Stand Your Ground Laws

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Riparian

Senior member
Jul 21, 2011
294
0
76
What's reasonable for a member of a neighborhood watch (note that word) to do is report a suspicious individual to the police. Zimmerman did that, but then decided (against the specific request of the 911 dispatcher) to follow and confront the individual. An action that Zimmerman obviously believed was dangerous enough to warrant arming himself with a gun. His bad choices are so immediately obvious that neither hindsight or an armchair are needed to see them.

If Martin's first action was to run away, why are you then suggesting that his "first instinct" was to attack Zimmerman? If you try to run away but you can't shake your pursuer, then what do you do? Perhaps the string of robberies you mention makes Martin think that Zimmerman (and maybe unseen accomplices) are about to attack and rob him. Maybe you'd decide to go with a verbal challenge, but I can see why some others might immediately flip from flight to fight.

Not sure where you're getting the evidence to make the rather blatant assumption that Zimmerman confronted Martin. The available evidence weighs towards Martin confronting Zimmerman and not vice versa. When I use "first instinct," I am discussing when the confrontation occurred after Martin had escaped from Zimmerman's view. Anyways, this discussion is getting too off topic, so I will just say that we are going to disagree on the inferences to be drawn from the evidence presented.

If your interpretation of the escalation clause is correct, then I think the law needs to be changed. It makes no sense to me that a person who "provokes the use of force" gets to use deadly force against the other person just because the aggressor is now worried about his/her own bodily harm. Why can't a mugger use this argument to justify killing a victim who successfully fights back? What am I missing?

You need to reread the quoted statute. First, mugging falls under section 1 of section 776.041. You cannot claim self-defense or SYG when you are committing a felony. Secondly, you are entirely misinterpreting that section. I will give you an example that will hopefully clarify your misunderstanding of the statute. If I provoke someone to use force, i.e., punch or lunge at them, and they defend themselves by fighting back, i.e., punching back, I cannot claim self-defense or SYG. Now, let's say the fight continues on and the person I'm fighting decides to pull a knife. I still cannot use deadly force unless I either have exhausted every reasonable non-lethal method to escape the danger, i.e., run away from the fight, or I somehow indicate in good faith that I am withdrawing from the fight and would like to stop fighting and the person I am fighting decides to continue the fight by coming after me with the knife.

So, as you can see, SYG and self-defense laws have a fair amount of protections against abuse, especially when there are witnesses. But like most crimes, when no one witnesses a crime, it becomes very difficult to contradict a person's statement with regards to the crime.
 
Last edited:

smackababy

Lifer
Oct 30, 2008
27,024
79
86
I've suggested that there is reasonable doubt for George Zimmerman.

But contrast that Florida case with another with all this support for guns and self-defense:

A woman reportedly being pursued and threatened by her husband fired a 'warning shot' to keep him away from her - and was sentenced to 20 years. Oh, she is black.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/florida-stand-ground-sentencing

So, dem cry about needing more harsh punishments for gun crimes and then cry because someone is penalized under them?

And read the facts. She had already escaped the situation and then reentered it. She left the house, into the garage, and rather than just walking to a neighbor and calling the police, she got her gun and went back inside to "get her keys". And then, she fired the gun towards a room where there were children.

So, was it because she was black? Of course not. It was because she was a moron.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
166
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
So if someone is pounding on you should do what exactly? If you see or think someone is going to pull a gun or knife on you what do you do?

If you pull a gun on me and I don't think my chances of running away are good I'm going to attack you with everything I got. If you still shoot me am I now to blame? How would you prove a dead guy was fearing for his life and not the orher way around?

If you're implying that GZ pulled his gun and then TM started pummeling him, your idea was so thoroughly debunked, I'd think you would have given up on it. TM was clearly capable of controlling ZM in the fight. He had him on the ground, and was on top of him, straddling him. There is no evidence whatsoever that TM was attempting to get the gun from GZ's hands - if you're attempting to get the gun, why would you leave it unattended in his hands while pummeling him MMA style in the head (eye witnessed)? That is incredibly illogical.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
I've suggested that there is reasonable doubt for George Zimmerman.

But contrast that Florida case with another with all this support for guns and self-defense:

A woman reportedly being pursued and threatened by her husband fired a 'warning shot' to keep him away from her - and was sentenced to 20 years. Oh, she is black.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/florida-stand-ground-sentencing

You may want to educate yourself on what really happened in this case.

http://mediatrackers.org/florida/20...-not-a-reverse-trayvon-martin-case-in-florida
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
So, dem cry

This is not the level of discussion that's appropriate here.

about needing more harsh punishments for gun crimes and then cry because someone is penalized under them?

And read the facts. She had already escaped the situation and then reentered it. She left the house, into the garage, and rather than just walking to a neighbor and calling the police, she got her gun and went back inside to "get her keys". And then, she fired the gun towards a room where there were children.

So, was it because she was black? Of course not. It was because she was a moron.

She made a mistake. It was negligent, not trying to hurt kids. 20 years is an outrage.
 

smackababy

Lifer
Oct 30, 2008
27,024
79
86
This is not the level of discussion that's appropriate here.
It is liberals always clamoring for harsher punishments for crimes committed with guns and now they are crying because the laws they wanted are being used.



She made a mistake. It was negligent, not trying to hurt kids. 20 years is an outrage.

The problem is with the mandatory minimum sentences, not SYG laws. She didn't "make a mistake", if you read the facts from the case. She fired a gun at someone intentionally, without need. She could have left (her claim that the garage was broken could not be verified by the police), but chose to instead get her gun and reenter the house.

She should consider herself lucky she was not charged with attempted murder, because firing a gun at someone could easily be that. If they had determined she just missed, rather than a "warning shot", it could have easily been that.

So, you posted a link and, just like quite a few in the media, are trying to insinuate race was a factor because of this "reverse Trayvon Martin" case. But the media is completely wrong exactly like they are in continuing to claim Zimmerman "got away with murder".
 

Riparian

Senior member
Jul 21, 2011
294
0
76
This is not the level of discussion that's appropriate here.



She made a mistake. It was negligent, not trying to hurt kids. 20 years is an outrage.

So your issue in this case is with Florida's mandatory minimum sentencing laws and not SYG. She was also offered a plea bargain of 3 years but chose to fight the charge in court. Her lawyer should have better advised her to take the deal as nothing from the facts of the case indicated a necessity of firing a gun for self defense.

Also, it is not simply negligence when firing a gun at someone as a warning shot.
 
Last edited:

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,424
136

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,424
136
It is liberals always clamoring for harsher punishments for crimes committed with guns and now they are crying because the laws they wanted are being used.





The problem is with the mandatory minimum sentences, not SYG laws. She didn't "make a mistake", if you read the facts from the case. She fired a gun at someone intentionally, without need. She could have left (her claim that the garage was broken could not be verified by the police), but chose to instead get her gun and reenter the house.

She should consider herself lucky she was not charged with attempted murder, because firing a gun at someone could easily be that. If they had determined she just missed, rather than a "warning shot", it could have easily been that.

So, you posted a link and, just like quite a few in the media, are trying to insinuate race was a factor because of this "reverse Trayvon Martin" case. But the media is completely wrong exactly like they are in continuing to claim Zimmerman "got away with murder".


No the problem is the subjectiveness of determining whether one feels they are in imminent danger or feel their life is being threatened.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
It is liberals always clamoring for harsher punishments for crimes committed with guns and now they are crying because the laws they wanted are being used.

Your comments are simplistic trying to say you have to either be for or against every single gun law and punishment. That's 'gotcha' nonsense.


The problem is with the mandatory minimum sentences, not SYG laws. She didn't "make a mistake", if you read the facts from the case. She fired a gun at someone intentionally, without need. She could have left (her claim that the garage was broken could not be verified by the police), but chose to instead get her gun and reenter the house.

She should consider herself lucky she was not charged with attempted murder, because firing a gun at someone could easily be that. If they had determined she just missed, rather than a "warning shot", it could have easily been that.

So, you posted a link and, just like quite a few in the media, are trying to insinuate race was a factor because of this "reverse Trayvon Martin" case. But the media is completely wrong exactly like they are in continuing to claim Zimmerman "got away with murder".

I'm not raising SYG on this issue either way. I'm pointing out an injustice.

She made a mistake, as I read the story. Going back in to danger; firing a gun recklessly, perhaps in a panic.

If it can be proven beyone a reasonable doubt she was trying to shoot him, rather than firing a warning shot, and it wasn't self-defense, she should be charged with some form of attempted murder - she wasn't, so that's not at issue here. The issue is, for recklessly firing a 'warning shot' - that's what she was convicted of - 20 years is absurd and unjust.

So yes, my issue here is with the sentencing laws.

I'm not taking this as far as to say 'Zimmerman was not guilty so neither was she'.

And I'm not saying race was a factor - but I am saying that is a question. That's part of how you determine these things, look at cases, what were the races, compare the outcomes.

For example, reports say that while whites and blacks use marijuana at similar rates, blacks are 400% as likely to get convicted for marijuana use crimes. Why is that?

That's not saying in any case the black person convicted was innocent - it's saying there is an inequity here and it's a question why.

Seeing a difference in cases helps make racial issues known, so noting the race is part of discussing the issue, if you want to keep an eye on the possibility.

The fact that in these two cases, the black person always loses - as victim and as perpetrator - doens't prove race was an issue. But it's worth monitoring.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
So your issue in this case is with Florida's mandatory minimum sentencing laws and not SYG. She was also offered a plea bargain of 3 years but chose to fight the charge in court. Her lawyer should have better advised her to take the deal as nothing from the facts of the case indicated a necessity of firing a gun for self defense.

Also, it is not simply negligence when firing a gun at someone as a warning shot.

First, the offer of a plea bargain does not address the problem here of the injustice of a 20 year sentence.

This is a common problem, but these outrageous sentences that pressure people to take please to save the system the cost of a trial are excessive.

How many times is someone innocent given the choice of pleading guilty to serve 18 months, or going to trial and facing 20 years?

The pressure is so great, the statistic I recently heard is 98% of cases being pled.

There is some legitimate issue there - while in principle, everyone 'deserves a trial', we can't begin to afford to give everyone a trial - but extreme sentences are a problem.

As to negligence - I'm using the term to refer to her action as firing the gun in a direction that endangered children as being reckless on her part - as far as has been proven according to reports, she had no intention of endangering the children, it was a heat of the moment act without any such intent. Had she killed a child, the appropriate charge would be 'negligent homicide' or similar rather than intentional murder.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Yes and the instructions say that the prosecution must prove their case, they didnt and that's why he was acquitted not because the defense proved their case. Did you read the instructions yourself?

Have you ever read the instruction before SYG and compared it to the one after?

Hugely different - the earlier one does say there is a 'duty to retreat'.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
-snip-
She made a mistake. It was negligent, not trying to hurt kids. 20 years is an outrage.

Someone has already provided you link showing important info that your article curiously fails to mention.

I guess it'll have to be quoted for you:

According to court documents, Alexander got into an argument with her husband, Rico Gray, after Gray found text messages on Alexander’s phone to her ex-husband. Alexander claimed Gray initially prevented her from leaving the bathroom – where they were arguing – but at some point she was able to get by him and get away. Alexander fled the house, but when she got to her car in the garage, she realized she had left her keys inside. So she got her gun from the car and re-entered the house. Alexander told police the garage door was broken, and that’s why she didn’t exit that way. Police found no evidence proving the garage door wasn’t working properly.

When Alexander went back inside, she claimed Gray continued to threaten her so she fired a “warning shot” through the house -- which she fired in the direction of Gray, with his children nearby.

Alexander’s own actions were ultimately used against her self-defense claim. While she was out on bail, awaiting trial on her aggravated assault charges, Alexander was arrested for domestic battery against Gray. Although her bail contract specifically prohibited any contact between her and Gray, Alexander went to her husband’s house -- where she wasn’t living at the time -- and after an altercation, he ultimately called police.

When the police contacted Alexander about the incident, she first said she didn’t know what they were talking about, and she hadn’t been at the house, but later she stated that Gray attacked her because she wouldn’t stay with him overnight. Alexander never called police and later stated she was scared. According to police reports, Alexander had no injuries, but Gray had a bloody swollen eye and told police Alexander had punched him.

In Gray’s initial deposition to police, he said he would have hit Alexander if she had really tried to threaten him, in an effort to help her and get her potential sentence reduced. Alexander and Gray collaborated on that story while she awaited trial, but Gray later admitted that it wasn’t true and that she really did threaten him and did fire a shot at him.

In 2009, Alexander filed charges against Gray, claiming he tried to choke her, but she went to the Florida District Attorney’s Office and said that wasn’t really what happened and then all charges were dropped. According Richard Kuritz, attorney for Gray and his two children, Gray has never been convicted of any violent act toward Alexander.

The problem with her defense was “she chose to come back in the house,” said Kuritz.

Alexander said when Gray threatened her, she felt her life was in danger, so she shot a “warning shot” in his direction, with his kids just around the wall behind him.

“A warning shot is when you shoot into the air, you shoot down on the ground, you don’t shoot straight at somebody 6 feet off the ground,” said Kuritz, in an interview with HLN’s Vinnie Politan on “HLN After Dark.” “[The shot] was at eye level with my client, right above his 12-year-old. When you have a 12-year-old child who testified to a jury that ‘I thought I was fixin’ to die,’ I’m sorry that is not a misdemeanor…When you shoot a gun that puts a 12-year-old child in fear for his life, that changes things and I think it was prosecuted appropriately.

Considering Alexander’s actions leading up to firing the gun, on top of her decision to voluntarily contact Gray while awaiting trial, the judge rejected the use of “Stand Your Ground.”

Alexander would have had to prove there was a reasonable fear of severe bodily harm in order to prove the use of the “Stand Your Ground” law, however her actions may not have supported the idea that she had no other option than to shoot at Gray. Plus, legal experts have questioned why she would only fire a “warning shot” if she felt the use of deadly force was necessary. Alexander also never called police after the incident, which could have also been used against her claim that she feared for her life, especially when a judge considered that Alexander voluntarily continued to visit Gray’s home after she agreed to the no-contact restriction in her bail contract.

1. This was not a self-defense case as you suggest.

2. The woman is a confirmed liar and a confirmed violent person who has attacked her boy friend. There is no evidence he was ever violent towards her OTOH.

3. It doesn't appear to be a warning shot, but a missed shot.

4. Simply put - it appears she got angry, went out to her car to get her gun and went back inside and shot at the guy, fortunately missing.

Edit: Personally, I think the whole "I forgot my car keys' story was a lie too.

Fern
 
Last edited:

Riparian

Senior member
Jul 21, 2011
294
0
76
Actually, it's subjective in part - it has a 'reasonable person' test.

As in, 'do you think a reasonable person would feel in danger' type test.

Within the law, a reasonableness test is an objective test. There is no subjective component to a self-defense claim. There are other laws that require that both the claimant have a subjective belief and that the belief be reasonable. Those laws are the ones that actually have a subjective component, whereas the FL self-defense statute limits itself to an objective standard.

With regards to mandatory minimum sentencing, there are arguments as to why they benefit minorities. It prevents sentencing based upon a judge's or jury's biases. The problem, of course, is similar to your example of MJ usage and arrest rates, whereby minorities are charged with crimes more often than non-minorities.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
No, i think it's a bad law which encourages violence

The violence has already occurred well before the implementation/actual need for the law.

the intent of the law was that a person should not have to run for their life when threatened when on their own property.
 
Last edited:

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
The media was used in order to get the SYG laws pulled hopefully. Our government and their backing media are working hard to disarm us.

The Patriot Act was utter bullshit to be allowed to pass.

Our people are going against everything our founding fathers said about not letting fear dictate freedom.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,464
2
0
Yes and the instructions say that the prosecution must prove their case, they didnt and that's why he was acquitted not because the defense proved their case. Did you read the instructions yourself?

Zimmerman admitting he killed Martin eliminated the possibility of reasonable doubt as to who killed Martin.

It was self defense, or it wasn't. The jury accepted his claim of self defense.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Zimmerman admitting he killed Martin eliminated the possibility of reasonable doubt as to who killed Martin.

It was self defense, or it wasn't. The jury accepted his claim of self defense.

I think what he's saying, and rightfully so, is that it was the prosecution who must prove it was NOT self-defense beyond a "reasonable doubt". And the prosecution was never able to prove that.

The defense has nothing to prove. The burden of proof is with the prosecution.

Fern
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Zimmerman admitting he killed Martin eliminated the possibility of reasonable doubt as to who killed Martin.

It was self defense, or it wasn't. The jury accepted his claim of self defense.

The phrase reasonable doubt doesn't apply just to who did the crime. It applies to all requirements of the crime being proven 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

So while there was no reasonable doubt who shot Martin, there was a question of there being reasonable doubt about all the requirements of it being a crime.

There being even a small but reasonable chance it was self-defense can mean not guilty.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |