I think this is very possibly true. Certainly Martin could have been in fear of his safety if confronted by Zimmerman, especially if Zimmerman tried to obstruct his progress toward home.
In that fear Martin might have hit Zimmerman, or tried to push him out of the way leaving to grappling and a more serious physical altercation, at which point Zimmerman may have been in fear of his safety or life.
The problem as I see it is that this law, if being interpreted correctly by the police (and I have my doubts about that but than again IANAL), is preventing an arrest and a trial of the facts by a jury, which AFAIK is all Martin’s parents have ever asked for.
It seems to me that, no matter how obnoxious and aggressive (and unjustified) you are to another person on the street prior to an altercation, it doesn’t really matter so long as you scare them into some kind of physical action against you, and so long as you can claim to get equally scared and shoot them before they do enough damage to you to prevent it.
And if it’s true that someone acting as Zimmerman did (even if Martin threw the first punch) can’t even be arrested and charged, then we have a bad law IMO, and I’m failing to see how it could be amended without some obligation to avoid violence if possible – and getting rid of this avoidance seems to be the very core of the Stand Your Ground concept.
Well, the law clearly forbids a law enforcement agency from arresting a person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful. Not that there is overall probable cause, mind you, but specifically finding that the force used was unlawful. If the agency doesn’t find that, the law says that the person can’t be arrested.
I think the police are following the law.
And having had a few days to analyze the law in some detail, I am now firmly in the camp that this is a law with some gigantic unintended consequences, and it needs to be changed.
Martin’s parents may sue, and the law is going to bite them there, too: The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
In other words, if the court finds that Zimmerman’s force was lawful, not only do the parents lose, but they must pay Martin’s attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred in the civil case.
He *can *be charged. In this case, the DA has called a Grand Jury. The Grand Jury can certainly indict Zimmerman. It is just that the law seems to be worded so that the Police must make a determination quickly and if “self defense” sounds plausible, they can’t arrest him *at that point in time. * If the GJ returns a “true bill” vs Zimmerman he will certainly be arrested.
Well I said I wasn’t inclined to argue this point, but I think I’m getting inclined enough to point out that 1) it might vary by state, and 2) that your cite says “shall enter” not “may enter”.
Here’s a link to the actuary that I referred to earlier - note that he was convicted and served time before having his record expunged.
Well I’ve given you the answer.
I agree with you about that. That’s why you will not find me doing that.
Umm, Bricker- unless Florida law is crazy (and I admit it is seeming to be that way) can’t the Police arrest Zimmerman after the Grand Jury returns a indictment for say (e.g. ) Manslaughter? I don’t see anything that prohibits the DA from calling a GJ (in fact one has been called) or that GJ from returning a indictment, then the usual arrest, trial, etc goes on.
Having read the document “plugin-Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf”
The facts include:
The “City Manager” is named N. Bonaparte, Jr.
Zimmerman “…is authorized to carry the weapon in a concealed manner”.
Zimmerman was “Following” the victim.
The Police Department state that they were prohibited by law from detaining Zimmerman, and that if they had done so, they would have been “…held liable…”.
There’s an old Latin phrase that springs to mind… “tantum in Americae”
Yep, and that is with a well placed shot and expanding rounds from a high powered rifle. A poorly placed shot or low expansion round while still being fatal can lead to an even slower expiration. People have survived torn aortas and nicked heart muscles. Of course you need immediate medical attention, and severe damage to either is almost always fatal, but hardly instantaneous.
Hunters aim at the chest mostly as it affords more margin of error in aim (especially for a moving animal), and it won’t spoil the prize (antlers, horns, whatever) that a head shot might. Someone absolutely sure of their aim that is looking for an immediately incapacitating shot, say a sniper, most often aims for the head.
I don’t see how this could be considered an “unintended consequence”. AFAICT the law would do exactly what it said it would - “loser pays” in civil suits based on this law.
I am not a Florida resident, but if such a law were passed in my own state, I would resist the attempt to remove the “loser pays” part. I think this is a good idea, and should be more widely applied.
Yes. Because a grand jury’s indictment finds probable cause to exist. It’s just like a warrant issued by a judge: even if the warrant is wrong, the police can rely on it in good faith and not be liable.
Ok, let’s say that on the night of the shooting, the police didn’t have sufficient probable cause to arrest Zimmerman. Can they do certain things without arresting him? For instance, take a blood sample for drug and alcohol screening? Take his supposedly stained shirt, and his gun, as evidence?
Also, in light of later statements and information from other witnesses, the police stll claim they cannot establish probable cause to arrest him. What kind of “tipping point” is there.
Finally, regarding the grand jury proceedings, would this case ever have gotten to a grand jury without a huge public outcry, or in a normal course of events simply faded away?
Blood? No, they need a warrant, as Bricker pointed out, and it’s unlikely. DNA swab? They likely got that voluntarily, and could get it with a warrant, easily. They took his gun. Shirt? I think they not only could but likely did.
The point is- there’s no “tipping point” . Either there was or there was not. In this case- was not. But as Bricker and I have said, nothing stops the DA from calling a Grand Jury (which has been done) and proceeding to get a indictment, which leads to a arrest, trial, etc. Basically it appears the Police can no longer act unilaterally, barring something like Zimmerman trying to flee.
As to the last? Hard to tell. I am guessing they were somewhat pondering it at a very low priority until all the outcry came about.
Yes. But it “shall enter” an order only after finding that the continued existence and possible dissemination of information relating to the arrest of the petitioner causes a manifest injustice to the petitioner.
As the varying by state – of course, you’re right, which is why I specified my state, where I didn’t have to look up the law to know it. I haven’t researched the issue in Florida, but would be surprised to learn it was a trivial process there.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I meant that it doesn’t seem to specify that these are the only circumstances under which a record can be expunged (which would have been implied by “may order”). Only that it has to be ordered in that circumstance.
My assumption has been Zimmerman first sees Martin near the clubhouse after Martin enters the Neighborhood from the north. That is what the CNN video implies as well. I think the call starts near the mailboxes after Zimmerman turns south on Twin Trees. Zimmerman may have edged eastward on Twin Trees following Martin until Martin runs and Zimmerman gets out to follow on foot. Zimmerman tells the police to go past the mailboxes (from the north) and turn left (east) and they’ll see his truck. I think it is more reasonable to assume Zimmerman follows him by going south then east. That would leave the truck facing east.
We have plenty of knowledge on the accuracy of most of this.
See this post (from six pages ago).
How come links detailing Zimmerman’s law-trouble are totally off limits, but any cockamamie link claiming Martin was some prison quality thug is offered without comment for the world to make up their own minds on?