Trayvon Martin.

I am not sure how we can separate all the available case law on this subject from the Florida law. These concepts have legal precedence. Again, based on what you know, do you think Tryvon's murderer acted within his rights under the Florida law or not?

Even the author of the law has stated it does not apply in this case.

 

This is what I am talking about. Legal action after a person has been killed or injured does not ameliorate what is essentially a social justice issue. Arming a person can lead to specious shootings that can't always be fixed by sending someone to jail for a few years. You try to make this issue simple when it is not. It is not about the guns, it is about the people. And people are far from simple.

 

I seek clarification and you say it is not helpful?

I find this making the issue more confusing. Like I wrote I can only think of examples to illustrate my point, but I have no interest in getting bogged down in those examples. So, yes, liberal (vague) gun laws (vague) enabled (root cause) this crime. I read this as-(vague), (vague) was (the root cause)...o.k. now what?

That is not my understanding of the law or conceal carry permits. A gun owner can make subjective interpretations on when they can use it, but that interpretation can be wrong or illegal. A faulty interpretation of a law and acting on the false interpretation is still a violation of the law. Is the point that - a vague law "enables" faulty interpretation of the law?

 

"Case law available on this subject" is irrelevant after the passage of the 2005 Florida law and the following decisions about it from the Florida supreme court. Whatever was the precedent before in Florida, it is now overruled by the current law.

Now, from what we know the police messed up. We know this because of witnesses who said they were brushed aside by the police, or corrected by the police, and so on.

But that doesn't change the fact that, in order to get Zimmerman charged in this case, the state's attorney will have to show with more than probable cause that Zimmerman did not feel threatened here. In other words, the fact that Zimmerman initiated the conflict, that he was stronger, and that Martin was unarmed are actually irrelevant. The state may prove that Zimmerman initiated the conflict and was stronger, but they will have to show, with more than probable cause, that during the conflict itself Zimmerman had no reason to fear for his life. Because, again, the law explicitly allows for someone who initiated the conflict to claim a stand your ground defense. And the supreme court of Florida has explicitly said that the state then needs to show more than probable cause that that claim of self defense is false. If the state can't show with more than probable cause that Zimmerman has no reason to fear for his life, he will be immune from being charged at all, and from civil suits as well.

 

There are some differences within the universal set of gun owners and/or people who support gun ownership rights. Then you have criminals, mentally unstable people, and people who "hate". It is important to know the differences.

 

I don't think you're understanding the case law correctly: Dennis v. Florida (Actually Dennis v. State, 51 So.3d 456) addressed the issue of whether SYG was similar to what's called a "C4" motion to dismiss (Florida Rules of Crim. Pro 3.190(c)(4) I believe) that REQUIRED NO DISPUTE OF MATERIAL FACTS, or, whether SYG allowed a mini evidentiary hearing. There, the SCOFL decided SYG permitted an evidentiary hearing. As I explained in the previous post, there is NO NEED TO PROVE A NEGATIVE, simply, the State only needs to bring forth testimony that contradicts the defendant's story of self-defense and SYG will lose (State can get 50% and SYG will fail.).

Second, 776.032(2) it states, "Unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful." Which, put in plain terms, says, "Unless the police believe a crime was committed." So, you basically have the default rule in effect for every state, "you can't arrest someone unless you believe a crime was committed."

Finally, are you sure you're reading 776.041 correctly? The Statute says, as you put it, SYG is unavailable for an initial aggressor unless the initial aggressor can show that they first retreated to the utmost. So basically, SYG is unavailable for an initial aggressor...

--- merged: Mar 23, 2012 at 12:49 PM ---

Again, I want to point out, your interpretation of 776.41 is incorrect. It does NOT allow an initial aggressor to use SYG, as the text of that statute uses a conjunctive to REQUIRE retreating to the utmost.

Second, "Reasonable" means an objective person standard. It's the same as if an youth waives around an airsoft gun and gets shot to death. Would you require an absolute determination by every one that the weapon is actually real?
--- merged: Mar 23, 2012 at 12:50 PM ---
Look, I do this for a living. SYG isn't something you invoke and suddenly the State has to do all the work. It's a defense that the Defendant must prove by 51%.

 

The law as written contains legal concepts that have been adjudicated with case law already established. Stand Your Ground is not a new concept, the Florida law broadened its application.

I disagree. Like I wrote we can find a lawyer that will argue either position - but in order to justify the use of deadly force in a self-defense claim the law requires more than a mere threat or perceived threat. Reasonable people will apply the standard defined by the law and come to a determination. If I understand the standard and the facts, I know how I would respond if on a jury. There is no question in my mind, Trayvon's murderer did not act in self defense!

 

Ok, dippin,

When you say,

What specific pieces of evidence will the State have to bring in order to defeat SYG?

And what about proportionality of the force?

Finally, are you also understanding that the burden of proof rests on the defense to prove SYG?

 

I understand that there are differences. That is easy to imagine and I see that in action via some of the participants on this thread.

What I respond to badly to are reactionary stances that seem to attribute a sort of innate virtue to an object that has no autonomy. It only functions in concert with a human being. Therefore it is only as virtuous, stable and free from hate as the person who is using it. Not to mention those who are simply unqualified to use them. It seems that the gun rights stance is more about absolving guns and maintaining antiquated notions than it is about introspection and engaging in wholly appropriate conversations about the place that guns should have in our society in the modern world.

 

The SYG law, in my opinion, is not an issue in this case. I do not see it as a defense.

If the SYG law is being applied in situations where it should not be, I do not automatically look at the law as the problem. It may be local police who are too eager to use the law to close cases and avoid doing thorough criminal investigations. If a person confronted by police after a homicide simply says, it was SYG, and the police response is o.k. case closed, I would argue incompetence or corruption. Any law can be bastardized in this manner.

He violated the law in my opinion, he commited murder, he does not have SYG or self-defense as a defense.

No, not being held accountable does not mean he was right. Unfortunately, justice in our system does not always correlate with what is just.

No. A corrupt police force could be the enabler if it is deemed he did nothing wrong. An incorrect interpretation of the law could be the enabler. Deceit could be the enabler - meaning he could lie and get away with it. The lack of evidence could be the enabler...

 

Considering that Zimmerman's claim was that Martin had knocked him down and was on top of him, the retreating to the utmost part is moot.

Additionally, the law explicitly applies not only to evidentiary hearings at the start of a trial, but arrests and charges as well, where the police has to establish not only that a shooting took place, but an unlawful one did (hence the "proving a negative" part).

Now, if credentials to discuss these are needed, I am basing my argument on what I've read by George Washington law school professor Jonathan Turley (his blog is easy to find).

 

Again, If you read 776.32, you only need pc to disbelieve a story before arrest. I'm simply asking you to use things you understand instead of parroting what's said by a Blogger.

 

Using a phrase or word to indicate retreat would work.

I am not a lawyer, just a gun owner who went through some training. I was taught that any weapon discharge would be assumed unlawful by police and that I would need to proactively prove otherwise.

 

No, it is not moot. If Trayvon was indeed on top of Zimmerman, there should have been injuries. Seeing none, the police wouod have had pc for an arrest .

 

but there was no arrest. so it seems to me that much of the formalist argumentation about whether the law is or is not coherent in itself is, in this case, moot.

what's happening here is a political problem of not inconsiderable magnitude for the idea of such laws that has also, as an editorial in the guardian yesterday argued, lifted the lid (again) on the deeply problematic racism that the united states retains. and that racism creates conditions that make these laws into--quite easily---vehicles for justification of racist vigilante actions. what's required is not inside the mechanism of the law itself---what's required is a shared predisposition on the part of cowboy X and the local police department, similar political views, say, that enable the latter to see in a racist action by cowboy X as reasonable action. so there are no charges. and without charges, the formal provisions of the law are not relevant.

this formalist defense of the law seems to me avoidance of the political problems. which is no surprise, given that---and i doubt i'm going out on a limb here---kirstang is ideologically predisposed to view such laws as legitimate for reasons that find justification in procedural questions---but which originate outside of those procedural justifications. so we have a confirmation bias in action, a political posture that
becomes a cognitive filter that excludes dissonant information. so the harder he gets pressed on the a matter, the more he retreats into technical law-student language and the more aggressively he acts as though sources of information that are not his own are somehow illegitimate.

what's interesting is that i expect this general way of parsing the situation is going to repeat such that the proponents of this kind of law will---as mixedmedia said---focus on guns in the abstract on the one hand, displaced paranoia about class warfare on another, and legal formalism on the third all in order to avoid addressing the broader political questions that everyone else sees pretty obviously at the center of this---just as much as problems with the way this particular law is written, as problems of arbitrary...um..."enforcement" and so on.

 

Ad hominem attack roach boy? I expected better.

 

it wasn't an ad hominem---it was an observation about your style of argument that's been happening in the thread to now, and, more, about what it includes and excludes. it included reference to political viewpoints, but that was necessary for what i wanted to point to. because, like it or not, procedural arguments are always made by actual human beings with actual interests that run beyond the frame of the procedural argument.

if i wanted to make such an ad hominem, i would have.

so don't get all sniffy because someone calls you out for making a particular type of argument that runs past your appeals to technical expertise.

either take up what i am saying at the level of substance or don't. i don't really care. but i'm more than willing to continue to point to how you are operating as symptomatic of how we can expect to see supporters of this kind of law operating.

 

This is why the argument is not moot. There was no arrest, fact. Why? Is the law the problem? Is law enforcement the problem? Was the crime racial, and racial crimes can be protected by an incoherent law, and a corrupt investigation? I do believe many have already arrived at conclusions but I also think it is necessary to go through the detailed process to support conclusions reached, requiring the formalist argumentation. And it is not an avoidance.

Gun owners do not see this as a gun ownership case. Who does? Only those who want to use this issue for political purposes involving guns.