I'm a newb here, but am a 40 year Florida resident with knowledge of the issues at hand / political evolution and will attempt to add something to the original discussion re SYG and some items on the rest of this thread.... be gentle
SYG in Florida is an usually an affirmative defense / pre trial motion and should have had no bearing on any jury finding not guilty... If a DA brings charges for the use of force in self defense, the defendant can move for a dismissal and a Judge decides on the merits if the use was justifiable under the statute. The point being: a DA needs to decide whether or not to incur a Judge's annoyance with being presented with a hot potato in effect. Th second point being: if the DA decides to take that chance / believes they have a very good case... the Judge makes a call. These two issues in practice put some pressure on DA's and Judges to have a very strong argument to deny that defense and thus appears to result in a lot of questionable SYG assertions not going to trial.
The background in Florida regarding SYG was it was intended as a correction of the long term perceived inadequacies of allowed use of force here. Citizens had long felt that they were taking a very serious legal risk (and they were) if they should be presented with a situation threatening their own or someone else's life in a public place.
Pre SYG, as a practical matter:
A person had a duty to retreat from any use of force other than in their homestead or place of business and had no right to defend another if they witnessed a forcible felony. People were frequently charged with manslaughter for using force even when attacked in road rage incidents, shopping disagreements, muggings, etc.... a person sitting in gridlock with someone in the next car over pointing a gun at them had a duty to leave their car and run.... if walking down the street and someone ran at them with a knife, they would have a duty to attempt to outrun the assailant rather than defending themselves.... a friend of mine witnessed an aggravated assault of a homeless man and was powerless to intervene...
If they did use force, even if it was justifiable.... they were frequently the targets of civil liability suits awarding millions to the families of road rage perps and muggers and even rapists.
SYG (with respect to outside one's home), is one paragraph in FSS 776.013, which attempted to fix that: (BTW, there is nothing particularly unique about use law in Florida in comparison to other states)
"(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
if that person gets a SYG motion granted, then they are immune from arrest, prosecution, and civil liability:
"776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, ...."
So, in practice, someone simply needs to believe they or someone else might get a serious injury and force is OK.
There obviously needs to be some controls implemented on 776.013 and I'm sure that the legislature will do some type of knee jerk thing to gather votes and it will end up more screwed up than before... but I digress
Regarding GZ / TM:
If G does a motion for protection under 776.013 (3) (almost certain), he will no doubt assert that he was attacked by T, point out the statements by witnesses that he was mounted by T and being 'ground and pounded', reasonably feared for his life, and that's why he used force.
The key issue, either with the motion or at trial, will be: who started the altercation.
G will say T did.
The State has no person to say otherwise, so they will get the jury to try to buy:
- G expressed a belligerence through his comments on the 911 call
- G disregarded a statement from 911 re: following T "we don't need you to do that'
- that the person yelling for help, in spite of being ID'd initially by Ts father as not T... is actually T.
- that T's face down position and various other perceived inconsistencies amount to a circumstantial case that concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that G started the altercation
the State has a major problem making that stick, but you never know about juries... if the Judge bows to public pressure and denies the SYG motion... it's still a longshot G does time, but you never know... IMO
note: in Florida 'Stalking' is a repeated act.. so by definition this case will not involve stalking....
