no, you just have to feel scared. someone correct me if i'm wrong here.

#4 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER AT 2013-03-07 09:09 PM | FLAG:
You are correct about you don't have to be on your propriety, wbut it requires more then being scared. A man tried that in Texas as was found guilty of murder. A lot of people don't understand how the law really works and some here think a person can put themselves in a situation and claim they are scared and get off Scott free. It simply does not work that way. A person must have reasonable belief of an unlawful threat their life. What reasonable is what a jury would have to see as reasonable action and the evidence MUST back up his claims of a threat to his life for it I be a valid claim. People need to understand just because you say I feared for my life does not me you are good to shoot anything, the evidence must be there to back up your claim and your actions have to be reasonable to a jury.

"Stand your ground" governs U.S. federal case law in which right of self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Beard v. U.S. (158 U.S. 550 (1895)) that a man who was "on his premises" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground

I need to learn about Florida criminal law. I assumed that SYG was to some degree synonomous with self defense in that all syg law did was expand the types of locations and situations where a person could claim self defense. But I guess there is more to it than that.

#34 | Posted by moder8

I will be more then happy to direct you to the facts of it, the only thing the law does is eliminate the longstanding legal requirement that a person threatened outside of his or her own home has to retreat from a attacker, the law allows a person to "stand their ground" to defend themselves like they are legally allowed to do in their home. THAT IS IT. (every state law is differnt)

The legal requirements to use lethal still stands, it does not make it easier like so many liberals claim. If a person thinks this is some magical law that will allow you to go around murdering people, your not only foolish but down right stupid. The law is extremely clear. Way too many people making their comments on the law dont understand what it does or how it protects a person. Another great reason to never except the advice from people on the internet.

"Use of force in defense of person": READ THE LAW YOURSELF DONT JUST TAKE MY WORD.

A further section, which I've not seen reported in the press, may go some way to explaining the fact that George Zimmerman was not arrested or charged after the shooting in that it would seem to place a heavier burden than normal on the prosecution contemplating the laying of charges:

776.032 (1) A person who uses force as permitted in . . . s. 776.013 . . . 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.

(3) 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).

For example, Zimmerman was NOT "instructed by police to stay away".. A dispatcher on the Neighborhood Watch line, who was NOT a law enforcement officer and who had no authority to "instruct" Z to do anything told Z that he did not "need" to follow Martin. (This is a CYA for the PD, so they can't be accused of making the caller their agent. The script is that neutral so they can't even be blamed for any unfortunate result of the caller staying put.) And Z said "OK" and did not get out of his car until some time later when Z said, on tape, that Martin had gone out of sight.

Getting him back in sight was perfectly legal and appropriate for someone acting as a Neighborhood WATCH man. And saying "Zimmerman confronted Martin" or "pursue and confront him" ignores the fact that even Martin's girlfriend says in her sworn statment that TM refused her plea that he run but instead insisted that he was going to confront GZ.

We have an eyewitness saying TM was atop GZ and beating him. Which makes irrelevant whether or not GZ could have had a duty to flee under different laws in different circumstances which did not then and may never have obtained. We don't know who attacked whom, which is to say that there is reasonable doubt that GZ attacked TM and precludes convicting him of anything for this incident under any reasonable set of laws. Unless someone comes up with better evidence than we've seen so far.

I think Zimmerman was stupid for following, yet TM could have easily called police that he was being followed and no one forced him to turn around to confront Zimmerman like his GF pleaded him to run and not confront. Let the evidence speak for itself and any gun owner knows that depending on how far he engaged TM will reflect in the type of wound TM body will show. Both parties adrenaline was for certain pumping,Also known as epinephrine. A hormone secreted by the medulla of the adrenal gland, especially in times of stress or in response to fright or shock. Its main actions are to increase blood pressure and to mobilize tissue reserves of glucose (leading to an increase in the blood glucose concentration) and fat, in preparation for flight or fighting. Derived from the amino acids, phenylalanine or tyrosine.

Also if you shoot anyone in the heart your almost guaranteed to stop a person in their tracks when you take out a persons heart, which is were Zimmerman's bullet hit and destroyed the hearts tissue. Rarely does anyone survive that wound to their heart. There would be no way TM could deal the blows he did to Zimmerman after sustaining such a wound. The powder burns and angle of the shot will be even more evidence that TM was on top.

BEWARE IN THE LINK I GAVE IN THE VIDEO AT 8:15 IS EXTREMELY GRAPHIC OF REAL DAMAGE OF BULLET WOUNDS. It is a long video of 34 mins but it will better help you understand what a bullet would have done especially if shot in the heart.