Please use my text, 6th edition and no plagiarism. Please hit the distinguished marks on the scoring guide.
Introduction
Many of you will recall the recent case involving George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. The Francescani article provides more background on the facts leading up to that case. While Florida has a “stand your ground” law in effect, it was not the deciding factor in the Zimmerman case. Fla. Stat. § 776.01 states:
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.
In Florida, there is no requirement or “duty to retreat” and a shooter may “stand their ground” when firing in self defense. But the duty to retreat was not an issue in the Zimmerman case because, as the defense argued, deadly force was used because Zimmerman “reasonably” believed it was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily injury. This rule is on par with almost every other state.
Based upon the recognition that a person has the right to repel an unlawful attack, self-defense generally requires that an accused establish that there was a good faith belief there was an imminent threat of harm, that force was necessary to repel the attack, and the force was reasonable under the circumstances. Deadly force can only be used to repel an attack that threatens great bodily harm or death.
In your main post, discuss the following:
- Analyze the difference between the objective, reasonable person standard and the subjective evaluation of a person who invokes a claim of self-defense, providing examples to support your findings.
- Describe how those differences may become obscured depending upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case.
- Explain potential challenges that could be faced by law enforcement when investigating crime where there is a claim of self-defense.
- Standing in the shoes of a police officer, examine whether the validity of a self-defense assertion is something that you believe is appropriately determined at the law enforcement level.
| Criteria | Non-performance | Basic | Proficient | Distinguished |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Discussion Post Response (60%) | ||||
| Apply critical thinking or problem solving in the main discussion post. 50% |
Does not apply elements of critical thinking or problem solving in the main discussion post. | Applies some elements of critical thinking or problem solving in the main discussion post. | Applies critical thinking or problem solving in the main discussion post. | Applies critical thinking or problem solving to the main discussion post in a comprehensive, step-by-step manner. |
| Use credible information or research to support positions, conclusions, or perspectives in the discussion. 10% |
Does not use credible information or research to support positions, conclusions, or perspectives in the discussion. | Responds to the discussion, but some or all of the resources used for support are not credible. | Uses credible information or research to support positions, conclusions, or perspectives in the discussion. | Uses well- developed, relevant support from credible resources or research to support positions, conclusions, or perspectives in the discussion and impartially considers conflicting data or other perspectives. |
| Follow-up Post Response One (15%) | ||||
| Advance the discussion with a substantive response that asks questions, assesses further considerations, or provides a different point of view. 15% |
Does not respond to the discussion beyond the initial post. | Provides a substantive response, but does not advance the discussion by asking questions, assessing further considerations, or providing a different point of view. | Advances the discussion with a substantive response that asks questions, assesses further considerations, or provides a different point of view. | Advances the discussion with a substantive response that contains well- supported and fully developed positions and perspectives that support or conflict with the original post. |
| Follow-up Response Two (15%) | ||||
| Advance the discussion with a substantive response that asks questions, assesses further considerations, or provides a different point of view. 15% |
Does not respond to the discussion beyond the initial post or the first response. | Provides a substantive response, but does not advance the discussion by asking questions, assessing further considerations, or providing a different point of view. | Advances the discussion with a substantive response that asks questions, assesses further considerations, or provides a different point of view. | Advances the discussion with a substantive response that contains well- supported and fully developed positions and perspectives that support or conflict with the original post. |
| All Posts (10%) | ||||
| Communicate in a professional manner that is consistent with expectations for criminal justice professionals. 10% |
Communicates in a manner that is inconsistent with expectations for criminal justice professionals. | Communicates in a manner that is not fully consistent with expectations for criminal justice professionals. | Communicates in a professional manner that is consistent with expectations for criminal justice professionals. | Communicates in a clear, comprehensive, and professional manner aligned with with expectations for criminal justice professionals. |
