http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-691124.html


Law Lets Floridians 'Shoot First'
With a National Rifle Association lobbyist at his side, Gov. Jeb Bush signed a law Tuesday to make it clear that people have a right to meet "force with force" to defend themselves on the street.

The measure, which passed the Legislature overwhelmingly earlier this year, says that people who are under attack do not have to retreat before responding. They have the right to "meet force with force, including deadly force if they reasonably believe it is necessary to do so."

Florida residents already have that right in their homes. The bill, which takes effect Oct. 1, extends the right to public spaces, such as the street or a place of business, CBS News Correspondent Jim Acosta reports.

"It says to people: You can stand your ground and if you feel reasonably threatened that harm is going to come to you," CBS News Legal Analyst Andrew Cohen said. "You can fire away."

Supporters said the measure brings Florida in line with a number of other states.

"When you're in a position where you're being threatened ... to have to retreat and put yourself in a very precarious position, you know, it defies common sense," Bush said.

The measure was the NRA's top priority this year, said the group's lobbyist, Marion Hammer. "Now, the law and their government is on the side of law-abiding people and victims, rather than on the side of criminals," she said.

MORE AT LINK:

Stand Your Ground did not change that.

"Supporters said the measure brings Florida in line with a number of other states."

Yeay! I'm a lemming, let's go off the cliff together!

(yes, yes, the lemmings were forced off the cliff. It's the saying that's important.)

However, I think it is lawful to verbally confront or engage someone on the public streets or sidewalks. Physical contact is anothe matter.

It could easily involve initiating physical contact as well.

Zimmerman will need to justify that deadly force was needed. Stand Your Ground did not delete that requirement in Florida law.

...and that Trayvon Martin was the one who initiated the violence.

I think all of that would be very hard to prove. It sounds far-fetched to me, but if the voice screaming for help on the 911 tapes turns out to be Zimmerman's, he might be able to pull it off.

The whole thing stinks.

but I don't know that part of Florida law. Maybe it is untested, so maybe no one really knows.

Note I said law enforcement, not just the PD. If the local cop shop is racist or just stupid, state and even federal LEO should be able to to get to truth.

Stand Your Ground does not mean he does not have to justify the use of deadly force. That is more a Castle Doctrine issue.

FWIW, initiating contact is not a prima facie determinant of responsibility, neither is failing to follow the request of a 911 operator. However, I would expect them to weigh heavily with a jury.

I too have a very hard time seeing how it could be a justified shooting, and I teach and support firearms for self defense. At this point, I am going to wait to see the indictments that are surely coming. The speculation, conflicting media stories, threats, and such are at a level where the rational thing is to wait for a bit to see what happens next. There is certainly more than has been released to public.

Nothing fair about that.

This was bound to happen sooner or later with some of these stupid laws.

the only thing different is that Zimmerman would be arrested for murder, and he would be able to use self defense as an affirmative defense.

The only thing that has changed is that you are presumed innocent of a crime and you don't have to try to retreat, which would probably put you in greater danger.
Same applies to castle doctrine, but only in the home.

Like a lot of folks, I don't have much faith in the Sanford PD's investigation, but we don't know yet exactly what happened to start the aggression.

If Zimmerman walked up to Martin and verbally confronted him, then Martin took a swing at Zimmerman, the shooting would be justified. Zimmerman would still be a racist asshole, but not culpable for homicide.

"If Zimmerman walked up to Martin and verbally confronted him, then Martin took a swing at Zimmerman, the shooting would be justified."

We already know ZImmerman was stalking and following Martin. We know what his motive ans intention was. He most certainly was the aggressor, the initiator of the incident and the physical confrontation. He didn't just commit homicide, it was murder. Time will bear this out.

What information leads you to believe this?

[div class='excerpt']We know what his motive ans intention was. He most certainly was the aggressor, the initiator of the incident and the physical confrontation.

Apparently he was following Martin, and stopped and verbally confronted him. That at least is evident from what we've heard from multiple accounts.

But that in, and of itself, is not initiating aggression. Is there another source that spells it out clearer?

A lot of the "facts" of the case as stated by anti's are extrapolated from what is already known. There isn't another source, it's just a guess that leads to the desired conclusion.

My feeling is there isn't enough info to make a decision. I'll wait for the entire story, including Zimmermans account (which we haven't heard yet), before I make up my mind.

the kid started it.

My gut feeling, which means nothing, is that Zimmerman asked him what he was doing and maybe the kid said "Fuck Off" or ignored him and Zimmerman then tried to hold him for the police. In that case Zimmerman initiated the fight.

Zimmerman isn't a cop, was dressed in civilian clothes and iirc, driving his own car...He's a complete stranger (and a weird one) as far as Martin is concerned, to say nothing of the fact that despite his love of authority, Zimmerman forgot that playing wannabe-cop doesn't make him one...

By every account so far the only "suspicious" thing Martin was doing was being a black male walking through a gated community (which Zimmerman thought was worthy of surveillance and a call to police dispatch) How is he supposed to react when some stranger runs him down and start asking questions??

Based on what I know so far, this is what I think happened:

Zimmerman said he initially lost Martin and was in a rush to find him again...Martin is already on edge/nervous/scared/pissed because he knows some burly weirdo in a car is tailing him for no reason, so maybe he takes a different way home from the store, maybe some shortcuts through some backyards, who knows...

It's clear that Zimmerman's goal is to be a cop, since he was studying Criminal Justice at the local JuCo and getting "experience" with the Neighborhood Watch (which more than a few people say he took a little too seriously, especially when people of a certain color were around)...Maybe he even wanted to join the Sanford PD...He called in reports of suspicious persons often enough to probably be on a first-name basis with them, anyway...

I really think Zimmerman had such a hard-on to prove himself to the community as a good future detective that he had to nab a "criminal" in the act somehow...This would justify all the hours he spent watching over a neighborhood where nothing happens, and fast-track his job applications...

I think Zimmerman ran up in a rush as he finally caught up and accosted Martin (whose adrenaline is really pumping now) and asked him what he was doing...And I think Zimmerman was *just* dumb enough to start spitting out accusatory questions without even bothering to introduce himself as a Neighborhood Watch (like it matters), and Martin gives the standard response of "You are not a real cop/I wasn't doing anything/Mind your business/FOAD," or something close to it...

At this point, Zimmerman seems *just* dumb enough to escalate the situation, because he doesn't want to look like a fool for reporting an innocent person to 911...A police car has been sent to the area and this is all he has for them?? So one of two things happens: 1. Zimmerman starts the old "I thought I saw you (or someone who looks like you) commit some bullshit imaginary felony" and the kid's rage boils over and he goes after Zimmerman, or, 2. Zimmerman decides to try some "citizen's arrest" BS and tries to physically restrain the kid and he fights back...

Zimmerman gets knocked on his ass/trips/falls over and authoritarian icon of law and order that he is, is so pissed off/embarrassed/shaken from the daydream that he's Dirty Harry that in an irrational fit he goes for his piece and pulls the trigger before he's even conscious of what he's done...No punk smartassed teenager was gonna make him look like a bumbling fool in HIS watch area AND shit upon his entire belief system...It was just a matter of bad timing that the perp happened to be clean when he finally caught up to him, but that can all be explained away once the police arrive...

Idiot who comes up to you out of the blue!

OTOH punching Zimmerman or knocking him on his ass MIGHT justify the shooting (legally.)

On February 26, 2012, a 17-year-old African-American named Trayvon Martin was shot and killed in Sanford, Florida. The shooter was George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old white man. Zimmerman admits killing Martin, but claims he was acting in self-defense. Three weeks after Martin’s death, no arrests have been made and Zimmerman remains free.
Here is what everyone should know about the case:

1. Zimmerman called the police to report Martin’s “suspicious” behavior, which he described as “just walking around looking about.” Zimmerman was in his car when he saw Martin walking on the street. He called the police and said: “There’s a real suspicious guy. This guy looks like he’s up to no good, on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about… These a**holes always get away” [Orlando Sentinel]

2. Zimmerman pursued Martin against the explicit instructions of the police dispatcher:
Dispatcher: “Are you following him?”
Zimmerman: “Yeah”
Dispatcher: “OK, we don’t need you to do that.”
[Orlando Sentinel]

3. Prior to the release of the 911 tapes, Zimmerman’s father released a statement claiming “[a]t no time did George follow or confront Mr. Martin.” [Sun Sentinel]

READ MORE:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/18/446768/what-everyone-should-know-about-about-trayvon-martin-1995-2012/

there is a lot more beyond that.
If the Sanford PD is that fucked up, which would not surprise me, looks like they need to clean house.

Based on everything reported thus far, it appears that Zimmerman royally fucked up and committed murder. We shall have to wait and watch.

Why did a Narcotic detective instead of a homicide detective arrive first on the scene of the shooting?

Why did the police tell the Martin's father, 2 days after the shooting, that Zimmerman's record was "squeaky clean" when they knew he had been charged with battery of a police officer and resisting arrest in 2005?

Why was that charge dropped a few months later?

Why are so few details being released (Martin was found face down in the grass with a shot in the chest. Did the bullet penetrate from the front or the back? And, what is Zimmerman's profession? Is he working or is the "neighborhood watch" his only occupation?)

Could Zimmerman have been a police informant and thus is receiving "protection" from the Sanford police?

That he got the benefit of the doubt, and I think they too readily accepted Zimmerman's official story at face value...

But as its been said in GD, Sanford PD has a shady history...

Thanks for presenting your thoughts in a logical and rational manner.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101478014#post5

This is the part that appears to hang Zimmerman, figuratively speaking.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor

Stand your ground isn't the problem. An aggressive case of assholitis in Zimmerman appears to be the problem.

Remember that he's innocent until proven guilty, but I think the label of asshole, at least, is appropriate for Zimmerman.

The steady growth of so called “stand your ground” & “make my day” laws remind me of that same steady growth of “voter ID” laws. Neither has a legitimate reason for their existence.


(CNN) -- In the months after the Florida Legislature passed a law in 2005 allowing residents to use deadly force to protect themselves no matter where they were, gun-control advocates plastered the state with fliers bearing warnings to tourists…..Be careful, the fliers said. Florida had become a "shoot first" state.
………….In the five years before the law's approval, Florida averaged 12 justifiable homicides a year, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. In the six years since, the average is 33. http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/20/us/florida-teen-shooting-law/index.html


According to state crime stats, Florida averaged 12 “justifiable homicide” deaths a year from 2000-2004. After “Stand your Ground” was passed in 2005, the number of “justifiable” deaths has almost tripled to an average of 35 a year, an increase of 283% from 2005-2010. http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/03/20/deaths-nearly-triple-since-stand-your-ground-enacted/

Supposedly justified by the myth of voter fraud, right wing conservatives have with little resistance managed to successfully gain partisan political advantage.by creating an obstacle for numerous segments of American society to vote.
Raising the unsubstantiated specter of mass voter fraud suits a particular policy agenda. Voter fraud is most often invoked as a substantial problem in order to justify particular election policies. Chief among these is the proposal that individuals be required to show photo ID in order to vote - a policy that disenfranchises up to 10% of eligible citizens. But the only misconduct that photo ID addresses is the kind of voter fraud that happens as infrequently as death by lightning. http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_on_the_truth_about_voter_fraud/


"Stand Your Ground", otherwise referred to as "Shoot First" is a stupendous example of how a bad legislative solution in search of a nonexistent problem has opened a Pandora's box of negative consequences….The reality is we have always had the right to defend ourselves. The true purpose of "Stand Your Ground" laws is to remove any responsibility to walk away from a deadly confrontation…..Mr. Zimmerman's use of deadly force, as his defenders have noted, that may spring from the common sense notion that it is better to be 'judged by twelve, than carried by six'. Given the protection of the statute, there is little legal downside (other than the moral implications of killing an innocent person) to shooting first if there is the slightest chance that harm could come to the likes of Mr. Zimmerman.
This is precisely why the NRA works so hard to push these laws forward. Given the possible Mr. Zimmermans of the world out there, it follows that a reasonable course of action is to better arm oneself with the very product that funds the NRA. In a world of folks 'standing their ground', perhaps the best defense of aggressive self defense is to carry and conceal superior firepower.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/19/1075621/-Is-the-Stand-Your-Ground-Law-a-license-to-kill-

We don't need Stand Your Ground. It should be repealed. It does nothing but protect the shooter and the NRA, not the citizenry.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/todaysbuzz/wednesday/sfl-stand-your-ground-law-repealred-wed-buzz-032012,0,4363299.story

why were there more justifiable homicides? Could it be that under duty to retreat, you allowed yourself be attacked because of the legal and financial consequences? Population increase in Florida? You did not retreat and went to jail for murder? You tried to retreat but were beaten or murdered because trying to retreat often puts you in greater danger?
The fact that they were in quotation marks (so Glen Beck) makes me wonder if he thinks any are justifiable.

OK several. What is a just alternative? Duty to retreat? Is going on trial for defending yourself from a felon just? Even if you win, is getting sued by said violent felon's family just?

Unless you have a better alternative, turning back the clock because of a half assed investigation and the media playing judge and jury without all of the facts will not make things better.