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.
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)?
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.
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. 
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.
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.
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.
Another problem with Smith’s case, since he admits doing exactly this.
I imagine you’re correct, assuming it goes to trial.
I was using Ohio as the basis for my comparison; no, it’s not universally true. I should have made that clear.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I’m not sure that any of the actions of Sanes, as described, fit the definition of criminal trespass.
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.
Sarnes wasn’t the shooter.
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.