Stand Your Ground fathers:"They got the goods on him. They need to prosecute whoever shot the kid,"

[kpete]

Stand Your Ground fathers: Trayvon Martin's killer should likely be arrested, doesn't deserve immunity

The fathers of Florida’s controversial Stand Your Ground law implicated in the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin say the man who shot him to death probably should be arrested and doesn’t deserve a self-defense claim of immunity.

Former state Sen. Durell Peaden and current state Rep. Dennis Baxley say the law they passed in 2005 was designed to protect citizens by giving them the right to “meet force with force.”

Both men say they don’t know all the facts of Trayvon's case. But, they say they believe the law would not allow a person like George Zimmerman to pursue and confront a person like Trayvon and then use deadly force. Zimmerman has not been charged.

“They got the goods on him. They need to prosecute whoever shot the kid,” said Peaden, a Crestview Republican who sponsored the deadly force law in 2005. “He has no protection under my law.”

Read more here: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2012/03/stand-your-ground-fathers-trayvon-martins-shooter-should-likely-be-arrested-doesnt-deserve-immunity.html#storylink=cpy

[JoePhilly]

1. They set up the dominos, and then act surprised when those dominos get knocked over.

[Baitball Blogger]

2. Nice read.

I think the Sanford police now regret coming out and claiming that they didn't have anything they could use against Zimmerman because he claimed self-defense.

[catrose]

3. Exactly <eom>

[LisaL]

6. ITA.

Of course they are going to claim this situation has nothing to do with their law.

[sendero]

10. It doesn't..

... and it amazes me that people think it does.

[JoePhilly]

15. The law sends a message ...

If I decide to be a "neighborhood watch captain", which has ZERO regulations, I can shoot ANYONE who I think might be a threat to me. Period.

In fact, I do not even need to adopt a fake title like "neighborhood watch captain", if I am out on the street, and you walk around the corner, and you startle me, I can shoot you.

This law allows people with almost no training to decide to use lethal force.

In this case, its becoming clear that the shooter did not "stand his ground" against a threat, he chased the person he later killed.

Again, this law creates the environment in which any one with a gun can shoot some one else, and then claim "stand your ground" with only the dead person to dispute the events.

The law is ridiculous. And those who passed it contributed to this tragic event.

[sendero]

26. Nonsense.

..... this law applies to someone who is threatened or attacked. In this case, Zimmerman was CLEARLY the one acting threateningly.

If this gets to a jury they are not going to let this little shit go based on "I felt threatened". HE STALKED the kid, not the other way around. HE was in a vehicle, the kid was walking.

You can't just get all indignant about every law you don't like and blame the law for something like this. The fucktard would have done what he did regardless of any law.

[caseymoz]

30. Do you really think citizen gunners understand the law like that?

Last edited Wed Mar 21, 2012, 12:06 AM - Edit history (2)

Or, maybe Zimmerman thought he could use it as a loophole once he caught Martin? I mean, first he told 911 he was pursuing. Apparently he thought he was on the right side of the law then, and even when the 911 operator told him not to, he thought he had the complete right to disobey the "advice" and wouldn't get in trouble if he did. And if neighbors hadn't witnessed it, he would have been right, police let him go, and didn't do any investigating!

As Zimmerman pursued Martin, he didn't know people were going witness this and were going to also call 911. Apparently, he planned to call it self-defense no matter what. If he had, and there were no witnesses, would there even be grounds to investigate with Florida's enhanced self-defense?

And, I'll repeat, police bought it! They let him go. Apparently, they either don't understand the law, or don't want to get into a controversy of denying a citizen who felt threatened his Stand Your Ground right to self-defense.

And now juries have to weigh this law against Zimmerman's intent, whether he felt threatened. And I say, once he was grappling with Martin, no matter how he got there, he then has a right to feel threatened and use self-defense. That's probably exactly the way Zimmerman thought otherwise he would have shot Martin when he was within range rather than wrestle with him at all.

I wouldn't be surprised Zimmerman's acquitted by invoking the very law you say has nothing to do with this, and you'll be eating your words.

Whether a homicide is justifiable or not, it should be a big deal to kill somebody. By making it casual, a decision one can make and not something of last resort, Florida is asking for trouble. And they're finding it now.

You're very wrong here. This is a stupid, harmful law, and I think even conservatives are going to acknowledge it within five years.

[Mojorabbit]

32. +10000 nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

40. Self defense has been a perfectly functional principle in criminal and civil law throughout the

modern period.

We didn't and don't need additional laws to stipulate what is already law.

The only possible purpose for this 2005 concoction of a law is to extend the principle of self-defense into vague areas where they should not go. It's for this reason that this deeply stupid law is implicated full bore in this fucking horror.

[Warren Stupidity]

41. For the win.

[cherokeeprogressive]

27. Here's the full text of the law. I'd like you to show me where it says "startle".

I'd also like you to show me how you read it to say you can shoot ANYONE who you think might be a threat. Then you can show me where it says either one of us can be standing on a street corner when you shoot me because I startled you.

Either a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle MUST be involved. Under the statute Zimmerman has NO defense because NO PROVISION of the statute applies to the situation that led to this event.

I defy you to show me how ANY WORD of this statute is relevent in ANY WAY to Zimmerman shooting the kid.

It. Does. Not. Apply.

(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.

[Mojorabbit]

33. Great post. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

38. It says you simply have to believe you are under threat.

And based simply on that belief, you may kill somebody.

[caseymoz]

42. Yes. It. Does.

You just watch. Zimmerman is going to walk, at least on any murder charge. They might get him on trespass or assault, but not murder.

When he goes scot-free, it's going to specifically be because of the Stand Your Ground law with the very words you cite above. For a defense attorney, it has more holes than miniature golf course, and it's twice as amusing.

First, take 2(a). Did this shooting happen on somebody other than Martin's property? Probably it happened on a neighbor's lawn. So, Martin, having been chased there, is in a place he shouldn't be. Might Zimmerman argue that he thought that Martin was an imminent threat to that neighbor? But that doesn't matter so much compared to what's below.

2(c) Was Zimmerman engaged in illegal activity simply by chasing Martin, or doing a neighborhood watch? Assuming he didn't commit battery against Martin first, no, he wasn't. So he's still qualified for immunity.

And let's also look at 3: Zimmerman wasn't engaged in illegal activity, or arguably, had no criminal intent, because he called 911, and said the Martin was a threat. So, however badly he judged it, he gave his motive there as being self-defense, or defense of the neighbor. It's apparent he thought the law was on his side and he told the dispatcher what he was going to pursue. Do we know he had the intention to shoot Martin then? No we don't. But he said he thought there was a threat.

Then, arguably, once Zimmerman was grappling with Martin on a neighbor's property, where he (Martin) didn't have the right to be, and Zimmerman has confirmed that his motive was to defend against the threat, he had every right to shoot him, no matter how the two of them got there. I mean, they're wrestling each other, of course Zimmerman felt his life threatened. (And he probably didn't shoot Martin before grappling because then he couldn't use the self-defense dodge. Zimmerman might have calculated that. But he might have done it by random mistake.)

But it's even worse when you take that statute, and combine with another that's also on the books, Statute 776.032, in pertinent part, reads:

(1) 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... (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

So, given this statute, Zimmerman, with three loopholes in the Stand Your Ground law, is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action. He's immune to arrest. So, until you get some kind of court hearing figuring out if Zimmerman's was justified, he can't be arrested. What is the procedure for figuring this out? I don't know. Is it even spelled out? Can it even be done now that the police didn't investigate? I seriously doubt it.

But the kicker is this: police at the scene determined that there was no probable cause that the force was used unlawfully, as they're inclined to do because it's the path of least resistance when dealing with these stupid laws. I can't say for sure, not being attorney, but I'd guess this dismisses the case automatically on a technicality.

I'll repeat, this law is just entertainment for defense attorneys, more fun than a barrel of monkeys.

Zimmerman is going to walk. And you want to know something: when this law was passed, prosecutors warned that this was going to happen. And it's going to continue to happen. Within five years or less, even conservatives are going to know how dumb it is.

[COLGATE4]

43. I think you're citing another Florida law

the one you've cited codified the 'Castle Doctrine', which has been around for a long time. Zimmerman is claiming he killed the boy justified by the 'Stand your Ground' law, a newer law which expands the Castle Doctrine to say that you have no duty to retreat anywhere you are legally entitled to be - the street, a bar, a school, anywhere. That's the rub here.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. no one could ever expect that this law would be so completely abused

it isn't like we have had nearly 40 years of Death Wish racist vigilantism drilled into our stupid skulls or anything.

I can't wait for the freeway rage shootings to start, now that at least my state has decided that loaded weapons in cars are just fine, that stand your ground includes your perception that you are under threat rather than any overt threat, and soon that no permits at all will be required for concealed carry.

[savalez]

35. What State are you in?

[Warren Stupidity]

39. NH

[Honeycombe8]

34. I thought that was the law everywhere. You're allowed to defend yourself and property....

with "like force" and possibly more, if necessary. Don't know why tehy had to pass a special law for that, unless there was some case where it wasn't clear.

If someone breaks into my house, under the law I'm allowed to do what I have to do to protect myself and my property. If I'm encountered on the street and someone means me harm, I'm allowed to meet that force with "like force" to protect myself. Duh. That even means I can shoot him, even if he's unarmed, if I'm weaker and my body wouldn't provide the protection I need (like a woman vs. a man).

But of course I can't imagine that self defense would apply if I were the one to follow the guy and confront him, with my gun pulled and ready to shoot.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. Many states had "castle laws" that did not require retreat in your home.

What has changed is the emergence of no retreat stand your ground laws outside your home. Previously, and for very good reasons, self defense outside your home in most states required you to retreat from a conflict if possible, and only if that was not possible was lethal force allowed.

[Honeycombe8]

54. Oh, I see. I didn't know that. Thx. nt

[frylock]

4. reap the whirlwind, you assholes

[AntiFascist]

5. Otherwise, who else might be able to make use of this law?

anyone feeling threatened by the right wing?

[intheflow]

7. Buyer's remorse.

With deadly consequences.

[sabrina 1]

8. Sounds like they are worried about their law being challenged now.

What they think would happen when authoritarian wannabes had that law to protect them?

[LisaL]

9. I'd say.

[HockeyMom]

22. Living in Florida I certainly HOPE SO

People like Zimmerman are a danger to SOCIETY AT LARGE. The rest of country has no idea. There have been incidents of road rage where people have taken out a gun and shot somebody for cutting them off in traffic. Oh, he treatened my life!!!!!!!! Yeah, right.

Thank you, NRA.

[Stinky The Clown]

11. Fuck these right wing assholes

You have no right to say what ought to be done.

What you NEED is to be put out of office, you right wing, pandering, raciphobic, xenophobic, fucks.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. why is Zimmerman still not under arrest?

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

14. Does anyone know where he is?

I heard he had move out of his place there.

[Blue_Tires]

49. probably laying low at a relative's place

[freshwest]

17. Excellent question. Bet no media drone will ask it, though.

[HockeyMom]

16. You can be sure the NRA will be defending this piece of crap

[LiberalFighter]

20. They would have to considering that they led the movement to enact the Castle Doctrine.

They are all evil bastards.

[mn9driver]

23. The NRA is almost certainly responsible for the law as written in the first place.

Mr. Peaden made no secret of carrying their water for them when he was a state senator.

[secondvariety]

18. "Justifiable homicides" up 300% in Florida since the law went into effect.

Thanks for nothin' you NRA toadies.

All I have to do is avoid getting shot for three more years and I'm out of this tropical hellhole.

[whathehell]

19. This is the stupidest, most dangerous law I've ever heard of.

Anyone can say they "felt" threatened!

As Thom Hartmann pointed out today, in other states if a policeman/woman

shoots a civilian they are, for starters, IMMEDIATELY placed on administrative leave.

This asshole wasn't even a cop, he shoots this unarmed kid and...Goes home!

WTF?....An insane law...I can only imagine how many "unhappy" husbands,

wives, and assorted murderous types in the good state of Florida

have killed someone and used this lame defense.

ANYONE can set someone up with it!

[Warren Stupidity]

44. ALEC is pushing them across the nation.

Identical laws empowering idiots to murder an a belief.

[whathehell]

46. OMG...Is there an organized effort to defeat them?

[whathehell]

57. I know...We definitely need MORE exposure of ALEC. n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

21. I think Jeb Bush should have to weigh in on this travesty.

[provis99]

24. those morons don't even know the wording of their own law.

stupid, slack-jawed conservatives.

[janet118]

25. Well, duh . . .

Macho gun toting laws plus legal escape clauses create the perfect growth media for cop wannabes like Zimmerman. These legislators are either (a) galactically stupid; (b) assholes; or (c) both.

[cherokeeprogressive]

28. Everyone who thinks this law DOES apply NEEDS to read this.

It's the full text of the statute. Until you've read and understand it, you don't really have a leg to stand on when you say the statute is responsible or even "implicated" in the young man's death.

Read:

(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.

[X_Digger]

29. Sometimes it's like talking to a wall, eh?

I'm right there with you.

[cherokeeprogressive]

31. I'd bet money the majority of people posting on this thread haven't read a word of the statute.

This story has all the elements needed to drive DU into a frothing rage... A gun. A white guy. A black kid.

Zimmerman needs to go to jail. He fucked up bigtime, and it seems he was on a path to do something like this for quite a while.

To say that the "Stand Your Ground" statute is or was in any way responsible for this senseless death is so far from relevence it's breathtaking.

[socialist_n_TN]

55. OK if this law didn't apply to this situation..........

then why the fuck isn't Zimmerman sitting in jail for murder right now?

[bigmonkey]

36. This law encourages dumb, willful, gun lovers to shoot people.

Because they are dumb and willful they misinterpret the law in their favor, exceed its provisions, and kill people. The passing of the law has exacerbated stupid killings. Just because a careful parsing of the provisions can't be shown to permit that behavior doesn't mean that the law has had no practical effect. It also doesn't mean that people who promoted the law are innocent of any encouragement of that practical effect. When a person contends that the precise text of the law exonerates it from any pernicious effect, that person is, in my opinion, not seeing straight. The supposed "fact" that the upright gun owners don't start killing people more often is irrelevant.

[Warren Stupidity]

45. did you actually read this?

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

all you have to have is a "belief".

[X_Digger]

48. And be able to convince a jury that such belief was reasonable.

As it's always been with self-defense law. Would a reasonable person, faced with the same situation, believe that death or great bodily harm was imminent.

[Warren Stupidity]

51. It won't go to a jury unless there is compelling evidence to contradict Zimmerman's claims.

In this case there might be.

[X_Digger]

52. Exactly, there's a preponderance of evidence from the 911 tapes.

It's Sanford PD's turning a blind eye to this that is especially deplorable.

Zimmerman can't avail himself of the defense since he was the aggressor (assuming the witnesses statements are true.)

[onethatcares]

47. you are not being threatened if you are in an SUV

and the person you are "suspicious" of is walking away. The law does not give you the right to get out of your vehicle or residence and confront anyone that is w a l k i n g a w ay. There is no threat in that.

This asshole Zimmerman should be arrested and let the charges be settled by the states attorney. Hell, even put him in the Polk County jail until they decide what to charge him with.

[X_Digger]

50. I was agreeing with you until the last sentence..

We don't typically hold someone until we can figure out what to charge them with.

Zimmerman should have been arrested that night and charged with murder 2 the next day.

[onethatcares]

53. ok, instead of the Polk County Jail, we can

put him in Gitmo with the rest of the vacationeers

[gulliver]

56. Or they made a fatal error in their zeal to appease the gun lobby...

...and now have blood on their hands. Of course they hope Zimmerman is arrested. Of course they do.