# Florida man claims self defense after chasing a man over a fence and shooting him. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 21, 2014, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-man-claims-self-defense-after-chasing-a-man-over-a-fence-and-shooting-him/679404 "2014-01-21T22:17:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2014, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-man-claims-self-defense-after-chasing-a-man-over-a-fence-and-shooting-him/679404/21 "2014-01-22T14:33:29Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > I’m not sure that the “duty to retreat” plays a factor in this case, or these types of cases more generally. My guess is that the question is going to be the reasonableness of drawing his weapon in the first place (and whether that waived the right to self-defense). It won’t play a factor in this case, but only because Florida has no duty to retreat. If it did, then Smith’s self-defense claim would be burdened by having to prove by a preponderance of the evidence, among other things, that he was unable to retreat or otherwise avoid the danger, except by using deadly force. Given that he chased the victim over a wall and into a neighboring apartment complex, he would be unable to prove this. Thus, people have an incentive to de-escalate conflicts instead of turning them into shootouts. Fewer people shot dead, and a net gain for society. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2014, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-man-claims-self-defense-after-chasing-a-man-over-a-fence-and-shooting-him/679404/22 "2014-01-22T14:36:27Z")
Well, we do have a duty to retreat if the shooter was in a place he had no right to be. He was _also_ trespassing, remember. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2014, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-man-claims-self-defense-after-chasing-a-man-over-a-fence-and-shooting-him/679404/23 "2014-01-22T14:39:12Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Well, we do have a duty to retreat if the shooter was in a place he had no right to be. He was _also_ trespassing, remember. I’ll cheerfully admit I hadn’t considered that aspect at all. What does this mean for Mr. Smith’s self-defense claim, setting aside all the other problems with it (victim shot in the back, Mr. Smith leaving the scene, discarding pistol, and going into hiding)? ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2014, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-man-claims-self-defense-after-chasing-a-man-over-a-fence-and-shooting-him/679404/24 "2014-01-22T14:53:36Z")
I fully support stand your ground laws. However, Standing Your Ground does not mean “following until you have a reason to shoot.” Had he stayed relatively close to his apartment (or apartment’s common areas) and felt the need to defend himself, I’d be all for supporting his decision. Following/Chasing the guy far beyond his own apartment/common area and even past his complex’s property line? I think that’s a murderin’ and he should go to jail. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2014, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-man-claims-self-defense-after-chasing-a-man-over-a-fence-and-shooting-him/679404/25 "2014-01-22T15:03:22Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > What does this mean for Mr. Smith’s self-defense claim, setting aside all the other problems with it (victim shot in the back, Mr. Smith leaving the scene, discarding pistol, and going into hiding)? It means an endless series of news articles where journalists misconstrue the SYG law (which I am very much against) and its effect on the case. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2014, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-man-claims-self-defense-after-chasing-a-man-over-a-fence-and-shooting-him/679404/26 "2014-01-22T15:39:35Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > It won’t play a factor in this case, but only because Florida has no duty to retreat. If it did, then Smith’s self-defense claim would be burdened by having to prove by a preponderance of the evidence, among other things, that he was unable to retreat or otherwise avoid the danger, except by using deadly force. Given that he chased the victim over a wall and into a neighboring apartment complex, he would be unable to prove this. Thus, people have an incentive to de-escalate conflicts instead of turning them into shootouts. Fewer people shot dead, and a net gain for society. I don’t think that the “duty to retreat” requires you to retreat from potential confrontations; it requires you to retreat in the fact of an actual confrontation, if you can. You also can’t claim “stand your ground” if you initiate the physical confrontation (unless the other person escalates it unreasonably). With or without a duty to retreat, I think the question here is going to be that Smith clearly initiated the force and his claim, I guess, is that the other guy trying to grab the gun constituted the unreasonable escalation from which retreat was not possible. Also, does a “duty to retreat” really shift the burden of proof on the defendant to establish the inability to retreat? I know under the English common law, it did; but then again, so did all self-defense (right)? I think only Ohio engages burden-shifting for self-defense. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2014, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-man-claims-self-defense-after-chasing-a-man-over-a-fence-and-shooting-him/679404/27 "2014-01-22T15:50:00Z")
It’s only Ohio. In Florida (and just about everywhere else in the US, I think) the state has to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2014, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-man-claims-self-defense-after-chasing-a-man-over-a-fence-and-shooting-him/679404/28 "2014-01-22T15:58:20Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > I don’t think that the “duty to retreat” requires you to retreat from potential confrontations; it requires you to retreat in the fact of an actual confrontation, if you can. Right, I’m merely suggesting that chasing someone who is no threat to you and is only trying to flee off your property and over a fence, counts (or ought to count) as a confrontation for the purposes of the duty to retreat attaching. Time permitting, I’ll peruse some case law, re: when the duty to retreat attaches, for states that have it. > [@Falchion](#): > > You also can’t claim “stand your ground” if you initiate the physical confrontation (unless the other person escalates it unreasonably). Another problem with Smith’s case, since he admits doing exactly this. > [@Falchion](#): > > With or without a duty to retreat, I think the question here is going to be that Smith clearly initiated the force and his claim, I guess, is that the other guy trying to grab the gun constituted the unreasonable escalation from which retreat was not possible. I imagine you’re correct, assuming it goes to trial. > [@Falchion](#): > > Also, does a “duty to retreat” really shift the burden of proof on the defendant to establish the inability to retreat? I know under the English common law, it did; but then again, so did all self-defense (right)? I think only Ohio engages burden-shifting for self-defense. I was using Ohio as the basis for my comparison; no, it’s not universally true. I should have made that clear. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2014, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-man-claims-self-defense-after-chasing-a-man-over-a-fence-and-shooting-him/679404/29 "2014-01-22T16:24:27Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Right, I’m merely suggesting that chasing someone who is no threat to you and is only trying to flee off your property and over a fence, counts (or ought to count) as a confrontation for the purposes of the duty to retreat attaching. > > Time permitting, I’ll peruse some case law, re: when the duty to retreat attaches, for states that have it. My thinking is just that (with or without a duty to retreat) you already have a duty not to chase people down and physically assault them. Frankly, based on the facts we have, it’s the deceased who is faced with the “duty to retreat” problem: he gets attacked by Smith, does he take a swing or flee? I don’t think requiring retreat from force prevents this situation since I don’t know not having it allows it. The same is true if Smith didn’t attack him first. Walking up to someone and demanding to know what they’re doing is perfectly legal. If they attack you, then you have a duty to retreat (if you can); but I don’t know whether that duty prevents someone from the initial challenge. Also, I believe, the duty to retreat only applies to deadly force. And by the time you need to use deadly force, in that situation, odds are that retreat is no longer an option. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2014, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-man-claims-self-defense-after-chasing-a-man-over-a-fence-and-shooting-him/679404/30 "2014-01-22T16:31:55Z")
I think we can also call bullshit on Smith’s claim that Sanes “punched him in the mouth and grabbed for his gun” - not only was Sanes shot in the back, it appears _Sanes was armed_. Surely he’d just pull out his own gun. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2014, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-man-claims-self-defense-after-chasing-a-man-over-a-fence-and-shooting-him/679404/31 "2014-01-22T16:37:02Z")
> [@XT](#): > > You mentioned it by implication, since you mentioned Trayvon Martin (and the supposed similarities which I’m failing to see) AND linked to an article where it’s right there in the title. > > But ok, fine…you never thought of stand your ground and it has nothing to do with this OP. I won’t mention it again. What’s the similarities between this and the Trayvon Martin case? I’ll remember in the future to scour the web for versions of stories that don’t mention “stand your ground”, just for you. Would that make you happy? :rolleyes: Please show me where I said that I never thought of it. Obviously I thought of it because it was in the article, but I didn’t think it was applicable so I didn’t mention it. And I already said what I thought the parallels were. A man, by unnecessarily playing vigilante, caused a dangerous situation and then shot in self-defense. You honestly don’t see the parallels? ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2014, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-man-claims-self-defense-after-chasing-a-man-over-a-fence-and-shooting-him/679404/32 "2014-01-22T16:41:09Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > Add me to wanting more information before coming to any conclusions, but you know what else is just asking for trouble? Punching a man with a gun in the mouth and trying to grab his gun. Maybe. It could be that he was frightened and thought the man was going to shoot him, so he tried to defend himself. People don’t read minds in cases like this. They also have to think quick and, with adrenaline flowing, may not think very clearly. We just don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2014, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-man-claims-self-defense-after-chasing-a-man-over-a-fence-and-shooting-him/679404/33 "2014-01-22T16:53:25Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > My thinking is just that (with or without a duty to retreat) you already have a duty not to chase people down and physically assault them. Frankly, based on the facts we have, it’s the deceased who is faced with the “duty to retreat” problem: he gets attacked by Smith, does he take a swing or flee? I don’t think requiring retreat from force prevents this situation since I don’t know not having it allows it. > > The same is true if Smith didn’t attack him first. Walking up to someone and demanding to know what they’re doing is perfectly legal. If they attack you, then you have a duty to retreat (if you can); but I don’t know whether that duty prevents someone from the initial challenge. Also, I believe, the duty to retreat only applies to deadly force. And by the time you need to use deadly force, in that situation, odds are that retreat is no longer an option. Fair point, this isn’t actually a great case to make the argument I was intending to make, so I’ll save it for another day. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2014, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-man-claims-self-defense-after-chasing-a-man-over-a-fence-and-shooting-him/679404/34 "2014-01-22T16:55:35Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Well, we do have a duty to retreat if the shooter was in a place he had no right to be. He was _also_ trespassing, remember. I’m not sure that any of the actions of Sanes, as described, fit the definition of criminal trespass. ---
**Author:** ![Bozuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bozuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bozuit)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2014, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-man-claims-self-defense-after-chasing-a-man-over-a-fence-and-shooting-him/679404/35 "2014-01-22T17:09:51Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > Maybe. It could be that he was frightened and thought the man was going to shoot him, so he tried to defend himself. People don’t read minds in cases like this. They also have to think quick and, with adrenaline flowing, may not think very clearly. We just don’t know. Isn’t this the problem with incredibly generous self-defence laws? Person A looks suspicious. Person B becomes suspicious and investigates. Person A sees someone following/looking at them and feels suspicious. Both fear for their safety and decide to use “self-defence”. Perhaps Person B draws a gun to “defend” himself with. Person A sees a gun and decides he needs to defend himself too. Someone gets shot, and whoever it is, the other can reasonably claim to have been in fear for their life. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2014, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-man-claims-self-defense-after-chasing-a-man-over-a-fence-and-shooting-him/679404/36 "2014-01-22T17:52:56Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I’m not sure that any of the actions of Sanes, as described, fit the definition of criminal trespass. Sarnes wasn’t the shooter. ---
**Author:** ![Walton\_Firm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/45deac/32.png) [@Walton\_Firm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walton_Firm)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2014, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-man-claims-self-defense-after-chasing-a-man-over-a-fence-and-shooting-him/679404/37 "2014-01-31T20:21:08Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > I think we can also call bullshit on Smith’s claim that Sanes “punched him in the mouth and grabbed for his gun” - not only was Sanes shot in the back, it appears _Sanes was armed_. Surely he’d just pull out his own gun. When someone is standing a few feet away from you and is holding a gun in his hand, aimed at you, it’s a bit late to try and go for your own weapon, especially if you have to fish it out of your pants first. Trying to grab the other guy’s gun and force him to point it away from you, is probably the safer tactic in that case. ---
**Author:** ![Ranger\_Jeff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranger_jeff/32/2065_2.png) [@Ranger\_Jeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranger_Jeff)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2014, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-man-claims-self-defense-after-chasing-a-man-over-a-fence-and-shooting-him/679404/38 "2014-02-01T06:20:57Z")
> [@Walton\_Firm](#): > > When someone is standing a few feet away from you and is holding a gun in his hand, aimed at you, it’s a bit late to try and go for your own weapon, especially if you have to fish it out of your pants first. Trying to grab the other guy’s gun and force him to point it away from you, is probably the safer tactic in that case. I guess this proves that stylishly gangstaesque baggy pants with a handgun tucked in the waistband just isn’t a great combination, in a tactical sense. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/florida-man-claims-self-defense-after-chasing-a-man-over-a-fence-and-shooting-him/679404.md?page=1)