The subject matter of this thread is not guns or stand-your-ground, this story only illustrates the basis for Frank Herbert’s complaint about the tyranny of statutes.
The court is struggling with the language of the law. To me, this seems rather problematic: the intent and practical application of any given law should be evident enough that one phrase should not lead to confusion by dint of its presence. We are sacrificing our ability to exercise common sense (oxymoronic as that may sound) and ad hoc reason for some words that a group of people, benighted by election, have put into a book.
The legislative process itself is questionable enough to start with (“we have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it” – Pelosi), that we must then abide by these words on a page, verbatim et literatim, is a recipe for abuse. One modifier in a statute, that the authors well might not have noticed or given due consideration, can change, even invert, the intent that the legislative body voted for.
Yes, we have courts to account for discrepancies, but even that check looks to be out of balance. We want to live in a consistent environment where legal and illegal are neatly defined. By accepting the ethos of crisp statutory legality, does that mean we must cast aside logic, reason and empathy to make it work?
Honestly, this particular problem could have been solved by not letting lobbyists like the NRA have absolute free reign and basically write the laws for them. “Not the stupid party” indeed. It was really appalling to me when I heard about this on the news.
Let me ask you this. If you happen to be a felon carrying an illegal gun and get attacked by 5 guys, are you now allowed to defend yourself?
And this statement “this decision, if upheld would ostensibly allow individuals to claim immunity for deadly force even if used while committing a crime” is incorrect.
Stand your ground would not provide immunity from the illegal firearm charge. And it certainly can’t be used as a defense in the actual commission of a crime.
This sounds like someone who has never worked in a legal or regulatory environment. People who say we should be able to enforce the law by “exercising common sense” usually mean “according to my opinion and interpretation of the law”.
The fact is, legislators try to write laws as concise as possible, however they are human and cannot account for every possible situation or nuance. That is why we have lawyers, judges, juries and the concept of legal precedent.
For those interested, here’s a link to the Florida appellate court decision. I’m no fan of Stand Your Ground, but the decision seems to me well reasoned.
I agree with PBear42 - I don’t see what the problem is - “or” means “or”. This isn’t a technicality or some modifier - courts make decisions regarding disjunctive language all the time.
This was a relative no brainer - anyone familiar with case law I think will agree.
The reason this is crap is because those on the other side of the aisle allow Sarah Brady and her ilk write laws for them. Elected officials merely saddle up with the special interest who have the same or close to the same views as them. No big deal with that. If you don’t like it the proper thing to do is vote for people who’s views are close to yours.
If we punished criminals properly in this country we wouldn’t have to worry about felons with guns. They would either still be locked up, dead, or suffered such harsh consequences that when they are finally free they could be trusted to have ALL of their civil liberties restored.
If a convict cannot be trusted to possess a firearm, then they are not ready to be free!
But under the current pathetic laws I say he should be charged with felon in possession. But nothing more. If it would be legal for a non-felon to use the same amount of force, why should a felon be barred from doing the same? What difference does it make that he used a particular inanimate object if the use of that level of force was legal? Had he used a rock to stop the threat it would have been legal also.
No - but the law doesn’t say you can’t be doing lawful activity.
Actually (I skimmed it), but there are three parts that can be used - and only one says you can’t be doing unlawful activity.
In criminal law - the criminal conduct must be clearly illegal. He gets immunity if he meets ANY of the exceptions - as the legislature didn’t put that part in for all of the sections.
So basically he is guilty of A unless:
B) blah blah
C) blah blah
Or
D) blah blah - unless he is doing something illegal
I believe in this case the court is saying he falls under B, C, and D - he can’t use D - cause he is a felon, but he can still use B or C.
Again - I skimmed it more or less, but I’ve read thousands of opinions - and this doesn’t seem any weirder than most.
He still can be charged for having the gun.
I am no fan of the stand your ground law - but the problem is with the overall concept. I don’t really think what this felon did was so bad anyway, besides illegally possessing a gun. He should be charged with that.
Technically you have nothing wrong - except you are only quoting ONE of the defenses. He was claiming THREE - the other two do not have that language.
They are three very similar defenses - so I see how someone would get confused.
Here is really the relevant part:
The word “or” at the end of (1) is what is key here.
The section you quote is under (2) - I think. Doesn’t matter really - as all that matters is what is under part (1) - he meets that part - so nothing else matters. If he only met what was under section (2) - that would count too.
I am almost positive he can still be charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm - I believe the immunity only applies to the use of force itself.
Thanks, DataX, for taking the laboring oar in explaining the decision. Frankly, at the point I posted last night, I didn’t have the time or energy to do more than toss in the link. And, yes, Snowboarder Bo, you’ve pretty much gotten it. Except, as the concurrence argues, it’s not entirely clear how the Florida courts will rule on whether unlawful possession of a firearm defeats a defense under 776.013. The Little court didn’t have to decide this issue, as it ruled 776.012 standing alone was a sufficient defense in that particular case.
If it helps, AFAICT, the statutory construction issue comes down to this. Section 776.012 places on the defendant the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence his reasonable fear of imminent injury. Section 776.013 gives the defendant a presumption of reasonable fear in defending certain places (especially, his home or car). The latter is limited by not-engaged-in-an-unlawful-activity, where the former is not. (Nor is a defense of others under section 776.031, not implicated in this case.) Whether this is a reasonable ground of distinction can be argued, but it’s nonetheless a distinction made in the Florida statute. For this reason, the decision seems right to me.
Circling back to the OP, statutory law has been messy for a very long time. Bringing sense and consistency to this is one of the things we expect courts to do. If for no other reason than that there’s no one else capable of doing it. If legislatures wish to avoid this result, they should write clearer and simpler laws.
In any event, yes, Little’s defense under Stand Your Ground in no way precludes his prosecution for the firearms violation.
Yeah, I got that the other statutes were kind of a moot point because 776.012 was determined as being properly invoked. I bet the legislature moves to clean up this language before the courts have to rule on it; I know if I was a SYG supporter in the Florida House or Senate I’d be looking to introduce better-written legislation at the first opportunity.
I concur, but then how would lawyers ever make a living? :dubious:
Is he being prosecuted for this? I haven’t seen any stories that say one way or the other.
