I recall another Florida case from the 1980s in which a Florida policeman shot at a speeding motorcyclist during a police pursuit.  If my facts are correct, the motorcyclist crashed, the passenger died and the policeman was charged with homicide.

The officer claimed that, while standing in the street, he shot at the motorcyclist because he was “in fear of his life.”  The court ruled against the officer, finding that the policeman had placed himself in the vulnerable position and that, had he simply stepped back onto the sidewalk, the motorcyclist would not have represented the threat that he did.

I suspect that the courts will view Zimmerman in much the same way. 

Tray Von didn’t break into Zimmerman’s house and, by all known accounts, represented no immediate threat to anyone.  Had Zimmerman remained in his home or in his locked car and simply “observed and reported” (as the dispatcher directed) he never would have placed himself in a situation that would have escalated to events that required deadly force.  At the very least, it appears that Zimmerman made a series of foolish decisions that resulted in an avoidable assault and an unnecessary use of deadly force.

If we look at the legislative history, SYG was not passed to justify bad decisions - nor should Zimmerman’s poor decisions reflect negatively on SYG.  SYG allows Floridians to defend themselves - it does not provide a means for gunmen to provoke fights.

John, I know how the case ended.  I was presenting an example of where it should have worked; she’s who it’s designed to protect, as far as I can tell, someone in immediate harm in a place she should have been safe.

Dismissing it because she was convicted suggests that it’s too restrictive, not too liberal, no?

(Also, to ratchet up the paranoia, keep in mind that, in 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that police officers have no duty to protect anybody, Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278.  Gonzales was denied the right to sue after her the police failed to respond to her husband violating an order of protection—with mandatory arrest—to kidnap their three daughters and kill them.  But don’t worry, the Castle Rock PD shot him, so as long as a civilian didn’t, no harm done, right?)

Clark, I agree.  A lot in the Zimmerman case pointed to Zimmerman actively putting himself in danger, and it’d be an absurd stretch to “stand your ground” while in chase.  Unfortunately, the story somehow became racial, and now politicized, and that was the end of facts.

John,
You make the very point that you miss.  No statute or common law rule can enforce itself.  The reason SYG is a political sham is that there already were laws to accomplish its only legitimate purpose—the exoneration of those defending themselves or others.  If you know any lawyers personally, ask them to explain to you “prosecutorial discretion.”  You can do your own research on the subject of judicial corruption.  SYG had no effect whatsoever on these matters.
Best,
John

In the wisonsin case the, the guy broke into an inclosed porch and was hideing there. When the homeowner confronted the man, (in the dark) he stepped tord him. And then was shot!

I like how people fear we are more violent now when in fact the world is at its least violent. Check the facts people, guess those video games and gun laws arent so bad after all.

I can’t argue with someone who shoots to kill a person who intrudes on their home, but if you chase down a person or shoot at a person fleeing I think that goes beyond “standing your ground” in my opinion… That’s called being a vigilante

Suevon,  If you really intend to present a balanced case, you should have included the reason the Florida Legislature passed SYG.  A seventy year old male went to a convenience store late at night.  Unfortunately, he got there just as a burglar was leaving.  He saw what was happening and ran.  The burglar chased him down and tackled him.  He got up and ran away.  After the burglar chased him down the third time, he shot the burglar.  The prosecutor charged the 70 year old.  The prosecutor said the 70 year old should have continued to retreat.  He was able to defend himself, but it ruined him financially.
Yes, the prosecutor could have used his discretion, but he decided to try to add a notch to his record.
Bobby

I get “prosecutorial discretion,” I just wouldn’t want to rely on it, it boiling down to an arbitrary decision.  As Bobby points out, the record is pretty clear that prosecutor are more likely to go after someone who’s in a bad position (thus difficult to defend, making their case easier) than someone who doesn’t have any reasonable defense.

An hour sitting in traffic court should convince anybody of this.  Oh, you ran twelve red lights in an uninsured vehicle?  Oh, well, plead guilty to a parking violation and we’ll settle it under the table.  That’s not accidental.  It’s a political position, and an easy win looks better than catching actual bad guys, unfortunately, in too many jurisdictions.

Derek, let’s just leave facts out of this.  I mean, how can we justify increasing police budgets and dressing beat cops in sexy, sexy SWAT gear if people don’t live in fear of their neighbors?

Dear @Third Gunman,
No, Jesus don’t carry a gun because guns did not exist at the time. A gun might have saved him from being captured, tortured, and nailed to a cross as well as having a spear thrust through him. However, he had 12 men ready to lay down their lives to protect him. WE don’t have that or the guaranteed divine protection of God. Sometimes we are alone and faced by one or more armed attackers. I can’t imagine something worse than being stabbed to death or tortured because of idiots who think they know what is best for everyone taking away our right to self-defense. I, for one, would fun down anyone I perceived to be a credible threat to myself or others. If I see someone pulling a gun, knife, or other weapon on me or even charging at me, you better believe I’m not going to wait around to find out what they are going to do.
Outlawing guns will only remove guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens. Those who break the law, will still have guns and be able to get them, because they are criminals to begin with. Laws will only affect those who obey them.

The details of the WI case are incomplete. In that case, the deceased never entered the home proper but rather only a screened porch through what appears to have been an unlocked screen door. Although the WI law authorizes deadly force only if the person “forcibly” enters the home, the DA nonetheless concluded that the law applied because, in his mind, some degree of “force” was necessary to open the unlocked door.

Clark Baker:
Gandi, Martin L. King, Jesus ....just some people that did not carry or advocate carrying.
There are choices.

I support defending yourself in situations where immediate imminent danger exists,I also believe when you decide to carry it is a great responsibility. My cousin Daniel Adkins was murdered for mere words Jude did not agree with,the police report noted no weapon found on victim or on scene,no physical altercation occurred, police report also suggests a charge of murder with all the evidence at hand the DA still has not charged Jude & has only said there will be a special review committee to review the case. Today makes 91 days without word of an arrest. Please help our family seek justice for Daniel Adkins sign the petition at change.org.  Justice for Daniel Adkins.