Floridas "stand your ground law"

[xXxplosive]

"Should a potentially violent criminal have the power to ORDER you to leave your home or even a public basketball court that you pay taxes on?"

Only in New Jersey...............

Unfortuately our President's agenda is using the fiasco in Mexico and maybe incidents like this to do away with the 2 Amendment.....they believe the 2A is not for the US citizen but for state militia. Timing is bad on this one....

And then again........if you didn't have the Stand Your Ground Law.....what becomes of the law biding citizen there....do they become corpses ?

 

[rajb123]

Wasn't the Florida shooter talking with 911 police on a cellphone when the gun went bang? Doesn't that suggest that the shooter was threatened and was justified in taking the action he did?

I think the SYG law in FLorida is a great piece of legislation.

 

[unlimited4x4]

First of all, I started this new thread, and as often as I frequent THR, it never occurred to me to go to the Legal section an post this as well as see if there are already threads on this topics. To the moderators I apologize. Regarding the latest incident that we will not discuss until all the facts are out, it is local to me. I live in the Longwood/Sanford area and the news of the incident is constant. I have always had questions regarding the purpose of the SYG law regarding it use away from your personal dwelling. I like the law. I am glad I have the law on my side when protecting my home and family.

Regarding my original post, I used poor judgement in selecting some of my words. Particularly when I stated to the affect that neither of the incidents would NEVER have occurred under the old laws. I meant to say that if the individuals were law abiding people, under the old law they would have removed themselves from the situation instead of letting it escalate. I also agree with a post that stated that regardless of the law, either of these incidents may or may not have happened.

 

[mljdeckard]

And Sam highlighted exactly what I was wondering. On the news, everyone keeps saying that FL's SYG law states or implies that the benefit of the doubt automatically goes to the shooter, which makes no sense at all.

I have been explaining to people all day long that an SYG law has nothing to do with whether or not a shooting was legitimate self-defense, only that you are not legally required to retreat form a place you are legally allowed to be.

Having said that, I absolutely concur with the OP, SYG and castle laws are a good safety net, but I don't want to be the test case for either of them. I'm not using deadly force unless there is no other option, and I'm not killing someone over my TV.

 

[absinthe]

Wasn't the Florida shooter talking with 911 police on a cellphone when the gun went bang? Doesn't that suggest that the shooter was threatened and was justified in taking the action he did?

Theoretically - since we're not supposed to be talking about specific real-world instances in this thread - It suggests he believed he did. Whether that belief was reasonable is a separate issue.

I think the SYG law in FLorida is a great piece of legislation.

I think it's unnecessary and am still concerned that it will have a larger negative impact on reasonable pro-gun laws.

 

[absinthe]

I have been explaining to people all day long that an SYG law has nothing to do with whether or not a shooting was legitimate self-defense, only that you are not legally required to retreat form a place you are legally allowed to be.

SYG does relate to whether or not the use of deadly force was legitimate or not, because the provision only applies to the use of deadly force in defense against such force.

SYG means you're legally allowed to use deadly force to protect yourself from the threat of serious harm / deadly force without being required to attempt to leave a place you are legally allowed to be, even if you're able to do so safely.

 

[rajb123]

Can someone explain how the police could not find any fault with what the shooter did and that now the shooter is facing a grand jury and potential criminal charges? Who is the Florida DA and are his actions political - considering the liberal media position in this case?

I don't see how the stand your ground law (SYG) applies in the Florida situation. The shooter felt his life was threatened and he killed the perp. Is there something else I missed?

 

[NavyLCDR]

And Sam highlighted exactly what I was wondering. On the news, everyone keeps saying that FL's SYG law states or implies that the benefit of the doubt automatically goes to the shooter, which makes no sense at all.

Are you saying the it makes no sense for "everyone" to say that, or that it makes no sense that the benefit of the doubt should automatically go to the shooter?

I will only comment on the latter. It makes perfect sense that the benefit of the doubt should automatically go to the shooter. Our justice system is based on innocent until proven guilty. In any criminal trial whether it is shoplifting a candy bar or serial killing, the accused should be presumed and assumed to be innocent until such time as the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt the gult of the accused.

Self defense laws in the past have gone two ways. In some states, it was up to the accused to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that his/her actions were in self defense. In other states, it was up to the state to prove that the actions were not in self defense. More and more states in the last decade or so have removed or changed their laws requiring the accused to prove self defense to me more in favor of the state having to prove otherwise. As it should be.

 

[absinthe]

Can someone explain how the police could not find any fault with what the shooter did and that now the shooter is facing a grand jury and potential criminal charges? Who is the Florida DA and are his actions political - considering the liberal media position in this case?

Florida law provides that "(law enforcement) may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful." That doesn't mean they have to, only that they cannot without probable cause.

If a DA believes a killing was unlawful he/she brings the charge before a Grand Jury. If the Grand Jury agrees, then the force user may be arrested.

I don't see how the stand your ground law (SYG) applies in the Florida situation. The shooter felt his life was threatened and he killed the perp. Is there something else I missed?

The SYG law is part of Florida self-defense law. They aren't two different things.

In Florida, if a person kills someone else in self defense but attempted to withdraw from the situation first, the SYG provision doesn't apply.
In Florida, if a person kills someone else in self defense and did not attempt to withdraw from the situation, the SYG provision of FL self-defense law applies (assuming they were in a place they were legally allowed to be).

 

[rajb123]

Why is the SYG law in question in Florida? It does not appear to be relavent given the case facts.

 

[rajb123]

Absinthe:

OK Thanks. So the shooter in Florida did not attempt to withdraw from the area and therefore, the SYG law applies. So, the shooter had the right to use deadly force to defend himself and the benefit of the doubt goes to the victom (shooter).

Is that correct?

How long did it take the DA to conclude that the case warrants a grand jury? This seems fishy.

 

[absinthe]

Absinthe:

OK Thanks. So the shooter in Florida did not attempt to withdraw from the area and therefore, the SYG law applies. So, the shooter had the right to use deadly force to defend himself and the benefit of the doubt goes to the victom (shooter).

Is that correct?

How long did it take the DA to conclude that the case warrants a grand jury? This seems fishy.

I can't answer either of those questions because I'd just be speculating. Also, we've been asked by the moderator not to discuss that real-world case in this thread. (link).

 

[1911austin]

Please chime in with your opinions

A “stand your ground law” does not equate to being able to shoot your fellow citizens without justifiable cause. You are spreading ignorance and fear because you appear to not support a sensible castle doctrine. Tell Sarah I said hi.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by unlimited4x4: I live in Florida where the relatively new "stand your ground" legislation has passed. Recently there have been two shootings using the law as the defense. The most recent is the young African American who was shot by a neighborhood watch individual.

I have seen no basis for that assertion. But we will not discuss that here.

I believe the new law gives some gun owners a choice they are not qualified to make.

I believe that your belief is based upon a flawed understanding of the law.

Lawful justification of the use of deadly force still revolves around the concept of necessity. The elimination of the duty to retreat, which really started about a century ago in various state supreme courts and in the US Supreme court, is really a matter of weapons development.

When the duty to retreat was established as an element of the Common Law many centuries ago, the primary purpose was to establish the need for evidence that a person who killed another person had been doing everything possible to avoid conflict--hence the requirement to retreat "to the wall".

That was in the day of contact weapons--knives, dirks and other daggers, swords, clubs, and fighting sticks.

The advent of the firearm has effectively made an attempt to retreat to the wall an ineffective means of defending ones self. This has been recognized in common law in some states and in the codes of some others.

What the changed essentially does is relieve the defendant in a self defense case of the burden of providing evidence that he or she had had no safe way of retreating. It does not make lawful the use of deadly force in the absence of immediate necessity to use it--even though some sensational but ignorant columnists would have one believe ohterwise.

 

[absinthe]

What the changed essentially does is relieve the defendant in a self defense case of the burden of providing evidence that he or she had had no safe way of retreating.

It could have done that simply by shifting that burden of proof obligation to the prosecution. Instead it entirely removed the duty to attempt to retreat before using deadly force.

I'm not sure that telling people "you don't have to try to de-escalate a situation before using deadly force" is a great idea.

 

[JRH6856]

Instead it entirely removed the duty to attempt to retreat before using deadly force.

I'm not sure that telling people "you don't have to try to de-escalate a situation before using deadly force" is a great idea.

Then lets look at it from that angle: If in fear for their life or of grave injury, why should a person have a duty to retreat before. or instead of. defending themself?

 

[rajb123]

What legal charges would the Florida DA assert?

I read the federal government is now looking into the Florida case. Unfortunately, the media appears to love this tragic story.

 

[xXxplosive]

IMO............the SYGL is ahead of it's time.

 

[absinthe]

Then lets look at it from that angle: If in fear for their life or of grave injury, why should a person have a duty to retreat before. or instead of. defending themself?

Assuming they can do so safely? Because doing so prevents the loss of life.

While we assume most people we'd have to protect ourselves from are hardened criminals, recent real-world examples have shown (or strongly suggested) that it's very possible the aggressor could be a more or less average person just having a bad day & making a bad decision.

 

[JRH6856]

Even with a SYG law, self defense still requires one to be in fear for their life or of grave injury. It does not give anyone the right to shoot anyone absent that fear. Nor does it give anyone the right to voluntarily engage an opponent until the situation escalates to the point of being in fear. All SYG says is that when in fear for your life there is no duty to retreat imposed.

People should be responsible for their decisions, bad day or not.

A duty to retreat shifts the responsibility for the outcome of a criminal act from the attacker to the victim. If the victim tries to defend himself instead of retreating, the victim is the one at fault. There is no way that makes sense.

 

[Badlander]

The bad guys are loseing and the libs can't stand it.
If I am being robbed or atacked I am not asking around for someone more qualified than me to ask if I should shoot! Even in A good shoot the shooter loses much.

 

[absinthe]

With SYG, you're using deadly force when you didn't have to. Not only is that ethically questionable but it obviously provides the Bradys and other anti-crowd all kinds of fodder for painting pro-gun laws and groups as "dangerous wackos" and to be more compelling to the vast majority of people (voters) who haven't got a strong opinion either way.

That's why I think SYG does more harm than good.

 

[Captain33036]

I apologize is this is a stupid question, but ...WHO gets to claim that they were "standing their ground"? Only the guy that lives? Only the guy that shoots the other guy?

Don't misunderstand, I live in FL and am for this law. I am having a difficult time understanding how a person who advanced on a person withdrawing, can claim that they were standing their ground? Is there no assumption on the part of LE (or DA) that it might have been the other person standing their ground?

Or...do I completely misunderstand and this law applies to an instant situation. One created at any given moment and under any given circumstances?

Thanks

J

 

[xXxplosive]

This type of incident can and will with the media's help IMO.....cause civil unrest especially in Fla. and who knows where else....the petition to 300,000+ names to Holder is just the catalyst they want to take advantage of a bad situation...

 

[absinthe]

I am having a difficult time understanding how a person who advanced on a person withdrawing, can claim that they were standing their ground? Is there no assumption on the part of LE (or DA) that it might have been the other person standing their ground?

It has to do with the definitions under FL law. Statute below, but the question seems to be not just being the first one to start an altercation, but actually provoking the use of force.
Is it provoking force to follow someone at a distance?
Is it provoking force to ask someone what he's doing?
Were there any other actions a person took that would justify the use of force in response?

I think most people would agree that while those behaviors could be unfriendly and annoying, neither justify the use of force in response.

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.