I'm worried that ALEC may have legalized murder in FL

[Mister Ed]

As I understand the bills that ALEC concocted and their servants in the Florida GOP rubber-stamped into law, it's now actually legal for a guy like George Zimmerman to strap on a gun, go out at night, single out an innocent and unarmed kid, stalk him relentlessly until he's provoked into a fight, and then shoot him dead - as long as the killer is later able to plausibly claim that he was feeling scared at the time of the killing.

That's one claim that Zimmerman will be able to make truthfully. I'll bet he was scared when his victim turned and fought.

I'm worried that if the judge and the jury observe the lettter of these laws, then Zimmerman will skate, and the precedent will be established that murder is legal in Florida - as long as the murderer later observes the formality of saying that he was feeling scared when he did it.

(I think it goes without saying that the exception to this rule will be if the killer is black. If he is, then the old rules will still apply.)

Can someone with a more detailed understanding of these Florida gun laws tell me whether my fears are justified?

[mick063]

1. Every political debate

should lead with ALEC as the opening topic.

[dkf]

2. Don't all states have self defense laws?

Is this one so unique?

[Mister Ed]

3. The "Stand Your Ground" laws? I think they're new, and enacted in just a few states.

I think all states have laws that allow you to kill rather than be killed, but not laws permitting you to kill someone in lieu of retreating - or, in this case, just because you're in a scuffle. But, as I say, I'm hoping others on the board with greater knowledge than mine can clarify for me.

[dkf]

4. Zimmerman isn't using stand your ground.

This is Florida's plain old self defense laws.

[davidpdx]

6. True

But I think many people are confused because it was brought up so many times after he was arrested. It has kind of gotten lost in all the other stuff a happening with the case.

[dkf]

9. Yes. Very true.

[B Calm]

14. Probably because Trayvon Martin had

the better case for using the stand your ground law. . .

[Kennah]

10. The concept isn't new. There is caselaw in WA dating back, I believe, to the 19 teens.

The laws are going to vary from one state to the next. Often there is a reasonableness standard applied to varying degrees, even on the issue of retreat.

[ArcticFox]

5. Yes, they did

It would seem to be legal to arm yourself, stalk a child, aggressively confront him or her, put them in fear for their safety or life, provoke them to violence (perhaps even by being the first to strike), and then kill them.

As long as you can claim you were scared, you should walk free. Probably with an apology and millions of dollars for wrongful prosecution.

It helps if you are a wussie and also if you stalk the person to a place where nobody's watching and in the middle of the night. Heck, if you can accomplish all this, maybe you could dispense with everything after stalking (in the process above).

Add a rudimentary understanding of ballistics, and you're all set.

[ArcticFox]

7. I hope they give a good jury instruction at least

The jury should first determine whether Zimmerman proved to some substantial burden that he reasonably feared Trayvon Martin. Then, if he hasn't, put aside any doubt the defense might instill to consider guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Better yet, they should have had two trials, the first to determine guilt without reference to "stand your ground." And then he's found guilty, consider his defense.

Considering the two simultaneously, I cannot imagine any jury being without a reasonable doubt.

Either way, interpreted to apply in this situation, the law is rubbish.

[dkf]

11. There will be no reference to stand your ground...the question is if Z has established grounds for

Self defense. This will be the judge's decision as to if he did. If so, the judge will instruct the jury that the prosecution must have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Z was not in reasonable fear of his life or of serious bodily injury at the moment he shot TM.

[rrneck]

8. I'm not an attorney but...

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.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+Person

A phrase frequently used in tort and Criminal Law to denote a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability.

The decision whether an accused is guilty of a given offense might involve the application of an objective test in which the conduct of the accused is compared to that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances. In most cases, persons with greater than average skills, or with special duties to society, are held to a higher standard of care. For example, a physician who aids a person in distress is held to a higher standard of care than is an ordinary person.

http://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/standards-of-care-and-the-reasonable-person.html

The so-called reasonable person in the law of negligence is a creation of legal fiction. Such a "person" is really an ideal, focusing on how a typical person, with ordinary prudence, would act in certain circumstances. The test as to whether a person has acted as a reasonable person is an objective one, and so it does not take into account the specific abilities of a defendant. Thus, even a person who has low intelligence or is chronically careless is held to the same standard as a more careful person or a person of higher intelligence. - See more at: http://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/standards-of-care-and-the-reasonable-person.html#sthash.1OdkRN8F.dpuf

In addition to the defendant's actual knowledge, a jury also considers knowledge that should be common to everyone in a particular community. - See more at: http://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/standards-of-care-and-the-reasonable-person.html#sthash.1OdkRN8F.dpuf

---------------------------------------------

Zimmerman failed to exercise reasonable care to avoid a confrontation and is on record as initiating same. The mere claim of fear is not enough, certainly not when the defendant is proven to have acted impulsively and recklessly. That's why both the prosecution and the defense are focusing on the history of both Zimmerman and Martin to determine who fails the "reasonable person" standard. Exigent circumstances including the history of the defendant and plaintiff can be used to determine who acted irresponsibly.

Every situation in life has exigent circumstances, and those are admissible in court. There is of course always the possibility of jury nullification.

[SoCalDem]

12. Loaded & ready to shoot .... on the way to buy lunches..

I guess you never know if you'll run into someone who needs shooting..

[Egalitarian Thug]

13. Do you live in Floriduh?

If so, move. If not, who cares?

It's not like you're going to change what passes for minds in a state that's just chock full of drooling idiots that think shootin' guns and Friday night football are the pinnacle of human endeavor.

[malaise]

15. Zimmerman is going to prison

Jeb Bush's gun crimes laws will get him 10-20 even if it's manslaughter