Analysis Of The "Stand Your Ground" Law In The State Of Florida

I have posted the Florida Statute of self-defense that contains the "Stand Your Ground" section after my analysis in this article. This was used for the defense of George Zimmerman, for the murder of Trayvon Martin. It is also being used as the "excuse" for the corruption and institutionalized racism of the Florida judicial system.

This law was reviewed by the judge in the Zimmerman trial and was found not to apply to Zimmerman! The judge could have thrown the case out before it came to trial if it did apply. The jury should have seen that Zimmerman is a low life killer and convicted him. That is the responsibility of a jury in a criminal case in this country. Using part of this law as an excuse to allow a murderer to go free is criminal!

If you look at section 3 of the Florida Statute you can see at least two points that would indicate that this section does not apply to George Zimmerman.

1.) Section 3  states that a person who is standing their ground must not be doing something illegal. George Zimmerman was "stalking" Trayvon Martin that night on private property.
2. George Zimmerman was obviously lying about his injuries and has no credibility!  The original pictures of George Zimmerman, that I saw on network TV showed clearly that he did not have cuts to his head or a broken nose when he came into the police station that night!

Racist "Right Wing" talk show hosts like the ones on KABC Talk Radio in Los Angeles, California and others are trying to shift the blame for this corrupt verdict to this law. We also see the African Democratic Caucus "Porch Monkeys" trying to shift the blame for this atrocity over to this section of the Florida law. This has nothing to do with this Blatant Institutionalized Racism of the Florida courts.

That verdict was the result of jury tampering by George Zimmerman's father and jury misconduct by that jury. Zimmerman and his defense lawyer should have criminal charges filed against them  for perjury!

The 2012 Florida Statutes

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.

Listen to internet radio with Ernest Moore on BlogTalkRadio