• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Florida Case Law: Accused Must Be Free From Fault

JackFrost

JackFrost

Banned
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
3,471
Reaction score
513
Location
El Monte, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Via the American Digest System~

Matthews v. State 1937 - "In murder prosecution, defendant could not invoke defense that deceased was armed with a pistol and that defendant shot him in self-defense, where evidence showed that defendant was aggressor in bringing on difficulty and was not free from fault."

Bowman v. State 1934 - "Killing is not justifiable or excusable if necessitated by accused's acting wrongfully or without being reasonably free from fault in provoking difficulty."

Gaff v. State 1931 - "Accused, to successfully excuse homicide on ground of self-defense, must have been free from fault, or receded after having been aggressor."

Scholl v. State 1927 - "One interposing self-defense in prosecution for homicide must not have wrongfully occasioned necessity of killing."

Landrum v. State 1920 - "On a trial for murder, it is proper to charge that one cannot acquit himself of liability for the consequences of a personal difficulty on the ground of self-defense, unless he is reasonably free from fault in entering thereupon."

Stinson v. State 1918 - "Defendant cannot avail himself of defense of self-defense when he himself brought on the situation under the compulsion of which he strikes the blow or fires the shot which he claims was justified."

Barton v. State 1916 - "If one wrongfully occasions necessity for self-defense, though he may have reasonable ground to apprehend a felony, or serious personal injury, and there is imminent danger thereof, he cannot justify a killing on the ground of self-defense."

Barnhill v. State 1908 - "One who seeks and brings on an affray cannot plead self-defense."

Kennard v. State 1900 - "The aggressor in a difficulty, one not reasonably free from fault, cannot justify homicide committed in such difficulty on the ground of self-defense."
Click to expand...

Mixon v. State 1952

MIXON v. STATE*-*April 1, 1952.

The appellant and the man he later admitted killing had an altercation while the appellant was sitting in his jeep, the other man standing at the side of the vehicle. The appellant drove to his home nearby where he procured a revolver, while his adversary continued along the highway, afoot. The appellant, accompanied by his wife and their young daughter, then drove in the same direction until he overtook his former antagonist when both stopped.
From this point on, the versions of the state and the defendant differed materially.
According to the witnesses for the state, the pedestrian stepped back from the car, then put his hands forward, advanced, and projected the upper part of his body into the car just as the gun fired. A witness quoted appellant's wife as asking appellant immediately afterward: "My Lord, why did you shoot this boy?"
The defendant's version, given by the defendant, his small son who was with him at the first meeting, and his wife and young daughter who were present at the shooting is an entirely different story. On the first occasion the deceased cursed the appellant and brandished a knife. The appellant drove to his home nearby where he left the boy and armed himself with a pistol. Then, with his wife and young daughter, he went in search of a deputy sheriff, taking the road along which the deceased was walking toward a fish camp a short distance away, where the road terminated. When the car overhauled the deceased, he jumped into the jeep waving a large fish knife, and beat the appellant's head against the steering wheel, whereupon the appellant shot him. Both husband and wife categorically denied the statement attributed to the wife.
The jury doubtless believed, as well they might have from the defendant's actions and the direction he eventually took, that when the first difficulty ended and the men separated, he went to his home, armed himself and deliberately began a pursuit of the deceased, instead of a search for a deputy sheriff. Nothing in the testimony indicates that an officer would likely have been found at the fish camp a short distance away where the road ended. They also were justified in believing that the deceased was not himself armed and had approached the jeep only for the purpose of disarming appellant when the appellant stopped and drew his gun. They must have given credence to the testimony that no fish knife was ever discovered at the scene, and that the victim's pocket knife was found closed in a pocket of the trousers he wore next to his body. On the day of the homicide it was extremely cold, and he was wearing two pairs of pants.
So we believe that there was abundant proof to support a judgment of the defendant's guilt of unlawful homicide.
Click to expand...

The law is clear that one may not provoke a difficulty and having done so act under the necessity produced by the difficulty, then kill his adversary and justify the homicide under the plea of self defense. Zimmerman clearly provoked a difficulty, by forcing Martin to run, then exiting his vehicle. According to Zimmerman, Martin attempted to communicate at least twice with Zimmerman, who failed to state his intentions or identify himself both times, further provoking a difficulty.

The prosecution will make the following argument:

Zimmerman profiled Martin and followed him in his car, causing Martin to run. After clearly attempting to put some distance between himself and the stranger following him, Zimmerman exited his vehicle armed with a gun. Zimmerman assumed Martin had committed or was about to commit a crime and was intent Martin should not get away. Martin was innocent of any wrongdoing, and was just walking home from 7/11. Zimmerman was unjustified in pursuing Martin and under the circumstances his conduct was threatening. This, the prosecution will argue, was sufficient to "initially provoke" the struggle, no matter who struck the first blow.

There is no credible evidence that Zimmerman either tried to escape from Martin or that he withdrew and clearly indicated his intent to withdraw from the altercation.

776.041 - - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate
 
JackFrost said:
Via the American Digest System~



Mixon v. State 1952

MIXON v. STATE*-*April 1, 1952.



The law is clear that one may not provoke a difficulty and having done so act under the necessity produced by the difficulty, then kill his adversary and justify the homicide under the plea of self defense. Zimmerman clearly provoked a difficulty, by forcing Martin to run, then exiting his vehicle. According to Zimmerman, Martin attempted to communicate at least twice with Zimmerman, who failed to state his intentions or identify himself both times, further provoking a difficulty.

The prosecution will make the following argument:

Zimmerman profiled Martin and followed him in his car, causing Martin to run. After clearly attempting to put some distance between himself and the stranger following him, Zimmerman exited his vehicle armed with a gun. Zimmerman assumed Martin had committed or was about to commit a crime and was intent Martin should not get away. Martin was innocent of any wrongdoing, and was just walking home from 7/11. Zimmerman was unjustified in pursuing Martin and under the circumstances his conduct was threatening. This, the prosecution will argue, was sufficient to "initially provoke" the struggle, no matter who struck the first blow.

There is no credible evidence that Zimmerman either tried to escape from Martin or that he withdrew and clearly indicated his intent to withdraw from the altercation.

776.041 - - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate[/url]
Click to expand...
None of which apply to this case.

Even the current law as written makes the above obsolete.

You source the law, but don't cite what it says. I wonder why that is?
Probably because you know it doesn't say what you want it to.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(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.​
 
Last edited:
JackFrost said:
Via the American Digest System~



Mixon v. State 1952

MIXON v. STATE*-*April 1, 1952.



The law is clear that one may not provoke a difficulty and having done so act under the necessity produced by the difficulty, then kill his adversary and justify the homicide under the plea of self defense. Zimmerman clearly provoked a difficulty, by forcing Martin to run, then exiting his vehicle. According to Zimmerman, Martin attempted to communicate at least twice with Zimmerman, who failed to state his intentions or identify himself both times, further provoking a difficulty.

The prosecution will make the following argument:

Zimmerman profiled Martin and followed him in his car, causing Martin to run. After clearly attempting to put some distance between himself and the stranger following him, Zimmerman exited his vehicle armed with a gun. Zimmerman assumed Martin had committed or was about to commit a crime and was intent Martin should not get away. Martin was innocent of any wrongdoing, and was just walking home from 7/11. Zimmerman was unjustified in pursuing Martin and under the circumstances his conduct was threatening. This, the prosecution will argue, was sufficient to "initially provoke" the struggle, no matter who struck the first blow.

There is no credible evidence that Zimmerman either tried to escape from Martin or that he withdrew and clearly indicated his intent to withdraw from the altercation.

776.041 - - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate
Click to expand...

Wrong and not applicable

Z did not violate any law by getting out of his car nor did he violate the law by trying to keep tabs on M while waiting for police

So, its not a crime nor is following. Following is not provoking. Merely following a person is not an action that warrants a violent response from that person.

Z following/profiling M does not legally justify M to punch Z in the nose or bang his head into concrete

M did commit an act of unlawful force against Z, by attacking Z without adequate provocation.
 
Excon said:
None of which apply to this case.

Even the current law as written makes the above obsolete.

You source the law, but don't cite what it says. I wonder why that is?
Probably because you know it doesn't say what you want it to.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(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.​
Click to expand...

None of it applies to Zimmerman:confused:
 
ric27 said:
Wrong and not applicable

Z did not violate any law by getting out of his car nor did he violate the law by trying to keep tabs on M while waiting for police

So, its not a crime nor is following. Following is not provoking. Merely following a person is not an action that warrants a violent response from that person.

Z following/profiling M does not legally justify M to punch Z in the nose or bang his head into concrete

M did commit an act of unlawful force against Z, by attacking Z without adequate provocation.
Click to expand...

You need to learn what is wrong and applicable to the case.

Who is arguing the act of following and getting out of a car is UNLAWFUL? No one did.

Do you understand what "provoking" means?

Provoking is not unlawful.
 
JackFrost said:
None of it applies to Zimmerman:confused:
Click to expand...
None of the crap you had quoted applies.
The law you sourced, and I cited, says what you quoted was wrong. Do you really not understand that?
It is why there is an "or" in the law.
 
JackFrost said:
You need to learn what is wrong and applicable to the case.

Who is arguing the act of following and getting out of a car is UNLAWFUL? No one did.

Do you understand what "provoking" means?

Provoking is not unlawful.
Click to expand...

Your keep including all sorts of unsupported leaps of faith plus your continued ignorance to somehow maintain or justify, the charge of 2nd degree murder when the facts/evidence/witnesses simply in no way, shape nor form support that bogus charge.

You simply don't have no evidence to refute Z

Thats the bottom line
 
Excon said:
None of the crap you had quoted applies.
The law you sourced, and I cited, says what you quoted was wrong. Do you really not understand that?
It is why there is an "or" in the law.
Click to expand...

No it does not. It supports the prosecution's case.

When, not if, this issue is argued in the courtroom, George Zimmerman's claim of self-defense will be stripped away.
 
ric27 said:
Your keep including all sorts of unsupported leaps of faith plus your continued ignorance to somehow maintain or justify, the charge of 2nd degree murder when the facts/evidence/witnesses simply in no way, shape nor form support that bogus charge.

You simply don't have no evidence to refute Z

Thats the bottom line
Click to expand...

Who needs to refute Zimmerman? The prosecution will use his own words against him buddy:lol:
 
JackFrost said:
Who needs to refute Zimmerman? The prosecution will use his own words against him buddy:lol:
Click to expand...

What *own* words?

There are no contradictions affecting the totality of Z's account of events.
 
JackFrost said:
No it does not. It supports the prosecution's case.
Click to expand...
Wrong!
The law says you are wrong, and the prosecutor can not argue that the law is wrong.
Duh!
 
JackFrost said:
No it does not. It supports the prosecution's case.
Click to expand...
Wrong!
The law says you are wrong, and the prosecutor can not argue that the law is wrong.
Duh!
Via the American Digest System~
Click to expand...
Like you actually know what that means. :doh
Do you even know what WestLaw is, or what shepardizing is?
iLOL

And I love how you quote something from another without sourcing it.
Dishonesty at it's best.

Secondly, I love how you overlook what the law actually says. That "or" is there for a reason. Or did you not know that?
Stop reaching. You have nothing.

Maybe you should have researched what was published almost a year ago instead of just accepting it as it was and posting it as if it was your research.
You know that is plagiarism right?
If you had, maybe you would have seen how it was rebutted.


Oh well, to bad for you, you are wrong.

As usual.
 
1900... 1908... 1916... You think you could find a case where anyone involved with it is still alive?

LMMFAO
 
JackFrost said:
Via the American Digest System~




Mixon v. State 1952

MIXON v. STATE*-*April 1, 1952.



The law is clear that one may not provoke a difficulty and having done so act under the necessity produced by the difficulty, then kill his adversary and justify the homicide under the plea of self defense. Zimmerman clearly provoked a difficulty, by forcing Martin to run, then exiting his vehicle. According to Zimmerman, Martin attempted to communicate at least twice with Zimmerman, who failed to state his intentions or identify himself both times, further provoking a difficulty.

The prosecution will make the following argument:

Zimmerman profiled Martin and followed him in his car, causing Martin to run. After clearly attempting to put some distance between himself and the stranger following him, Zimmerman exited his vehicle armed with a gun. Zimmerman assumed Martin had committed or was about to commit a crime and was intent Martin should not get away. Martin was innocent of any wrongdoing, and was just walking home from 7/11. Zimmerman was unjustified in pursuing Martin and under the circumstances his conduct was threatening. This, the prosecution will argue, was sufficient to "initially provoke" the struggle, no matter who struck the first blow.

There is no credible evidence that Zimmerman either tried to escape from Martin or that he withdrew and clearly indicated his intent to withdraw from the altercation.

776.041 - - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate
Click to expand...

Do you know that the prosecution is going to use this argument and cite these cases?
 
ric27 said:
What *own* words?

There are no contradictions affecting the totality of Z's account of events.
Click to expand...

Oh, George has more than 6 different accounts of what happened. He keeps fooling with the details and trying to clean up the impossibilities.

George retreated into his cop fantasy long ago.. because he has failed at everything else. He will become a jailhouse lawyer or a religious fanatic in prison.
 
SheWolf said:
Do you know that the prosecution is going to use this argument and cite these cases?
Click to expand...

Do you mean, "Do you know if the prosecution will use this argument and cite these cases?"

Since I am not affiliated with the Florida prosecution, I can not say for certain they will use this argument. I can only make an educated guess based upon the charging affidavit, some of the discovery evidence and comments made by Bernie De La Rionda (BDLR), the prosecutor at previous hearings.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/04/12/zimmerman.affidavit.pdf

Snippet:

On Sunday, 2/26/12, Trayvon Martin was temporarily living at the Retreat at Twin lakes, a gated community in Sanford, Seminole County, Florida. That evening Martin walked to a nearby 7-11 store where he purchased a can of iced tea and a bag of skittles, Martin then walked back to entered the gated community and was on his way back to the townhouse where he was living when he was profiled by George Zimmerman. Martin was unarmed and was not committing a crime.

Zimmerman who also lived in the gated community, and was driving his vehicle observed Martin and assumed Martin was a criminal. Zimmerman felt Martin did not belong in the gated community and called the police. Zimmerman spoke to the dispatcher and asked for an officer to respond because Zimmerman perceived that Martine was acting suspicious. The police dispatcher informed Zimmerman that an officer was on the way and to wait for the officer.

During the recorded call Zimmerman made reference to people he felt had committed and gotten away with break-ins in his neighborhood. Later while talking about Martin, Zimmerman stated "these assholes, they always get away" and also said "these ****ing punks".

During this time, Martin was on the phone with a friend and described to her what was happening. The witness advised that Martin was scared because he was being followed through the complex by an unknown male and didn't know why. Martin attempted to run home but was followed by Zimmerman who didn't want the person he falsely assumed was going to commit a crime to get away before the police arrived. Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed Martin. When the police dispatcher realized Zimmerman's was pursuing Martin, he instructed Zimmerman not to do that and that the responding officer would meet him. Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher and continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home.

Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued. Witnesses heard people arguing and what sounded like a struggle. During this time period witnesses heard numerous called for help and some of these were recorded in 911 calls to police. Trayvon Martin's mother has reviewed the 911 calls and identified the voice crying for help as Trayvon martin's voice.

Zimmerman shot Martin in the chest. When police arrived Zimmerman admitted shooting Martin. Officers recovered a gun from a holster inside Zimmerman's waistband. A fired casing that was recovered at the scene was determined to have been fired from the firearm.
Click to expand...

As you can see, the initial charging affidavit clearly indicates Zimmerman is with fault, bringing upon a difficulty.
 
Grim17 said:
1900... 1908... 1916... You think you could find a case where anyone involved with it is still alive?

LMMFAO
Click to expand...

That is so weak. At least try man:lol:

Has self-defense changed so much that it invalidates these case laws? Specifically, accused must be free from fault? Source?
 
Excon said:
Wrong!
The law says you are wrong, and the prosecutor can not argue that the law is wrong.
Duh!
Click to expand...

Where are you getting arguing the law is wrong:confused:

The prosecution will argue the law does not apply to Zimmerman, not that the law is wrong.
 
JackFrost said:
Has self-defense changed so much that it invalidates these case laws? Specifically, accused must be free from fault? Source?
Click to expand...

Florida statute (SYG) includes and supercedes those decisions. The legal use of lethal force is clearly and definitively (as far as this case is concerned) contained therein.
 
ric27 said:
What *own* words?

There are no contradictions affecting the totality of Z's account of events.
Click to expand...

Yes.. George has told many different versions of his story.. as evidenced by his SPD interviews, his reenactment and his appearance on Hannity..

These guys are not jailhouse lawyers.. They are trained in the law and in critical thinking.. They are also NOT burdened with the sort of low self esteem that is vulnerable to self-aggrandizing fantasy.
 
ecofarm said:
Florida statute (SYG) includes and supercedes those decisions. The legal use of lethal force is clearly and definitively (as far as this case is concerned) contained therein.
Click to expand...

So you think OMara is so poorly trained that he won't pursue SYG or a self defence immunity hearing?
 
ecofarm said:
Florida statute (SYG) includes and supercedes those decisions. The legal use of lethal force is clearly and definitively (as far as this case is concerned) contained therein.
Click to expand...

The defense gave up on SYG, declined to pursue an immunity hearing. Mark O'Mara has stated on record they will not use a SYG defense. This is plain ole self-defense.
 
JackFrost said:
The defense gave up on SYG, declined to pursue an immunity hearing. Mark O'Mara has stated on record they will not use a SYG defense. This is plain ole self-defense.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what they want to use as a defense. The law is the law and it will apply.
 
ecofarm said:
It doesn't matter what they want to use as a defense. The law is the law and it will apply.
Click to expand...

The world is full of people who are too uneducated to read the law.. and they identify with "Walter Mitty" George.. Don't be one.
 
sharon said:
The world is full of people who are too uneducated to read the law.. and they identify with "Walter Mitty" George.. Don't be one.
Click to expand...

I read the law a long time ago. I live in Florida. One cannot simply "de-activate" a law because they don't wanna use it. Florida statue will, in fact, be the applicable law in this case and it supercedes previous decisions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom