Florida's Stand Your Ground law - good or bad law? Poorly understood?

Great Debates
1

In the wake of the shooting in Florida of an unarmed black teen boy in a hoodie by a neighborhood watch captain (see thread here), this Florida law is getting a lot of publicity.

Here is another case: briefly,

So the Florida judge threw out the case of second degree murder against Garcia, saying that this was a case of self-defense under the Florida law.

I can see where this approach and interpretation would appeal to the wild west in all of us, especially as actual police protection dwindles due to economic and tax issues.

But surely Mr. Garcia’s behavior crossed the line from self-defense to attack when he started chasing the thief down the block. Or does the law state or imply that “self-defense” includes defense of one’s personal property? Note that the story does not make clear whether the thief had actually taken Garcia’s radio, although apparently he had taken other people’s radios.

To me this is pretty damn close to vigilantism, and does not represent the kind of society I want to live in. I hope and expect that this law will ultimately be overturned by a court, but I don’t know on what grounds that would be done.

Secondly, would the family of the murdered thief have the option of suing Garcia in civil court for wrongful death? Would this criminal law have any bearing on a case like that?
Roddy

2

From what I’ve read it sounds like the problem is that the law is not being applied correctly, not that the law is wrong. Not that I’ve got a problem with Roteta’s death, but AIUI neither case should have been covered by the law as written.

3

I don’t know if it’s a problem with the law or this particular judge’s interpretation of the law. I’m also unfamiliar with Florida’s laws in regards to force and property theft. For all I know, it might be legal in Florida to use deadly force to protect property. In Texas you can use deadly force to prevent property theft or to recover property that has been stolen.

I don’t see why not. O.J. was found not guilty and he still got sued. From a practical point of view the family in Florida have little to gain from suing.

4

The problem is that while there is often nontestimonial evidence about whether a person could have retreated, there is rarely nontestimonial evidence about the other factors that are key to self-defense. It’s hard to know if another person put you in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical harm if that person is dead and there are no witnesses. It is much easier to know if the circumstances allowed for you to retreat.

So it’s a sort of prophylactic requirement. Even if you think people ought to have the moral right to engage in self-defense even when they can retreat, you might want them to have to retreat anyway to avoid these ambiguous cases.

5

It seems to me that a lack of witnesses would make it equally as difficult to determine whether or not retreat was possible.

6

Two people are standing outside. One has a gun and the other doesn’t. What prevents the one with a gun from retreating? You don’t need witnesses, just common sense.

7

If we’re going to discuss the law, shouldn’t we take a look at what it actually says? Here it is:

Sounds to me like the law is being misapplied.

8

The second person charged the gunman? The gunman tried to go in a different direction but was cutoff by the second person? The gunman felt as though he could not expose his back without endangering his life? How’s that for common sense? It doesn’t seem easy to establish that it’s easy to flee without witnesses.

9

It needn’t be obvious in every case for the point to stand. The OP provides two examples of when the ability to retreat is obvious.

It is also being misapplied in some instances, of course. But that is only part of the problem.

10

The law as written seems reasonable to me. I’m not a fan of “duty to retreat” laws, which make it illegal to defend yourself. I’m not sure how prosecutors can justify not charging Garcia with murder. “You do not have a duty to retreat” is a far cry from "you are allowed to chase down a fleeing person and stab them to death if he has stolen your property.

The other case with the neighborhood watch guy who shot the black kid for no reason seems like a slam-dunk prosecution too. The man chased after the boy (despite advice from 911 dispatcher not to do so) and shot him to death even though he was not under attack. How does the stand your ground law prevent his prosecution?

The problem is not with how the law is written, but rather in how prosecutors are pretending it says something that it doesn’t actually say.

11

The person without the gun running at them screaming “I’ll kill you, I’ll kill you?” That scenario doses not allow for retreat unless you are absolutely sure that you can tun and run faster than they can cover the ground between you. Usain Bolt might manage it. Any attempt by a normal person to retreat under that scenario will place them in peril of being killed.

The person with the gun retreats, and the other person follows, closing the ground. The person with the gun then turns and threatens them, causing them cease pursuit. Then as soon as the person with the gun retreats, the other person then commences following again. Any attempt by a normal person to retreat under that scenario will place them in peril of being killed.

Or how about the most basic scenario: the two people are separated by a distance of 6 feet. The only ways for the person with the gun to retreat are: 1) Turn their back on an aggressor 5 feet behind them. 2) Attempt to walk backwards, over uneven, unknown ground, in the dark while carrying a loaded firearm and trying to maintain constant surveillance of an aggressor. Attempt by a normal person to use either option will place them in peril of being killed.

The problem is that, as you just demonstrated, common sense isn’t.

People like yourself have some Hollywood style conception of what a real life self-defence situation is like. You seem to imagine that it takes place between two totally clear-headed, well trained combat veterans, in the middle of a well lit basket ball court.

The reality is more likely that it takes place between a strung-out junkie and a half-asleep office worker, neither of whom have ever been in a gunfight, both of whom are utterly terrified, on a dark night on a sidewalk with parked cars, trash cans, kids bicycle, shrubs and miscellaneous other crap.

The idea that any normal human being can simply retreat from an advancing aggressor who is at already at a range of 6 feet is utterly ridiculous. The idea that a normal person in that situation could even possibly be aware of whether the person advancing on them has a knife or some other weapon is ludicrous.

I agree, common sense can often tell you when retreat might have been possible, but what you have applied is not common sense.

12

My understanding is that “stand your ground” laws say there’s no requirement to retreat. I don’t think there’s any laws which say it’s okay to go in pursuit of a criminal who’s retreating from you.

Florida law does not appear to extend the “stand your ground” doctrine to cover property. You can claim self-defense if you’re defending yourself or a third person but not if you’re defending your property.

So I think Judge Bloom was wrong. Roteta had stolen Garcia’s radio and was fleeing with it. But Roteta was not threatening Garcia or anyone else. Garcia did not have legal justification to go in pursuit of Roteta and use force to get his radio back.

13

Are you saying that Garcia was engged in unlwaful activity by following someone down a public street?

Or that Garcia was not attacked while following someone down a public street?

Because unless you dispute one of the above points, it seems clear that he could not be charged under the law as written.

Do you have evidence that the guy was not attacked?

I’m assuming that he claimed that he was attacked, and that the prosecutors found no evidence to contradict that story.

So can we see your evidence that he wasn’t attacked?

I think this is the real issue at hand here. Everyone seems to be assuming that these guys followed criminals down the street and as soon as they were within range they plugged them.

I am guessing that theri story is very different: that they followed the guys down the street in order to keep tabs on them for the police/ask them questions/discern what they were doing/prevent them from committing further crimes. The person took issue with being followed and attacked them, whereupon they defended themselves. That story sounds perfectly plausible to me. It seems reasonable that a burglar, being followed, would attempt to attack their follower.

Now it might be incredibly stupid to follow a suspected criminal down a dark alley in the middle of the night. I won’t argue that. But I would hope that we all agree that it is, and should be, perfectly lawful to follow *anyone *down any public street at *any *time. Society is pretty screwed up when that ceases to be true.

If we do accept that, then the law seems to have been applied perfectly as written and as intended. A person engaged the awful activity of following someone down a public street, is attacked. That person then defends themself with deadly force. Seems like a textbook example of what the law was written for.

Now we could argue that such a law is open to abuse (which it clearly is), but I can not see how anybody could argue that the law was misapplied.

14

It seems to me this law legalizes old west-style gun fights in the street, at least in states with open carry laws. If two rivals, with a history of violence between them, met on a street with legal guns on their hips, each could claim that they were in mortal danger, and each could legally draw and shoot the other.

How could they be prosecuted for dueling under these circumstances? And could they be prosecuted for innocent bystanders killed or wounded?

15

But is there any law that says that it is *illegal *to follow a criminal that is retreating form you? Because if there isn’t, then following a fleeing criminal is not an unlawful activity. As such, if the criminal attacks the person who is following them, the follower has every legal right to defend themself.

That outcome, at least, seems perfectly OK to me. I don;t see why any citizen should not be able to follow a criminal to keep tabs on them until the police arrive. The idea that following the man who robbed your house will get you arrested seems utterly insane. Equally insane is the implication that if I follow someone who just ribbed my house, they should be able to attack me in any way that they see fit and I have no right to defend myself. Such a situation would be even more ridiculous than the “no retreat” law, since it effectively gives criminals carte blacnhe to kill people.

You aren’t doing anything wrong by following a criminal. Incredibly dumb, sure, but not wrong

16

The law says a person can “meet force with force” including deadly force. Their was no “force” coming from the 17yr old that required meeting with equal or greater force from the man. The law seems to have definitely been misapplied.

17

This law isn’t pertinent to such a scenario at all.

Self defence has always been a legal defence, and the situation you describe is simply both sides claiming self defence.

The unique feature of this law is that it does not require retreat, but in the situation you describe neither side could possibly retreat. No jury is ging to buy that you can turn your back and walk away fom an armed man who has said he is going to shoot you. As such self-defence is a legitimate defence in every territory in the US under the situation you describe, and it always has been.

18

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

I’m sure you agree that a 17yo is capable of posing a threat to someone.

If we do agree with this, then I assume that you have some evidence that he never used such force, since you made that claim in GD.

19

Based on what I’ve seen of the Roteta case, he followed the criminal and then attacked him - not based on a threat, but based on the desire to get his stuff back. “Stand your ground” does not mean “license to hunt & destroy”. I do agree that if, in the course of being followed, Roteta had turned and threatened Garcia, Garcia would be justified under the law in defending himself.

I mean, let’s posit: You cut me off in traffic, I get pissed and follow you home. You get out of your car and approach mine while yelling “What is your problem?” and waving your arms. I blow your brains out and claim “stand my ground!” No charge?

20

Can you provide some evidence for this claim. Because this is what I’ve been asking for.

If you can establish that there was no threat and that he never claimed to have been threatened, that kind of settles the issue. So far nobody has been able to do so. Lots of claims that there was no threat, but no actual evidence.

Why would there be no charge? Nobody ever used force against you did they? Waving one’s arms doesn’t constitute force in your jurisdiction does it?

And if you *were *being subjected to force, then why shouldn’t you have the right to defend yourself? Do you honestly believe that I have the right to pull you out of your car and dismember you with a chainsaw just because you followed me home? Or maybe you believe that you should have to let me dismember you with a chainsaw and not defend yourself, just lie back and hope the cops can sort it out after you are dead?

I honestly don’t get your point here. If you are not being subject to violence then of course you don’t have the right to shoot me. The law says that quite clearly.

All that the law says is that if you are being subject to violence then you have the right to defend yourself. That you don’t need to leave a perfectly lawful parking space just because I will beat the shit out of you for parking outside my house. Now we could argue that such a law is open to abuse, but I doubt if many people would argue with the principle.