Florida's Make My Day law --

[gateley]

I was just listening to Randi Rhodes (who lives in FL) relaying some of the outrageous killings that have occurred since Jeb Fucking Bush signed the law.

Apparently, you can go to jail for shooting someone's dog, but a person? No fucking problem?

I can't imagine living in a place where people can just pack heat and claim you were attacking them and they feared for their safety, they blow you away and they're exonerated.

She also said there are other States where this might become law, too.

I've always felt it unfair if a person WAS being attacked (by a home invader, for example) and they shoot in self defense and they're the ones charged with the crime, but there has to be a fair compromise.

It was a caller who said they referred to it as the Make My Day law, and I think that's really appropriate, from the stories I've heard.

[russspeakeasy]

1. The asshole that pushed this bill thru is named Dennis Baxley

he, no shit, runs a funeral home when he is not living off the government tit.

[X_Digger]

2. It was a bit hyperbolic there..

I understand that emotions are high right now, but looking at the actual law does clarify things a bit

It's not just about 'I was afraid'-

[div class='excerpt']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.

The part worth noting there is that you'd have to prove that a reasonable person would believe that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

The major change to the law is the addition of 'and does not have a duty to retreat'.

Zimmerman can't claim that he chased the guy down, started the conflict, and *then* was reasonably in danger.

That's covered by another section of law-

[div class='excerpt']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.

[gateley]

3. But that appears to be what is happening (Zimmerman can't claim that he chased the guy down..." he

told the 9-11 dispatcher he was following him. The kid had a cell phone and some candy -- how can he claim "that such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another..."

and the #2 you've got highlighted confuses me, so I don't really understand that.

Yes, emotions are high, but I think what's got most of us enraged is how this was handled by the police (no drug/alcohol testing of Zimmerman, no notification of the victim's next of kin) and Zimmerman is, for the moment, off the hook.

[X_Digger]

5. No doubt.. but it's the police's cock-up here..

It's black letter law, as I read it, that Zimmerman is precluded from using this defense.

Zimmerman was the aggressor (an assumption at this point). The second section of law says that you can't use this defense if you're the aggressor (under most circumstances).

The police's refusal to charge Zimmerman- that's what's got me gobsmacked. There's nothing in the law that would preclude charging him.

[gateley]

8. You'd think the police would be scrambling to do SOMETHING with all this national

-- and government and FBI -- attention!

[X_Digger]

10. Well, now they're between a rock and a hard place.

They either have to double down and stick to their 'analysis' and 'investigation', or admit to screwing up and take their lumps.

Decisions, decisions.. Saving face and being stubbornly stupid vs. Mea Culpa

I'll take 5 to 1 odds on being stubborn.

[safeinOhio]

4. Still big enough wholes to drive a truck thru.

"person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm"

Shooters word against a dead mans. What could possibly go wrong? Even to a trained police officer a wallet in the hand of a black man looks like a gun.

[X_Digger]

6. That part of the law isn't new, and hasn't been overly problematic.

That's the heart of most self-defense statutes, and isn't going to be changed any time soon.

If the evidence doesn't show that a reasonable person would have believed that imminent death or grave bodily harm was about to occur, then the person will be convicted of manslaughter, at least.

[safeinOhio]

7. In most cases it becomes the alive shooters word over

a dead man. Sure protect your life, however if the gun turns out to be a wallet, cell phone or a bag of skittles, you go to jail for 20 years for your mistake that cost someone else their life. If it was a gun, you have saved your life, if not you still have your life, only in the stink hole they call prison.

[X_Digger]

9. Word of the alive shooter versus the totality of the evidence.

But then, that's always been the case in self-defense cases, and hasn't changed.

Cops have shot people who had a finger in their pocket claiming it was a gun- in that case, is the officer justified? If so, it's not whether it actually was a gun, or a wallet, or a cell phone- but what a reasonable person would believe.

Not that I'm intimating that Trayvon pretended to have a gun, but you keep bringing up the MM piece as though it has some relevance in the situation. Why, I'm not sure.

[safeinOhio]

12. The relevance to MM piece is

that anything looks like a handgun in hand off a Black person, especially to a cop. In this case a wannabe cop. It has always been the duty of an armed person to try to escape first, rather than the "go ahead make my day" stand your ground law.

[Go Vols]

11. Zimmerman

was told by 911 at least once not to follow the man he shot.

He will end up in the wrong.