'Stand Your Ground' Task Force Says Florida Law Is Mostly Fine As-Is

[musicmd]

But if Zimmerman was committing a forcible felony by launching a rocket from his vehicle into Trayvon Martin (and Trayvon was Jewish) you would approve of this tactic.

I don’t know what your problem is, but I’ll bet it’s hard to pronounce.

[Daan]

But if Zimmerman was committing a forcible felony by launching a rocket from his vehicle into Trayvon Martin (and Trayvon was Jewish) you would approve of this tactic.

Aggravated assault is a forcible felony in Florida, "counselor". Look it up.

.

[Smokey 1]

Aggravated assault is a forcible felony in Florida, "counselor". Look it up.

.

Following someone is not "aggravated assault". Look that up.

[bmore_ken]

HA HA, I guessed right on where this thread was going. Let me go pop some more popcorn

[bmorepunk]

Wrong on first count, you are right on second count.

Florida, like Louisiana and many other states, essentially does not allow a hot head instigator the right to claim self defense, unless he/she CEASES HOSTILE ACTION and clearly conveys to the intended victim he/she no longer wishes to use force. In short, raising the "white flag."

Florida 776.041 Use of Force by Aggressor


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.

All citizens ought to be aware of this. An instigator using force, whether armed or not, essentially has zero grounds for self defense. The precise time when the intended victim, or even a Good Samaritan, can "legally assault" a perp is when the perp is committing the initial offense.

I disagree, since you can start a fight with someone without it being a forcible felony as defined in Florida.

[ms maggie]

The law should not be repealed because of "one racially charged and media-hyped incident," said Pensacola resident Joe Waldren.



Report of the Governor’s Task Force on Citizen Safety and Protection

Yeah, fine as it is. Just like their voting system, downright peachy.

[Daan]

Following someone is not "aggravated assault". Look that up.

Zimmerman pursued, confronted, and he was armed.

You look it up.

.

[Smokey 1]

Zimmerman pursued, confronted, and he was armed.

You look it up.

.

I did look it up and it doesn't appear that Zimmerman crossed the threshold to aggravated assault.

The crime of Aggravated Assault is defined as:

1.An intentional and unlawful threat - by word or act - to commit violence against another person;
2.With the apparent ability to carry through with the threat at the time it was made;
3.And the threat created a genuine fear in the intended victim that the violence was imminent; and
4.The accused made the threat:
◦With a Deadly Weapon, or
◦In the commission of a Felony.

http://www.richardhornsby.com/crimes...d-assault.html

[Daan]

I did look it up and it doesn't appear that Zimmerman crossed the threshold to aggravated assault.



http://www.richardhornsby.com/crimes...d-assault.html

Zimmerman told the dispatcher that he was observing a "suspicious guy" that was "up to no good".

Zimmerman subsequently leaves his vehicle with his gun to pursue this person he assumed was suspicious and up to no good.

Zimmerman confronts this person he believes is suspicious and up to no good.

A heated exchange occurs between Zimmerman and this person.

Zimmerman who has a documented history of losing his temper and is in a heated confrontation with a person he believes is "up to no good" (he was wrong) goes for his gun. There's where Zimmerman crossed the "threshold" to aggravated assault.

BTW Zimmerman testified under oath at his first hearing that he did not know whether Martin was armed which further makes it reasonable that Zimmerman would have gone for his gun when the confrontation got heated.

The person who was doing nothing wrong and who had a right to be where he was was facing a deadly threat (an armed assailant). He is the one who has the absolute right to defend himself with whatever force.


All we have to is Zimmerman's word to the contrary but Zimmerman has no credibility.


Here's the actual statute:

Quote

The 2012 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 784
ASSAULT; BATTERY; CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE View Entire Chapter

784.021 Aggravated assault.—(1) An “aggravated assault” is an assault:
(a) With a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or
(b) With an intent to commit a felony.
(2) Whoever commits an aggravated assault shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
History.—s. 2, ch. 3275, 1881; RS 2402; GS 3228; RGS 5061; CGL 7163; s. 1, ch. 29709, 1955; s. 1, ch. 57-345; s. 731, ch. 71-136; s. 18, ch. 74-383; s. 8, ch. 75-298.
Note.—Former s. 784.04.

End Quote
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/.../0784.021.html

.

[Smokey 1]

Zimmerman told the dispatcher that he was observing a "suspicious guy" that was "up to no good".

Irrelevant.

Zimmerman subsequently leaves his vehicle with his gun to pursue this person he assumed was suspicious and up to no good.

Irrelevant, pursuing is not against the law.

Zimmerman confronts this person he believes is suspicious and up to no good.

Do you know the nature of this confrontation? Simple confrontation is not against the law.

A heated exchange occurs between Zimmerman and this person.

That is conjecture on your part. There is no evidence that a heated exchange occured.

Zimmerman who has a documented history of losing his temper and is in a heated confrontation with a person he believes is "up to no good" (he was wrong) goes for his gun. There's where Zimmerman crossed the "threshold" to aggravated assault.

More conjecture on your part.

BTW Zimmerman testified under oath at his first hearing that he did not know whether Martin was armed which further makes it reasonable that Zimmerman would have gone for his gun when the confrontation got heated.

Again, conjecture.

The person who was doing nothing wrong and who had a right to be where he was was facing a deadly threat (an armed assailant). He is the one who has the absolute right to defend himself with whatever force.

True if he was physically assaulted but there is no evidence that Zimmerman assaulted Martin.

All we have to is Zimmerman's word to the contrary but Zimmerman has no credibility.

And all you have is conjecture and an obvious bias against Zimmerman.

[Daan]

Irrelevant.

Nope. It's evidence of Zimmerman's state of mind and why he had a gun when he chased after a "suspicious guy" who was "up to no good".

Irrelevant, pursuing is not against the law.

It is relevant to the chain of events that lead up to Zimmerman killing Martin.

Do you know the nature of this confrontation? Simple confrontation is not against the law.

Nature? Zimmerman pursued and caught Martin who was trying to hide from him causing Martin to be afraid.

That is conjecture on your part. There is no evidence that a heated exchange occured.

Evidence. People in their homes heard a loud argument.

More conjecture on your part.

Again, conjecture.

No it's reasonable based on Zimmerman's history and his lying during the reenactment and his testimony at his first hearing.

True if he was physically assaulted but there is no evidence that Zimmerman assaulted Martin.

Doesn't have to be a physical assault. Zimmerman only had to make Martin aware that he had a gun and that's aggravated assault (a felony). Martin was facing an armed assailant.

And all you have is conjecture and an obvious bias against Zimmerman.

No bias here. Zimmerman is a proven liar.