Trayvon Martin

[StrangeSox]

Well sorry, i'm not going to chance my life if I feel that threatened based on whether SS agrees with me that I don't need to meet with equal force in a particular situation.

 

I was pointing out that you don't need to be threatened with a gun in order to justifiably use a gun. You are allowed to escalate force levels if you perceive that you are threatened.

 

And i'm sure forcible felony has been defined somewhere in Florida law. You guys are just too anal about this stuff. There's the blogosphere/internet headline reading version of reality, and there's reality. Is this the most articulately drafted piece of legislation in history? No, but that's the nature of the law.

 

Yeah, we're anal about bad laws the lead to terrible results, like a black kid getting murdered because he was wearing a hoodie and the murderer not even being arrested. I tend to seek out legal blogs that are populated with lawyers and not mainstream/general political blogs for issues like these.

 

If my reading of these two statutes are correct, you're legally allowed to meet any use of force at all in the commission of a felony with deadly force.

 

FWIW I was saying that I, personally, was unaware of what a 'forcible felony' is. It is defined here:

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/776.08

Edited March 23, 2012 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Isn't forcible felony probably defined in the definitions section of this particular law?

no, but it's defined elsewhere. I posted a link to the "stand your ground" law on the first page and to the 'forcible felony' statute in the post above.

[farmteam]

FWIW I was saying that I, personally, was unaware of what a 'forcible felony' is. It is defined here:

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/776.08

 

"and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual."

 

That's just weird. I feel every other jurisdiction says deadly force may be used in self-defense ONLY if deadly force is being used against the victim. This opens it up way more.

[Rex Kickass]

I heard Zimmerman's 911 call. He called from his house to report a kid walking in his street. Trayvon ran away from the house. Zimmerman followed him, despite being advised by the 911 dispatcher not to do so. Zimmerman is ten years older than him and 100 pounds heavier.

 

Trayvon was shot 70 feet from his father's house.

 

The only person that was justified to stand his ground was Trayvon, in my opinion. Sadly a bag of skittles and a can of iced tea is no match for a gun.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

I was pointing out that you don't need to be threatened with a gun in order to justifiably use a gun. You are allowed to escalate force levels if you perceive that you are threatened.

 

 

 

Yeah, we're anal about bad laws the lead to terrible results, like a black kid getting murdered because he was wearing a hoodie and the murderer not even being arrested. I tend to seek out legal blogs that are populated with lawyers and not mainstream/general political blogs for issues like these.

 

If my reading of these two statutes are correct, you're legally allowed to meet any use of force at all in the commission of a felony with deadly force.

 

FWIW I was saying that I, personally, was unaware of what a 'forcible felony' is. It is defined here:

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/776.08

 

IF it's reasonable and necessary to prevent serious harm or death. It's a defense not unlike changing a 1st degree murder (pre-meditated) to a lesser murder charge like involuntary manslaughter.

 

The law isn't the issue here, it's the piss poor police investigation/states attorneys office. You guys read this crap like people are just going to get away with blatant murder so long as the person that lives says "oh well i felt threatened." He's going to have to prove that. That's his burden and a jury could very easily not believe him.

[Jenksismyhero]

"and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual."

 

That's just weird. I feel every other jurisdiction says deadly force may be used in self-defense ONLY if deadly force is being used against the victim. This opens it up way more.

 

Normally deadly force is never acceptable until it's a self defense thing. I know for sure it's never acceptable for defense of property. Every state has a common law "self defense" defense. Florida (and other states) have decided to codify it. This idea that "justifiable killings" is somehow new is just wrong.

[Jenksismyhero]

Btw, Illinois has pretty much the exact same statute on file, and it's been on the books for 8 years.

 

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4...;SeqEnd=9700000

 

This has been such a HUGE issue before this recent case.

[StrangeSox]

That's not how I read this:

 

(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.

 

You can use deadly force if it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. One problem is a bad law, but there are many.

 

The "stand your ground" justifiable killings are new and a pretty clear expansion from the standard "castle doctrine"

[StrangeSox]

Btw, Illinois has pretty much the exact same statute on file, and it's been on the books for 8 years.

 

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4...;SeqEnd=9700000

 

This has been such a HUGE issue before this recent case.

 

Illinois has a standard "castle doctrine" type law, which is different from Florida's "stand your ground" law.

[StrangeSox]

IF it's reasonable and necessary to prevent serious harm or death

 

OR to prevent a forcible felony.

[StrangeSox]

The law isn't the issue here, it's the piss poor police investigation/states attorneys office. You guys read this crap like people are just going to get away with blatant murder so long as the person that lives says "oh well i felt threatened." He's going to have to prove that. That's his burden and a jury could very easily not believe him.

 

 

The assumption is one of justified homicide.

 

In the first five years after this statute came into effect, justifiable homicides in Florida tripled. The Stand Your Ground law was invoked in almost all of those cases.

Edited March 23, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

Illinois has a standard "castle doctrine" type law, which is different from Florida's "stand your ground" law.

 

There's nothing in Illinois law stating you have to leave. It's as much of a stand your ground law as Florida law is.

[Jenksismyhero]

That's not how I read this:

 

(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.

 

You can use deadly force if it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. One problem is a bad law, but there are many.

 

The "stand your ground" justifiable killings are new and a pretty clear expansion from the standard "castle doctrine"

 

again completely ignoring the part that it's the shooters burden to show that he reasonably believed it. Given what's come about in this case (as summarized by Rex) he'll have a hard time doing that here.

[StrangeSox]

There's nothing in Illinois law stating you have to leave. It's as much of a stand your ground law as Florida law is.

 

Did you read the statute? The Illinois law justifies force that it likely to be deadly or inflict great harm only if you're in your home. Illinois does not have a retreat requirement, but this is still very, very different from Florida's Stand Your Ground law.

[Soxbadger]

Rex,

 

Imo police should enforce the law, not interpret it. When I say this, I mean that they should not be put in this position:

 

(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.

 

Why put it on the police? There is no reason a quick decision has to be made. This isnt "probable cause" when it comes to breaking down a door or looking for a criminal, where time is of the essence.

 

The law should have put it in the DA's hands of whether they ultimately prosecute. There is no good reason (that I can think of), to prohibit the police from charging someone who admits to killing another person, and then waiting to see what facts come out.

 

Jenks,

 

Its this portion that I dont think youll find in IL law:

 

(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.

 

Its not about stand your ground laws, those are questions of fact, just like every other case. Its about a specific law that stated the police, may not arrest someone unless there is probable cause the force was unlawful. To me that is backwards. The law should be that you get arrested and if there is evidence that it was justifiable, then the DA in their discretion may decide not to bring the charges. Otherwise justifiable defense would be evidence for the jury.

 

Just poor logic.

[StrangeSox]

again completely ignoring the part that it's the shooters burden to show that he reasonably believed it.

 

You can reasonably believe that a forcible felony is being committed and not have your life be threatened. You would be 100% justified to kill someone in Florida thanks to this bad law.

[StrangeSox]

thanks soxbadger, good post.

[Jenksismyhero]

The assumption is one of justified homicide.

 

In the first five years after this statute came into effect, justifiable homicides in Florida tripled. The Stand Your Ground law was invoked in almost all of those cases.

 

Is that really a surprise that people would try and use that defense if they could? And btw, it doesn't say whether or not it was successful.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

Did you read the statute? The Illinois law justifies force that it likely to be deadly or inflict great harm only if you're in your home. Illinois does not have a retreat requirement, but this is still very, very different from Florida's Stand Your Ground law.

 

(720 ILCS 5/7-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-1)

Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.

 

Please point out where this is limited to your home.

[Jenksismyhero]

Jenks,

 

Its this portion that I dont think youll find in IL law:

 

 

 

Its not about stand your ground laws, those are questions of fact, just like every other case. Its about a specific law that stated the police, may not arrest someone unless there is probable cause the force was unlawful. To me that is backwards. The law should be that you get arrested and if there is evidence that it was justifiable, then the DA in their discretion may decide not to bring the charges. Otherwise justifiable defense would be evidence for the jury.

 

Just poor logic.

 

That's the standard in ever criminal action. Obviously the police can't be involved if there's not probable cause that the offender did something in violation of the statute. I don't really see how arresting someone right away is going to prevent them from investigating the case enough to then get probable cause that the force wasn't lawful. As soon as they talked to the chick on the phone they had their probable cause to arrest him for questioning.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials...icle1220845.ece

Since the law went into effect, reports of justifiable homicides have tripled, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. It has been used to absolve violence resulting from road rage, barroom arguments and even a gang gunfight. In 2008, two gangs in Tallahassee got into a shootout where a 15-year-old boy was killed. The charges were dismissed by a judge citing the “stand your ground” law.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Please point out where this is limited to your home.

damnit you are right, I am wrong.

 

edit: but all this means is that Illinois has its own terrible law.

Edited March 23, 2012 by StrangeSox

[iamshack]

damnit you are right, I am wrong.

 

edit: but all this means is that Illinois has its own terrible law.

Is that the reason for the "or any other place" language in the Florida law?

 

I have been scratching my head as to the point of that language since this morning...

[Jenksismyhero]

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials...icle1220845.ece

 

I guess I just don't see how this proves your point. You're trying to say more people are shooting each other because they have this new protection (ignoring the fact that i'd bet the vast majority had no idea this statute even existed at the time they shot someone). Most places had this protection anyway, it's now been codified. That's really the only change here.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Is that the reason for the "or any other place" language in the Florida law?

 

I have been scratching my head as to the point of that language since this morning...

 

probably. Illinois' law breaks it out into two situations - one generally, and one specifically when defending your "dwelling"