Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here it is, for those of you who care to read it. This is the part of the SYG law that supposedly applied to George Zimmerman.
[SIZE=2]776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—[/SIZE]
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.
This is the key difference between Florida law and states without SYG/Castle Doctrine laws. I don't see it as vague at all and to suggest a victim could be prosecuted becsue they didn't flee is absurd. That's why these laws came about, to protect the victim. If you're in sitution like that the last thing you need to be considering is if you can run away and if you don't will you be prosecuted if you don't.
Here it is, for those of you who care to read it. This is the part of the SYG law that supposedly applied to George Zimmerman.
[SIZE=2]776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—[/SIZE]
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.
Is this law too vague, as some have suggested?
Discuss
There is little doubt.. it is opaque to say the least.
The Law is the problem not the Jury's verdict. There was reasonable doubt because of the lack lucidness.
To many people do not understand this.
There is little doubt.. it is opaque to say the least.
The Law is the problem not the Jury's verdict. There was reasonable doubt because of the lack lucidness.
To many people do not understand this.
Yes it is subjective but it is also the foundation of our legal system. Google "Reasonable Person" and see what it means.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
