mean. Z can still claim self-defense, and the judge still rules on immunity in a hearing if Z so files. Maybe I wasn't clear. I didn't mean he had a valid claim or one that was likely to prevail. I just meant the law applied to the extent that he'd have a hearing on immunity if he so wanted. That's technically part of the law the SYG law the authors wrote.

Again, I probably wasn't being clear but the no duty to retreat outside of your home part applies in the sense that he wasn't in his home. But from what I understand that's not something that's in dispute at all. I think the authors of the law wanted to make clear that all the people who are saying FL's stand your law ground is going to let Z get away with this are wrong - that if he gets away with it it's not because of the SYG law.

[cr8tvlde]

16. Certainly is complex

Mix race in with it, even more complex.

[cthulu2016]

17. ...

[krispos42]

24. Translation: Trayvon Martin was protected by SYG, not Zimmerman.

Zimmerman, 10 years older, 100 pounds heavier, and carrying at minimum a pistol, could not have been attacked with anywhere near enough defensive force from Martin (back of Skittles, can of iced tea) to justify lethal self-defense unless Martin was a secret blackbelt or something.


The state's case is simple:

There's a dead body.

The person that made the dead body (Zimmerman) ALMOST CERTAINLY initiated the confrontation, as evidenced by the 911 calls.

There is no possible way that Martin could have replied to Zimmerman's aggression with enough disproportionate force to put Zimmerman in fear of death or great bodily harm. Martin didn't have the unarmed-combat skills (he wasn't a ninja or a former Navy SEAL) and he didn't have a weapon (club, knife, gun).

And if Martin dodged Zimmerman, then later confronted him at Zimmerman's truck, the disparity between Martin and Zimmerman leads me to believe that even if Martin had been aggressive (verbal, pushing, shoving) he could not have put Zimmerman in fear of his life or serious bodily injury.

If Zimmerman had a wife of Martin's size and weight, and she had gotten angry over something and began shouting and shoving him, even slapping or punching him, he would not have been legally allowed to use a pistol to defend himself.