Quote:
Originally Posted by FFR Spyder GT
Too funny!
Anytime you are on the street and someone comes within 21' of you they are considered a threat.
|
This simply isn't true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FFR Spyder GT
That is based on the belief that the average person can reach you from a distance of 21' before you, the average person can draw a weapon to defend yourself.
|
Sort of - but not exactly. It is based upon experiments by Dennis Tuller back in the 1980s. It is based upon how much distance an attacker in good physical condition (with a knife) could cover in the amount of time it takes for police (in the experiments - SLC PD) to draw from a (1980 vintage) police holster. The typical draw was ~1.5s - and the person is good physical condition could cover 21' in the same period of time.
These results of these experiments have been used in court to justify the "ability" of an attacker with a knife (or other "manual" weapon) to cause serious bodily harm where the victim uses a firearm (or other means) in self-defense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FFR Spyder GT
The "21' rule" can play an important role in the Zimmerman-Martin Case.
|
Maybe, but probably not in the context you have used. It will probably be the other way around - if at all. IF Zimmerman's account is believed to a reasonable doubt, "SYG" will not be a factor, because Zimmerman did not have the ability to retreat.
Just because Zimmerman followed Martin does not legally allow Martin to physically attack Zimmerman, regardless of how close he comes (if Zimmerman does not show "intent"). Zimmerman does not get to use deadly force just because Martin is hitting him, regardless of who physically attacked first. A simple assault does not meet the standard of "serious bodily harm" in almost all cases.
If either Zimmerman or Martin uses a weapon which can cause "serious bodily harm" - the other gets to legally respond with a weapon to defend themselves. IF Martin is using the sidewalk as a weapon - Zimmerman gets to use a firearm in defense. There is case law (at least according to Ayoob) to support that the sidewalk is a weapon capable of causing serious bodily harm if it is being used to prevent the head from "giving with a punch" or the head is being slammed into it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FFR Spyder GT
If so Martin had the legal right to "Stand Your Ground" and did not have to wait for Zimmerman to attack him. He had the legal right under Florida Law to defend himself.
|
If there is no attack ("intent" and "ability") - there is no defense.
Martin would not have had the right to "stand his ground" (in the context of physical attack) if Zimmerman simply came within 21' of Martin. Simply being <= 21' away doesn't meet the "reasonable person" standard for being a threat of "harm" or "serious bodily harm".
The "Stand you ground" law, in simple terms, means that - if there is an assault - you do not have to prove that you exhausted every means of retreat before defending yourself with lethal force. "SYG" is the opposite of "duty to retreat", where the victim must show that they exhausted every means of retreat (to the "reasonable person" standard) before employing lethal force.
For "SYG" to apply in Martin's favor, Zimmerman would have to have posed a threat of serious bodily harm to the "reasonable person" standard. Again simply being <= 21' away doesn't meet the "reasonable person" standard for being a "threat of serious bodily harm", or any "harm" for that matter. Generally, Zimmerman would have had to had the intent, and actual or apparent ability to cause serious bodily harm, to the "reasonable person" standard, before Martin could have "stood his ground".
Linear Mode
