Florida's Stand Your Ground Law

[RANCH]

Bravo, RANCH! Best post I've seen on this issue. Protecting your house, your car, your business, all those make perfect sense. Common sense says that's a reasonable course of action.

Thanks for the bravo. While I do believe that Florida will change it's SYG law, I have mixed feelings about it. If the law does change to a more traditional "Castle Doctrine" type of self-defense, I feel that it may send the wrong message to the criminal element of our society. That being criminals will feel like they have an upper hand over law abiding citizens when out in public. JMO.

 

[Karmady]

Thanks for the bravo. While I do believe that Florida will change it's SYG law, I have mixed feelings about it. If the law does change to a more traditional "Castle Doctrine" type of self-defense, I feel that it may send the wrong message to the criminal element of our society. That being criminals will feel like they have an upper hand over law abiding citizens when out in public. JMO.

I think it would send a terrible message. I was thinking about the difference between the Florida law and the more traditional ones in other states and about what a reasonable compromise would be. I couldn't think of a valid reason why one should have a right to defend themselves in their own home, but not in a public place. Sure, I don't HAVE to be in that place like I do in my home or car, but surely a criminal's right to be there and assualt me isn't any greater than mine is to be there, is it?

What is the rationale for the distinction? Any thoughts?

 

[jaded cat]

I think it would send a terrible message. I was thinking about the difference between the Florida law and the more traditional ones in other states and about what a reasonable compromise would be. I couldn't think of a valid reason why one should have a right to defend themselves in their own home, but not in a public place. Sure, I don't HAVE to be in that place like I do in my home or car, but surely a criminal's right to be there and assualt me isn't any greater than mine is to be there, is it?

What is the rationale for the distinction? Any thoughts?

Dang it, I had the idea in my head then it ran away. I think the difference for me is when you're in your home or car or whatever, you shouldn't have the duty to retreat, you're where you belong. When you're in public, everyone has a right to be there and if some dipwad is causing trouble, you can leave. Maybe GZ didn't have to get out of his truck, this from what that blabbermouth Serino said.

All that comes to me right now is what I said from the beginning about the SYG law, it doesn't seem right that someone can pick a or be involved in a fight, then when they are start losing, shot their way out of it.

I don't totally grasp the ins and outs of the law, but I do understand the basics. I can't believe it ever got passed in the legislature.

 

[Karmady]

Dang it, I had the idea in my head then it ran away. I think the difference for me is when you're in your home or car or whatever, you shouldn't have the duty to retreat, you're where you belong. When you're in public, everyone has a right to be there and if some dipwad is causing trouble, you can leave. Maybe GZ didn't have to get out of his truck, this from what that blabbermouth Serino said.

All that comes to me right now is what I said from the beginning about the SYG law, it doesn't seem right that someone can pick a or be involved in a fight, then when they are start losing, shot their way out of it.

I don't totally grasp the ins and outs of the law, but I do understand the basics. I can't believe it ever got passed in the legislature.

There's no doubt that this law, and many of them, in fact, can be abused by actual criminals. Think about Miranda and how many appeals we allow in ANY criminal case. Imo, the truly anomolous case, like this one, is not a reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. Also imo, the concept of a law-abiding citizen having a right to defend themselves by whatever means necessary, in public or in private, is just. Crafting a law that permits that result without a few anomalies falling through the cracks is probably impossible. So, for me, it comes down to what is the greater good. Criminals having a free-for-all in public places, or a few examples of a just law enforced unjustly (mostly in favor of the criminals, I might add). I don't have a question of conscience there. I don't like that a teenager has died here. But I really do think that this case is aberrant and shouldn't be used as a reason to modify the SYG. jmo

 

[AJ Noiter]

There's no doubt that this law, and many of them, in fact, can be abused by actual criminals. Think about Miranda and how many appeals we allow in ANY criminal case. Imo, the truly anomolous case, like this one, is not a reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. Also imo, the concept of a law-abiding citizen having a right to defend themselves by whatever means necessary, in public or in private, is just. Crafting a law that permits that result without a few anomalies falling through the cracks is probably impossible. So, for me, it comes down to what is the greater good. Criminals having a free-for-all in public places, or a few examples of a just law enforced unjustly (mostly in favor of the cirminals, I might add). I don't have a question of conscience there. I don't like that a teenager has died here. But I really do think that this case is aberrant and shouldn't be used as a reason to modify the SYG. jmo

I agree with everything you said, and wanted to add one minor detail that is a "feeling" of mine. If the people who want to change the law felt that Mr. Zimmerman wasn't protected under it then there would be no need to change the law. People misunderstand laws all day every day so to say "we want to change it because people outside of law professions misunderstand it" seems odd. I think more likely is that they're wanting to change it because they know Mr. Zimmerman IS protected under this law. The next question then becomes "how much should someone have to take before they're able to defend themselves?" IF the legislators want to keep a SYG law. I think the best thing they could do is give a firm definition of "great bodily harm" - many states have - and leave the law itself alone.

 

[pjblack]

I agree with everything you said, and wanted to add one minor detail that is a "feeling" of mine. If the people who want to change the law felt that Mr. Zimmerman wasn't protected under it then there would be no need to change the law. People misunderstand laws all day every day so to say "we want to change it because people outside of law professions misunderstand it" seems odd. I think more likely is that they're wanting to change it because they know Mr. Zimmerman IS protected under this law. The next question then becomes "how much should someone have to take before they're able to defend themselves?" IF the legislators want to keep a SYG law. I think the best thing they could do is give a firm definition of "great bodily harm" - many states have - and leave the law itself alone.

While in theory I agree that the self-defense statutes would be so much easier to interpret if there is a precise definition of "great bodily harm", I also think that precision cannot be determined because a person whilest in a physical altercation cannot accurately predict whether the next blow would end in a kill or not.

For example, a person can strike another person lightly and even with an open palm and yet at the right angle or at the right area on the body particularly if the one being struck has a pre-existing medical condition, or where each person is positioned -- on a hill for instance -- can fatally kill the other person with just one single hit.

Therein lies the rub and why, I believe, the law is purposefully vague in terms of what constitutes "great bodily harm". This is why the law states that self-defense is justified based on a person's perception of fear of grave bodily harm/death and not the extent of physical injury.

 

[cmsg2002]

While in theory I agree that the self-defense statutes would be so much easier to interpret if there is a precise definition of "great bodily harm", I also think that precision cannot be determined because a person whilest in a physical altercation cannot accurately predict whether the next blow would end in a kill or not.

For example, a person can strike another person lightly and even with an open palm and yet at the right angle or at the right area on the body particularly if the one being struck has a pre-existing medical condition, or where each person is positioned -- on a hill for instance -- can fatally kill the other person with just one single hit.

Therein lies the rub and why, I believe, the law is purposefully vague in terms of what constitutes "great bodily harm". This is why the law states that self-defense is justified based on a person's perception of fear of grave bodily harm/death and not the extent of physical injury.

BBM...this is exactly the problem with this law...people's perceptions of fear are going to vary significantly from one person to the next, and it is way too subjective of an issue to have a law based on that. MOO

 

[tehcloser]

I'm trying to figure out where to put this, I guess here is good. People are making the point that it's not illegal to get out of a car, or to follow someone. That's true. BUT...and it's a big one. There is this thing called INTENT. That keeps getting left out. There are alot of things that aren't illegal...but when added with a persons intent you have a crime. I can get in and out of my car all day. I can walk around following you...but if my intent is to detain/harm/shoot/kill of otherwise cause bad things to happen to you.........guess what. I'm in trouble and it started with me getting out of my car and following you. So it's not just getting out of a car, and it's not just following someone, there is a whole lot more to it and we all know this.

 

[pjblack]

BBM...this is exactly the problem with this law...people's perceptions of fear are going to vary significantly from one person to the next, and it is way too subjective of an issue to have a law based on that. MOO

Agree. The subjectivity of fear perception permitted by self-defense laws can be abused by criminals intent on gaining an advantage from its vague interpretation. But this can be said of other laws in the books. For example, people and corporations bent on skipping out of paying federal and state mandated taxes can find loopholes in tax laws.

I think the bigger question is this: Would society gain a greater good by abolishing self-defense laws as a whole, or do these laws serve a necessary purpose? Should we take away the rights of all people to justifiably defend themselves for the sake of one or two bad apples?

 

[cityslick]

I'm trying to figure out where to put this, I guess here is good. People are making the point that it's not illegal to get out of a car, or to follow someone. That's true. BUT...and it's a big one. There is this thing called INTENT. That keeps getting left out. There are alot of things that aren't illegal...but when added with a persons intent you have a crime. I can get in and out of my car all day. I can walk around following you...but if my intent is to detain/harm/shoot/kill of otherwise cause bad things to happen to you.........guess what. I'm in trouble and it started with me getting out of my car and following you. So it's not just getting out of a car, and it's not just following someone, there is a whole lot more to it and we all know this.

BBM

Fair enough. What is the evidence in this case that proves that GZ intended to harm or even detain TM?

 

[tehcloser]

BBM

Fair enough. What is the evidence in this case that proves that GZ intended to harm or even detain TM?

When we get to see all the evidence I can answer that. There are several things we have already that lead me to think he did.....but that's just how I see it so far. When it's all said and done, who knows. The 911 call and the azzhole remark, the "injuries", his family and friends are sure not helping his cause. The witnesses and that merry go round I don't know what to think there. I wish SPD had done a better job. I have to consider the meds he was possibly taking and why he refused medical help. It's just several things. What things stand out on the other side that make it look like he didn't?

 

[cityslick]

When we get to see all the evidence I can answer that. There are several things we have already that lead me to think he did.....but that's just how I see it so far. When it's all said and done, who knows. The 911 call and the azzhole remark, the "injuries", his family and friends are sure not helping his cause. The witnesses and that merry go round I don't know what to think there. I wish SPD had done a better job. I have to consider the meds he was possibly taking and why he refused medical help. It's just several things. What things stand out on the other side that make it look like he didn't?

The fact that he does in fact have injuries. The fact that the 911, to me, doesn't indicate that he was gunning for TM, concern and suspectability of TM, yes. But not that he was wanting to hurt TM. The fact that he immediately was aware of the fact that he shot his gun and told the closest person to him that he shot someone.

TBH, GZ strikes me as an ambulance chaser. Once who likes to protest and make noise. Shout about what he perceives as wrongs. But I don't see him as someone who actually would want to get into a confrontation. When the heat gets in his face, I think he is one to cower and hide. I could be wrong, but that's my perception at this point in time.

 

[tehcloser]

The fact that he does in fact have injuries. The fact that the 911, to me, doesn't indicate that he was gunning for TM, concern and suspectability of TM, yes. But not that he was wanting to hurt TM. The fact that he immediately was aware of the fact that he shot his gun and told the closest person to him that he shot someone.

TBH, GZ strikes me as an ambulance chaser. Once who likes to protest and make noise. Shout about what he perceives as wrongs. But I don't see him as someone who actually would want to get into a confrontation. I could be wrong, but that's my perception at this point in time.

To be honest, I do waffle back and forth on if he got out ready to push it or if he got out and things just went bad when TM fought back. I don't think it was a SYG case at all, nor self defense. I think we will see manslaughter when it's all said and done. I do think he had a problem with TM being black, but I think GZ hates all races.......KWIM? So does that make it a hate crime, IDK it's tricky.

 

[cityslick]

To be honest, I do waffle back and forth on if he got out ready to push it or if he got out and things just went bad when TM fought back. I don't think it was a SYG case at all, nor self defense. I think we will see manslaughter when it's all said and done. I do think he had a problem with TM being black, but I think GZ hates all races.......KWIM? So does that make it a hate crime, IDK it's tricky.

There is not enough there for me to say it's a hate crime. As far as SYG, there is a reason why I have not voted in the poll yet and it's because I don't know yet. I can easily see this as manslaughter but I can also see it as something that did get out of control, out of GZ's control. I can see him getting scared and doing something in the heat of the moment (like shooting TM). That's where the law comes into play. I think the law as it stands now is a bad law but to me that's a secondary debate. The main issue is if he is protected by a bad law.

 

[Karmady]

About the intent discussion, just wanted to point out that the crime George is charged with does not require any intent. In fact, under a NY case I posted a while back, you can't be convicted of the charge if you HAVE intent. Not sure if it's the same in Fla, though.

And George is not charged with any other crime (although I understand he could be found guilty of the lesser includeds), so his intent in following, confronting, or even making the first physically aggressive move, will not be relevant to the murder2 charge.

I know you're probably just discussing this in kind of a philosophical general way, but thought I'd mention it

 

[Karmady]

There is not enough there for me to say it's a hate crime. As far as SYG, there is a reason why I have not voted in the poll yet and it's because I don't know yet. I can easily see this as manslaughter but I can also see it as something that did get out of control, out of GZ's control. I can see him getting scared and doing something in the heat of the moment (like shooting TM). That's where the law comes into play. I think the law as it stands now is a bad law but to me that's a secondary debate. The main issue is if he is protected by a bad law.

I agree with you about the manslaughter v. syg, but I did vote. Only because based on what we've seen so far, I don't think the State can overcome a preponderance of the evidence that George was attacked first. The only thing there is on that is George's statements and his injuries, which can't be refuted on that point since there is no countervailing evidence that I know of other than MAYBE (and it's a huge maybe) the girl friend's testimony about the "catch" or whatever in Trayvon's voice. But even if that's allowed in, I don't think it's probative of who struck whom first. There's also the autopsy with no evidence of blows having been landed on Trayvon's body. Plus, the case law is very favorable to George. Although, as I mentioned elsewhere, there is a question in my mind as to whether the judge will have the fortitude to rule in his favor or send it to the jury. Then there's always the appeal issue. I STILL don't know whether an SYG ruling is immediately appealable, but I'm guessing that it is since it's an immunity from arrest and prosecution statute.

 

[rotterdam]

I like to see the law changed in regard to the immunity part and only want that immunity protection when you are in your house and/or place of business plus a higher bar for a concealed weapon permit.
As it stands now, SYG favors the shooter big time and strips the dead victim practically of all his civil rights or due process when killed in a public place. An unsuspected victim can be killed without doing anything illegal ( quite different when breaking into a house or place of business) just because some gun toting nut case is scared, paranoid or some other vague reason.

It strips the dead victim's family of any right to file a civil suit. The sole avenue a private citizen has left to get it before a jury since only DA's can file a criminal suit.
Before the SYG was passed, I can not recall any situation where somebody killed a person in a public place out of genuine self defense and ended up in jail. A jury would surely acquit if charged, hence D.A's do not prosecute even before SYG. Apparently the existing self defense laws involving homicide in a public place were working just dandy. The only pathetic example they used for passing this SYG law, was that elderly couple in a trailer ( which really was a Castle doctrine case) and who did not get convicted/charged anyway. Maybe some changes were needed but the current SYG is too extreme IMO.
Some articles are now referring to Fla as the Gunshine State and I concur.

From living previously in FLA, I remember how easy it was to get a concealed weapon permit. Not that easy here in PA. And I wonder if GZ would have had a permit to carry a gun but not concealed, the outcome would be different and Trayvon would still be alive. GZ might have left his gun in his car. That is what most folks do here or the gun generally stays at home if they have no concealed weapon permit. Concealed weapon plus current SYG is a lethal combination in Fl.

I remember some years ago (PA passed a SYG last year) when I lived in a fairly remote PA location and the castle doctrine allowed you to shoot somebody breaking into your home. But was told at the same time to make sure he/she had at least their body partly inside the house. If you shoot them on your porch or lawn, it was suggested to me to drag the person partly over the door threshold . Now, that made absolutely no sense to me either.
Although I think, most people will major hesitate to kill somebody and rather retreat when possible regardless what the law allows them to get away it unless they had some serious military training. All IMO.

 

[annalia]

I'm trying to figure out where to put this, I guess here is good. People are making the point that it's not illegal to get out of a car, or to follow someone. That's true. BUT...and it's a big one. There is this thing called INTENT. That keeps getting left out. There are alot of things that aren't illegal...but when added with a persons intent you have a crime. I can get in and out of my car all day. I can walk around following you...but if my intent is to detain/harm/shoot/kill of otherwise cause bad things to happen to you.........guess what. I'm in trouble and it started with me getting out of my car and following you. So it's not just getting out of a car, and it's not just following someone, there is a whole lot more to it and we all know this.

BBM

That is so true, and there have been legal experts who have said exactly that. His intent in going after Trayvon negates SYG or self defense.

Also, Trayvon's rights to stand his ground and defend himself aren't dismissed just because he's dead.

Interesting that in two recent cases, the judge ruled against SYG, it's not always so cut and dry. Will be very interesting if the defense decides to go for a SYG defense.

JMHO

 

[rotterdam]

I agree with you about the manslaughter v. syg, but I did vote. Only because based on what we've seen so far, I don't think the State can overcome a preponderance of the evidence that George was attacked first. The only thing there is on that is George's statements and his injuries, which can't be refuted on that point since there is no countervailing evidence that I know of other than MAYBE (and it's a huge maybe) the girl friend's testimony about the "catch" or whatever in Trayvon's voice. But even if that's allowed in, I don't think it's probative of who struck whom first. There's also the autopsy with no evidence of blows having been landed on Trayvon's body. Plus, the case law is very favorable to George. Although, as I mentioned elsewhere, there is a question in my mind as to whether the judge will have the fortitude to rule in his favor or send it to the jury. Then there's always the appeal issue. I STILL don't know whether an SYG ruling is immediately appealable, but I'm guessing that it is since it's an immunity from arrest and prosecution statute.

The way I read the law, it looks to me that SYG immunity can be requested multiple times at various stages in a case after previous rejections including in appeals. And could be very expensive to the original prosecuting county since restitution will be required under the same law if SYG is accepted somewhere down the line.. That could have a chilling effect in questionable SYG cases. The law protects the shooter but offers practically no protection for a dead victim.

 

[jaded cat]

Here's another part of this law I think is wrong: shooting someone should be treated exactly like any other suspicious death. I don't understand why a tox screen can't be done on a person that just shot someone. Does SYG apply if you're drunk?

No arrest at the time of the incident but the police must investigate the circumstances. I don't blame GZ for this law. I will be a little bitter if he goes free because of it. I don't think it needs to be abolished as much as fine tuned.

I don't understand the concept of a concealed weapon. Concealed from who? If I'm out in public with others, don't I have the right to know that someone near me has a gun? That's kinda scary to me!