# SYG laws Post-Zimmerman **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 14, 2013, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459 "2013-07-14T05:03:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2013, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/21 "2013-07-14T21:39:27Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > For the people who are opposed to SYG laws, and FL law in particular, can you identify what part of the statue you find objectionable? The fact that it amounts to legalizing murder, and has a strong racist component. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2013, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/22 "2013-07-14T21:58:43Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > The fact that it amounts to legalizing murder, and has a strong racist component. Murder by definition is the unlawful killing of another, so saying that it “legalizes murder” is nonsensical. In the case of FL law, which component is racist, specifically? ---
**Author:** ![PigArcher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bcef8e/32.png) [@PigArcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PigArcher)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2013, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/23 "2013-07-14T22:01:04Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Yes, they do. Your own cite says 50% have, as I said “some form of SYG if not by statute, by judicial precedent”. If you want me to say “half” instead of “most”, that’s fine. We just need one more to go that way, and it’s “most”. > > I did not say that most states have a FL style SYG law. I linked to wikipedia so people would know what I was talking about. I’d never use wikipedia as a cite, especially a page that’s so clearly NPOV. But sure, if we define SYG so incredibly broad as to encompass any sort of self defense, then most states have some form of it. Personally I consider there to be a significant difference between “some dudes with guns broke into my house” and “I saw some kid I didn’t know walking down the street” but I’m sure you’ll tell me how I’m wrong. Or we could just acknowledge what’s obvious - gun extremists are inclined to call any common sense self defense law SYG so people think that’s what they mean when they legalize cold-blooded murder. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2013, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/24 "2013-07-14T22:09:59Z")
> [@etv78](#): > > Do you believe that the Zimmerman’s verdict will lead to a proliferation of SYG laws? I should hope it would lead to the **repeal** of them. “The fundamental danger of an acquittal is not more riots, it is more George Zimmermans.” – [Jay Smooth](http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023246782) ---
**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:** [July 14, 2013, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/25 "2013-07-14T22:53:45Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Murder by definition is the unlawful killing of another, so saying that it “legalizes murder” is nonsensical. In the case of FL law, which component is racist, specifically? Thank you for Bricker-style pedantry. “Murder” is _not and never has been solely a legal term_, in the same way that “marriage” is not and never has been solely a religious term. Redefining “murder” in a legal sense can very well logically and non-nonsensically de-criminalize acts that an individual might consider to be murder in a non-legal sense. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2013, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/26 "2013-07-14T22:58:25Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > If I’m in a dangerous situation my first response won’t be to pull the trigger. That indecision may get me killed, but I don’t want to be the next Zimmerman either. It would be far more appropriate for you to say you don’t want to be the next Martin. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2013, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/27 "2013-07-14T23:59:12Z")
Funny that despite how over-covered this trial has been in the media that so many people obviously didn’t see or at least didn’t understand much if any of it. They just keep recycling in the initial media stories from 2012. The actual case as tried had almost nothing to do with ‘SYG’. Zimmerman claimed that when he shot Martin he was pinned to the ground by Martin and being pummeled. Whether that’s true or not (all we can say is the jury didn’t think Zimmerman’s basic account had been disproved beyond reasonable doubt), Zimmerman’s claim of justified legal force was in a situation where he couldn’t have ‘retreated’, so SYG was irrelevant. Likewise though others may ‘feel’ that Zimmerman’s actions in their entirety constituted a provocation of Martin, and indeed the prosecution tried to make such an emotional appeal, that’s not a valid legal theory and the jury rejected emotion and stuck to the fact that the prosecution did relatively little to refute Zimmerman’s account of the key point of the incident, the actual physical confrontation between him and Martin. And once again, Zimmerman did not claim he was justified because of SYG, as it related to either the final confrontation or anything else. SYG only came in indirectly when the prosecution tried to impeach Zimmerman’s general credibility by pointing out that he said in a TV interview he wasn’t familiar with the term, even though he’d taken a course covering self defense law (though that assumed that Zimmerman was an on the ball person who would necessarily remember stuff even from a course he did well in, might not have been a very rigorous course, plus they never nailed down that the instructor in the course had ever used the term ‘stand your ground’ as opposed to the formal designation of the statute). Anyway SYG had an extremely minor role in the case. ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/28 "2013-07-15T00:18:16Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > I took my CC class last year. … Pardon my ignorance. I’ve only got a BBA & a JD. What’s a “CC Class”? I’m assuming it is “Criminal something-that-starts-with C” but I don’t know. Back in my day we had Criminal Law I and Criminal Law II. We also took notes on paper in notebooks and legal pads so you can tell how long ago that was. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/29 "2013-07-15T00:22:20Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > I can’t see how the Zimmerman case matters. It wasn’t a SYG case at all. They never filed for a SYG hearing. But I’ve read that Zimmerman might be able to use Florida’s SYG law to get immunity from a civil suit by Martin’s parents. He should not have that immunity. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/30 "2013-07-15T00:25:45Z")
## Posters here are invited to the IMHO thread [Would Zimmerman have been convicted in a state without Stand Your Ground?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=696463). I opined that he would have been convicted in Ohio. Whether he would have been convicted in NJ, NY or a fair number of states that don’t have SYG is less clear. The core of duty to retreat covers the point when mortal peril occurs: it doesn’t cover walking into a dangerous situation. However, there is a more amorphous duty to avoid conflict and demonstrate an intention not to fight before eventually using force that isn’t clear to this nonlawyer. Also there are a number of legal methods of addressing the risk of false claims of self-defense being used as a cover for murder: duty to retreat is just one of four. As for the OP, I hope that this case encourages the weakening of SYG laws: it seems to me that assholes thirst for violence and confrontation: such laws enable assholes and discourage prudent deescalation. This is a slightly different argument than merely pointing out that a false claim of self-defense could cover up premeditated murder or a depraved indifference to human life. It’s saying that assholes need to be told not make a bad situation worse even in cases when they didn’t initiate the situation. Unlike Zimmerman. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/31 "2013-07-15T00:33:39Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Murder by definition is the unlawful killing of another, so saying that it “legalizes murder” is nonsensical. A ridiculous claim. Legalized murder is still murder. Murder by the law is still murder for that matter; as in “[judicial murder](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_murder)”. If a dictator kills someone, is he not guilty of murder if he bothers to do the paperwork to declare it legal? > [@Bone](#): > > In the case of FL law, which component is racist, specifically? [This](http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133), for one: > [@](#): > > Defendants claiming “stand your ground” are more likely to prevail if the victim is black. Seventy-three percent of those who killed a black person faced no penalty compared to 59 percent of those who killed a white. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/32 "2013-07-15T00:41:41Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > Zimmerman’s claim of justified legal force was in a situation where he couldn’t have ‘retreated’, so SYG was irrelevant. Likewise though others may ‘feel’ that Zimmerman’s actions in their entirety constituted a provocation of Martin, and indeed the prosecution tried to make such an emotional appeal, that’s not a valid legal theory and the jury rejected emotion and stuck to the fact that the prosecution did relatively little to refute. I fully admit to not watching any of the trial, nor following much of the pre trial circus at all. But I was under the impression that Zimmerman started the confrontation by accosting Martin and demanding to know what he was doing and where he was going, and doing so without a shred of legal support and, in fact, in violation of what the police told him to do. Am I wrong on that? Imagine for a second that Martin shot and killed Zimmerman. He testifies that Zimmerman stopped him for no reason and when Martin tried to get away, a physical confrontation occurred and he shot Zimmerman. Wouldn’t Martin be able to argue self defense because this guy, who wasn’t a police officer or in any way a representative of actual authority, stopped him. Zimmerman outweighed him and was armed, so Martin feared for his life, so he fought back and shot him. How would that case have worked out, do you think? ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/33 "2013-07-15T00:55:21Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > But I was under the impression that Zimmerman started the confrontation by accosting Martin and demanding to know what he was doing and where he was going, and doing so without a shred of legal support and, in fact, in violation of what the police told him to do. Am I wrong on that? Speech has “legal support” unless it has a good reason for being illegal, and the police never told him not to do it. A dispatcher said something like “we don’t need you to do that.” Regardless of what happened, why they didn’t need him to do that became abundantly clear within minutes. But I don’t see how there was a “violation” of anything the dispatcher said. ---
**Author:** ![Ambivalid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a5b964/32.png) [@Ambivalid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambivalid)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/34 "2013-07-15T00:55:29Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > Pardon my ignorance. I’ve only got a BBA & a JD. What’s a “CC Class”? Just a WAG but maybe “conceal and carry class”? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/35 "2013-07-15T01:02:07Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Imagine for a second that Martin shot and killed Zimmerman. He testifies that Zimmerman stopped him for no reason and when Martin tried to get away, a physical confrontation occurred and he shot Zimmerman. Wouldn’t Martin be able to argue self defense because this guy, who wasn’t a police officer or in any way a representative of actual authority, stopped him. Zimmerman outweighed him and was armed, so Martin feared for his life, so he fought back and shot him. How would that case have worked out, do you think? Martin goes to prison, because he’s black. Assuming he isn’t “killed resisting arrest” by the police. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/36 "2013-07-15T01:40:03Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > Speech has “legal support” unless it has a good reason for being illegal, Yes, Zimmerman had free speech rights. Was that really an issue? My point was that he wasn’t acting under color of law or as a law enforcement agent. If some guy I don’t know who is bigger and stronger than me approaches me and starts asking questions where I’m going and such, and he’s not a police officer, I’m getting pretty damn defensive pretty quick. That was my point, not that Zimmerman couldn’t talk to anyone. And what about Martin, would he have been in his self defense rights to take physical action to stop Zimmerman from accosting him? > [@Lord Feldon](#): > > and the police never told him not to do it. A dispatcher said something like “we don’t need you to do that.” I’ll take your word for it. I thought they told him they don’t need for him to do it, and he said that he wouldn’t. Then they arranged for him to meet the police officers at the mailboxes or something, and Zimmerman said he would, but then went after Martin anyway. Am I wrong on that? > [@Lord Feldon](#): > > Regardless of what happened, why they didn’t need him to do that became abundantly clear within minutes. Yeah, cause he killed a guy. They didn’t need him to do that. ---
**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:** [July 15, 2013, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/37 "2013-07-15T03:25:56Z")
It’s important to distinguish between the Stand Your Ground law, §776.013(3), Fla. Stat.\*, and the immunity doctrine that was passed in the same bill but appears in a separate section of the Florida Statutes, §[776.032](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html)(1). The latter was at issue in the Zimmerman trial. The former was not, because Zimmerman took the position that he could not have retreated in any event as he was on the ground. Both are stupid, and I suspect there will be much talk of repeal. The NRA isn’t going to want to spend as much money to keep the law as it spent to pass it. - “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.” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/38 "2013-07-15T03:33:18Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It’s important to distinguish between the Stand Your Ground law, §776.013(3), Fla. Stat.\*, and the immunity doctrine that was passed in the same bill but appears in a separate section of the Florida Statutes, §[776.032](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html)(1). See post #29. Zimmerman should **not** have immunity from a civil suit here. ---
**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:** [July 15, 2013, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/39 "2013-07-15T03:39:51Z")
That’s §776.032(3). (1) is immunity from arrest. I don’t see why Zimmerman should have immunity either, but there will be a hearing so we’ll see. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2013, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/40 "2013-07-15T04:05:08Z")
[From _The Nation:_](http://www.thenation.com/blog/175262/naacp-seeks-doj-intervention-martin-case-targets-stand-your-ground-laws#axzz2Z5BIv42P) > [@](#): > > \*\*As Feds Review Martin Case, NAACP Seeks DOJ Action and Targets State ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws > > _John Nichols on July 14, 2013 - 2:10 AM ET_\*\* > > \ > > Florida passed its “stand your ground” law in 2005. Since then, at the behest of the National Rifle Association and the American Legislative Exchange Council, variations on the legislation—which allows individuals who say they believe themselves to be in imminent danger to use deadly force—have been enacted by state legislatures across the country. After the killing of Trayvon Martin on February 26, 2012, as media outlets in Florida and nationally have reported: “Police initially did not charge Zimmerman with a crime, citing Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ law.” > > Zimmerman, who faced charges only after a national outcry forced a review of the case, did not mount a specific “stand your ground” defense. But the issue remained a bone of contention before and during his trial; notably, the jury heard from a witness who recalled teaching about Florida’s law in a college course that the defendant completed in 2010. > > The sustained outcry over the February 26, 2012, shooting of Martin appears to have led the NRA and ALEC to halt advocacy on behalf of “stand your ground” laws. But the laws continue to influence criminal justice nationwide, as the Center for Media and Democracy has documented. > > The NAACP, the Urban League, Color of Change, Common Cause, People for the American Way and [MoveOn.org](http://MoveOn.org) were among many groups that pressed ALEC on the “stand your ground” issue in 2012. Several of these same groups have taken the next step and are urging legislators to strike the laws from state statute books. > > “Florida’s dangerous ‘Shoot First’ law allowed Trayvon’s killer to walk free without charges for more than a month. Shoot First legalizes vigilante homicide, has demonstrated racial bias in its application, and has led to an increase in gun-related deaths in the more than two dozen states where it has been passed into law,” argues Color of Change, as part of its campaign to strike down “stand your ground” laws. “These laws give individual gun owners a greater right to shoot and kill than the rules of engagement for our military during times of war grant to soldiers in war zones. ‘Shoot First’ must be repealed now to protect families and communities and prevent senseless deaths.” > > Referencing a Texas A&M University study that revealed how “stand your ground” and “castle doctrine” laws do not deter crime but have been linked to increased rates of homicide, Jealous has said that “stand-your-ground legislation does more harm than good.” > > “Too often these laws provide cover for vigilantes and hate groups who choose to take the law into their own hand,” argued the NAACP president in 2012. “They have led to an increase in homicides, and people of color seem to always get caught in the crossfire.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459.md?page=3)