waterworld
Jan said:
I understand that the Fla. law says that if someone claims that they were in fear for their lives, the incident can be investigated, but they can never be charged. The law needs to be changed, IMO.
Not exactly. The statute everyone is talking about is Fla. Stat. 776.012, which says:
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 basic idea in subsection (1) is that a person can use non-deadly force to meet non-deadly force if he or she “reasonably believes” it is necessary in self-defense or defense of another. Deadly force may be used only if the person “reasonably believes” it is necessary to prevent “imminent death or great bodily harm” or the “imminent commission of a forcible felony.” (The forcible felony language brings into the scope of the law such things as rape or sexual assault whether or not great bodily harm would result.)
Subsection 2 refers to another statute that lists circumstances in which force or deadly force may be used. The bulk of that statute deals with the particular cases involving attacks on a person in his or her home or personal vehicle. The remaining subsection says this:
(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.
There is very little difference between this language and that of 776.012(1), except that it makes a distinction between a person who is engaged in lawful activity when attacked and someone who is not.
To the extent media reports are suggesting that these statutes — and in particular the language saying there is “no duty to retreat” — give Zimmerman some kind of special protection, I think they are wrong. I start from the presumption that I do not know what happened, and I have heard two narratives: (a) Martin was minding his own business walking home, and Zimmerman stalked him and murdered him; or (b) Martin was walking home, Zimmerman followed him, got near him, and then turned around and walked away, after which Martin approached Zimmerman, attacked him, knocked him down and began pounding his head into the pavement, at which point Zimmerman shot Martin.
If the first account is accurate, then Zimmerman had no right of self-defense, and the question of whether he had either an entitlement to stand his ground or a duty to retreat never comes up. If the second account is accurate, perhaps there is a question of whether Zimmerman’s claim of fear of great bodily harm or death was genuine or reasonable, but there still would not be a question about whether Zimmerman had a duty to retreat, because in that version, retreat would have been impossible.
Other than the particular language saying a person has “no duty to retreat” and may stand his or her ground, Florida’s law is pretty much the same as the law of self-defense in every state of the union. Even if you object to extending a right of self-defense to situations in which a person could simply walk away, this does not appear to be an example of what’s wrong with it — unless there’s some third version of the story that I haven’t heard.