Stand Your Ground. License to kill?

[techs]

http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...s-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133

During an argument at a 2009 party in Fort Myers, Omar Bonilla fired his gun into the ground and beat Demarro Battle, then went inside and gave the gun to a friend. If Battle feared for his life, he had time to flee. Instead, he got a gun from his car and returned to shoot Bonilla three times, including once in the back. Battle was not charged in the slaying.

Jimmy Hair, who was sitting in a car when he was attacked in Tallahassee, was treated differently. He shot his victim as the man was being pulled from the vehicle. An appeals court gave immunity to Hair, saying: "The statute makes no exception from immunity when the victim is in retreat at the time the defensive force is employed."

Two men fell into the water while fighting on a dock. When one started climbing out of the water, the other shot him in the back of the head, killing him. He was acquitted after arguing "stand your ground."

A Citrus County man in a longstanding dispute with a neighbor shot and killed the man one night in 2009. He was not charged even though a witness and the location of two bullet wounds showed the victim was turning to leave when he was shot.

Even chasing and killing someone over a drug buy can be considered standing your ground.

Anthony Gonzalez Jr. was part of a 2010 drug deal that went sour when someone threatened Gonzalez with a gun. Gonzalez chased the man down and killed him during a high-speed gunbattle through Miami streets.


All of the above got off.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

I'm fine with that.

If you don't want shit, don't start shit especially if you can't finish it.

Way too many people nowadays are siding with these thugs and criminals who initiate confrontations and then want to skip away when they start losing.

 

[thraashman]

Being legally allowed to defend yourself is one thing. Some of these stand your ground laws go well beyond that. In Florida the SYG laws legalize murder in far too many cases.

 

[DaveSimmons]

The "victims":

- Omar Bonilla fired his gun into the ground and beat Demarro Battle ...
- carjacker
- fighting on a dock
- ( need more details )
- high-speed gunbattle

These aren't very good examples, none of the dead seem innocent except possibly the neighbor.

Just because someone is turning away doesn't mean they aren't reaching for a gun of their own, or a rock to bash your skull in with.

 

[Doppel]

It certainly was when Trayvon was shot dead in cold blood.

Ok but seriously yeah it kind of is a license to murder. Not always, but it makes prosecuting ridiculously hard and the only benefit of it is basically pride and not having to "run away". Nobody questions lethal self-defense, but the law is probably silly and some court cases have made good arguments for that.

 

[techs]

The concept that it doesn't matter whether you are actually being threatened or are in a truly threatening situation is scary.

The law says to invoke stand your ground as long as you felt you were being threatened you can kill someone. Thats insane. In fact, if you are prone to paranoia, are a racist or just think that everyone is out to get you, it lets you kill someone.

In fact, if you cheat someone out of some money, and then wonder whether they may come back and hurt you, you could concievably hunt them down and kill them.

 

[DaveSimmons]

That chart seems a bit slanted from its language, labeling the deceased "the victim" even if he was a carjacker or other criminal. Also an "unarmed" person can still beat you to death with their fists.

A better chart would split the "unarmed" into sub-groups such as "attacked the shooter" vs. "made shooter feel threatened because he had brown skin, a hoodie and skittles"

Without telling us how many of the "unarmed" were violent or career criminals there's no way to know many were truly victims.

I'm not so much defending SYG as pointing out this article and chart are Fox-level sensationalism.

 

[Infohawk]

The law says to invoke stand your ground as long as you felt you were being threatened you can kill someone. Thats insane. In fact, if you are prone to paranoia, are a racist or just think that everyone is out to get you, it lets you kill someone.

In fact, if you cheat someone out of some money, and then wonder whether they may come back and hurt you, you could concievably hunt them down and kill them.

You're really exaggerating and it hurts your cause.

 

[HeXen]

i think if you instigate a situation that leads to violence, your faulty. If your trying to ignore or get away from an instigation activity from someone else, then your a victim.

 

[techs]

You're really exaggerating and it hurts your cause.

Not really when you consider the actual cases like where a drug deal went bad and the killer chased their victim thru the streets in order to shoot them.
Or how a person who was obviously deranged merely approached someones home. They didn't try to get in.
And, if you read the link, there are cases where people actively sought out their victim, initiated the confrontation, then killed them.

 

[Fern]

The concept that it doesn't matter whether you are actually being threatened or are in a truly threatening situation is scary.

The law says to invoke stand your ground as long as you felt you were being threatened you can kill someone. Thats insane. In fact, if you are prone to paranoia, are a racist or just think that everyone is out to get you, it lets you kill someone.

In fact, if you cheat someone out of some money, and then wonder whether they may come back and hurt you, you could concievably hunt them down and kill them.

No.

As has been remarked before, if you drill down to the details of these cases that sound crazy you often that they are not so crazy after all.

As to the law, in SYG states, like non-SYG states, the requirement is that you have a reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm or death.

It's not whether you had reasonable fear, but rather the standard of would a "reasonable person" have had that fear.

Fern

 

[techs]

No.

As has been remarked before, if you drill down to the details of these cases that sound crazy you often that they are not so crazy after all.

As to the law, in SYG states, like non-SYG states, the requirement is that you have a reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm or death.

It's not whether you had reasonable fear, but rather the standard of would a "reasonable person" have had that fear.

Fern

Ah, thats where you are wrong. In Florida it has been changed around to not whether a "reasonable" fear, but whether the killer had the fear, even if unreasonable.
See the link to this in the other thread. Florida specifically allows you to pursue someone who is fleeing a kill them. Clearly not reasonable.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Ah, thats where you are wrong. In Florida it has been changed around to not whether a "reasonable" fear, but whether the killer had the fear, even if unreasonable.
See the link to this in the other thread. Florida specifically allows you to pursue someone who is fleeing a kill them. Clearly not reasonable.

If the standard was that low, Zimmerman would not have a $1 million bail, it wouldn't be possible to charge him at all.

 

[techs]

Ah, thats where you are wrong. In Florida it has been changed around to not whether a "reasonable" fear, but whether the killer had the fear, even if unreasonable.
See the link to this in the other thread. Florida specifically allows you to pursue someone who is fleeing a kill them. Clearly not reasonable.

If the standard was that low, Zimmerman would not have a $1 million bail, it wouldn't be possible to charge him at all.

He has a million dollar bail because he lied to the judge to get bail the first time.
And, bail is designed to get a defendant to show up for trial. Since the charge was so serious if Zimmerman was guilty he would get a long sentence the judge set the initial bail so high.

Listen, Zimmerman is going to get off. Florida law is screwed up so he is going to walk.
There is really not much evidence to contradict Zimmerman. Dead men can't testify.

 

[MovingTarget]

I don't think "stand your ground" should apply here. Sure, he had no legal duty to retreat, but SYG laws aren't meant to allow someone to retreat, obtain a weapon, and come back to finish the job. That isn't standing your ground. Its vigilantiism. Shooting someone else in the back has another term associated with it - cowardice.

If he had his weapon within his reach and used it to defend himself, then fine, don't prosecute him. SYG laws are fine in theory as they allow people to properly defend themselves without the fear of legal prosecution, but in reality (as in this case), it is interpreted as giving one free reign to use deadly force. That is not the spirit of these laws.

 

[Jaskalas]

... Florida specifically allows you to pursue someone who is fleeing a kill them. Clearly not reasonable.

That needs to be changed to explicitly, and accurately, define self defense.

I _may_ even go so far as to allow a federal law mandating that such accurate definitions be required.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Ah, thats where you are wrong. In Florida it has been changed around to not whether a "reasonable" fear, but whether the killer had the fear, even if unreasonable.
See the link to this in the other thread. Florida specifically allows you to pursue someone who is fleeing a kill them. Clearly not reasonable.

Obviously you haven't educated yourself on what's actually stated in the Florida Statutes.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.


776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(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.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

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.

 

[techs]

I don't think "stand your ground" should apply here. Sure, he had no legal duty to retreat, but SYG laws aren't meant to allow someone to retreat, obtain a weapon, and come back to finish the job. That isn't standing your ground. Its vigilantiism. Shooting someone else in the back has another term associated with it - cowardice.

If he had his weapon within his reach and used it to defend himself, then fine, don't prosecute him. SYG laws are fine in theory as they allow people to properly defend themselves without the fear of legal prosecution, but in reality (as in this case), it is interpreted as giving one free reign to use deadly force. That is not the spirit of these laws.

Whether it was meant to or not there was a specific case of someone who went out to their car to get a gun, came back and killed someone. And they got off.

 

[blankslate]

Stand your ground has led to some strange interpretations of the phrase "self Defense"

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1233133.ece

Questionable cases

Whatever lawmakers' expectations, "stand your ground" arguments have resulted in freedom or reduced sentences for some unlikely defendants.

• An 18-year-old felon, convicted of cocaine and weapons charges, shot and wounded a neighbor in the stomach, then fled the scene and was involved in another nonfatal shootout two days later, according to police. He was granted immunity in the first shooting.

• Two men fell into the water while fighting on a dock. When one started climbing out of the water, the other shot him in the back of the head, killing him. He was acquitted after arguing "stand your ground."

• A Seventh-day Adventist was acting erratically, doing cartwheels through an apartment complex parking lot, pounding on cars and apartment windows and setting off alarms. A tenant who felt threatened by the man's behavior shot and killed him. He was not charged.

• A Citrus County man in a longstanding dispute with a neighbor shot and killed the man one night in 2009. He was not charged even though a witness and the location of two bullet wounds showed the victim was turning to leave when he was shot.

Even chasing and killing someone over a drug buy can be considered standing your ground.

Anthony Gonzalez Jr. was part of a 2010 drug deal that went sour when someone threatened Gonzalez with a gun. Gonzalez chased the man down and killed him during a high-speed gunbattle through Miami streets.

Before the "stand your ground'' law, Miami-Dade prosecutors would have had a strong murder case because Gonzalez could have retreated instead of chasing the other vehicle. But Gonzalez's lawyer argued he had a right to be in his car, was licensed to carry a gun and thought his life was in danger.

Soon after the filing of a "stand your ground'' motion, prosecutors agreed to a deal in which Gonzalez pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of manslaughter and got three years in prison.

"The limitations imposed on us by the 'stand your ground' laws made it impossible for any prosecutor to pursue murder charges,'' Griffith of the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office said at the time. "This is certainly a very difficult thing to tell a grieving family member.''

]I've seen some people engage in impressive displays of mental gymnastics in an effort to defend these laws because they can't stand it when a gun owner might be involved in an unjustified shooting.

People do have a right to defend themselves however this law also makes it too easy to claim self defense when evidence indicates that they perhaps went beyond that.

According to the source article it may be too unpredictable in terms of the results it turns out

Cases with similar facts show surprising — sometimes shocking — differences in outcomes. If you claim "stand your ground" as the reason you shot someone, what happens to you can depend less on the merits of the case than on who you are, whom you kill and where your case is decided.

The merits of the case should be more important than the other factors imo.