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
(c) 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.
(c) “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.
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

its a poorly written law, that allows for too much grey area in which people will immediately jump to taking another persons life because of their personal 'fears',,,,,,

I would word it quite simply



in the case of an unarmed citizen being killed by an armed citizen, at all times, a thorough investigation into the circumstances shall be made


and shall ebe taken on a case by case basis of the facts instead of a universal pass......

^^ What this? Is this supposed to be the verbiage of a law?

This is sooo ridiculous lol. It really shows you have no clue what you are talking about.

Your little spiel here is already a given in any case for any law under the entire spectrum of common law. ie, its nonsense to pretend this is law at all. Its a fundamental component of our legal system, not a specific law.

It makes me sad that a person who works in law does not even understand the difference between a component of the legal system (due process) and the actual laws themselves which guide due process.

This really illustrates how out of your depth you are in these discussions, and explains how you can reach such strange conclusions without regard to evidence.

You think the law I posted is a universal pass, this shows your complete ignorance of the law.

I will find cases where the defendant did not meet the criteria set out and was convicted of a homicide, which shows it is not only not universal, but it is also a very reasonable law.

The real crux of all of such laws is usually not the law itself, but the execution of gather evidence and the ability to objectively determine the course of events which will dictate what evidence is available.

What you have done in the post above is state the obvious, which already takes place, and says nothing about the law above.

Re write it, how would you word it? How can you change the law to make it better?

Are there any laws which do not have these same elements of reasonable determinations?

(BTW, case law has already made the distinctions you are asking about, dont have them handy ill see if I can find them)

I disagree, ALL laws are exactly like this one, where the law is set out to provide a baseline for evaluation for higher courts to setup the distinctions via case law)

So your argument is invalid OR equally valid for ALL law. As a paralegal Id think you would know these factors.

Reasonable fear is not subjective reasonable fear, it is objective reasonable fear. Can you explain the difference? It seems from your post that you do not understand how courts make these kinds of determinations.

if it is the call of a JUDGE, it is up to their perosnal interpretation of what reasonable is,,,,,,,

research some of the florida cases that have been cleard based upon this law and you will see what I refer to,,,,,it is giving citizens a pass to be vigilante murderers,,,

how does a thorough investigation happen before there is even an autopsy of the deceased

LOL

The prosecuting attorney reviews the facts and only pursues charges if the elements of the case meet the minimum criteria.

It shocks me you do not know this, and this applies to ALL LAW.

Civil rights prevent them from arresting everyone they want when they have not met the minimum criteria for a crime being committed.

Your lack of knowledge is shocking.

I wont argue the law anymore,, the point is this boys death deserves a thorough investigation and not to be cleanly swept aside and assumed as 'self defense'

and thanks to activism, that investigation will now take place,,,

The investigation never stoped.

The political pressure being applied is why the feds are getting involved, its election time.

The injuries, and the direct witness testimony is what matters most, and the law does not change these factors 1 iota.

Also, this thread, is about the stand your ground law, not the Standford case.

You have made no logical arguments at all against the stand your ground law. I am judging your ability to make your argument, and as it stands now, it appears you are unable to make such an argument.

The investigation never stoped.

The political pressure being applied is why the feds are getting involved, its election time.

The injuries, and the direct witness testimony is what matters most, and the law does not change these factors 1 iota.

Also, this thread, is about the stand your ground law, not the Standford case.

You have made no logical arguments at all against the stand your ground law. I am judging your ability to make your argument, and as it stands now, it appears you are unable to make such an argument.

Edit: You copied a small part of the law, just look at the first post, it has the entire law, which contains OR statements, not AND statements. Take some time, think about how that changes things. If you argue it should be and, take some additional time and think about how that changes all of the requirements for self defense and makes it fundamentally impossible for many victims to fight back without also being victimized by the legal system.

it doesnt matter billy

this paragraph alone:

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.



leaves room for catastrophes to happen just by the mere fact of a WEAPON being present, and gives the last man standing the free pass,,,

at the very least, this gun should have been taken as part of an investigation,, IMHO

it didnt call for them to arrest the man on the spot, but it certainly was cause to take that boys death seriously enough to attempt a Thourough investigation

which will now, thank God, happen,,,

Did you read the police report?
You did not, the weapon was entered into evidence.

But what exactly are you arguing against? You have not at all made an argument except to say you do not think people should defend themselves, but need to run away (regardless of there ability to do so)

You continue to make vague, almost unintelligible arguments against something which you have clearly not researched, and in regards to a system of justice you clearly do not understand.

The sandford case is 100% about the available evidence and not about stand your ground.

Stand your ground is about removing unrealistic contraints on law abiding citizens in the defense of there lives.

Civil rights cannot just be thrown away becuase you dont like the outcome of an investigation.

Telling millions of people who have stood their ground and defended their lives that they where in the wrong becuase you do not like the outcome of a case in Sanford Florida is the height of conceit.

If Zimmerman attacked Martin, SYG does not protect him. If Martin was attacking Zimmerman where he was prevented from fleeing, then SYG does not matter. This you seem unable to understand. The lack of evidence is the problem, NOT THE LAW. I bolded the important part at the top. This is what makes SYG a good law, as always the burden is on the investigators to make their case, and rightly so.

For the sanford case, it could be almost ANYWHERE else in the US, and the same situation would be in effect, regardless of SYG, WHY? Becuase the witness has said Z was on his back crying for help. THATS WHY.

If you want a different outcome go convince the witness he didn't see what he said he saw, and get him to testify to what you want him to have saw. (that seems to be what everyone wants)

or a law encouraging people to NOT EVEN TRY to avoid confrontations,,,,and to respond to them with deadly force

Are you purposely posting invalid information?

The police report indicates that Martin was 160 lbs @ 6 foot 3 inches. Most people are saying he was 100 pounds lighter than Zimmerman and obvious fiction if you source your data correctly, but 220-160 is 60 lbs difference which makes almost no difference depending on where that weight comes from.

If I am 160 lbs of pure muscle fighting a man who is 220 lbs with 30 lbs of fat, I am actually just as strong as he is and much faster.

Why?

Because I am moving 160 lbs with 160 lbs of strength.
Where as he is moving 220 lbs with 190 lbs of strength.

Since he is moving extra weight you have to subtract that weight which adds no strength, what do you get?

190 - 30 = 160

The effective strength of a person with 30 lbs of fat @ 220lbs is 160 lbs. That assumes he is in shape under that fat . . . (bad assumption)


The criteria of the law does no such thing. I have already made it clear in that regard. The burden of proof is on the person claiming self defense, and without wounds and a witness Zimmerman would be in jail now and that would be in ANY state regardless of SYG.

explanations/excuses

You have no clue. Before my accident I was in top physical shape, and never exceeded 190 lbs at 6'4, but could bench press MUCH greater weight.

Lanky is actually REALLY good in a fight, it gives you amazing leverage. I am not surprised at all that you have no real knowledge about this, most dont.

These are all facts, not a single explanation, or excuse.

Counter my facts, please try. Use quotes be specific, so far all you have done is try to poison the well, and use illogical conclusions and straight out misstatements to support your conclusions.

The size of the attacker doesn't matter to the law AT ALL. What matters is what the witness saw, and what occurred. The media and your imagination about what took place in the absence of the core witness testimony is what we are really talking about now.

Its ok if your imagination is not up to the task. I was in mixed martial arts for 15 years before my accident, and can tell you first hand I was far more wary of the lanky, cut, and in shape athletic opponent then the fat ones. ESPECIALLY if I could get on top early. Leverage > strength, but as I showed it is more than possible Martin had much greater strength than Zimmerman.

We just do not have enough facts about either of them to make any real comparisons. (all the more reason your position is flawed)

My position is just one of questionable skepticism. I am questioning the media story and finding it lacking in almost EVERY regard.

Whether you know it or not what you are really trying to argue against is this statement
Which you have failed to make a good argument against.

My argument is VERY strong, and has empirical support. To counter your argument I need only find a single example where weight and strength are not proportional. Trivial.