Floridas "stand your ground law"

[Captain33036]

Absinthe

That was very helpful.

So, the SYG defense is not available if the one who would claim it provoked the use of force against themselves. However, if they believed that force to be so great as to cause death of "great bodily harm" then the SYG law can be used as a defense for having used deadly force.

That is what I take away from the material you posted.

I can see how that would make most cases difficult to prosecute.

Interesting.

J

 

[JRH6856]

With SYG, you're using deadly force when you didn't have to.

Once again, self defense still requires one to be in fear for their life or of grave injury. SYG does not give anyone the right to shoot anyone absent that fear. There may be situations when you could retreat rather than resist, but there may also be situations where resistance is the better option. SYG does not require anyone to stand, it only allows the option. The best course of action depends on the details of the situation and can only be determined at the time. SYG recognizes that the law is not in a position to make that choice in advance.

 

[mljdeckard]

I am saying that whether or not you are requred to retreat before using self-defense and whether or not deadly force is justified are two seperate issues. You can be justified in using deadly force regardless of whether or not you had any legal or ethical duty to retreat. What they are saying in some of the news articles asserts that the FL SYG law asserts that if a shooter declares he was shooting in self defense, that he is given the benefit of the doubt. Apparently over and above the presumption of innocence. They are saying that the reason no one heretofore wanted to charge the guy was because of the SYG law, but now they are admitting other evidence may be casting his need to use deadly force into question.

 

[lemaymiami]

As a former cop here in paradise.... I thought at the time that SYG was passed that it was an invitation to trouble for the ordinary citizen (armed or not armed). Any atttempt to resolve a possibly violent situation in public by retreating is a very good thing in my opinion - since it bolsters any subsequent defensive action that might come about after you've "retreated". Remember a claim (and evidence) of self defense in a killing situation is the only thing that allows you to take a life without subsequent criminal sanction (we'll leave civil consequences for another discussion). Up until the "stand your ground" statute the only ones in Florida who weren't obligated to retreat from a confrontation in my state were police officers in their lawful duties. By the way that duty to retreat never, repeat never, applied to someone in their own home - or when you were acting to defend the life of another (in circumstances where anyone would agree that failing to act would result in an innocent's death).

Now for some behind the scenes stuff.... any time a police officer in my era (1973 through 1995) killed someone in the line of duty - a civil rights case was pretty much automatically opened by the local FBI (at least here in south Florida). Whether it ever amounted to anything depended on the facts and evidence, etc. The one time that I was the target of one of those, I was never informed and only found out a year or two later when I got the letter from DOJ telling me that they were "suspending their investigation....but if I were ever involved in anything similar... they'd re-open it". I might have saved that letter from thirty years ago, but would never go looking for it. The message was loud and clear.

Now for the sharp end of "self defense". No matter what laws are in place, if the situation becomes a political one (and I think the case we're not discussing qualifies..), then all bets are off with the ensuing media circus and all the other "interested parties" that will try to jump in on every side of the case. For anyone that hasn't read the book or seen the movie, I highly recommend Bonfire of the Vanities.... In many ways it is a lot truer to real life than you'd ever guess. Anyone that chooses to be an armed citizen (and one of the good guys) needs to think through all the possible consequences of using that weapon, even as an absolute last resort.

 

[JRH6856]

Anyone that chooses to be an armed citizen (and one of the good guys) needs to think through all the possible consequences of using that weapon, even as an absolute last resort.

lemay, In this day and age, just choosing to carry a weapon is a political statement whether it is ever used or not. Especially so with open carry. I would hope that anyone making that choice did so with open eyes. It is not a choice to be made lightly.

 

[P5 Guy]

http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...n-valrico-leaves-community-bewildered/1124429

In 2010 there was another case. I do not remember if this was discussed here.
The shooter had a problem with some kid on a skateboard. When another younger guy stood up for the skateboarding kid. The older gentleman having a firearm "stood his ground" and shot the father in front of his eight year old daughter.

The shooting in Sanford has too many problems. These problems will be compounded by the media and others.

Both incidents are tragic.

 

[oneounceload]

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?

If you are advancing, you are no longer "standing your ground", you have become an attacker as the threat is now coming from you

 

[mortablunt]

Considering that Zimmerman initiated the encounter and killed an unarmed young man, I'd call him a murderer. Affirmative Defense legislation means that you can protect yourself wherever you legally have a right to be in response to an immediate and real grave threat to the lives and safety of you or others. It does not apply if you go up to the first guy you see with hands in his pockets, pull a weapon on him and shoot him when he tries to get away from you. It's not a permit to kill.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

^ Zimmerman was not attached to a formal Neighborhood Watch (which requires training with local police, and a policy of observe and report, deferring to the police to handle suspicious people.)

By the accounts I have read, Martin was actually the one being aggressively approached in a place where he had a right to be (walking home from the convenience store to his father's house) when approached by Zimmerman who was heard by Martin's girlfriend over the phone demanding What are you doing here? that was after 911 had told Zimmerman [strike]to stand down[/strike] he did not need to follow Martin. So this is not covered by the Stand Your Ground law and I have seen no reports that Zimmerman invoked SYG. He invoked self-defense claiming he fired only after being hit by Martin.

Stand Your Ground means if attacked you have no duty to retreat if you are where you have a right to be; it does not protect pursuing and putting fear in the other person.

I understand this took place in a gated community, one of those places that have homeowners' associations and busybody neighbors.

 

[NavyLCDR]

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.

When my life is in danger enough to use my gun, exactly how much effort would you suggest I put into trying de-escalating the situation? It would be interesting to find out how many people have been shot by criminals when attempting to retreat.

 

[whalerman]

Its not enough for a person to claim to "be in fear for his life or of grave injury" to respond with deadly physical force. This is not a defense in and of itself. That person has to be justified in doing so. Fear is not enough. Some people are afraid of their own shadows. A person, or a law enforcement officer as well, must be able to articulate that such fear was justified. It is not as simple as claiming fear. And I don't think we would ever want it to be. There are too many nuts in the world. I suggest we have too little info about this event to make decisions just yet. That's what a moderator suggested a long while back.

 

[JRH6856]

The more I read about "the case that must not be discussed here" the more I wonder why we are talking about SYG and not about the ethics of a Police Chief and DA who blame their refusal to investigate or prosecute the case on a law they strongly disagree with. They have probably been waiting for a case with the ideal factors to generate a generate public opinion ground swell they could ride.

 

[MagnumDweeb]

One of the biggest motivators for SYG was that you had good shoots going to civil court and ruining honest law abiding folks financially. Also there were people being forced to spend seventy thousand dollars on a criminal defense where the bad guy had a rap sheet a mile long, but folks in the "community" were crying out for justice and the scums' mothers were throwing themselves over the coffins going "oh gwad my baby was gett'n his life straight I swear he was."

I cry out from the law abiding, honest, hardworking folks of Florida demanded the right to defend themselves and not have to be made victims by scum. Now have some folks abused the law, yup. Will more abuse it, yup. But will far more people use it responsibly should they ever have the need, you betcha.

Has there been a suspicious shooting reported in Sanford, yup. But I also remember about two dozen more shootings in self-defense that were clear as day in the past year. This shooting, the latest suspicious shooting just happened to have some strange bits to it like a neighborhood watch president who was doing things he wasn't supposed to, and the fact the person shot was african american makes it all the worse.

It'll pass. The constituency that is upset, is not the tax base or the voting base. The tax base and voting base constituency will overlook this latest suspicious shooting and hold fast to SYG.

 

[chhodge69]

My state (NC) recently adopted a CD/SYG law that includes a duty to retreat IFF you provoked or escalated the encounter. How does that compare to the Florida law?

 

[docsleepy]

While I personally have grave doubts that the SYG law applies to Mr. Zimmerman, as the moderator pointed out, we won't know that until we know what really happened.

My question to those who oppose the SYG law is this:

Take the case of an elderly disabled Floridian in a wheelchair. This person is accosted and frightened by a person who threatens them with harm. Would have the wheelchair bound elder need to attempt to retreat or would you allow them to attempt to defend themselves if necessary?

The "case not to be discussed" is not a good case. Bad cases make bad law.

 

[oneounceload]

How can you be standing your ground if you are the one provoking the trouble?

 

[absinthe]

My state (NC) recently adopted a CD/SYG law that includes a duty to retreat IFF you provoked or escalated the encounter. How does that compare to the Florida law?

The new NC laws on self defense are virtually word-for-word the same as the FL laws.

 

[absinthe]

Take the case of an elderly disabled Floridian in a wheelchair. This person is accosted and frightened by a person who threatens them with harm. Would have the wheelchair bound elder need to attempt to retreat or would you allow them to attempt to defend themselves if necessary?

If s/he could do so safely, yes. Given your example I can't come up with an example though, as that person would have much, much more latitude on "could do so safely" because their age and physical limitations provide them fewer options for safely retreating.

In the same way, a young healthy person accosted by an elderly disabled person (yes it certainly could happen) would, and in my opinion should, have a higher obligation to attempt to retreat given their greater ability to do so (firearm notwithstanding).

 

[gggplaya]

The problem here is that when the added stand your ground, they basically just added a sentence saying the finder of facts couldn't hold it against you that you didn't choose the option of retreat.

This opened a huge gray area because previously you always had to exercise the option to retreat. Now there is a grey area which doesn't outline the course of confrontation. It doesn't say anything about continuing confrontation and continuing to escalate a confrontation to the point of becoming physical. Most confrontations can actually be deescalated, and i feel that every gun owner should always exercise that option before their life even gets to the point of being threatened. If i wanted to, i could walk into the situation coming to the aid of a kid on a skateboard as mentioned, then get in their faces and start putting down everything about them, eventually pissing them off enough to want to fight. Now i exercise my right to stand my ground and use force to self defend. IMO, i'm now the provoker and aggressor, but it can be argued either way and it's hard to prove if the other witness is dead.

Personally i'm a CCW holder, but i'm very level headed and calm by my natural nature. I believe in stand your ground as it protects me from a legal battle even when i'm fully justified. But at the same token i believe the law is incomplete and as written allows for abuse by CCW holders whom are not level headed and full of anger. And in some cases, it moves the burden of proof to the state allowing for criminals to get away with murder.

 

[JRH6856]

Bad law makes bad cases.

 

[Owen Sparks]

You can only retreat safely from people you KNOW that you can outrun. That is not many people for me right now because I rolled my ankle a while back and it is not quite up for running yet.

 

[Lost Sheep]

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

Because specific cases are not the subject of this thread. The thread title is "Floridas 'stand your ground law'"

Alaska is about to have a vote on a SYG law.

At least one D.A. in AK doesn't like it because he imagines it easier to drag everybody to the police officer station to sort of the facts of shooting cases. I imagine it is because he is a prosecutor who thinks anyone who carries is a criminal at heart and doesn't want criminal on criminal shootings to be able to claim self-defense when it happens on the street.

I imagine prosecutions that have to sort out "Was a retreat possible before the 'last chance to escape' was gone?" in addition to "Who was the attacker and who was the defender?" are more complex.

Whether making my public servants' jobs easier is worth giving up some of my rights of self defense when out in public is a trade-off I will make for society's benefit is a moral judgement call. I live in a society. Any time one lives in a society, one gets some benefits and gives up some something. What of mine am I willing to give for the benefits?

Lost Sheep

 

[ns66]

laws all sound complicated, so are guessing by others after the incident

but fortunately human brain is wired very smartly by millions of years of evolution
YOU will know in that situation (and in split seconds) whether you are truely fear for your life and have to shoot, or you are looking to do unfair harm to others under the disguise of self defense

be kind, respect life, and you will be fine
trying to do evil you will pay, don't try it

 

[9mmforMe]

Just out of curiosity, what additional facts are we waiting for so we can discuss the non-discussable case? Does the moderator mean a verdict in a trial that may never even come to fruition? It seems we have a great deal of information at this point and that we are indeed discussing this case in veiled terms. Let's cast off the facade and talk about what truly happened.

 

[highlander 5]

Though SYG law exists in Fl I would think that most people put in such a position WOULD try to retreat in a situation that may require lethal force. In my oppinion most people don't want to make the decision to take a life UNLESS absolutely nessicary.
From the various articles from Mr. Ayoob somone who has taken a life in self defence automaticly becomes a pariah to family and friends. The physical and mental stresses are tremendous in the fact that it send your health down hill at an accelerated pace. Granted in such a situation it's better that it's them that's dead rather than me but the price you pay in the aftermath can make being dead a lot more attractive.