Friday, March 23, 2012

Trayvon Martin and Florida's "Stand Your Ground Law"

We've all heard, over the past week or so, that George Zimmerman might avoid prosecution for the shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin because of the controversial Floridian statute, "Stand Your Ground" Law.

There's been a lot of misconceptions about exactly what this law means, so I thought I'd post it here so everyone can read it for themselves.

It's clause (3) that Zimmerman's attorney will likely cite for his defense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  The 2011 Florida Statutes


Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.013Home 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.





1 comment:

  1. Ashe' peace and love Karen. I paid attention to the 2nd provision of this law where it says it does not apply. Not only did Trevon have a right to be there, he was still a child, under 18 and under 21 although I know some states will say 16 is grown. thats the age pediphiles use to protect them when they harming our youth. But I wont talk about Bishop Eddie Long today,lol. And one more thing, the dispather on the 911 call told him to stop, so when he didnt he moved from concerned citizen to vigilante. And yes Spanish ppl can be racist, I worked with some in corporate america and in academia and some of them think they white and do make racial slurs and do tell their children not to date black, that is a fact. My 2 cents

    ReplyDelete