Florida's Castle Doctrine: You do NOT have to be in great danger to use deadly force

[Hugabear]

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

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.

The key here is that if the individual BELIEVES they are in danger of death or serious bodily harm, they are justified in using deadly force. They do not actually have to be in danger - it merely states they reasonably believe so. The problem is that what constitutes "reasonable belief" is not defined, and can be extremely subjective. For instance, we've all heard stories where a cop shoots an unarmed person because they thought they were reaching for a weapon.

In Zimmerman's case, he claims that Trayvon was hitting him, reaching for his gun, and threatened to kill him. All of which could provide 'reasonable belief', but would also be very difficult to disprove. Without any direct witnesses, all the cops have to go on is Zimmerman's word.

In addition, Florida's Castle Doctrine actually provides immunity from prosecution:

A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting 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 was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

It's no coincidence that 'justifiable killings' have tripled in Florida since the Castle Doctrine was passed into law a few years ago. All you have to do is convince the authorities that believed that you were in great danger.

[Kalidurga]

1. The problem for Zimmerman,

is that all the evidence points to him not being in any danger whatsoever. No signs on Trayvon's hands that he had hit anyone. Zimmerman shows no sign of struggle in the police video, not even a drop of blood. Zimmerman's clothes, even appear to be relatively wrinkle free. I have been in my share of fights, not even a mild scuffle leaves one unruffled so to speak.

[dkf]

4. There is no evidence yet. There are only leaks and non professional analysis.

[Kalidurga]

5. Video tape is evidence...

who you gonna believe Zimmerman or your lyin eyes.

[dkf]

6. Grainy and compressed.

Give me x-rays, medical records and the autopsy and maybe I can come to some sort of conclusion.

[JDPriestly]

10. Yes.

[pokerfan]

7. This is why Papa Z said that Trayvon threatened his son

because he knows the video doesn't support a traditional self defense claim. So they have to come up with an explicit verbal threat, not one threatening merely violence but one of death: "You are going to die tonight... You are going to die right now!" and apparently that's good enough for a SYG defense.

[lonestarnot]

2. Stupid laws on stand yer ground across this country are for vigilante human hunters.

We ran out of money to do so overseas in other countries.

[dkf]

3. Yes exactly. This case has to be seen in relation to the laws that exist.

Florida may have created a loophole that allows people to get away with what would normally be called manslaughter or even murder.

[TeamsterDem]

8. I don't like the law, but that's not how reasonableness is generally interpreted

After being a union representative for some 10 years (and a member for 10 more) we deal with words like "reasonable" in both laws and contracts all the time. The word "reasonable" always means that if "reasonable people" would do something then it's "right," or allowed. For example in labor law an employer can "reasonably" move job assignments and shifts around during an organizing drive as long as their intent wasn't to thwart the drive itself; the "reasonableness" of that activity to perhaps be determined by the NLRB or a court. In that case the employer may testify that their intent was not to thwart the drive, but their testimony is weighted against their clear interests, and instead the reasonableness is judged by the preponderance of the evidence; simply saying something is true doesn't define its reasonableness.

"Stand your ground" doesn't mean that anyone can just suddenly call one of their actions "reasonable" and then the whole thing goes away. They also can't just claim a belief which isn't supported by anything because, again, the reasonableness of that belief can and should be adjudicated.

The main problem with "stand your ground" is the definition of the place: anywhere "the actor has a right to be." That reminds me a lot of the NBA's charging/blocking rules which are gamed all the time by both sides in an effort to gain advantage. The Joe Horn case in Texas is a great example of "drawing a charge" in the real-world application of "stand your ground." The Trayvon Martin case is very likely also similar to that but as of yet we don't know exactly what unfolded in terms of the physical altercation, but we do know that Zimmerman pursued and menaced Trayvon. That should strip him of a self-defense claim, but the grand jury in the Horn case seemed to think the law was an instrument malleable to the whims of the time. In other words, they didn't apply the law, they applied some desire to gun down lawbreakers irrespective of what the law actually says (the two were shot in the back according to a police witness - shooting in the back is seemingly not in the spirit of the law's text).

The other problem is that it invites juries to read things into the law that aren't actually there (keeping in mind that Horn shot 2 undocumented individuals with lengthy criminal histories, something not unpopular to desire in Texas culture). Because you can't really stop what I call "drawing a charge" unless you write a bill a million pages long with all possible exceptions, the law is overly broad and should be repealed. Not modified, repealed. You can instruct juries until the heavens come, but in some places - depending on who the victim is - those instructions can and often are ignored, especially once the "... has a right to be [there]" provision of the law is all they choose to see.

[JDPriestly]

9. "reasonably believes"

Reasonableness is, I believe, usually an issue for the jury. If the defendant's belief is found not to be reasonable, then I should think the jury could reject the self-defense argument.

Personally, I would probably find it unreasonable to choose to pursue a person I reported to the police and ultimately shoot the person. That is especially true if the person shot had never actually done anything before I followed him.

In my view, the reasonable thing to do would be to follow the request of the police and not follow the person I report.

But I am writing about theory. A jury would have to look at all the specific facts including, for example, the truthfulness of the defendant in general. If a defendant claimed to have reasonably believed something but is clearly lying about a number of things that happened or has at various times contradicted his current testimony, then a jury might look with skepticism on the claim of reasonable belief. That is my opinion.

[TeamsterDem]

11. Excellent post, JDP. nt

[The Traveler]

12. I seem to recall that the Constitution

sez something to the effect that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

It seems to me that a law that specifies a subjective criteria like "if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so" for taking lethal action is in direct conflict with that Constitutional principle. Maybe I am all wet ... I am an engineer and not a lawyer. But still ...

Trav

[Hugabear]

14. Nice thread resurrection, Zimmerman defender

For your first post, you dig up a thread over a year old, and then attack another poster in that thread?

Good luck with your stay here.

On edit: well that didn't take long.