Stand Your Ground hypotheticals

[foolsguinea]

Is there a law in Florida specifically preventing me from standing in the middle of a highway?

If not, would “Stand Your Ground” permit me to fire a weapon on oncoming traffic, as they would cause me grievous bodily harm if they connected?

My larger point is that “Stand Your Ground” (SYG), if construed as broadly as it appears to have been written, requires a bunch of specific other laws to prevent, not general carnage, but the legalization of general carnage.

That’s why, if I were on George Zimmerman’s trial jury, I would vote to convict him of something, and try to open up a loophole for common sense in the law. And if I were on the prosecution, I would give the jury whatever tools I could that they could do so. Even if that means bringing in some misdemeanor charge just so there’s something he could be convicted of.

[Rhythmdvl]

Can you currently lawfully stand in the middle of the highway? No.

[Darth_Panda]

@foolsguinea

Is there a law in Florida specifically preventing me from standing in the middle of a highway?

Yes.

316.2045 Obstruction of public streets, highways, and roads.—(1) It is unlawful for any person or persons willfully to obstruct the free, convenient, and normal use of any public street, highway, or road by impeding, hindering, stifling, retarding, or restraining traffic or passage thereon, by standing or approaching motor vehicles thereon, or by endangering the safe movement of vehicles or pedestrians traveling thereon; and any person or persons who violate the provisions of this subsection, upon conviction, shall be cited for a pedestrian violation, punishable as provided in chapter 318.

Chapter 316 Section 2045 - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

[Shodan]

I don’t see what SYG has to do with Zimmerman.

SYG says that, if you are attacked, you do not have a duty to flee even if you have the opportunity. If Zimmerman’s account is correct, he was lying on his back having his head bashed, and had no opportunity to flee.

Regards,
Shodan

[Bricker]

@foolsguinea

Is there a law in Florida specifically preventing me from standing in the middle of a highway?

If not, would “Stand Your Ground” permit me to fire a weapon on oncoming traffic, as they would cause me grievous bodily harm if they connected?

My larger point is that “Stand Your Ground” (SYG), if construed as broadly as it appears to have been written, requires a bunch of specific other laws to prevent, not general carnage, but the legalization of general carnage.

That’s why, if I were on George Zimmerman’s trial jury, I would vote to convict him of something, and try to open up a loophole for common sense in the law. And if I were on the prosecution, I would give the jury whatever tools I could that they could do so. Even if that means bringing in some misdemeanor charge just so there’s something he could be convicted of.

So… Even if you took an oath to decide the case on the facts that were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and the law as the judge instructed you on it, you would still vote to convict him, regardless of not having any proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

It’s more important to just get the bastard on something?

[Bricker]

@Shodan

I don’t see what SYG has to do with Zimmerman.

SYG says that, if you are attacked, you do not have a duty to flee even if you have the opportunity. If Zimmerman’s account is correct, he was lying on his back having his head bashed, and had no opportunity to flee.

Regards,
Shodan

How about the change from affirmative defense – Zimmerman has to prove he had no opportunity to flee – to element of the crime, meaning the state has to prove he did?

[John_Mace]

Ooh. Ooh. I have another one. Suppose I see someone jogging down the street. If I jump out in front of him, he is going to slam into me, possibly causing me grave bodily harm. Do I get to Stand My Ground and shoot him?

Gotcha, bitches!!

[Shodan]

@Bricker

How about the change from affirmative defense – Zimmerman has to prove he had no opportunity to flee – to element of the crime, meaning the state has to prove he did?

You are correct - that is another element of the SYG law - but it doesn’t seem to have a lot to do with the OP’s hypotheticals. But yes, that part of it affects Zimmerman’s case.

Regards,
Shodan

[Bricker]

@Shodan

You are correct - that is another element of the SYG law - but it doesn’t seem to have a lot to do with the OP’s hypotheticals. But yes, that part of it affects Zimmerman’s case.

Well, the OP can clarify it, if he’s not out in Tampa Bay somewhere getting ready to jump in front of a jogger, but I think it’s actually key to his point: namely, that the operation of the SYG law will allow Zimmerman to get off with no criminal liability. If the SYG law could be interpreted in such a way as to get Zimmerman on something, he’d be happy.

And in my opinion, if the burden were on Zimmerman, he’d have a much tougher time at trial.

[puddleglum]

“The legalization of General Carnage” ??
It has been over six years since Florida passed its Stand Your Ground law. In the first five years after passage violent crime dropped by 25%. What is the possible mechanism that can have a law reduce violence significantly and then cause general carnage because a minority did not get railroaded at a trial?

[Buck_Godot]

@puddleglum

“The legalization of General Carnage” ??
It has been over six years since Florida passed its Stand Your Ground law. In the first five years after passage violent crime dropped by 25%. What is the possible mechanism that can have a law reduce violence significantly and then cause general carnage because a minority did not get railroaded at a trial?

I’d like to see a cite for this. Also, to play devils advocate it could be that the drop in crime is just because what would previously be called a crime is now not prosecuted.

[Buck_Godot]

Actually I did some searching and did find some cites talking about the decline in crime in Florida durring those years, although not a 25% drop, and likely not due to stand your ground.

PolitiFact Florida: Drop in violent crime appears unrelated to 'stand your...

We found that violent crime has dropped significantly in Florida since 2005. (The law went into effect Oct. 1, 2005.) We calculated the drop in violent crime rates, to account for population growth. In 2006 and 2007, violent crime rates were up just slightly up compared with 2005. In 2008, the violent crime rate began declining. By 2011, the violent crime rate had dropped 14 percent since 2005.

But that’s not the whole story. We also looked at crime rates for the five years before the “stand your ground” law started, and we found violent crime was declining during those years as well. Between 2000 and 2005, violent crime dropped 12 percent.

When we turned to news reports, we found many stories documenting drops in crime nationwide over the past decade. Experts have been surprised that the numbers have continued dropping through a historic recession.

The only place I saw the number 25% related to stand your ground was

Data finds link between justifiable homicides and weak gun control laws

Rising numbers of civilian justifiable homicides across the US are closely linked to states with both weak gun controls and stand-your-ground laws, according to a Guardian analysis of FBI and other data, which show a 25% increase in such killings since the controversial self-defence laws started being introduced around 2005.

[whatever_name]

theres a big drawback either way - a big brother society can be the only way to know for sure which person was the aggressor , which also would be unfair.

fairest solution anyone??

[puddleglum]

@Buck_Godot

I’d like to see a cite for this. Also, to play devils advocate it could be that the drop in crime is just because what would previously be called a crime is now not prosecuted.

This is the site I found that statistic on:

Crime rates in Florida have dropped since 'stand your ground,' says Dennis...

Their numbers have a violent crime rate per 100,000 of 702 in 2005 and 542 in 2010. The actual number of violent crimes fell about 24,000 while the population increased by 800,000 people. The number of killings classified as self defense has jumped from an average of 12 per year to an average of 36 per year. This is not enough potential crimes reclassified to make a difference in the rate.

[kayaker]

@puddleglum

“The legalization of General Carnage” ??
It has been over six years since Florida passed its Stand Your Ground law. In the first five years after passage violent crime dropped by 25%. What is the possible mechanism that can have a law reduce violence significantly and then cause general carnage because a minority did not get railroaded at a trial?

January 23, 2005 Johnny Carson died. I believe his death directly lead to the drop in violent crime.

[Bricker]

(wrong thread)

[Little_Nemo]

The relevant section of Florida’s “stand your ground” law is this:

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. 776.013 (3) (emphasis added)

By standing out in the middle of a highway, you’re committing an unlawful act and you have no right to be there. So you’re not legally allowed to stand your ground.

[Enderw24]

I greatly disagree with the hypothetical presented in the OP. That said:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

Nowhere in the SYG statute does it say you must be free from violating all known laws before the use of deadly force is justified. So go on. Jump in front of traffic, guns ablazin’.

[Bricker]

@Enderw24

I greatly disagree with the hypothetical presented in the OP. That said:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

Nowhere in the SYG statute does it say you must be free from violating all known laws before the use of deadly force is justified. So go on. Jump in front of traffic, guns ablazin’.

Um… the drivers are not using unlawful force.

[Enderw24]

@Bricker

Um… the drivers are not using unlawful force.

You’re just an innocent pedestrian (packing heat). It is unlawful for that car to continue coming towards you when it clearly should be yielding to your right of way. Go ahead and fire at will.