Trayvon Martin case 911 call: Screams not George Zimmerman's, 2 experts say

[james&olya 1,121]

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

So if a person decides to punch someone else in the nose and then indicates he wants the altercation to stop right there, if the victim tries to throw a punch in retaliation you can shoot to kill?!!

[xebec 195]

So if a person decides to punch someone else in the nose and then indicates he wants the altercation to stop right there, if the victim tries to throw a punch in retaliation you can shoot to kill?!!

a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm

Good question James. "Great bodily harm" has been legally defined in a variety of ways, and prosecutors and juries would have to rely upon case law to make the determination about what level of force rises to this standard. Great bodily harm is generally recognized to be the highest level in a spectrum escalating from "bodily harm" to "substantial bodily harm" to "serious bodily harm", and finally to "great bodily harm."

"Great bodily harm" means bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily injury.

Link

So, case law has covered this as well, and the terminology is legal and well-established- not arbitrary as you seem to indicate. The punch you describe would likely fall under the lowest standard.

"Bodily harm" means physical pain or injury, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.

(same source)

In short, no. A person would clearly not be justified in using deadly force in the scenario you describe.

Edited April 2, 2012 by xebec

[james&olya 1,121]

a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm

Good question James. "Great bodily harm" has been legally defined in a variety of ways, and prosecutors and juries would have to rely upon case law to make the determination about what level of force rises to this standard. Great bodily harm is generally recognized to be the highest level in a spectrun escalating form "bodily harm" to "substantial bodily harm" to "serious bodily harm", and finally to "great bodily harm."

Link

So, case law has covered this as well, and the terminology is legal and well-established- not arbitrary as you seem to indicate. The punch in the nose you describe would likely fall under the lowest standard. (same source)

Ah, but if you read the statute closely you will see that the "great bodily harm" clause in 2a does not apply in 2b where it merely states "force"! Section a is separated from section b by 'or' rather than by 'and'! Section b is thus an alternate modification to '2' rather than an additional modification. Words matter!

[xebec 195]

Ah, but if you read the statute closely you will see that the "great bodily harm" clause in 2a does not apply in 2b where it merely states "force"! Section a is separated from section b by 'or' rather than by 'and'! Section b is thus an alternate modification to '2' rather than an additional modification. Words matter!

Florida statutes also clearly and unequivocally cover the use of deadly force by one person against another:

Title XLVI

CRIMES Chapter 776

JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE View Entire Chapter

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

Any person using deadly force against another for "throwing a punch" would be prosecutable under this statute. No problem. Title XLVI, CRIMES Chapter 776, 776.012 is the final answer to the question of what level of agression justifies the use of deadly force in Florida.

Edited April 2, 2012 by xebec

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

So, you can shoot pretty much anyone you want, call it self-defense, and you walk. Gotcha. A well-crafted law, if that was indeed the intent.

[xebec 195]

So, you can shoot pretty much anyone you want, call it self-defense, and you walk. Gotcha. A well-crafted law, if that was indeed the intent.

That's what you get from reading the statutes? Good job......and good luck- better retain a lawyer now. Why don't you point out the specific portion of the statutes that justify what you just stated here?

Edited April 2, 2012 by xebec

[xebec 195]

What a hoot. A poster ignores clear and undisputable facts and posts a completely discredited opinion based on how they want the facts to exist, and within two minutes has 2 likes.....

[Danno 1,228]

The voice heard on the 911 call is perhaps the most clear piece of evidence.

I question the ability of these experts to definitively conclude whose voice it was (or wasn't) from such poor audio and with no so little comparative voicing however, if that voice is Trayvon, that

is a real game changer.

How credible is the eye witness who actually SAW Travon on top of zimmerman beating him, he claims the cries for help were coming from ZIM,

that seems more believable than some computer software.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

So if a person decides to punch someone else in the nose and then indicates he wants the altercation to stop right there, if the victim tries to throw a punch in retaliation you can shoot to kill?!!

short answer - no, because the individual in the above scenario, who you depict is a cch carrier, started the physical altercation.

[james&olya 1,121]

short answer - no, because the individual in the above scenario, who you depict is a cch carrier, started the physical altercation.

But this was in the section regarding people who have provoked the altercation. It appeared to allow force up to and including lethal force if your victim didn't stop when you said you were withdrawing. But xebec has ably shown why the quoted parts of the law still don't allow that level of retaliation.

The problem, of course, is less what the law actually says and more what the perception about the law is. It will not bring a dead victim back to life when it is discovered that 'stand your ground' did not apply when the shooter thought it would cover him!

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

But this was in the section regarding people who have provoked the altercation. It appeared to allow force up to and including lethal force if your victim didn't stop when you said you were withdrawing. But xebec has ably shown why the quoted parts of the law still don't allow that level of retaliation.

The problem, of course, is less what the law actually says and more what the perception about the law is. It will not bring a dead victim back to life when it is discovered that 'stand your ground' did not apply when the shooter thought it would cover him!

my cch class instructor specifically touched on that scenario and his view was it's pretty much a bad idea to provoke and then shoot. he's a retired county sheriff too, so i'll give him the nod towards knowing how a jury would react. i know my thoughts would tend to not be in favor of the cch holder if he or she provoked a physical altercation like you depicted.

[james&olya 1,121]

my cch class instructor specifically touched on that scenario and his view was it's pretty much a bad idea to provoke and then shoot. he's a retired county sheriff too, so i'll give him the nod towards knowing how a jury would react. i know my thoughts would tend to not be in favor of the cch holder if he or she provoked a physical altercation like you depicted.

Juries are not allowed to do what they might WANT to do but rather specifically instructed by the judge to decide whether the action of the defendant violated the law as written. As with most laws this one is fairly detailed with a number of clauses and sub-clauses. There have been a number of high profile opinions indicating that 'stand-your-ground' would NOT apply here. But that has not stopped that from being the principal focus of much of the nation-wide discussion of this incident. Perception matters also!

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Juries are not allowed to do what they might WANT to do but rather specifically instructed by the judge to decide whether the action of the defendant violated the law as written. As with most laws this one is fairly detailed with a number of clauses and sub-clauses. There have been a number of high profile opinions indicating that 'stand-your-ground' would NOT apply here. But that has not stopped that from being the principal focus of much of the nation-wide discussion of this incident. Perception matters also!

i'm aware of all of that, thank you. however, you're just focusing on the judge's instructions to the jury prior to deliberations. i would expect any prosecuting attorney to depict things along the line of my thinking.

[james&olya 1,121]

i would expect any prosecuting attorney to depict things along the line of my thinking.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Map of the incident...