DrMaddVibe wrote:Robert...where is Stand Your Ground in that???
Its not there.
"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."
Technically there is no "Stand Your Ground" as those words do not exist in the Florida law. In Robert's quote he actually omitted the most important parts of the law.
776.012 Use of force in defense of person
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm
776.031 Use of force in defense of others
When chapter 776 was modified by what was coined as "Stand Your Ground" by the media, they basically made two changes to the existing law although the media makes it appear as if some massive new law was written. One change was immunity from criminal and civil prosecution if a person used permitted force. This was to prevent criminals from suing victims who defended themselves which actually did happen.
The other change was in 776.012:
"776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—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 big change was
"does not have a duty to retreat if".
Prior to this change, a victim had the duty to flee even in the face of imminent death and could only fight back once cornered. (and then could get sued if they fought back) The old law clearly favored the attacker. Now it favors the defender. When the law was passed the media hype was that Florida would become the "Wild Wild West". In reality crime rates dropped.
So did Zimmerman use the "Stand Your Ground" defense? Kinda. He did waive his right to pre-trial immunity hearing under "Stand Your Ground". However, if Skittles was on top of him beating Z up, he had no ability to retreat and would have had the right to use lethal force even under the old law so "Stand Your Ground" wasn't even applicable. However, I do believe that "does not have a duty to retreat if" was included in the jury instructions.