What's new

George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin

And that must be why it's titled "Home Protection". It deals with defense IN HOME!

So, answer the question, were Zimmerman or Martin in their home/s when Martin was killed?

First. The statute .013 is titles "Justifiable Use of Force"

Second. Section 3 says

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.

Note that is talks about 'any other place where he/she has a right to be" Since section 1& 2 deal with a dwelling the "other place" will be any place other than a dwelling. That means that section 3 deals with public place.

This is why the focus in the trial is dealing with whether or not Zimmerman felt threatened.

Most other stand your ground laws do not apply to public places like the FL statute does.
 
First. The statute .013 is titles "Justifiable Use of Force"

Second. Section 3 says

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.

Note that is talks about 'any other place where he/she has a right to be" Since section 1& 2 deal with a dwelling the "other place" will be any place other than a dwelling. That means that section 3 deals with public place.

This is why the focus in the trial is dealing with whether or not Zimmerman felt threatened.

Most other stand your ground laws do not apply to public places like the FL statute does.

.012 covers the person, 013 covers the home,

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
© 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.
© “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.

http://www.flsenate....es/2010/776.013
 
USE OF FORCE View Entire Chapter




[size="-1"]CHAPTER 776[/size]
[size="-1"]JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[/size]

[size="-1"]776.012 Use of force in defense of person.[/size]
[size="-1"]776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.[/size]
[size="-1"]776.031 Use of force in defense of others.[/size]
[size="-1"]776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.[/size]
[size="-1"]776.041 Use of force by aggressor.[/size]
[size="-1"]776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.[/size]
[size="-1"]776.051 Use of force in resisting arrest or making an arrest or in the execution of a legal duty; prohibition.[/size]
[size="-1"]776.06 Deadly force.[/size]
[size="-1"]776.07 Use of force to prevent escape.[/size]
[size="-1"]776.08 Forcible felony.[/size]
[size="-1"]776.085 Defense to civil action for damages; [/size]
 
.012 covers the person, 013 covers the home,



http://www.flsenate....es/2010/776.013
Muff, he just doesn't get it! I've never really seen someone so blind of a law as Tree. He doesn't understand that in one's home you have no obligation to retreat. One of the universal applications of self defense laws. He's as thick as a brick and suffers from Dunning - Kruger effect. Sad.
 
First. The statute .013 is titles "Justifiable Use of Force"

Second. Section 3 says

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.

Note that is talks about 'any other place where he/she has a right to be" Since section 1& 2 deal with a dwelling the "other place" will be any place other than a dwelling. That means that section 3 deals with public place.

This is why the focus in the trial is dealing with whether or not Zimmerman felt threatened.

Most other stand your ground laws do not apply to public places like the FL statute does.

Wrong. this is how section 776.013 is titled; Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.


Here's the jury instructions. Note how section 776.013 is titled and how it is to be used. Also note the title of 776.012: Use of force in defense of person.
 
Wrong. this is how section 776.013 is titled; Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.


Here's the jury instructions. Note how section 776.013 is titled and how it is to be used. Also note the title of 776.012: Use of force in defense of person.

Look up what a semi-colon means.

Then look at section 3 and explain to me what "any other place" means.
 
What part of "any other place" are you not clear on?

You are misreading law from the home protection section.....ask a lawyer.

Why does the section define Dwelling, Residence and Vehicle then and not a public place?

Any other place such as the rest of the castle grounds.
 
Look up what a semi-colon means.

Then look at section 3 and explain to me what "any other place" means.
A semi-colon separates two main clauses that are closely related to each other but could stand on their own as sentences if you wanted them to. Take for example "Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm". The semi-colon represents the close relationship between the two laws in that both explain when you are justified to use deadly force.

Now, look at the last statement in 776.012 "Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013" wherein the statement "duty to retreat" is not mentioned. The reason it is not mentioned and one major difference in the two laws is the well established fact that a person (when in their home) is not obligated a "duty to retreat" (to seek protection in a safe place).

What's so hard to understand?
 
First. The statute .013 is titles "Justifiable Use of Force"

Second. Section 3 says

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.

Note that is talks about 'any other place where he/she has a right to be" Since section 1& 2 deal with a dwelling the "other place" will be any place other than a dwelling. That means that section 3 deals with public place.

This is why the focus in the trial is dealing with whether or not Zimmerman felt threatened.

Most other stand your ground laws do not apply to public places like the FL statute does.

With that point in mind, why, when the authors of the statute went to great lengths to define dwelling, residence and vehicle, did they omit 'public place'?
 
They did. It'd called "any other place".

Bull

(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.
© “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
(d) Ms.Tree says 'other place' counts too....
 
As stated the law makes every effort to define what a dwelling, residence and vehicle are. Then they they make a broad statement about "any other place". That means every other place that is not a residence, dwelling or vehicle.

By the way, the grounds part does not fly either. The law states "any other place where he or she has a right to be". The important part here being legal right. A person does not have the legal right to be on your private property.

Any other place means just that. Any place that is not mentioned in sec 1&2.
 
It refers to defense within ones own confines......reason for the explicit section 5 definitions which 'any other place' isn't mentioned or defined.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top