Floridas "stand your ground law"

[unlimited4x4]

Let start by saying I am a gun owner, have my ccw and believe in the 2nd amendment. 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. The second was David James who was defending the right of a neighbor hood kid to ride his skateboard on the basketball court. Both of these incidents involved confrontations that under the old laws would have required guns owners to remove them selves from the confrontation. I feel that both of these shooting are senseless and uncalled for, and under the old rules never would have happened. I believe the new law gives some gun owners a choice they are not qualified to make. In both of these incidents I believe the gun owner should have removed themselves from the incident and waited for law enforcement. Despite the new law that allows me to stand my ground, I still choose to remove my self from any incident first and only when I am left with no where to run will I use deadly force. I do believe in defending my home and believe that was the intent of the new law, giving homeowners more ability to protect their homes. Arguments that should be handled with words are now being handled with guns. Please chime in with your opinions

 

[NavyLCDR]

In the two situations you describe the shooters likely violated the law anyway and committed criminal acts. Why take away a defense available to law abiding citizens who have defended themselves lawfully because of the criminal acts that others commit?

Sounds to me like you want to post another "no guns" sign, so to speak. The "no guns" sign, or a "no guns" legislation is not going to keep the criminal from committing a criminal act with their gun. It is going to prevent the law abiding citizen from being able to defend themselves.

 

[Sam1911]

Let's start off by saying this:

There is already a thread in S,T&T about the George Zimmerman case. (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=650186) It is closed, waiting on FACTS to be released. Do not use this thread to discuss/debate that case.

 

[absinthe]

I'm an NRA member and I'm concerned that these kinds of incidents will hurt gun ownership and gun rights, by coloring all gun owners, and reasonable castle defense laws, under these questionable incidents.

I disagree that law abiding citizens can't protect themselves without this kind of law ... they just can't use deadly force unless it's reasonable and they've tried (if possible) to avoid it. This law does seem to give people an excuse to create situations that lead, unnecessarily, to death.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Well, Sam1911, I hope you will allow me to point this out about the Florida law.....

http://www.newsherald.com/articles/ground-101288-standing-.html

Zimmerman has yet to be charged with a crime, and under Florida law he might not be. He told police he shot Martin in self-defense, and the “Stand Your Ground” statute permits the use of deadly force if a person feels threatened.

If Zimmerman is not charged with a crime because it was a self-defense shooting, then apparently, IT WAS A SELF DEFENSE SHOOTING!

If there is a law that increases the ability of a person to lawfully DEFEND themselves against a criminal act, then why would there be a reson to be against it? Because it might increase the number of people who actually do DEFEND themselves against criminals?

Bad shoots made in situations that are not self defense will still be bad shoots. Shoots that are made in self defense will still be in self defense. The Florida law is a no duty to retreat law. It is NOT a go after the criminal and hunt them down and be judge, jury and executioner law. Why should I, as the victim of a crime, not be able to defend myself against that crime at the earliest opportunity available to me using the most effective means available to me? Why should I, as the victim, be required to look around me, AFTER a criminal attack has already begun and WHILE I am in the middle of being attacked, and hesitate in my defensive action to determine if there is an escape route available?

 

[GEM]

Because one says it is self-defense, that does not mean it is.

Simple point - easily overlooked.

 

[Sam1911]

Both of these incidents involved confrontations that under the old laws would have required guns owners to remove them selves from the confrontation. I feel that both of these shooting are senseless and uncalled for

Until some facts are actually established as to what exactly happened, we cannot know that for sure and are merely speculating. Unless your life is actually threatened shooting someone is unlawful. If your life is NOT threatened, using deadly force is MURDER, not "standing your ground."

The question regarding this law seems to be whether it removes too much of the DA's ability to scrutinize events and investigate whether a legitimate reasonable threat existed -- and whether the shooter was a "mutual combatant" or a victim of assault.

Nothing under these laws makes shooting someone over an argument lawful.

, and under the old rules never would have happened.

You're blaming a law for the actions of individuals. The only thing these laws do, here, is to restrict under what conditions the State may prosecute the shooter.

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

How so? Any person defending themselves with deadly force must make is whether or not a realistic, credible, immediate threat to life/injury exists at that moment. The law doesn't change that. If a defender can resolve the issue without using force, of course they should. The "SYG" law simply (should) prevent the State from second-guessing the defender's choice after the fact.

In both of these incidents I believe the gun owner should have removed themselves from the incident and waited for law enforcement.

Understood. Might be a reasonable choice, might not be. But again, we don't have the facts yet. We're withholding that discussion until something concrete is established.

Despite the new law that allows me to stand my ground, I still choose to remove my self from any incident first and only when I am left with no where to run will I use deadly force.

Of course! The new laws don't change your ability or duty to try to resolve matters without lethal force. They merely change whether the State will strictly scrutinize your decisions about whether you could safely de-escalate the hostilities when deciding whether to prosecute you.

Arguments that should be handled with words are now being handled with guns.

That's kind of purple prose. If an argument CAN be handled with words, shooting is unlawful -- PERIOD. These laws don't change that.

 

[wagon.driver]

Previous to the so called "Stand your ground" legislation of 2005, in the state of Florida one had a duty to retreat, even in one's own home. This meant that if a bad guy came through my patio doors into my bedroom in the middle of the night, I had a duty to try to run out of the room and thru the front door to escape. I believe there were some circumstances where you could defend yourself but it involved credible threat of substantial harm as well as no ability to flee.

The SYG legislation made it that a homeowner had an assumed right to use deadly force against an intruder unlawfully in his home. Of course, you cannot invite someone to your home and shoot them! One is left to understand there would need to be credible proof of forced entry, etc.

The problem in these two circumstances is not the legislation. We have been asked to avoid discussing the particular cases so I will refrain except to say that more and more evidence is coming to light and we will see how this all plays out.

My greatest concern is that these situations will give the antis more ammunition (ha ha -- see what I did there ) to further restrict our 2A rights.

 

[Sam1911]

We have been asked to avoid discussing the particular cases so I will refrain except to say that more and more evidence is coming to light and we will see how this all plays out.

As you find more credible info, please pass it along to Fred Fuller and Kleanbore so they can update the G.Z. thread.

 

[Owen Sparks]

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?

 

[NavyLCDR]

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?

Very eloquent way of putting it, that is EXACTLY what a duty to retreat law does, is give that power to criminals.

 

[wagon.driver]

Arguments that should be handled with words are now being handled with guns.

If I'm arguing with someone in public, I choose to attempt to deescalate and failing that, to leave.

Check out this resource: http://www.conflictcommunications.com/deescalation.htm

 

[wagon.driver]

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?

No he should not, however, we don't live in a world of "should". I will not kill a man over my right to be in any place besides my home. Personally, it's not worth it.

 

[Old Shooter]

Because one says it is self-defense, that does not mean it is.

And trying to hide behind a "Stand your ground law" does NOT make it self-defense.

The law was put in place for a reason and the reason was not to justify pluggin someone at random.

 

[beatledog7]

If I'm arguing with someone in public, I choose to attempt to deescalate and failing that, to leave.

Agreed. The best way to come out ahead in a conflict, especially one that could escalate into violence (justified or not), is to avoid it.

The absence of a duty to retreat notwithstanding, the wisdom to retreat is still to be respected.

 

[wagon.driver]

Agreed. The best way to come out ahead in a conflict, especially one that could escalate into violence (justified or not), is to avoid it.

The absence of a duty to retreat notwithstanding, the wisdom to retreat is still to be respected.

Absolutely. And what I meant to say in my original statement was deescalate AND leave. Avoiding a bad outcome is winning! This is something that's not easily understood when the monkey-brain takes over. That's why one shouldn't argue with a stranger. If they're irrational, it's time to git. That's winning -- nobody getting hurt. (Getting your feelings hurt doesn't count.)

 

[Resist Evil]

A possible stupid question: Am I correct in thinking that SYG applies only to one when under criminal attack and not in some kind of argument?

 

[MedWheeler]

The so-called "stand your ground" clause did not play a role in the Zimmerman case; that case is for another discussion. The law is not unique to Florida, as the mainstream media would have you believe. It is based on a 19th-century case history that ruled that, when a man is accosted with potentially deadly force while in a place in which he has a right to be, he is not obligated to back down or retreat, etc. At least a dozen (maybe two?) other states have similar laws in place. NavyLCDR points out the difference between what the law intends to protect, and what is reported to have transpired in the case now involved in the latest media frenzy.
I have always preached that, just because one has the right to "stand one's ground" does not mean one must actually do so.

 

[Sam1911]

A possible stupid question: Am I correct in thinking that SYG applies only to one when under criminal attack and not in some kind of argument?

Yes. (Not a stupid question, of course.)

Two issues are raised by that question:

1) If you're just tossing unpleasant words, no facet of the SYG law grants or protects your actions to use violence to win the argument.

BUT

2) Any time you are a "mutual combatant" your self-defense claim is very questionable.

Now, "in an argument" is not necessarily compelling (though it can be). You have the right to debate and even argue with someone without being assaulted. However, if that argument turns into violence the specifics matter a lot. If you're going "toe-to-toe" with someone over some disagreement, agree to "take it outside," "settle it like men," etc. then you can't shoot him in self-defense.

In fact, as I've posted before:

Tom Givens' "Lessons From the Street" DVD had a very pertinent story of one of his former students who shot two men in self-defense.

The man was alone in a convenience store parking lot and felt that a group of men present were possibly getting ready to do him harm. He spoke to them, telling them basically to go away. That ticked them off and they then did approach him. He fled and they took chase. He ran some distance away, being actively pursued by six or more men. He turned and fired, hitting two of them.

He was arrested and charged, and ended up sweating out a long court process which ended in, IIRC, probation, and he was quite lucky to get that.

What is pertinent about this to the story in this thread? The "victim" spoke to these men, giving them an instruction or command, which he had a legal right to do (though no authority to enforce), but that was seen as instigation of the events which followed. He had no legal right to fire on those men when he first made contact, yet his actions lead to him shooting two of them. He therefore shared culpability for their deaths.

So remember, if you approach someone in a way that is at all likely to instigate a negative response, you very well may be seen to share the blame for whatever shakes out. Approach someone to tell them to turn down their stereo, or not to loiter, or curb their dog, or to keep down their speed in your neighborhood -- or pretty much anything that might be confrontational, and you are absolutely putting your life, freedom, and fortune on the line.

In other words, in the old "takes two to tango" theme, the part you played in turning the situation negative can have serious impacts on the judgment of the prosecution and/or jury. Even if he "started it" or threw the first punch.

 

[absinthe]

A possible stupid question: Am I correct in thinking that SYG applies only to one when under criminal attack and not in some kind of argument?

Any self-defense law I've ever heard of applies to both actual force and reasonable belief in the threat of imminent force.

 

[JRH6856]

As I see it, in a SD situation, a critical difference between Stand Your Ground and Duty To Retreat is that SYG places the responsibility for the outcome on the Peratrator and DTR places the responsibility on the victim upon which is imposed the duty to retreat.

 

[parsimonious_instead]

In general, we've been winning our rights back. I've had a bad feeling that one case with outsize notoriety could threaten our progress. I hope this isn't it.

 

[Sam1911]

A facet of the argument over this that I've read a couple of places is the CLAIM that FL's DA has taken the stance that if there's a shooting and one person dies and the other lives and that person cries "self-defense" then it's case-closed.

In other words, unless there is compelling, unavoidable, unambiguous evidence that the shooting was not lawful self-defense, then they cannot investigate or pursue a case against the shooter.

The obvious problem with that is that almost every person who ever killed someone else claimed they were acting in self-defense, when obviously that is not always the case. The State's complaint is that they cannot act as an advocate for the deceased (or in the State's interest in prosecuting unlawful homicide) as long as the shooter has eliminated the testimony of the other party by killing him/her.

The CLAIM is that every gang fight ending in a death must be treated as justified and the case against the shooter dropped simply because the shooter says s/he was threatened.

 

[wildbilll]

Perhaps the DA wants the issue of SYG to come to a boil. Hence the initial hands off.

 

[svtruth]

Have I heard that the FBI is getting involved?
Also, who supervises "Neighborhood Watch" people?