Official Martin Reports Reveal More Lies

[Danno 1,228]

You posted the legislation, and I suspect poor wording and/or poor interpretation. Again, gangbangers have avoided prosecution in Florida due to this law. Happy with that? I wouldn't be if I lived in Florida.

Then again, define what is a gangbanger specifically so we will know who looses the right to defend their self when their life is threatened?

[xebec 195]

You posted the legislation, and I suspect poor wording and/or poor interpretation. Again, gangbangers have avoided prosecution in Florida due to this law. Happy with that? I wouldn't be if I lived in Florida.

I only found one case in Florida that coincides with your description- so-called "gangbangers" gaining immunity under 776.013 (3), but I have located very little information other than sound bites intended to criticize Florida's self-defense laws. Do you have any details? I would certainly be interested in seeing them. That said, Florida law is clear-

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1)[Title XLVI,Chapter 776,JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE, 776.013 does not apply if:...© The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity

So, if this was a case of illegally armed "gangbangers" launching a felonious assault against other ganbangers, then a prosecution for murder was perfectly appropriate. Did a judge misapply the law? Possibly.....but more likely is that the facts of the case were such that his decision was warranted. Also note that "stand your ground" is contained in Title XLVI,Chapter 776, JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE, 776.013:  

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.

Notice the redundancy? A person can not be engaged in the commission of any crime in order to be immune under "stand your ground." Even if the accused "ganbangers" were attempting to withdraw from a violent encounter that they initiated, they would be committing a crime- attempting to flee after a felonious assault. If they were illegally armed, as "gangbangers" tend to be, then they were committing a crime...

You distinguish between "poor wording" (which is clearly not the case), and "poor interpretation" (which is frequently a problem in our legal system). Two different issues.

Edited April 5, 2012 by xebec

[james&olya 1,121]

Everyone is entitled to self defense. The NRA supported law is not racist, it applies to everyone. If Zimmerman was defending himself it is fantastic that he will get to walk. Yes. Glad you agree.

My experience in talking with people injured in bar-room fights is that they were, without exception, defending themselves. I have yet to meet someone that would acknowledge being the aggressor! Do you see where this can be a problem when guns are used and, if there are no other witnesses, you have only one version of events?

Was Zimmerman protecting himself from an attack or was he hunting?

Yes