Trayvon Martin

[Palehorse]

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?StatuteYear=2006&AppMode=Display_Results&Mode=Search%2520Statutes&Submenu=2&Tab=statutes&Search_String=deadly+force

Huh. . . Seems like your use of a media coined phrase to refer to LAW is not useful; but when you apply the phrase "deadly force" it comes up with a plethora of legislative acts on the subject.

So much for "research" eh? 


The 2006 Florida Statutes


Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
View Entire Chapter
776.031  Use of force in defense of others.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1189, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 2005-27.


http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=use+of+deadly+force&URL=CH0776/Sec031.HTM

And by clicking the "view entire chapter" link you come up with this section:

776.013  Home 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.

[Palehorse]

He was convicted in 2011 and Fl did not have a stand your ground law at that time so, no, it wouldn't apply then and did not apply in the Trayvon Martin case.  Yes, it was brought up but did not apply.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?StatuteYear=2011&AppMode=Display_Results&Mode=Search%2520Statutes&Submenu=2&Tab=statutes&Search_String=stand+your+ground+law

Huh. Imagine that! Yet another candidate for inclusion within the UZ Lie Tracker! 

[Locutus]

Huh. Imagine that! Yet another candidate for inclusion within the UZ Lie Tracker! 

[me]

Huh. Imagine that! Yet another candidate for inclusion within the UZ Lie Tracker! 

Do you see the stand your ground law in there? 

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0782/0782ContentsIndex.html&StatuteYear=2011&Title=-%3E2011-%3EChapter%20782

[me]

This is what their stand your ground law covers and the way it seems to be written it is for home protection and that's why it didn't come in to play with Trayvon Martin or the other person Ex posted about.  Plus it's called justifiable use of deadly force.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

[Locutus]

Do you see the stand your ground law in there? 

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0782/0782ContentsIndex.html&StatuteYear=2011&Title=-%3E2011-%3EChapter%20782

I do, but I'll leave it to you to find it. 



I live in Florida; remember?

[Locutus]

This is what their stand your ground law covers and the way it seems to be written it is for home protection and that's why it didn't come in to play with Trayvon Martin or the other person Ex posted about.  Plus it's called justifiable use of deadly force.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

Learn to read.   From your own post:

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked ....

-----V

.... 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.



And you vote.  That's scary.

[Locutus]

As PH said, your assertion definitely belongs on the lie tracker. 

[me]

Now, first off remember Zimmerman is mixed, Latino, black, and white so stop with the white on black crime and whitey got off BS it seems you're trying to infer, and second, the way it reads on the other one the guy put himself into the middle of something and the defense attorney couldn't justify what he did sufficiently for the jury to reach the stand your ground defense.  Although you may disagree with what was decided on you are again making a judgement call without knowing all the facts and not being in the court room to hear all the evidence presented.  The jury has to go on what the evidence is, and should, rather than what they think happened.

(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.
Modify message
Report to moderator   Issue a warning because of this message 67.173.87.181 (?)
R.I.P. - followsthewolf - You are MISSED! 4/17/2013[

[Exterminator]

Now, first off remember Zimmerman is mixed, Latino, black, and white so stop with the white on black crime and whitey got off BS it seems you're trying to infer...

Anyone who has read the plethora of comments from those who supported George Zimmerman and don't see a heavily racial bias is a complete idiot.

[Henry Hawk]

Anyone who has read the plethora of comments from those who supported George Zimmerman and don't see a heavily racial bias is a complete idiot.

Here is my take on this.... YES, there are indeed, some racists who cheered for Zimmerman, probably several....but there are also racists who 100% believed that Zimmerman was guilty as sin....JUST because a "white" guy killed a black guy.

I think with the vast majority, race had NOTHING to do with their decision, either way....it is what it is.

[me]

Anyone who has read the plethora of comments from those who supported George Zimmerman and don't see a heavily racial bias is a complete idiot.

And then there are those of you who twist things to make it appear that way when there is nothing there. 

[Exterminator]

You're both stupid and naive. 

[Palehorse]

Do you see the stand your ground law in there? 

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0782/0782ContentsIndex.html&StatuteYear=2011&Title=-%3E2011-%3EChapter%20782

Yeah. I do.

[Locutus]

It's obviously there as I pointed out.  As usual, she doesn't take the time to read or interpret what she is posting.