He already created a task force to examine the SYG laws and their report was that no major changes were needed. I strongly suspect he won’t ask for changes to the law. 1) he’s boxed in by his own task force’s recommendation and 2) he already has damaged his relationship with his pro-self-defense supporters.
Well, that’s probably a jury question, and the jury instructions would be tailored to the relevant law of that state.
It’s a good thing that provides clear guidance for a person faced with imminent danger. Maybe your life will be ruined, maybe not. Good luck!
maybe when the libs see the same amount of trayvon martin/george zimmermans after there precious stand your ground laws are gone they’ll pipe down about gun control.guess when ya cant get one thing they’ll shove another down your throat
Rather the reverse, I should think.
Please tell us more about things you’ve had shoved down your throat.
Here’s clear guidance: Don’t go armed.
Facing imminent danger unarmed does take the “maybe” out of “your life will be ruined”, sure.
That’s not very helpful.
ETA: That was directed at BG.
Most Americans do not go armed, and manage to entirely avoid situations where being armed might matter one way or another.
Let’s keep this focused, please. There are lots of threads where you can discuss the utility of going armed. This thread is for discussing what the law should be when you do.
Sure, no problem.
A duty to retreat is a sensible policy, in theory. The law should discourage the initiation of violence, and it is generally written to do that: force can only be used in response to the imminent use of unlawful force by another. If a duty to retreat keeps any violence at all from occuring, then it has created the best outcome.
That said, my concern is what Una and others have written about: upon being confronted in a bar by a person with a razor, being expected to look around and try to spot a backdoor, or otherwise risk prison if I fight off the attacker. That’s potentially a no-win scenario for the law-abiding: either be judged by 12, or carried by 6.
So long as Justice Holmes’ words, “Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife”, are the guiding principle, then a duty to retreat is fine. For instance, in the Marissa Alexander case, she left the confrontation to fetch her gun and return. A reasonable person could see that as a violation of a duty to retreat: Ms. Alexander took concrete steps to escalate the confrontation, and had the opportunity to retreat in safety.
So, how can we define a duty to retreat that protects the bar patron’s reasonable acts, but doesn’t protect Ms. Alexander’s unreasonable ones? Perhaps, instead of the accused having to show that they made a reasonable effort to retreat, the state must show that they did not?
The state does, at least in Florida. The defendant must put forward some evidence, of course; a bare assertion by the defendant that she had no choice isn’t enough.
I was under the impression that Florida had no duty to retreat, and what the state had to prove is that the defendant wasn’t in reasonable fear for their life (or of suffering great bodily harm). So, the defendant doesn’t have to put forth any evidence of retreat, correct?
Sorry, I should have worded that past tense. I’m talking about the pre-2005 standard (when SYG was adopted).
Make sure I have this right, if you would:
Pre-2005, a Floridian faced a duty to retreat before using force (deadly and not, or just deadly?). If they were brought to trial for their use of force, and were able to produce some evidence (does that mean prove it by a preponderence, or a scintilla, or something else?) that they couldn’t reasonably have retreated, then the state would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they could, in fact, have retreated?
Yep, that’s pretty much it. The prosecution had to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant (1) was in reasonable fear of serious bodily harm or death; and (2) was unable to retreat, or had no duty to retreat (was in his home or workplace, and the victim did not have an equal right to be there.)
So - what was the definition of “retreat”? Was it “safely retreat”? That is, if retreating involved higher chance of serious bodily harm or death than defending yourself - would it still be counted?
I’d call that a fine compromise, and a good law. You don’t have to flee your home or workplace (I’d want vehicle on there, too) in the face of an aggessor, but if you’re both out in the public space, you are both obligated to try and de-escalate the situation and part before force can be used. While I’m sympathetic to complaints about having to depart from somewhere you have a right to be, everyone remaining alive is the greater good. At the same time, the burden of proof will hopefully prevent the sort of “You should have searched for a back door!” nightmare that’s completely out of touch with human nature and reasonable expectations that can be placed on a person.
Also, for the South in particular, anything that peacefully erodes our persistent, destructive honor culture is a good thing. SYG gives people no “out” for supposed cowardice and dishonor, if retreating is the law, there’s an excuse to do it and still save face.