George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin

[Ms Tree]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/15/1193031/disregarding-empirical-research-florida-panel-largely-endorses-stand-your-ground-law/

[A]ll persons have a fundamental right to stand their ground and defend themselves from attack with proportionate force in every place they have a lawful right to be and are conducting themselves in a lawful manner.

Is this clear enough for you? This is a quote from the FL task force commissioned by the Gov to study the law.

 

[Ms Tree]

It refers to defense within ones own confines......reason for the explicit section 5 definitions which 'any other place' isn't mentioned or defined.

Not sec 3. The task force even said it. Are you going to argue with them also?

 

[muff daddy]

The law redefined it from the home and expanded it to anywhere you had a right to be, still within your own confines and defending yourself.

Explains the expansion from the home:

The only difference between this statute and the common law is that there is no duty to retreat (or to avoid the use of force) before using force. All this section of the statute does is expand the so called “castle doctrine” from a person’s house, which was considered their castle which could be forcibly defended without first retreating, to any area where the person has the right to be. The statute requires however that a person using deadly force “reasonably believe” the use of the force is necessary. This reasonable standard is an objective standard which will justify the use of deadly force only if a reasonable person would believe it was necessary.

Explains what had to have taken place in commission of the crime, and note all are mentioned as defined previously. No mention of on the street or anything else. Specific definition, not what you are attempting to pass off.

The presumption, and therefore immunity, exists whenever two conditions are met. The first is that the deadly force was used against someone who 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.” The second condition is that the person using the deadly force, “had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.”

http://asulawjournal.lawnews-asu.org/?p=415

Have a nice night.

 

[Ms Tree]

I give up. Your second quote directly contradicts your first one. The first one says that

All this section of the statute does is expand the so called “castle doctrine” from a person’s house, which was considered their castle which could be forcibly defended without first retreating, to any area where the person has the right to be.

Both the law and the commission clearly state that the SYG law does nto apply to just the home or vehicle but to all public places. Your quote says that.

 

[muff daddy]

I give up. Your second quote directly contradicts your first one. The first one says that



Both the law and the commission clearly state that the SYG law does nto apply to just the home or vehicle but to all public places. Your quote says that.

You give up because you lost the arguement.

This is where you are totally wrong in your assumption of the law. Your assumption doesn't fly with these words:

The presumption, and therefore immunity, exists whenever two conditions are met. The first is that the deadly force was used against someone who 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.” The second condition is that the person using the deadly force, “had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.”

Defending ones self within his or her own confines.

Where does it say anything about public places?

 

[Ms Tree]

From your first quote

The only difference between this statute and the common law is that there is no duty to retreat (or to avoid the use of force) before using force. All this section of the statute does is expand the so called “castle doctrine” from a person’s house, which was considered their castle which could be forcibly defended without first retreating, to any area where the person has the right to be.

Note the words "from" and "to" when talking about the change to the law.

And this from the Gov. Commission

A]ll persons have a fundamental right to stand their ground and defend themselves from attack with proportionate force in every place they have a lawful right to be and are conducting themselves in a lawful manner.

 

[muff daddy]

Yes and castle doctrine only dealt with the fact of defending ones self in his home, no place else. It was expanded to give one the same protection if he was at your house or garage or in your vehicle. That is why it is listed under home protection.

If I am wrong, explain away the part of the presumption and immunity existing when the two conditions are met:

The first is that the deadly force was used against someone who 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.” The second condition is that the person using the deadly force, “had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.”

Was Martin 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 did he have reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred?

NO

Was Zimmerman 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 did he have reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred?

NO

You fail to see what Rory Bahadur, Associate Professor of Law at Washburn University School of Law is pointing out?
What you fail to see is he is pointing out the two conditions were not met and 776.013 does not apply.
There was no one in defense of a dwelling, residence or vehicle. It's that simple.
He also points out that media is wrong in their interpretation of the statute and others like you have been misinformed.

As the Treyvon Martin case continues, it is important for the media to inform the public on the breadth of the Florida self-defense law that results in immunity from prosecution rather than continue to focus on the unremarkable stand your ground provision of the law. The stand your ground provision of the law permits investigators to assess the reasonableness of the conduct and the necessity of using the deadly force. The presumptions and immunities, on the other hand, are the really radical laws which do not require reasonableness in the use of force. The media needs to make the public aware of these sections of the law rather than focusing on the catchy but toothless “stand your ground” refrain.

 

[Dog Wonder]

Why do people waste their time going to law school and passing the bar?

 

[delldude]

Why do people waste their time going to law school and passing the bar?

Why pass the bar, the Sea Shell at 4, I'm buying.

 

[Knotbuyinit]

Yes and castle doctrine only dealt with the fact of defending ones self in his home, no place else. It was expanded to give one the same protection if he was at your house or garage or in your vehicle. That is why it is listed under home protection.

If I am wrong, explain away the part of the presumption and immunity existing when the two conditions are met:



Was Martin 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 did he have reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred?

NO

Was Zimmerman 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 did he have reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred?

NO

You fail to see what Rory Bahadur, Associate Professor of Law at Washburn University School of Law is pointing out?
What you fail to see is he is pointing out the two conditions were not met and 776.013 does not apply.
There was no one in defense of a dwelling, residence or vehicle. It's that simple.
He also points out that media is wrong in their interpretation of the statute and others like you have been misinformed.

Muff, I've had this discussion with Tree for over a year now and he still just doesn't get it. He cherry picks sections of one law to formulate a lame definition of a law that supports his narrative. I've referenced legal journals and experts in self defense laws and he can't seem to grasp a basic understanding of when or where you are legally justified to use lethal force.

 

[Knotbuyinit]

Why pass the bar, the Sea Shell at 4, I'm buying.

Dude, I'm so there . . . 4 it is!

 

[Ms Tree]

Florida 'stand your ground' law yields some shocking outcomes depending on how law is applied

 

[Knotbuyinit]

Florida 'stand your ground' law yields some shocking outcomes depending on how law is applied

You damn straight I have a right to use my firearm to SHOOT BACK. That article was written because of people just like you that don't understand the law as explained in 776.013. There are lessons in the article you should come to terms with. I knew exactly how the law is to be interpreted, you don't and never will.

 

[Knotbuyinit]

And this is STATE witness Johnathan Good!

[font=Trebuchet MS']O’Mara: Just to clarify what was actually talked about with Chris Serino, Investigator Serino, during this, we’re going to call it for the moment the Ground-and-Pound conversation. We have a rule called completeness, so what I want to do is put it in context for you, ask you if this is what you said to Chris Serino. OK?[/font]
[font=Trebuchet MS']“Yeah I pretty much heard somebody yelling outside. I wasn’t sure if it was, you know, a fight or something going wrong. So I opened my blinds and I see kind of like a person out there. I didn’t know if it was a dog attack or something. So I open my door. It was a black man with a black hoodie on top of the other, either a white guy or now I found out I think it was a Hispanic guy with a red sweatshirt on the ground yelling out help! And I tried to tell them, get out of here, you know, stop or whatever, and then one guy on top in the black hoodie was pretty much just throwing down blows on the guy kind of MMA-style.”[/font]
[font=Trebuchet MS']Is that the context in which that happened?[/font]
[font=Trebuchet MS']Good: Yes.[/font]
[font=Trebuchet MS']O’Mara: And then Investigator Serino said, a word that I have, and the transcripts may differ, ground, couldn’t figure it, maybe he said Ground-and-Pound, and then you said:[/font]
[font=Trebuchet MS']“Yeah, like a Ground-and-Pound on the concrete at this point, so at this point I told him I’m calling 911.”[/font]
[font=Trebuchet MS']BDLR: Objection. Improper bolstering.[/font]
[font=Trebuchet MS']O’Mara: I’m at the end of it. Is that–[/font]
[font=Trebuchet MS']Judge: There’s an objection and the objection is . . .[/font]
[font=Trebuchet MS']BDLR: Hearsay and improper bolstering[/font]
[font=Trebuchet MS']O’Mara: I would suggest that rule 108, which is the rule of completeness, suggests that because they brought in part of it . . . and iI’m speaking, I apologize.[/font]
[font=Trebuchet MS']Judge: The objection as to hearsay is overruled. Bolstering is not the right objection either, so that’s OK.[/font]
[font=Trebuchet MS']BDLR: Beyond the scope of cross-examination to that point[/font]
[font=Trebuchet MS']Judge: I overrule on that objection, also, so go ahead.[/font]
[font=Trebuchet MS']O’Mara: That’s what you said.[/font]
[font=Trebuchet MS']Good: The whole thing, yes[/font]
[font=Trebuchet MS']O’Mara: And that was the context in which the words Ground-and-Pound came out.[/font]
[font=Trebuchet MS']Good: Yes, for more clarification.[/font]
[font=Trebuchet MS']O’Mara: OK. And do you stand by that today, that what you saw is was a Ground-and-Pound event?[/font]
[font=Trebuchet MS']Good: It looked like that position was a Ground-and-Pound type of position, but I couldn’t tell 100% that there were actually fists hitting faces.[/font]
[font=Trebuchet MS']O’Mara: But you did see [reading] “the guy in the top in the black hoodie pretty much just throwing down blows on the guy kind of MMA-style.”[/font]
[font=Trebuchet MS']Good: Meaning arm motions going down on the person on the bottom. Correct.[/font]
[font=Trebuchet MS']O’Mara: You’re’ not going to tell the jury here today that you saw fists hit flesh or face if you didn’t actually see it, right?[/font]
[font=Trebuchet MS']Good: I wouldn’t tell them that anyway, because i didn’t actually see it.[/font]
[font=Trebuchet MS']O’Mara: Great, thanks very much , no further questions.[/font]
[font=Trebuchet MS']BDLR: Not to elaborate but the thing that Mr. O’Mara said from the transcript, the bottom line, you needed to clarify after that to make sure that everybody understood that you did not hear or see fists the guy on the top hitting the guy on the bottom.[/font]
[font=Trebuchet MS']Good: Both sides made me clarify.[/font]
[font=Trebuchet MS']BDLR: Is that correct?[/font]
[font=Trebuchet MS']Good: That’s correct.[/font]
[font=Trebuchet MS']BDLR: You did not see blows on the guy on the bottom, correct?[/font]
[font=Trebuchet MS']Good: Correct[/font]
[font=Trebuchet MS']BDLR: Thank you, no further questions.[/font]

 

[UPNAWAY]

I have taken a wait and see approach to this case, but it looks like a slam dunk for the defense baring some last minute miracle for the prosecution.