# Florida's Stand Your Ground law - good or bad law? Poorly understood? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 22, 2012, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-good-or-bad-law-poorly-understood/616560 "2012-03-22T23:59:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-good-or-bad-law-poorly-understood/616560/341 "2012-03-26T13:36:58Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > You’re a tough guy, aren’t you? No, not at all. Which is really kind of the point; no normal, reasonable person gets punched in the nose and thinks they’re going to die. If you want to make the issue personal, we hold those sort of discussions in the Pit. > [@](#): > > No. Since the sounds of the scuffle followed Zimmerman’s question, he could have been attacked after he asked that question. That isn’t consistent with what we have heard of Zimmerman’s claims. Again, it’s possible. It’s preposterously unbelievable to me, but it’s possible, I guess, that Martin went to some trouble to get away from Zimmerman, succeeded, and then decided “Hey, I think I’ll go back and beat up that scary dude” and when he, according to Zimmerman, “jumped him” from behind, did so while saying “why are you following me” and Zimmerman responded to that not by reacting with fear or surprise but responded with “What are you doing here” and somehow the scuffling noises only began after that. All quite possible, all quite hard to swallow. I suppose it is also possible that there really was a man on the grassy knoll, or that the WTC was blown up by controlled demolitions. Lots of things are possible but exceedingly difficult to believe. If in fact it happened as you describe, then I can certainly see Zimmerman’s case. I don’t believe it did, though, because based on the evidence I have in front of me, it just seems so damned unlikely. Again, I don’t have \*all \*the evidence, so I don’t know for sure, and neither do you. But there is some evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-good-or-bad-law-poorly-understood/616560/342 "2012-03-26T13:40:59Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > If I insult you, you can insult me back, but not hit me. If I hit you, you can hit me back, but not shoot me, etc. I’m getting a bit blurry from all this. What evidence is there that Martin did anything other than hit Zimmerman? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-good-or-bad-law-poorly-understood/616560/343 "2012-03-26T13:53:59Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > If in fact it happened as you describe, then I can certainly see Zimmerman’s case. I don’t believe it did, though, because based on the evidence I have in front of me, it just seems so damned unlikely. Again, I don’t have \*all \*the evidence, so I don’t know for sure, and neither do you. But there is some evidence. To clarify, I agree with you as well. If I had to bet money on what really happened, I would guess that Zimmerman overreacted and committed some form of criminal homicide, whether murder or manslaughter. But I don’t know, so unless the police have more than what has been released, I not comfortable bringing a charge yet. The fact that he called the police first is telling in my mind. If you are going to manufacture a reason to murder a black kid, then call the police after it’s went down and the evidence backs up your story. > [@Jas09](#): > > I’m getting a bit blurry from all this. What evidence is there that Martin did anything other than hit Zimmerman? Yeah. It is blurry because we are sort of going from general to specific as it pertains to this case. I’m basically responding to posters who are saying that there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that Zimmerman could claim self-defense since he was the one who started the fight (if he did). What I should have added was that hitting can possibly lead to a reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death if you are on the ground and a guy continues to pummel you. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-good-or-bad-law-poorly-understood/616560/344 "2012-03-26T14:05:53Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > To clarify, I agree with you as well. If I had to bet money on what really happened, I would guess that Zimmerman overreacted and committed some form of criminal homicide, whether murder or manslaughter. I very seriously doubt you’d ever convince me it was murder, at least according to statute. There’s no indication he gets out of his car intending to kill Martin. He acted stupidly and recklessly, but absent any shocking new evidence, I don’t think he got into this planning to kill anyone. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-good-or-bad-law-poorly-understood/616560/345 "2012-03-26T14:10:54Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > To clarify, I agree with you as well. If I had to bet money on what really happened, I would guess that Zimmerman overreacted and committed some form of criminal homicide, whether murder or manslaughter. But I don’t know, so unless the police have more than what has been released, I not comfortable bringing a charge yet. > > The fact that he called the police first is telling in my mind. If you are going to manufacture a reason to murder a black kid, then call the police after it’s went down and the evidence backs up your story. This all seems reasonable. The most likely equation is probably over-zealous neighborhood watch + latent racial fear + adrenaline-boosted over-reaction + deadly use of a firearm. I do have some problems with the way the police handled it - I tend to think that if someone’s dead and you know the shooter you might want to be a bit more thorough than they seem to have been. > [@](#): > > Yeah. It is blurry because we are sort of going from general to specific as it pertains to this case. I’m basically responding to posters who are saying that there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that Zimmerman could claim self-defense since he was the one who started the fight (if he did). > > What I should have added was that hitting can possibly lead to a reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death if you are on the ground and a guy continues to pummel you. Right. I think that raises the interesting question and ties in with the underlying point of the “retreat” common law. When is the use of deadly force justified? How much damage do I have to take before I can shoot a man? Is getting this shit kicked out of me worth it if it means I don’t have to live with having killed an unarmed 17-year-old? For many, many years the standard was one of avoiding deadly conflict if at all possible. Retreat to the back wall. Only shoot if you are in imminent danger of deadly harm. That has all been shifted, and willfully so. I would guess that if you asked Zimmerman today he’d say he wished he wasn’t armed that night. But I could be wrong - maybe he legitimately thinks (and thought) that Martin was going to kill him. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-good-or-bad-law-poorly-understood/616560/346 "2012-03-26T14:13:53Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > I very seriously doubt you’d ever convince me it was murder, at least according to statute. There’s no indication he gets out of his car intending to kill Martin. He acted stupidly and recklessly, but absent any shocking new evidence, I don’t think he got into this planning to kill anyone. Right, but the premeditation can occur in the “twinkling of an eye.” He didn’t need to leave his car with the intention of killing. That could have been formed at any point. I believe that Florida has an “imperfect self-defense” law where if you believe that you acted in fear for your life, but it wasn’t reasonable, then that amounts to manslaughter. If Zimmerman shoved, Martin shoved back, and they tussle on the ground and Zimmerman thinks, “I’ll show you, you little bastard” and BLAM, then that’s murder. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-good-or-bad-law-poorly-understood/616560/347 "2012-03-26T14:25:56Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > I’m getting a bit blurry from all this. What evidence is there that Martin did anything other than hit Zimmerman? What evidence is there that he did? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-good-or-bad-law-poorly-understood/616560/348 "2012-03-26T14:27:50Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > Right. I think that raises the interesting question and ties in with the underlying point of the “retreat” common law. When is the use of deadly force justified? How much damage do I have to take before I can shoot a man? Is getting this shit kicked out of me worth it if it means I don’t have to live with having killed an unarmed 17-year-old? For many, many years the standard was one of avoiding deadly conflict if at all possible. Retreat to the back wall. Only shoot if you are in imminent danger of deadly harm. That has all been shifted, and willfully so. I think that this is where SYG is being overapplied in analyzing this case. Before the law, it was completely okay for a neighborhood watch captain to approach a suspicious person and question him. If a scuffle ensued where you were pushed or grabbed and you ended up on the ground with the assailant on top of you, no retreat would be possible. Zimmerman could claim self-defense on these facts under the old law. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-good-or-bad-law-poorly-understood/616560/349 "2012-03-26T14:43:21Z")
Here is a link to CNN’s video which has enhanced the audio: > **[Video News - CNN](https://www.cnn.com/videos)** > > Watch breaking news videos, viral videos and original video clips on CNN.com. It sure as hell sounds to me like he says “these fucking coons” under his breath on the 911 call. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-good-or-bad-law-poorly-understood/616560/350 "2012-03-26T14:47:25Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > What evidence is there that he did? Eyewitness account. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-good-or-bad-law-poorly-understood/616560/351 "2012-03-26T14:48:06Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Your scenario hardly describes the Tayvon Martin killing though. If I make racial slurs about you, express intent to make sure you don’t get away, then stalk you through the rain in the dark, you no longer have the standing to invoke self defense, even if I sit on you and pummel your face. If Trayvon Martin had a gun instead of fists, Zimmerman would be dead. He should thank his lucky stars he got out of it with a whupping and a court date. He deserves both. I’m talking about what the law says and what its implications are. The applicability to the Martin case is a related issue, but before it can be applied to Martin’s case, we need to be clear on what it’s actually _saying_ in the first place. A lot of people have said Terr is wrong when he says the law allows you to kill someone if they escalate after you are aggressive toward them. But I am saying that Terr is right about what the law says (without intending to agree with Terr about the Martin case in particular). ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-good-or-bad-law-poorly-understood/616560/352 "2012-03-26T14:48:46Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Here is a link to CNN’s video which has enhanced the audio: > > [http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2012/03/22/ac-tuchman-trayvon-zimmerman.cnn](http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2012/03/22/ac-tuchman-trayvon-zimmerman.cnn) > > It sure as hell sounds to me like he says “these fucking coons” under his breath on the 911 call. Confirmation bias. As brinker did, I asked a few people who were not aware of the incident to listen to it. They didn’t hear it. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-good-or-bad-law-poorly-understood/616560/353 "2012-03-26T14:53:30Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I don’t see where the statute says that you can do what you describe. Rather, I don’t see how it _doesn’t_ say it. It’s right there in black and white. If you are the aggressor, you cannot call “self defense” _unless_ your victim escalated to a point where you reasonably thought yourself in danger of losing your life (or grievous bodily harm) _and_ you have retreated as far as possible. That’s what it says. It says that even if you are the aggressor, if your victim retaliates in a way that makes you reasonably think you’re about to be killed or seriously injured, then you may use deadly force and call it self defense. I punch you, we tussle, we’re on the ground, you’re on top of me, you begin pummeling me. I reasonably think I’m about to suffer serious injury. I cannot escape. So I pull out my knife and kill you. In Florida, according to the statute we’re discussing, that’s _legal_. ---
**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:** [March 26, 2012, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-good-or-bad-law-poorly-understood/616560/354 "2012-03-26T14:53:43Z")
Motherfucker. I had a huge post typed out and accidentally closed the tab. Oh well. Bear in mind that Zimmerman has a criminal record (charges for domestic violence and battery on a law enforcement officer) and _if he was convicted on either_ (I’m not sure that he was), he has a much bigger problem than (2). That is, as the aggressor he very likely would be charged with battery, which would be automatically elevated to felony battery based on his prior conviction. That would be a forcible felony under §776.08, Fla. Stat., and would mean he would be unable to claim self defense under the first exception (1). That one doesn’t have an unless clause. > [@Terr](#): > > Just out of curiosity I looked up the decision (to which you failed to provide the link, by the way). And it supports my contention. The whole appeal was on whether the court should have provided the “aggressor” clause to the jury to help with their decision INCLUDING the “unless” clause. The Florida District Court of Appeals decided that the providing of the “aggressor” clause to the jury was legitimate, and it had nothing to do with the previous clause (the “forcible felony” one). > > The jury originally apparently decided that the “unless” clause didn’t apply because the threat was not dire enough. > > You really should read these things before you post them as some kind of “gotcha”. Makes you look silly. I provided you with the reporter citation, which is how you were able to look it up. :rolleyes: Anyway, I provided you with a case in which a jury was explicitly instructed on the statutory provision you keep pointing to, with a virtually identical factual scenario, and convicted the defendant anyway. If you think that makes me look silly, and isn’t a gotcha, bully for you, I guess - but you’re wrong. Really, really wrong. > [@Frylock](#): > > If I understand your post, (and I’m not sure I do because I’m not sure what “an exception at common law” means), you seem to be applying a general principle that was appealed to in a different state, but I’m looking at the actual Florida law, and it explicitly says that if I initiate the aggression, my victim escalates, and I believe myself to be in danger of losing my life or of grievous bodily harm, then I may kill my victim if I cannot retreat. The “exception at common law” means in the absence of a statute to the contrary, there is no right to self defense for an aggressor. Even with a statute to the contrary (as here), a jury must still determine that a defendant’s belief that he would be seriously injured was reasonable. > [@Dr.Colossus](#): > > we have the make-my-day law in oklahoma. it was exercised a few months back when 2 men armed with knives broke into the home of an 18 year old girl whose husband had just died the week before. she was there with her baby, alone, hears them break in, and calls 911 saying she’s barricaded herself in the furthest back room of the house with a shotgun and i pistol, i believe. she said “if they come back here, i’m shooting…” > > dispatch said “i cannot advise that, but you are free to do what you feel is necessary to protect yourself and your baby.” and she blasted the asshole into kingdom come. > > turns out the two men knew she was alone and that her husband died of cancer and were breaking in to steal his leftover pills. > > that is why laws like the one in florida exist. to protect people like her. No, the castle doctrine exists to protect people like her. The Florida law in question has nothing to do with the right to defend oneself at home; we already had that right. [QUOTE=Frylock] I punch you, we tussle, we’re on the ground, you’re on top of me, you begin pummeling me. I reasonably think I’m about to suffer serious injury. I cannot escape. So I pull out my knife and kill you. In Florida, according to the statute we’re discussing, that’s legal. [/QUOTE] Yes, if your belief that you were about to suffer serious injury was reasonable. Assuming that you’re an able bodied adult male, getting beaten up is probably not going to qualify. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-good-or-bad-law-poorly-understood/616560/355 "2012-03-26T14:53:57Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Confirmation bias. As brinker did, I asked a few people who were not aware of the incident to listen to it. They didn’t hear it. I don’t think so. If you would view my posting history, you can see that I don’t see racism where none exists and I don’t jump to rash accusations. But, on that tape, he didn’t say anything but that. What alternative words do you think were said? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-good-or-bad-law-poorly-understood/616560/356 "2012-03-26T14:56:30Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > No, not at all. Which is really kind of the point; no normal, reasonable person gets punched in the nose and thinks they’re going to die. If you want to make the issue personal, we hold those sort of discussions in the Pit. > That isn’t consistent with what we have heard of Zimmerman’s claims. > > Again, it’s possible. It’s preposterously unbelievable to me, but it’s possible, I guess, that Martin went to some trouble to get away from Zimmerman, succeeded, and then decided “Hey, I think I’ll go back and beat up that scary dude” and when he, according to Zimmerman, “jumped him” from behind, did so while saying “why are you following me” and Zimmerman responded to that not by reacting with fear or surprise but responded with “What are you doing here” and somehow the scuffling noises only began after that. All quite possible, all quite hard to swallow. I suppose it is also possible that there really was a man on the grassy knoll, or that the WTC was blown up by controlled demolitions. Lots of things are possible but exceedingly difficult to believe. > > If in fact it happened as you describe, then I can certainly see Zimmerman’s case. I don’t believe it did, though, because based on the evidence I have in front of me, it just seems so damned unlikely. Again, I don’t have \*all \*the evidence, so I don’t know for sure, and neither do you. But there is some evidence. I keep seeming to be on the wrong side of this, but you guys keep saying things I don’t understand. What, exactly, is implausible about this scenario? Z begins following M. M says “why are you following me?” Z says “What are you doing here?” Z does not answer. M goes to truck. Z, angry, decides to follow him to confront him. Z attacks M. Isn’t that what **Terr** is saying might have happened for all we know? I’m not agreeing that it happened, I’m just not seeing what’s so “impossible” about it. ETA or even better: M follows Z. M stops following Z. Z turns to confront M as M approaches truck. Z says “why are you following me?”\* M says “what are you doing here?” Z, angry, attacks M. \*Z says this despite the fact that M has stopped following him because Z is not sure whether M has stopped following or has simply determined to continue following in the truck. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-good-or-bad-law-poorly-understood/616560/357 "2012-03-26T15:00:38Z")
To be honest, I sort of expected the “Fuckin’ coons” thing to be bullshit. But geez, it does sound like he said exactly that. Listening to the CNN audit I cannot imagine a reasonable person not admitting he said it. I don’t know what it really has to do with anything, though. Racist slurs are vile but not illegal; he didn’t say it to Trayvon Martin’s face, either, so it’s not a fighting word. So it’s not really a “MAJOR DEVELOPMENT” as CNN puts it. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-good-or-bad-law-poorly-understood/616560/358 "2012-03-26T15:02:40Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Anyway, I provided you with a case in which a jury was explicitly instructed on the statutory provision you keep pointing to, with a virtually identical factual scenario, and convicted the defendant anyway. Yes, because other than the defendant’s side of the story there was victim’s testimony and other evidence that contradicted it, and they decided that the defendant didn’t qualify for the terms of the “unless” clause. How exactly does that prove your case that this clause is not valid or operational? > [@](#): > > The “exception at common law” means in the absence of a statute to the contrary, there is no right to self defense for an aggressor. But there is a statute to the contrary. > [@](#): > > Even with a statute to the contrary (as here), a jury must still determine that a defendant’s belief that he would be seriously injured was reasonable. Of course, because there are qualifications to the clause, one of them the “reasonability” thing. Did I ever say anything different? > [@](#): > > Yes, if your belief that you were about to suffer serious injury was reasonable. Assuming that you’re an able bodied adult male, getting beaten up is probably not going to qualify. Because there are no able bodied males ever dying from being beaten up… ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-good-or-bad-law-poorly-understood/616560/359 "2012-03-26T15:04:25Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Racist slurs are vile but not illegal; he didn’t say it to Trayvon Martin’s face, either, so it’s not a fighting word. The fighting words doctrine has to do with whether the government can stop you from saying something or punish you if you do. It has nothing to do with whether you are justified in attacking someone. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2012, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-good-or-bad-law-poorly-understood/616560/360 "2012-03-26T15:06:45Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Because there are no able bodied males ever dying from being beaten up… Just because somewhere, sometime, an able-bodied male died from a whuppin’ does not make it a reasonable or likely outcome in this case. The ratio of non-fatal-to-fatal fistfights would be vanishingly small. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-good-or-bad-law-poorly-understood/616560.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/floridas-stand-your-ground-law-good-or-bad-law-poorly-understood/616560.md?page=19)