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

[Little_Nemo]

@jtgain

I’ve never been able to reconcile the duty to retreat with the right/power to detain a person who commits a felony in your presence.

So, I see Ted Bundy II kill my neighbor. I pursue him in order to detain him until the police can arrive. He pulls a gun on me. I then must attempt to retreat and by doing so let him get away?

Further, there is a severe misunderstanding about the law in this thread. If you corner someone in the alley, murder them, and claim self-defense, the police will investigate it like any other homicide. Why were you in the alley? Why did you feel your were in danger of death or serious bodily injury? SYG doesn’t mean you say “self-defense” and the police let you go home.

It simply eliminates the after-the-fact thinking of a liberal prosecutor who believes that you might have, in some way, been able to retreat. And, dammit, as a general principle I don’t think a law abiding citizen should have to give ground to someone acting unlawfully.

The current case is simply one of “did the killer fear death or serious bodily injury?” If it’s true that the dead guy was eating skittles and out for an evening jog, then killer has some splanin’ to do. The only thing that SYG means is that he didn’t have to run shrieking like a little girl. Which is fine with me.

You’re mixing together two different issues here: the prevention of a crime and the apprehension of a criminal.

Stand your ground laws are only about preventing a crime. They do not cover the apprehension of a criminal. That’s covered under citizen’s arrest laws.

Florida apparently has a somewhat unusual procedure for citizen’s arrests. You can arrest somebody in Florida if you have reasonable suspicion that they committed a felony. When you perform a citizen’s arrest in Florida you are legally presumed to be acting as a police officer. That can work against you - you can be held legally responsible for not following arrest procedures that you were unaware of.

The amount of force you can use in making a citizen’s arrest is all over the place legally. Depending on the circumstances and jurisdiction, it ranges from none to lethal.

[Terr]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

At any rate, Zimmerman’s lawyer has sent his client would not be using the “Stand Your Ground” law as a defence-he would be using the far more uncontroversial one of simple “self-defence”.

Defense lawyers are known for changing their minds. I would be surprised if it comes to court if SYG is not brought up. Because if the simple self-defense is enough, it’s a slam-dunk enough that it won’t come to court.

[Fear_Itself]

@treis

Zimmerman was reportedly bleeding from the nose and the back of the head. The obvious conclusion is that Martin punched him in the nose, and Zimmerman fell hard enough on his head to make it bleed. These injuries are certainly consistent with him being in danger of getting the shit kicked out of him, and that is enough to justify deadly force.

Zimmerman has no justification for deadly force if his injuries were the result of Martin defending himself. If Zimmerman initiated the assault by grabbing Martin, he can’t claim self defense just because it doesn’t go the way he expected, and Martin kicks the shit out of him; Zimmerman is still guilty of assault, and murder.

[Carmady]

The law says that someone who “Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself” CANNOT use deadly force unless they reasonably believe they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and have exhausted all other reasonable means of escaping the danger. SYG cannot be used otherwise.

If Zimmerman attacked first, grabbed first, threatened first, used racial slurs first, etc, that would likely count as “provoking” and he would need to meet this extra requirement of exhausting all other reasonable means of escape.

I don’t think he could meet that requirement for two reasons. First, because his belief that the kid was an armed criminal was not reasonable and cannot be used in his defense. He would have to argue that a kid going home with skittles could reasonably be expected to beat him to death. Getting punched is not reasonable evidence that the beating would continue to that point. Second, because taking a defensive posture and covering his face with his arms would have been a reasonable way to defend himself, and under this requirement he would have had to exhaust that method before resorting to deadly force.

[Terr]

@Fear_Itself

Zimmerman has no justification for deadly force if his injuries were the result of Martin defending himself. If Zimmerman initiated the assault by grabbing Martin, he can’t claim self defense just because it doesn’t go the way he expected, and Martin kicks the shit out of him; Zimmerman is still guilty of assault, and murder.

That’s not what the law says.

[Fear_Itself]

@Terr

That’s not what the law says.

Which law?

[Terr]

@Fear_Itself

Which law?

Florida law. 776.041:

 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.

[Fear_Itself]

Then it is bad law, as it allows an aggressor to assault someone, then if they defend themselves, claim imminent great bodily harm and shoot them dead.

Has this law ever been tested in court? I can’t imagine it surviving an appeal.

[Terr]

@Fear_Itself

Then it is bad law, as it allows an aggressor to assault someone, then if they defend themselves, claim imminent great bodily harm and shoot them dead.

Has this law ever been tested in court? I can’t imagine it surviving an appeal.

Numerous times, I believe. Here’s one:

Florida Court Dismisses Stabbing Case Under The “Stand Your Ground” Law

[Fear_Itself]

@Terr

Numerous times, I believe. Here’s one:

Florida Court Dismisses Stabbing Case Under The “Stand Your Ground” Law – JONATHAN TURLEY

Not the same at all. While I don’t condone chasing down thieves and killing them, Zimmerman didn’t even have the fig leaf of being the aggrieved party. He was completely unjustified in initiating contact with Martin, and if he assaulted him, he should not be afforded “self defense” as a justification for killing Martin. If the courts find otherwise, it is just further proof of how fukdup Florida is.

[Terr]

@Fear_Itself

Not the same at all. While I don’t condone chasing down thieves and killing them, Zimmerman didn’t even have the fig leaf of being the aggrieved party. He was completely unjustified in initiating contact with Martin, and if he assaulted him, he should not be afforded “self defense” as a justification for killing Martin. If the courts find otherwise, it is just further proof of how fukdup Florida is.

There was no witness to Zimmerman “assaulting” Martin, if that happened. No witness to initial physical contact whatsoever. No evidence either. How do you expect the courts to decide that Zimmerman assaulted Martin?

[Carmady]

@Terr

Numerous times, I believe. Here’s one:

Florida Court Dismisses Stabbing Case Under The “Stand Your Ground” Law – JONATHAN TURLEY

Wrong law.

In the case you cited the thief is presumed to have violent, unprovoked intent under the law.

The law we’re talking about is one in which the person who initially provokes the use of force then proceeds to kill their victim. Not the same thing.

[Terr]

@Carmady

Wrong law.

In the case you cited the thief is presumed to have violent, unprovoked intent under the law.

Same exact law.

The thief that’s running away is presumed to have that intent?

[Carmady]

@Terr

Same exact law.

The thief that’s running away is presumed to have that intent?

If it was the exact same law, the stabber would have been required to try to escape.

Clearly he did not try to escape (quite the opposite) so it wasn’t the same law. The stabber was not considered to have initiated the use of force in the first place.

[Fear_Itself]

@Terr

There was no witness to Zimmerman “assaulting” Martin, if that happened. No witness to initial physical contact whatsoever. No evidence either. How do you expect the courts to decide that Zimmerman assaulted Martin?

We have the phone call between Martin and his girlfriend, which, according to the phone records, was in progress when the assault occurred. So you are wrong about no witnesses.

[Terr]

@Carmady

If it was the exact same law, the stabber would have been required to try to escape.

Huh? The whole point of SYG is that you have no requirement to try to escape.

[Terr]

@Fear_Itself

We have the phone call between Martin and his girlfriend, which, according to the phone records, was in progress when the assault occurred. So you are wrong about no witnesses.

That phone call AFAIR gives absolutely no indication who initiated the physical confrontation.

[Carmady]

@Terr

Huh? The whole point of SYG is that you have no requirement to try to escape.

Did you already forget what you just posted and put in bold?

“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”

SYG was used, yes. This law (the one in bold in this post, right above this line) was not.

[Terr]

@Carmady

Did you already forget what you just posted and put in bold?

“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”

That’s only if you initiated the physical confrontation.

In fact, the more I look at this - Florida Court Dismisses Stabbing Case Under The “Stand Your Ground” Law – JONATHAN TURLEY - case, the more I see an unjustified killing.

[Fear_Itself]

@Terr

That phone call AFAIR gives absolutely no indication who initiated the physical confrontation.

Review it again:

ABC News was there exclusively as the 16-year-old girl told Crump about the last moments of the teenager’s life. Martin had been talking to his girlfriend all the way to the store where he bought Skittles and a tea. The phone was in his pocket and the earphone in his ear, Crump said.

“He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man,” Martin’s friend said. “I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run, but he said he was not going to run.”

Eventually, he would run, said the girl, thinking that he’d managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, cornering Martin.

“Trayvon said, ‘What are you following me for,’ and the man said, ‘What are you doing here.’ Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again, and he didn’t answer the phone.”

The line went dead.

I am sure her court testimony will be more detailed than this initial account, but even from just this, it is clear Martin was trying to avoid confrontation, and Zimmerman was intent on provoking one. If anyone had a right to self defense, it was Martin; Zimmerman is just a thug trying avoid justice.