YAGT: Stand your ground law...

[Fern]

What parts of this law are unprecedented relative to previous self-defense laws?

In particular this part:

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.

This part allows the aggressor, the person who started the fight, to legally claim self defense if one of the exceptions noted above is met.

My state (NC) just changed to SYG laws. We had been a retreat state. I am a CC permit holder and took the course while we were under the retreat laws. Those old laws said if you start the fight, you can NOT claim self defense no matter what happens. E.g., if you start the fight no matter how badly you are losing, no matter what the other person does, even if they are trying to kill, you cannot rely on self defense to avoid prosecution if you shoot.

Simply put, if you start a fight you cannot self defense. PERIOD.

That SYG provision I quoted above dramatically changes that.

Fern

 

[Cuda1447]

I have a question I have yet to have somebody answer.

Where was the need for SYG? Self defense claims are already decided in court. If self defense claims are found valid in court why not use court decision to ensure SD claimant is immune from lawsuits?

Was there a rash of people claiming self defense jailed for which we may have had a reason for SYG?

Did the NRA just need somethng to do since Obama has done nothing to infringe upon gun owners and their membership was flatlining??

Why did we really need these laws?

I believe it is a further extension of the castle doctrine laws.

Here is the difference though. If someone is illegally in your home, their intention right from the get go was to do something extremely criminal in nature, murder/rape/theft/assault etc... I can get behind using deadly force in those situations without having to retreat.


In public, when all parties have a right to be where they are, in situations that are no where near as easily understood and comprehended in the heat of the moment, I think it is absolutely reckless to allow untrained/unqualified individuals to make these sorts of decisions.


The way I look at it is this. If you are carrying a weapon in public (which I am fine with) you are held to a MUCH higher standard than the average person. Since you are carrying deadly force in your pocket, it is your responsibility to be sure, 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt, that if you need to use that weapon, you are in the right.

But if there is any chance of this situation not being extremely clear cut and you have the ability to remove yourself and your deadly weapon from the situation, it is your responsibility to do so.


For instance, with Zimmerman, the law should be that, given that he was carrying a deadly weapon, as soon as he reported the suspicious activity to the police and they acknowledged, he should have removed himself and the deadly weapon from the situation.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I appreciate the difference of opinion and I do enjoy debating the points with you. However, you're being a little bit of a dick. How about instead of making vague statements like 'go read about it', you actually address the points I've made.

The only point you made (aside from the unrelated Zimmerman stuff) was that the essence of SYG is something new to the state of Florida, or the USA as a whole. And you're incorrect. And it's been debated ad nauseum in the Zimmerman thread and elsewhere, so I would expect you to have known it. Google 'self-defense usa' and Wikipedia is one of the first results to come up, including a Supreme Court case from 1877. I don't know how anyone could think that a right to self-defense with deadly force is something new.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States)

 

[Fern]

Right, you have to believe death or great harm is coming. But how do you decide that Fern? If I just got taken down and someone is on top of me punching me repeatedly in the face, how do I know that he is going to stop before something serious happens? In most cases once he's seen that I'm beaten he will stop, but by that point it will be to late for me to choose to use a weapon. So I'm forced to guess whether or not he is going to continue hitting me after I'm completely beaten. Thus, it could be easily argued that anytime a serious fight occurs, the person who begins losing decisively has the right to use deadly force, if capable.

Well, that's the tough part, isn't it?

The courts apply a standard; Would a 'reasonable' person honestly believe that the thread existed?

Standard American criminal law doctrine provides that one can only use
a certain degree of force in self-defense if one honestly and reasonably
believes that a serious enough threat has been posed, and if one honestly and reasonably believes that the use of force in self-defense is necessary to
prevent that threat. Though jurisdictions differ in how they specify these
elements of proportionality and necessity, almost all endorse this basic
structure.

In self-defense, for example, it is conventional to ask whether the actor believes, and whether a reasonable person would believe, each of the following facts: (a) an aggressor was threatening him with harm, (b) that harm would be of a particular level of gravity, (c) his use of force in response would prevent that harm, etc.

http://www.bu.edu/lawlibrary/facultypublications/PDFs/Simons/Selfdefense.pdf

The jury will instructed on the this 'reasonable person's belief' standard. And it will be up to them to judge if it was reasonable under that standard to use deadly force if your fight.

So, how do you know that person beating you will stop before you suffer "great bodily harm" or death? You don't.

And how do you know a jury will support your decision to use deadly force in defending yourself? You don't.

I'm sure there a number of people in prison who felt their use of deadly force was justified.

I feel equally sure that there a number of people walking around as free men who, under a different jury, might be in prison.

Fern

 

[HamburgerBoy]

In particular this part:

This part allows the aggressor, the person who started the fight, to legally claim self defense if one of the exceptions noted above is met.

My state (NC) just changed to SYG laws. We had been a retreat state. I am a CC permit holder and took the course while we under the retreat laws. Those old laws said if you start the fight, you can NOT claim self defense no matter what happens. E.g., if you start the fight no matter how badly you are losing, no matter what the other person does, even if they are trying to kill, you cannot rely on self defense to avoid prosecution if you shoot.

Simply put, if you start a fight you cannot self defense. PERIOD.

That SYG provision I quoted above dramatically changes that.

Fern

Fair enough, and I agree that the aggressor should not (morally/ethically) be able to shoot in self-defense in such a case. The op is more concerned with potential ambiguity over fear of life vs fear of injury vs fear of whatever, and on that particular point where he is criticizing the SYG law I don't see anything new in its case relative to previous allowance for self-defense (certainly not on the national scale, at least).

I believe it is a further extension of the castle doctrine laws.

Here is the difference though. If someone is illegally in your home, their intention right from the get go was to do something extremely criminal in nature, murder/rape/theft/assault etc... I can get behind using deadly force in those situations without having to retreat.

In public, when all parties have a right to be where they are, in situations that are no where near as easily understood and comprehended in the heat of the moment, I think it is absolutely reckless to allow untrained/unqualified individuals to make these sorts of decisions.

The way I look at it is this. If you are carrying a weapon in public (which I am fine with) you are held to a MUCH higher standard than the average person. Since you are carrying deadly force in your pocket, it is your responsibility to be sure, 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt, that if you need to use that weapon, you are in the right.

But if there is any chance of this situation not being extremely clear cut and you have the ability to remove yourself and your deadly weapon from the situation, it is your responsibility to do so.

For instance, with Zimmerman, the law should be that, given that he was carrying a deadly weapon, as soon as he reported the suspicious activity to the police and they acknowledged, he should have removed himself and the deadly weapon from the situation.

What if he was just a burglar? What if he was just a confused drunk homeless guy?

In the case of Zimmerman-like cases I can not agree with you at all. Anyone with the means of lethal self-defense now must run away from any situations in which they might be threatened? Why should he have to leave his neighborhood? Are people with guns no longer allowed to walk through risky parts of town at all? What is the point of owning a weapon for self-defense if they are prohibited from using it in any situation where they may need it?

 

[Cuda1447]

I didn't argue that less deaths would result. I think that point is irrelevant. I'd rather a jailbreak occur resulting in five murderers escaping and killing a dozen people people rather than execute an innocent man as well as the murderers. Likewise, I would rather see ten innocent Trayvon Martins killed by evil white supremacist if it meant one person was able to legitimately use a gun to kill a violent assaulter, rapist, or murderer in self-defense. And I doubt that is too likely anyways; Zimmerman has now been arrested for second degree murder, and I doubt the justice system is error-prone enough to let a great number of faux-fearful individuals get off free anyways.

I don't know if I agree with that. A person definitely knows when they are in fear of violent attack. It's a basic biological impulse to be able to discern threats and deal accordingly with them. Whether they correctly discern between a guy that will kill you vs a guy that will send you to the hospital with severe injuries isn't really important to me.

You might be right on the last point, but I'm also pretty sure that CCW holders are on average better trained than the average Joe-shoots-deer-with-the-family-sometimes, the former being the types more likely to use a gun/have on available in cases of being threatened with violence.

The first bolded part I disagree with completely. I don't agree with innocent people losing their lives, so we will just have a difference of opinion on that part.

The 2nd bolded section I want to talk about for a moment. The opinion that the average CCW holder is better trained than your typical deer hunter, or even joe-schmoe who doesn't own a gun, is just plain wrong in my opinion. They may have the basic knowledge to load/shoot a firearm and certainly there are plenty of people whom do have a decent working knowledge to carry responsibly, the average CCW holder absolutely does not have the proper training to be making these decisions.


Some states allow CCW holders to earn their permit online. Many states don't require any live firing exercise, so it is a very real possibility that the person carrying a loaded firearm has only shot it a handful of times, let alone has the ability to use it responsibly.

Even the states that have more strict training requirements don't come close to providing the necessary training required to make these type of judgement calls. This is one fact I'm certain of.

 

[Cuda1447]

Well, that's the tough part, isn't it?

The courts apply a standard; Would a 'reasonable' person honestly believe that the thread existed?


http://www.bu.edu/lawlibrary/facultypublications/PDFs/Simons/Selfdefense.pdf

The jury will instructed on the this 'reasonable person's belief' standard. And it will be up to them to judge if it was reasonable under that standard to use deadly force if your fight.

So, how do you know that person beating you will stop before you suffer "great bodily harm" or death? You don't.

And how do you know a jury will support your decision to use deadly force in defending yourself? You don't.

I'm sure there a number of people in prison who felt their use of deadly force was justified.

I feel equally sure that there a number of people walking around as free men who, under a different jury, might be in prison.

Fern

My concern doesn't lie as much with the person in prison or not in prison, as much as it lies with the person who is dead. Zimmerman may have his life ruined, or he might get acquitted of charges (although it will still be life altering for him) but Trayvon is dead. Now he may or may not have deserved to be shot, I don't know at this point. But I do know that this law and this case in particular may set a dangerous precedent that may cause the more liberal USAGE of firearms resulting in lives being unnecessarily taken. That is my ultimate concern.

 

[Zebo]

It aint like when I grew up that's for sure. Girlymen have taken over who can't handle a little scrap and run around armed and scared of society.

 

[Fern]

I have a question I have yet to have somebody answer. (It's been answered already)

Where was the need for SYG? (See below) Self defense claims are already decided in court. If self defense claims are found valid in court why not use court decision to ensure SD claimant is immune from lawsuits?

Was there a rash of people claiming self defense jailed for which we may have had a reason for SYG? (A rash? IDK about that, but yes there were problems with people being unfairly jailed.)

Did the NRA just need somethng to do since Obama has done nothing to infringe upon gun owners and their membership was flatlining?? (No, has nothing to do with it.)

Why did we really need these laws? (Many felt we did)

See bolded responses above.

The SYG law has two parts different from the old retreat SD law: (1) You don't have to exhaust all reasonable means of escaping before defending yourself, and (2) the aggressor can still claim self defense.

There were a lot of problems under the retreat law with different prosecutors etc demanding different standards of "all reasonable means" of escaping. There were people who literally escaped, got caught, escaped again, got caught etc before using self defense and still were prosecuted. This law really put a great burden on the victim and none of the aggressor. Many feel that's not fair or proper.

So, I'm 100% support of this change.

Now the second one I find more questionable.

The part that allows the aggressor to legally use deadly force looks to have been in law to help women who are subject to domestic violence.

Under the old law, if they are seen as provoking the fight (slap their husband/BF, throw a plant at them, whatever) they cannot legally use self defense. So, under the old law, we had women who in some way started some shizz and then when getting beaten to death by the husband/BF (or great bodily harm) used deadly force be prosecuted because self defense could not be claimed.

I.e., women who reasonably used self defense were put in prison.

IMO, the problem is the statute for them (abused women) can easily be interpreted so broadly that now we have it applying to two guys who get into a fight. That produces some strange and controversial results and it was never intended apply to this situation.

Fern

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The first bolded part I disagree with completely. I don't agree with innocent people losing their lives, so we will just have a difference of opinion on that part.

The 2nd bolded section I want to talk about for a moment. The opinion that the average CCW holder is better trained than your typical deer hunter, or even joe-schmoe who doesn't own a gun, is just plain wrong in my opinion. They may have the basic knowledge to load/shoot a firearm and certainly there are plenty of people whom do have a decent working knowledge to carry responsibly, the average CCW holder absolutely does not have the proper training to be making these decisions.

Some states allow CCW holders to earn their permit online. Many states don't require any live firing exercise, so it is a very real possibility that the person carrying a loaded firearm has only shot it a handful of times, let alone has the ability to use it responsibly.

Even the states that have more strict training requirements don't come close to providing the necessary training required to make these type of judgement calls. This is one fact I'm certain of.

The matter of "judgment calls" doesn't come down to gun training. It's a matter of basic instinct whether or not you feel threatened. If you think cops can somehow magically determine whether a suspected perp is a threat or not, you're gullible. The many number of wrongful shootings committed by cops should indicate that.

It aint like when I grew up that's for sure. Girlymen have taken over who can't handle a little scrap and run around armed and scared of society.

Yeah, and nevermind girly men. Just look at women who now shoot rapists. Pathetic. Back in my day, a woman would just get over it and shut her mouth about it.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
The op is more concerned with potential ambiguity over fear of life vs fear of injury vs fear of whatever, and on that particular point where he is criticizing the SYG law I don't see anything new in its case relative to previous allowance for self-defense (certainly not on the national scale, at least).

I completely agree with you on that point.

Fern

 

[Cuda1447]

The matter of "judgment calls" doesn't come down to gun training. It's a matter of basic instinct whether or not you feel threatened. If you think cops can somehow magically determine whether a suspected perp is a threat or not, you're gullible. The many number of wrongful shootings committed by cops should indicate that.



Yeah, and nevermind girly men. Just look at women who now shoot rapists. Pathetic. Back in my day, a woman would just get over it and shut her mouth about it.

Do cops not go through EXTENSIVE training about when to use deadly force and when not to? And they still make tons of mistakes?

Our insticts are to fight or flight. There is nothing in our insticts that tell us when is the right time to use deadly force, according to the law. That is gained through training. Perhaps a cop can comment on this for us? I'm fairly certain police officers undergo a LOT of training in this area.

 

[Fern]

My concern doesn't lie as much with the person in prison or not in prison, as much as it lies with the person who is dead. Zimmerman may have his life ruined, or he might get acquitted of charges (although it will still be life altering for him) but Trayvon is dead. Now he may or may not have deserved to be shot, I don't know at this point. But I do know that this law and this case in particular may set a dangerous precedent that may cause the more liberal USAGE of firearms resulting in lives being unnecessarily taken. That is my ultimate concern.

I don't see much, if any, chance this case will set a precedent. SYG laws in FL have been around for quite a while. There have already been many cases on trial. There are any number in a given year.

I don't see what precedent could possibly be set. Either Zimmerman had a 'reasonable belief' he was in danger of 'great bodily harm' or death or he didn't. That's going to be up to the jury (or possibly the judge), and in eveyr case there will be a different jury that has to make their own decision based on the particular circumstances of their own case.

There won't be any 'Zimmerman rule' where you can shoot people with skittles at will or something.

Fern

 

[Cuda1447]

I don't see much, if any, chance this case will set a precedent. SYG laws in FL have been around for quite a while. There have already been many cases on trial. There are any number in a given year.

I don't see what precedent could possibly be set. Either Zimmerman had a 'reasonable belief' he was in danger of 'great bodily harm' or death or he didn't. That's going to be up to the jury (or possibly the judge), and in eveyr case there will be a different jury that has to make their own decision based on the particular circumstances of their own case.

There won't be any 'Zimmerman rule' where you can shoot people with skittles at will or something.

Fern

I'm not familiar with any of the other cases that have stood trial in Florida. But I suspect that, given how hot an issue this is, it is more likely to bring the law into question than any of the past cases. I could be completely wrong on this though.

 

[cybrsage]

Most of us being men in this forum, I think its safe to say most of us have been in at least one or two fights in our life. Shit happens. Now I've not been in any fights since the age of 18, but I wouldn't judge someone who was. A fight out at a nightclub or a bar. A disagreement at a sporting event. An argument in a traffic accident or road rage incident. The list goes on and on, but fights do happen.

Sometimes fights are simply pushing and shoving. Sometimes they escalate to punching and/or a wrestling match. The vast majority of these cases are NOT life threatening. Someone might get their ass kicked, but very rarely will it end fatal.

If you (generic you) physically attack me, expect to find out that technology makes your strength and/or size advantage meaningless. People should have to worry every time they decide to attack someone...worry if that person will shoot them.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Do cops not go through EXTENSIVE training about when to use deadly force and when not to? And they still make tons of mistakes?

Our insticts are to fight or flight. There is nothing in our insticts that tell us when is the right time to use deadly force, according to the law. That is gained through training. Perhaps a cop can comment on this for us? I'm fairly certain police officers undergo a LOT of training in this area.

Cops are also in an entirely different situation. They typically instigate confrontations. Except in prison waiting areas and other rare cases, virtually no one jumps a uniformed cop. Despite that, you get cases like that 68 year old veteran being shot because he allegedly attacked the cop/cops involved. They possess the power, and training won't help them reel it in. A private citizen walking down a street when he is surrounded and threatened by thugs knows when he is in trouble, and very few cops can claim to have experienced such a thing. And you would have that private citizen charged with a crime for walking down a street where he should have known he could be mugged, had he carried a gun.

 

[cybrsage]

It aint like when I grew up that's for sure. Girlymen have taken over who can't handle a little scrap and run around armed and scared of society.

No, only the bullies need to be scared. People who choose to not be idiots and physically attack others to show how manyly they are...they have no reason to be scared.

Bullies, yeah, bullies need to be scared.

 

[LunarRay]

When a human life is less valuable than a car radio to a society filled with fear and hate it would be best if no one had the means to end a life... but we do and for sure the bad guy is going to employ what ever he can to do his deed... Because he is filled with fear and a gun or cross bow tends to allay that fear...

If we eliminate all guns and stuff and such we still have the big person vs the little person and the fear of that...

So... I guess the only thing to do is to insure the use of deadly force has consequences if a mistake is made or worse. And let justice be blind.

The people of Florida make Florida law and they live there, I don't. I think they've the right to live with such a law. Or... die because of it...

 

[Fern]

I'm not familiar with any of the other cases that have stood trial in Florida. But I suspect that, given how hot an issue this is, it is more likely to bring the law into question than any of the past cases. I could be completely wrong on this though.

Well, you're correct. This case is bringing a lot of attention to the SYG laws.

Depending how it goes it could cause changes. Let's say for example that Z started the fight but still gets off under the SYG law. I think you'll see a lot people rethinking that part of the law that let's an aggressor start a fight but still claim self defense.

But that's not really precedent, instead it's potentially a problem with the statute. It may be drafted too broadly and therefore used in unintended ways.

But I doubt it's going to be in play in Zimmerman's case. IDK, but I don't think we have a witness that saw Z start it. If we did I think Z would have been charged immediately.

Instead, I suspect this is going to come down to the question of whether he had a 'reasonable belief' he was going to suffer great bodily harm or death.

Fern

 

[cybrsage]

Too bad people simply will not follow the great wisdom of Hillel, who said "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow..."

If you do not want your car stolen, do not steal a car. If you do not want robbed, do not rob. On and on.

 

[Cuda1447]

Well, you're correct. This case is bringing a lot of attention to the SYG laws.

Depending how it goes it could cause changes. Let's say for example that Z started the fight but still gets off under the SYG law. I think you'll see a lot people rethinking that part of the law that let's an aggressor start a fight but still claim self defense.

But that's not really precedent, instead it's potentially a problem with the statute. It may be drafted too broadly and therefore used in unintended ways.

But I doubt it's going to be in play in Zimmerman's case. IDK, but I don't think we have a witness that saw Z start it. If we did I think Z would have been charged immediately.

Instead, I suspect this is going to come down to the question of whether he had a 'reasonable belief' he was going to suffer great bodily harm or death.

Fern

I'll bet in a lot of these situations we don't have reliable witnesses. These incidents don't typically occur in the grocery store.

I decided to do a little bit of research on the law and came across another case in Florida.

In 2010 in Tampa a man was shot after getting in an argument with another man over skateboarding rules.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...oarders-leaves-father-dead-in-valrico/1124311


From what I can see, this case is awaiting trial right now, but the defendant is invoking the stand your ground clause. Now I suspect this guy will still go to jail, but that's not the point.


I guess I was unclear with my original post, or perhaps this discussion has allowed me to focus on what exactly I have a problem with, so let me restate it.


I am alright with the castle doctrine and a right to carry concealed. I just think that we need to have MUCH stricter training requirements if you want to carry concealed in public. I also think there needs to be a much greater sense of responsibility instilled in those who choose to carry in public. Lastly, I think the stand your ground law needs to be reworked, at the very least. It gives the gun wielder way to much wiggle room over what they can/can't do. I think it also creates a sense of comfort with being able to use their gun in certain situations, that the law doesn't intend for them to use it in.

 

[soundforbjt]

No, only the bullies need to be scared. People who choose to not be idiots and physically attack others to show how manyly they are...they have no reason to be scared.

Bullies, yeah, bullies need to be scared.

What if the bully started the fight and then shoots the guy? In florida & similar states he gets off scott free. As long as there are no witnesses, the bully goes free.

 

[Cuda1447]

Too bad people simply will not follow the great wisdom of Hillel, who said "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow..."

If you do not want your car stolen, do not steal a car. If you do not want robbed, do not rob. On and on.

Let me throw out a scenario for you.

Three people. Person A, B and C.

Person A is a man who is harassing a women (person C). There is a verbal altercation. Person B, being a chivalrous guy steps in to see if there is a problem. Person A tells him to mind his own business. B responds stating that A needs to leave the woman alone. The situation escalates into a shoving match and then full on fight. Person A gets taken down and has been punched a few good times and is getting his ass kicked when he decides to invoke lethal force, pulling out his gun and killing person B.


Does he deserve to go to jail under the stand your ground law?

 

[cybrsage]

What if the bully started the fight and then shoots the guy? In florida & similar states he gets off scott free. As long as there are no witnesses, the bully goes free.

The same thing would happen if there are no witnesses to a self defense claim, then the only living person wins by default.

 

[soundforbjt]

The same thing would happen if there are no witnesses to a self defense claim, then the only living person wins by default.

I should've said no witness saw the bully start the fight.