I could have probably worded it better!

Let me say this about that! Catchin' up on what's goin' down!

Fred Hallman

Fred Hallman
Location
New Jerusalem, Florida, The Milky Way.
Birthday
December 02
Title
Your Insignifigance on Tuesday! Not so bad the rest of the week.
Company
The good ones!
Bio
Yes. Draft resister and apparently lousy husband material. Founder and first President (1982) of the(now) Tennessee Songwriters Association. Libra/Virgo cusp. I rate pass/fail. My commentary provides gradation. My blog is a no hate zone. I'll erase hate in a heartbeat!

MARCH 24, 2012 1:56PM

"Stand your ground, don't back down!"

Rate: 9 Flag

I'm going to keep posting this ala stirring the simmering pot till Justice is served piping hot.

A law intended to help victims is being twisted to obscure the fact that a stalker/murderer did not enjoy the rights discussed in the following statute but in fact his victim did have the right to wheel on his stalker and forcefully defend himself against such stalking murderousness even when a fool imagines that he is Batman!

(And, yes those are cameos by George Harrison and Ringo Starr!  But I digress.)

The following is the actual statute in Florida.

Let's dissect it like a frog in 10th grade biology and append the idiocies with commentary recognizable as such {CAPS IN THESE BRACKETS} while not throwing out the tadpole with the pondwater. 

But let me preface this by saying from the outset that "OF COURSE TRAYVON WAS MURDERED IN COLD BLOOD!"!!!



(Now, the post-mortem of the statute and crime.)

Title XLVI CRIMES Chapter 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

View Entire Chapter 776.013 

Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.— (1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if: (a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and (b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. (2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if: (a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or (b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or (c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or (d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer. (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. (4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. (5) As used in this section, the term: (a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night. (b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest. (c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property."


 

Now for the dissection part!

"Title XLVI CRIMES Chapter 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

View Entire Chapter 776.013 

Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—"

{OK, SO FAR SO GOOD!}.

"(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive {SORRY, THE FORCE WAS OFFENSIVE AND UNWARRANTED IN MORE WAYS THAN ONE!} force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering {WASN'T!}, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle {HADN'T!}, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle {DIDN'T AND WASN'T!}; and

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully{NOT) and forcefully entering {WASN'T}, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle{HADN'T}, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle{WASN'T, HADN'T, AND DIDN'T!}; and

{(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe {DIDN'T!} that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. {AND IT WASN'T DEFENSIVE BUT OFFENSIVE FORCE, THE PURSUER WAS WHO STALKED, SHOT, AND KILLED, NOT THE FOLLOWED (TRAYVON) WHO DID HAVE THE RIGHT TO STAND HIS GROUND AS HIS DADDY WHO TRAYVON LIVED WITH IN THAT SAME GATED COMMUNITY  HAS SO ELOQUENTLY AND RIGHTEOUSLY POINTED OUT!}

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in {HE DID} or is a lawful resident {HE WAS} of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; {WASN'T x2 -TRAYVON HAD EVERY RIGHT TO BE THERE, WEAR A HOODIE AND RUN.....IT WAS RAINING!} or

(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child {HE WAS}  or grandchild {AND A GRANDCHILD}, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of {HE WAS), the person against whom the defensive force is used or

 (c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity {UNLAWFUL AS HELL!} or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle {WRONG AGAIN} to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer {IN HIS FUCKING FANTASIES}, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer. {ZIMMERMAN GOES TO PRISON ON EVERY QUALIFICATION THEREIN!}

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity {TRAYVON} and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be {TRAYVON} has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his {TRAYVON'S} or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably {TRAYVON ACTED REASONABLY TO ME!}believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself {YA' THINK?} or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. {YEAH, RIGHT Z.}

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. {N/A HERE}

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night. {DUH!"

(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest. {DUH x 2} "Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.  {DUH X 3. BUT WHO'S COUNTING?} {OH, THAT'S RIGHT, I AM!}


O.K., Now I'm not saying that this statute doesn't need tweaking big time {IT DOES!}

But this case is more representative of an absolute failure and abdication on the rightful application of criminal (sic) policing authority than simply bad law.

By the law itself, and evidently Prima Facie (as in evidence at even first glance on the face of it) Z. needs to spend 50 years in general population at Raiford State Penitentiary!

Any comments?  (Surely not from this bunch!)

Oh, and

P.S.  Sanford is  50(ish) miles from me.

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
Florida still sounds pretty awesome!! :D

Zimmerman now has reasonable fear to use his gun, guess quite a few death threats(I'm not advocating this man be hunted down and killed...two wrongs do not make a right!) and is now in hiding!!!

Good for him!! ~:D

Rated!
I agree with you, Fred. The law doesn't need to be changed, it needs to be interpreted by a judge in a court of law.

Lezlie
Pardon my language:

This is the sort of fucked up law, that is made by people who were elected because they had enough money to run the best ad campaign.

They know how to get elected.

That's it.

That's what they're good at.

That's ALL they're good at.

They have NO background in writing, making, or passing laws. They couldn't "interpret" a law if their life depended upon it.

Usually their staff are the people who actually write these laws and who knows what their background or training is? Time after time we see politicians get up and propose a law that they are completely unfamiliar with!

The whole system of law-making, interpreting and enforcing is crap from beginning to end. It is a hodge-podge of bits and pieces that can be interpreted in more ways than anyone can imagine. Surely the "Law of The Land" ought to make sense and be consistent - at the VERY LEAST!! As a famous lawyer has been quoted as saying......

"ANY JUSTICE THAT COMES OUT OF LAW IS PURELY COINCIDENTAL"

Is this the best that we can do?
.
My prediction: Zimmerman will be tried for murder, will have some glory-seeking-pretty-good lawyer drag the case on and on and finally get him off on temporary insanity. He'll serve a couple of years in the institoot, find Jesus and then do the talk-show circuit and sell a ghost-written book.
Robert Blake will play him in the movie.
I put on my lawyer hat and digested this and I say they should let him go. Bring him to my neck of the woods and the problem will be solved, Poste Haste!
Great from the title down.
☼(ˆ◡ˆ) ⋱ ⋮ ⋰
(ˆ◡ˆ) ♥⋯ ❤ ⋯ ★
☼(ˆ◡ˆ) ⋰ ⋮ ⋱(¯`•´¯)¸.(¯`•´¯).¸.(¯`•´¯)¸.Have a Memorable Week NOW! ☼
(¯`•´¯)¸.(¯`•´¯).¸.(¯`•´¯)¸.(¯ `•´¯)¸.(¯`•´¯) ¸.(¯`•´¯).¸.(¯`•´¯)¸.Ŀ☼√Ξ ❤.
•¸.•*´¨`*•.¸¸.•*´¨`*•.¸¸.•*´¨` *•.•¸.•*´¨`*•.¸¸.•*´¨`*•.¸¸.•* ´¨` *• Hugs ☼
What's remarkable to me is that it has taken this long for such a story to hit the waves, since the Florida cops say they've been getting an average of two cases like this a week since the law went into effect, and essentially the same law has now been instituted in 20 states.
Good work Fred.. we miss you!
This is the sort of fucked up law, that is made by people who were elected
I agree with Skypixie. Do they make up these laws sitting around a diner somewhere??
HUGGGGGGGGGG