The law is good. IF a perpetrator comes into your house, you do not need to retreat to the last bedroom of the last bathroom possible before shooting to defend.

As I have said, this situation does not apply. Zimmerman was told to not pursue, and not take a weapon. Zimmerman appears to be a nut job, and proper execution of the law should not be based upon his negligent appearing application of this law.

When somebody wrongly uses a law (as it appears in this situation), the law is not the problem. It is the person who does something wrong, not the law.

Let a jury try Mr. Zimmerman (and his dad if interference occurred). If found guilty of a crime, put forth the punishment tot he fullest, including the death penalty if applicable.

b

The law is good. IF a perpetrator comes into your house, you do not need to retreat to the last bedroom of the last bathroom possible before shooting to defend.

Any law that is unnecesary is a bad law in my books. Why was the law necessary?

I also asked the bill’s sponsor, State Representative Dennis K. Baxley, to point to any case in Florida where a homeowner had been indicted or arrested as a result of “defending his castle.” He could not come up with a single one.

Before this law was passed, a person could plead defensible homicide as well.... They had to prove that they were forced to defend themselves and had no option.
This law seems to me provides the shooter with defence against incautious or irresponsible use of violence. Based only upon their apprehension of a threat. It seems to make the shooter less responsible for his actions.

Here is what I don't understand......

Why the @#$! is this a national (or international as it now appears) story?

Archduke Russell John wrote:Here is what I don't understand......

Why the @#$! is this a national (or international as it now appears) story?

Really?

Perhaps because the police did nothing much about it for weeks, and the family felt the need to appeal for justice elsewhere.

Perhaps because it's the kind of issue which provokes a lot of interest - man with reported issues about young black males and crime shoots dead a young black male who looks pretty innocent... vigilante told by police not to engage decides to and claims 'self defence'... a law recently changed that seems to have led to the police taking a lax approach to killings in claimed self defence...

Perhaps such events are ten-a-penny in some places, and hardly break the local media, but it's unusual where I live, that's for sure.

Well obviously the story blew up because it has clear overtones of institutionalised racism in the Florida police. That was enough to get it national prominence, and it's only a short hop from there to international exposure because most really big news items in the States eventually find their way into the wider world, especially in an election year.

It caught my attention because of this rather strange law that I was previously unaware of and wanted to explore a little further.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law#Florida

Zimmerman's story does not apply to this law, therefore the law is not bad.

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012

There are sides to this story. Hence the need for investigation. Truly, the police botched this horribly. No doubt on that.

As to RickyP's point that the law is bad and why it was needed... He supports hate crime legislation that criminalizes already illegal activity such as the Matthew Shepard Act. Matthew Shepard was brutalized, and his assailants are guilty of a crime. The hate crime law criminalizes the feelings that caused the crime. The assailants should have been tried for the crime, not the feelings behind them. Now RickyP says there is no need for THIS legislation? A bit of a dichotomy.

Zimmerman did the following wrong:
Was not in his residence
Pursued the kid against 911 advice

These instances are denoted in the statute, and are invalidating the use of this law. The law, if followed properly is useful.

Zimmerman's story does not apply to this law, therefore the law is not bad.

Hmm. Having just read through the text of the law that you quoted I'd have to say that the law is bad irrespective of the facts of Zimmerman's case. Let's just take a look at a couple of the clauses:

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.

This law actually authorises the use of lethal force with 'reason to believe' that a forced entry to a property was about to take place, or had recently taken place. That is, in a situation where there could by definition be no immediate threat to life or person. That's grossly disproportionate and IMO flat-out dangerous.

But here's the kicker:

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting 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 was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

This is frankly ridiculous. In this circumstance the police are not even able to remand somebody in custody when they find him standing, smoking gun in hand, over a fresh corpse. The best they can do is interview the man at the scene and then make a snap judgment as to whether they believe his story.

Sorry Brad, but that is a bad law, a very bad law indeed.

You do not have to arrest the shooter, but you should perform an investigation. I have said as such.

The law does not exempt the shooter from investigation.

Sass,
Are you saying that anyone suspected of a crime must be arrested before the investigation is began? I have said the police have botched this case, but let an investigation commence and bring the arrest when sufficient evidence is available.

If someone broke into my house in the middle of the night, I could see a shooting incident happen. I would gladly submit to testing and investigation. I would not be happy about an immediate arrest since I was in my own house.

Sass, just on this:

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.

I've bolded the "and" linking (a) and (b). Does this change your analysis?

The law hinders the investigation if the shooter cannot be detained. Material evidence can be destroyed (clothes, gunshot residue) and witnesses can be tampered with by the shooter if he cannot be detained during the investigation. At least for a period of time. News reports said that the police had released Zimmerman because they lacked probable cause to arrest him.
Perhaps the police mis applied the law in this case, though it appears the defence will still try and apply the law to the case.

But it isn't a stretch to imagine a Florida householder shooting someone who mistakes their address for a friends who's key they have been given. As written the householder could blaze away as the person tries to unlock their door.
Without this law, the householder would be duty bound to ensure that they knew who was trying to enter and why - with this law all that has to occur::
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.
Now thats a far cry from hate crimes B. A hate crime requires first: a crime. Then the hate crime is applied to ratchet up the punishment available as recognition that the motive for the crime is particularly repellant to society.

This law, SYG, seeks to make it easier for householders to use firearms with impunity.This is a law who's only purpose is that makes responsibility for one's actions less important than the incumbent law. And the law was formed without the justiifcation of any precedents by the author (in Florida) . Without an existing probelm with current law, all thats happened is that fire arms owners have been given license to fire with far less regard for the consequences This law seeks to ensure there are none.

Sass,
Are you saying that anyone suspected of a crime must be arrested before the investigation is began? I have said the police have botched this case, but let an investigation commence and bring the arrest when sufficient evidence is available.

We're talking here about the use of lethal force. I don't think it's unreasonable that the police should have the power to arrest somebody who just killed in order to conduct more rigorous questioning and/or make sure they were on hand while the rest of the investigation was carried out. In fact, I'd expect anybody who uses to lethal force to be detained in the first instance. Killing can't be treated in the same fashion as every other crime.

Yes, there will in all probability be some cases where an arrest might not be required, for example if there were dozens of witnesses who all testified that it was a clear case of self-defence, but it should still be on the table as a law enforcement option even in these cases.

RJ:

I've bolded the "and" linking (a) and (b). Does this change your analysis?

Good spot. I guess it does modify my analysis to some extent, how could it not ? Tbh though, it doesn't change things very much for me. My objection is principally that the law allows for a disproportionate use of force, and that still applies. It clearly states that lethal force can be used against an intruder who is running away and posing no threat. That's not something I can ever support.

A friend of mine once staggered out of a pub the worse for drink and climbed straight into the back of somebody's car, thinking it was a taxi. It was pretty funny at the time. Had the Florida legislation been in force here then in theory that would have been perfectly legal grounds for the owner of the car to 'stand his ground' and shoot Andy dead. He would after all have been faced with a drunk making a forced entry to his 'dwelling' and it wouldn't have been all that unreasonable to argue that he felt he had reason to believe that his person was endangered.

danivon wrote:Perhaps because the police did nothing much about it for weeks, and the family felt the need to appeal for justice elsewhere.

So around the same day there was an incident in Philadelphia where a young black man walked into a corner store and allegedly attempted to rob it was shot by the Hispanic clerk. Cops haven't done anything. However, this isn't a national story.

danivon wrote:...a young black male who looks pretty innocent...

Who said he looks pretty innocent. Other then the years old picture the media is showing, have you seen another other pictures of him?

danivon wrote: Perhaps such events are ten-a-penny in some places, and hardly break the local media, but it's unusual where I live, that's for sure.

But my question still stands. Even if the police didn't investigate properly or any of the other things you claim, why is it of any interest beyond the local news? I can pick any one of hundred similar incidents in any place around the country/world if I searched local news websites. What makes this one a national story?

Because it promotes a White v Black narrative?

Sassenach wrote:Well obviously the story blew up because it has clear overtones of institutionalised racism in the Florida police.

How? A black man with an history of violence (he apparently assaulted a teacher in high school) was killed by a hispanic male and the investigating officers were of various ethnicities.

Where are there overt and obvious examples of racism in those facts?