Since you say that you would physically attack someone who you thought was following you, that is probably a good idea.chanson78;2172563[B said:]Thanks to you jerks I am not going out anywhere anymore.[/B]
Thanks for the education. I can now take "internet tough talker" off my resume.
I am incredulous that if someone is harassing someone and causing genuine fear that you just have to put up with it.
Unfortunately that is the law, and fortunately it is the law. The law isn't perfect but if we allow people to go around physically assaulting those because they are following them or simply saying things to them then we're going to open a can of worms that we will not be able to deal with. Again, the law isn't perfect.Thanks to you jerks I am not going out anywhere anymore.
Thanks for the education. I can now take "internet tough talker" off my resume.
I am incredulous that if someone is harassing someone and causing genuine fear that you just have to put up with it.
It depends on what you consider "starting" an altercationWould think if I were the follower, AND "started" an altercation, THEN got my butt handed to me because of it,,,,, I would not have any rights to do anything other than take my whoopin and crawl home.
Close as I can tell this is what happened before the gun play.
As far as I can tell, most states (if not all) agree with this.Would think if I were the follower, AND "started" an altercation, THEN got my butt handed to me because of it,,,,, I would not have any rights to do anything other than take my whoopin and crawl home.
That's essentially what the trial is about - who attacked who?Close as I can tell this is what happened before the gun play.
FIFY :biggrin2:We'll see what happens, but I doubt it's as starkly black-and-white mexican as it was portrayed...
It would definitely put someone on edge. But due to TM not being around to give his side of the story because the guy who was following him and asking questions shot and killed him, I guess its up to whatever the jury believes likely happened.It depends on what you consider "starting" an altercation
If you're like chanson, then you think following and asking questions started it.
If he were responding to violence or an overt threat, yes.It would definitely put someone on edge. But due to TM not being around to give his side of the story because the guy who was following him and asking questions shot and killed him, I guess its up to whatever the jury believes likely happened.
I guess thats my whole point, being followed and who knows what else happened that night, could legitimately have put TM in a state of mind that he was in a life or death situation. If he had been the one who shot and killed GZ would people be willing to stand up for the SYG law in his case?
I got to digging, and that isn't necessarily the case.Unfortunately that is the law, and fortunately it is the law. The law isn't perfect but if we allow people to go around physically assaulting those because they are following them or simply saying things to them then we're going to open a can of worms that we will not be able to deal with. Again, the law isn't perfect.
Here is another where a guy in an apartment shot and killed a seventh day adventist who was banging on windows but no true altercation.Tampa Bay Times Case 194 said:Location details: In front of World Wash Car Wash, the victim's business in Jacksonville, Duval County, on Jan. 12, 2006
What happened: Deounce Harden and Steven Deon Mitchell had argued in the past over Mitchell's ex-wife, whom Harden was dating. Harden showed up at the carwash where the Mitchell worked and the two men began arguing. Harden shot and killed his unarmed adversary in front of the business. Harden then called the police, who found him standing over the body, holding a gun.
The outcome: The prosecutor declined to file charges against Harden, even though Mitchell was unarmed. The shooting was deemed justifiable "under a new state law that allows the use of force when a person is being threatened."
Investigating agency: Jacksonville Police
Case decision made by: Prosecutor
I tried to be honest and evaluate an instance when there was neutral property, no physical altercation, and someone actually was not prosecuted or was acquitted due to the SYG law. In both of the above cases, the deceased were the ones who encroached on someone else's personal space and made them feel threatened. Neither of the deceased were carrying weapons, and there were no actual physical blows between the parties. In contrast with the TM case, the deceased in the above cases were not the ones carrying the guns nor starting the altercation.Tampa Bay Times Case 115 said:Location details: Outside near shooter's home on Coral Bay Road in Tampa, Hillsborough County, on July 01, 2009
What happened: Marcos Antonio Trujillo shot and killed a Seventh-day Adventist on a spiritual high. Neighbors said the man had been pounding on windows and doors in the New Tampa apartment complex. Witnesses describe a man out of control but not necessarily threatening. Before he approached Trujillo's apartment and began banging on his windows, the victim, Carlos Humberto Ibanez, was doing cartwheels and banging on cars hard enough to set off alarms. He was unarmed. He lived in the same neighborhood as the shooter.
The outcome: Not charged
Investigating agency: Tampa Police
Case decision made by: Prosecutor
The selection of checkboxes used by the Tampa Bay Times includes "Did the victim initiate the confrontation?" but not "Did the victim initiate violence?"The whole thing comes down to what exactly is the definition of being threatened? The first case had no charges brought because "under a new state law that allows the use of force when a person is being threatened." Since GZ effectively is able to tell a one sided story excepting the physical evidence, there is only his feelings on the situation. What if TM had been the one who killed GZ? TM would likely have a compelling argument that he was being threatened, and felt he had no recourse but to shoot GZ.
In the first case, there was no mention of violence. First guy comes to carwash, first guy argues with second guy, first guy dies.The selection of checkboxes used by the Tampa Bay Times includes "Did the victim initiate the confrontation?" but not "Did the victim initiate violence?"
This is a crucial element. "Feeling threatened" is not sufficient to warrant initiation of violence. The threat must be actual.
You maintain that being threatened requires violence. I maintain that if I were being followed by someone in an unmarked car for several blocks and they decided to come up to me in an alley between apartment buildings without identifying themselves, I would definitely feel threatened. Some would likely argue reasonably so.776.012 Use of force in defense of person said: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; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
... snip stuff about home invasions and what happens when you use SYG ...
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.
I feel threatened when I walk down a street at night and am badgered by a homeless drunk around 5 Points in Birmingham. Can I initiate physical contact (or shoot him) if he persists and curses me?In the first case, there was no mention of violence. First guy comes to carwash, first guy argues with second guy, first guy dies.
Lets go to the source: http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-stand-your-ground-statute.html
You maintain that being threatened requires violence. I maintain that if I were being followed by someone in an unmarked car for several blocks and they decided to come up to me in an alley between apartment buildings without identifying themselves, I would definitely feel threatened. Some would likely argue reasonably so.
BTW Paragraph 2 of section 776.041 is likely to be the pivotal statute in this case.
"Feeling threatened" is not the same as reasonably believing one is in imminent danger of death of great bodily harm. That happens when someone is beating you mercilessly, or is pointing a gun at you, or some other overt threat.In the first case, there was no mention of violence. First guy comes to carwash, first guy argues with second guy, first guy dies.
Lets go to the source: http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-stand-your-ground-statute.html
You maintain that being threatened requires violence. I maintain that if I were being followed by someone in an unmarked car for several blocks and they decided to come up to me in an alley between apartment buildings without identifying themselves, I would definitely feel threatened. Some would likely argue reasonably so.
BTW Paragraph 2 of section 776.041 is likely to be the pivotal statute in this case.
Ok, but if you turn around a throw the first punch and then the other guy shoots you, wouldn't he be acting in self defense now?You maintain that being threatened requires violence. I maintain that if I were being followed by someone in an unmarked car for several blocks and they decided to come up to me in an alley between apartment buildings without identifying themselves, I would definitely feel threatened. Some would likely argue reasonably so.
According to Florida law, sure you can. As long as yours is the only story that gets told. Most people however don't seek out the chance that their freedom will be in the hands of someone else deciding whether it was a reasonable threat. Even fewer people actively follow people in the middle of the night, get in a confrontation with someone with no weapon, and kill that person. Mind you I am not advocating going out and doing any of those things. However, yet again while trying to put myself in someone else's shoes, can you honestly say that if a person had been following you for several blocks in an unmarked car and they come out an approach you in a poorly lit area with little or no identification of their intent or purpose, that you wouldn't think they had potential to cause you harm?I feel threatened when I walk down a street at night and am badgered by a homeless drunk around 5 Points in Birmingham. Can I initiate physical contact (or shoot him) if he persists and curses me?
Which begs the question. If TM had a gun and had shot GZ, would he be protected from prosecution under SYG? Lets say he did throw a punch or shoved GZ away when he was approached by GZ. Given the outcome, and the fact that I think someone could reasonably paint a picture that he was being harassed, likely turning to threatened due to being approached in a dark area more likely to conceal someones nefarious actions, it makes more sense for someone to shoot first and ask questions later. That is to me the danger of the SYG law. My definition of threatened is obviously different than many on this boards. Having such an objective qualification for being able to take someones life seems a bit silly.Ok, but if you turn around a throw the first punch and then the other guy shoots you, wouldn't he be acting in self defense now?
Potential to cause harm is not justification for anything.According to Florida law, sure you can. As long as yours is the only story that gets told. Most people however don't seek out the chance that their freedom will be in the hands of someone else deciding whether it was a reasonable threat. Even fewer people actively follow people in the middle of the night, get in a confrontation with someone with no weapon, and kill that person. Mind you I am not advocating going out and doing any of those things. However, yet again while trying to put myself in someone else's shoes, can you honestly say that if a person had been following you for several blocks in an unmarked car and they come out an approach you in a poorly lit area with little or no identification of their intent or purpose, that you wouldn't think they had potential to cause you harm?