Recent comments

Your article is bunk on at least TWO critical issues. 1st- The statute offers NO PRESUMPTION of self-defense and only grants immunity from arrest or prosecution until mere probable cause exists that the force was unlawful. That simply reaffirms the 4th Amendment protection against arrest without probable cause. Shooting someone is NOT an offense-- aggravated battery, attempted murder, manslaughter and murder are offenses and require evidence to support. The statute simply reminds officers and prosecutors of that fact. Castle Doctrine's conditional, automatic presumption of justification and immunity only applies under specific factual conditions INSIDE dwelling structures and has nothing to do with the Trayvon Martin case. 2nd- Simply feeling threatened (by race or otherwise) is not a legal standard nor justification for deadly force. You are LYING by stating otherwise. READ THE DAMNED THING (asterisks add for emphasis) http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html : 776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person **reasonably** believes that such conduct is **necessary** to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s **imminent** use of **unlawful force**. However, a person is justified in the use of **deadly force** and does not have a duty to retreat **if:** (1) He or she **reasonably** believes that such force is **necessary** to prevent **imminent death** or **great bodily harm** to himself or herself or another or to prevent the **imminent** commission of a **forcible felony**; or (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013. 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.— ... [SS(1) and (2) only apply inside dwelling structures]... (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.** 776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.— (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**.*** ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Words in statutes mean things-- words like "reasonable," "necessary," "imminent," and "great bodily harm." Those are not the words of a weak justification, nor an immoral one. They are legally objective standards rooted in 100's of years of precedent. Nothing about the justification for deadly force changed with "Stand Your Ground" other than not having to attempt to flee an illegal assault ONCE IT STARTS, something that's possible or probable Zimmerman wasn't even ABLE to do by the time he realized he was being assaulted. And why should someone sit in jail without probable cause that they acted illegally? A huge portion of the country has pre-judged a man's actions based on lies, distortions, and drastically incomplete or misrepresented information, despite common knowledge that the press is frequently imprecise, highly selective, and sensationalistic in what they report. To claim the press as a whole has been anything but corrupt and incompetent regarding the Trayvon Martin shooting would be in bad faith. Why does it satisfy you to destroy a 2nd man when you can't possibly have enough or sufficiently reliable/complete information to know if he deserves your punishment, unless you think it's just that a man be brain damaged or killed for simply asking a question out of a founded concern for his neighbors? That IS possibly the only other option that existed at the time Zimmerman fired his pistol. To deny that is intellectually dishonest. And quit with the race card. There's not a shred of credible, publicly known evidence left at this point that George Zimmerman acted out of hate or arbitrary suspicion of black people, and what evidence did exist was more manufactured than misinterpreted by the media.