Stand your ground laws

[Mcwsky09]

That is so racist

The Daily Caller has an interesting article on this topic...
Florida blacks benefit from Florida 'Stand Your Ground' | The Daily Caller

African Americans benefit from Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” self-defense law at a rate far out of proportion to their presence in the state’s population, despite an assertion by Attorney General Eric Holder that repealing “Stand Your Ground” would help African Americans.

Black Floridians have made about a third of the state’s total “Stand Your Ground” claims in homicide cases, a rate nearly double the black percentage of Florida’s population. The majority of those claims have been successful, a success rate that exceeds that for Florida whites.

Nonetheless, prominent African Americans including Holder and “Ebony and Ivory” singer Stevie Wonder, who has vowed not to perform in the Sunshine State until the law is revoked, have made “Stand Your Ground” a central part of the Trayvon Martin controversy.

So we should be outraged that "they" are getting away with murder?

 

[badge]

Well, at the risk of throwing water on a hot topic, SYG can be a bit of a problem, and we managed to do pretty good with self defense for a long time without SYG. SYG basically does away with the traditional preclusion test that historically has been a part of analyzing self defense.

Look at it this way: I go outside to get in my car. My neighbor starts yelling at me about my cats using his rose garden for a litter box. I sort of blow him off. He yells he is going to beat my brains out and comes toward me with a shovel across 40 yards of open space. I can get in the car and leave. I can go back in the house and call the police. But instead I go to the edge of my driveway, get a firm grip on my CCW, and when he is about 21' away I draw and shoot him.

Under traditional self defense I would need to show why it was reasonable and necessary for me to do what I did. Under SYG I just have to show that I was in reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury. Under SYG since I was where I was legally and what I was doing was legal I had no obligation to even try to come up with a lesser alternative or avoid the shooting.

I support SYG but it does create a new legal concept, essentially taking Castle Doctrine out of the castle and into the street. As I tend to support "shoot when you must" instead of "shoot when you can" I do see some issues with it, and that is why it is controversial.

I agree with this to a point. The to a point is this,.... if one was not THERE, then one does not know what type of scenario and mindset was involved. However, if one can retreat without taking a life, by all means do so.

 

[David Armstrong]

I understand your POV, however I look at it through the lens of my own situation. I am 66 years old, not physically fit (but healthy even after a heart attack, and I have no fighting skills or experience. I cannot expect to successfully run away in most situations. I will not attempt to "fight back." If you attack me and I am in fear of being seriously hurt (and I most likely would be) I will use what means I have at hand to try to stop you. SYG laws may help me after that happens if it ever (God forbid) does.

But, please recognize that Mr. Holders comments have nothing to do with SYG laws. He, and his master, just want to take away your gun.

"You cannot have the ability to defend yourself. That makes you free. Free men cannot be controlled." jlrhiner

Ken

Given your physical condition, much of which I can relate to, you would have no concern with SYG, as your health has precluded many options. Holder aside, there was (and is) some confusion about the what and why of SYG, I just tried to clear that up a bit.

 

[k22fan]

Regarding the previous comment on double jeopardy, the federal government can retry a defendant for the same act that they were acquitted for in state court, and vise versa. The logic behind this is that a state is a separate government than the feds.

Like many other posters, if you accept Zimmerman’s statement that Martin was on top pounding him I don’t see how Florida’s stand your ground law was relevant to Zimmerman’s defense. I watched a TV commentator say that Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman because being followed by a stranger would make a reasonable person fear for their safety. It seems to me that if that was the case rather than sucker punching Zimmerman Martin should have called the police rather than his friend, but from the TV commentator’s view point Florida’s stand your ground law could have been a defense against an assault charge against Martin. Oddly the TV commentator went on the advocate repealing Florida’s stand your ground law.

 

[EvilBetty]

Well, at the risk of throwing water on a hot topic, SYG can be a bit of a problem, and we managed to do pretty good with self defense for a long time without SYG. SYG basically does away with the traditional preclusion test that historically has been a part of analyzing self defense.

Look at it this way: I go outside to get in my car. My neighbor starts yelling at me about my cats using his rose garden for a litter box. I sort of blow him off. He yells he is going to beat my brains out and comes toward me with a shovel across 40 yards of open space. I can get in the car and leave. I can go back in the house and call the police. But instead I go to the edge of my driveway, get a firm grip on my CCW, and when he is about 21' away I draw and shoot him.

Under traditional self defense I would need to show why it was reasonable and necessary for me to do what I did. Under SYG I just have to show that I was in reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury. Under SYG since I was where I was legally and what I was doing was legal I had no obligation to even try to come up with a lesser alternative or avoid the shooting.

I support SYG but it does create a new legal concept, essentially taking Castle Doctrine out of the castle and into the street. As I tend to support "shoot when you must" instead of "shoot when you can" I do see some issues with it, and that is why it is controversial.

And you're right... that's what you should do. Flee unless you don't have an option. This law protects you when for some reason you had that option but it didn't work out.

Say said neighbor is yelling at you, that he's going to come bash your head in. You can't make out what he said, so you shut off your car and walk to the edge of the driveway. He's now moving toward you with the shovel. You're shovel... "Oh, he's returning my shovel". Then 20 or so feet away you realize his going to park it in your skull so go to your CCW and protect your life.

No one could guess how a jury is going to go in that situation. Do they believe you? Or the frantic wife testifying that she could hear her husband plainly and that instead of fleeing you egged on the aggressor, baiting him to get within a justifiable distance...

That's why these SYG laws exist. Not so we can say "Eh, I could run, but I feel like busting a cap today."

 

[S&W45Colt]

Well, at the risk of throwing water on a hot topic, SYG can be a bit of a problem, and we managed to do pretty good with self defense for a long time without SYG. SYG basically does away with the traditional preclusion test that historically has been a part of analyzing self defense.

Look at it this way: I go outside to get in my car. My neighbor starts yelling at me about my cats using his rose garden for a litter box. I sort of blow him off. He yells he is going to beat my brains out and comes toward me with a shovel across 40 yards of open space. I can get in the car and leave. I can go back in the house and call the police. But instead I go to the edge of my driveway, get a firm grip on my CCW, and when he is about 21' away I draw and shoot him.

Under traditional self defense I would need to show why it was reasonable and necessary for me to do what I did. Under SYG I just have to show that I was in reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury. Under SYG since I was where I was legally and what I was doing was legal I had no obligation to even try to come up with a lesser alternative or avoid the shooting.

I support SYG but it does create a new legal concept, essentially taking Castle Doctrine out of the castle and into the street. As I tend to support "shoot when you must" instead of "shoot when you can" I do see some issues with it, and that is why it is controversial.

1. The overwhelming majority of gun owners are responsible, decent people who have no desire to shoot another person. Your post mirrors a lot of anti-gunners logic that believes that gun owners are wackos looking to shoot someone.

2. A person should not have to run and hide on their own property.

What's next, if you wake up in the middle of the night to a break in, you should flee your house and let them take whatever they want? After all, they never threatened your life, right?

You seriously need to reassess your thought process on this issue. Your position is completely dismissive of property rights, the pursuit of life and liberty and common sense/law traditions.

 

[Steve in Vermont]

When you decide to carry a gun you've made a choice to carry a deadly weapon. As such you have an obligation to use that weapon only as a last resort, to defend yourself or your family from immanent bodily harm, or death. If it becomes necessary for you to shoot, the question should be did you do everything "reasonably" possible to avoid having to do so. Could you have "safely" walked away? Driven away? Having to shoot another person should mean that you considered all other options but found none (understanding that sometimes you don't have time to do this). Having spent 35 years as a LEO I have faced that situation numerous times. I was lucky, I always found a Plan B. For other officers there were no options, resulting in a shooting. Because the law allows us to shoot someone (under SYG) means that it's legal. But is it always moral? If we're ever involved in a shooting that's a question we'll be asking ourselves.

 

[smokindog]

Stand your ground is not relevant to this case. The defense was not used. Self defense is the argument that was made and won. WHY do people keep falling into this trap. Stand Your Ground was NOT, repeat, NOT, the defense put forth. NOT RELEVANT.

Regarding the previous comment on double jeopardy, the federal government can retry a defendant for the same act that they were acquitted for in state court, and vise versa. The logic behind this is that a state is a separate government than the feds.

Like many other posters, if you accept Zimmerman’s statement that Martin was on top pounding him I don’t see how Florida’s stand your ground law was relevant to Zimmerman’s defense. I watched a TV commentator say that Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman because being followed by a stranger would make a reasonable person fear for their safety. It seems to me that if that was the case rather than sucker punching Zimmerman Martin should have called the police rather than his friend, but from the TV commentator’s view point Florida’s stand your ground law could have been a defense against an assault charge against Martin. Oddly the TV commentator went on the advocate repealing Florida’s stand your ground law.

 

[bluegrassarms]

Well, at the risk of throwing water on a hot topic, SYG can be a bit of a problem, and we managed to do pretty good with self defense for a long time without SYG. SYG basically does away with the traditional preclusion test that historically has been a part of analyzing self defense.

Look at it this way: I go outside to get in my car. My neighbor starts yelling at me about my cats using his rose garden for a litter box. I sort of blow him off. He yells he is going to beat my brains out and comes toward me with a shovel across 40 yards of open space. I can get in the car and leave. I can go back in the house and call the police. But instead I go to the edge of my driveway, get a firm grip on my CCW, and when he is about 21' away I draw and shoot him.

Under traditional self defense I would need to show why it was reasonable and necessary for me to do what I did. Under SYG I just have to show that I was in reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury. Under SYG since I was where I was legally and what I was doing was legal I had no obligation to even try to come up with a lesser alternative or avoid the shooting.

I support SYG but it does create a new legal concept, essentially taking Castle Doctrine out of the castle and into the street. As I tend to support "shoot when you must" instead of "shoot when you can" I do see some issues with it, and that is why it is controversial.

Very considered post. It does, like any law, have benefits and drawbacks. I think it's only fair to acknowledge them both.

That said, IMO it ends up in that category of "democracy is the worst system of government ever devised, except for all the others." Imperfect, but our best current solution.

In your very good example there is a clear path to retreat, but these laws were put in place in large part due to very unclear situations like domestic violence. Women were being charged with murder for shooting a husband coming at them b/c the prosecutor thought she had options to retreat from the situation. He was threatening her with great bodily harm but she was being tried and often convicted for running to the bedroom to get the gun than out the front door.

People saw her as defending herself and as a victim and the husband as the aggressor and wrong doer but she was the one on trial.

IMO the wording in some states is troublesome in places, but I like the basic principle in that it's almost school yard in its simplicity: the first person to escalate a situation to violence is the wrong doer, and the law will be generally on the side of the person who didn't take the first physically threatening steps.

So while you could get away from your crazy neighbor, your neighbor needs to never ever attack anyone with physical force. In your analogy I'm not sure if juries would really acquit you b/c he may not be threatening enough, but in broadest terms to me "stand your ground" means "don't take it from words or insults or anger to force, period."

Were I in Martin's situation I may have been ticked off at someone following me, suspecting me of a crime, but even if that person walked up and called me every name in the book my options are to stand there and insult him back or leave, but not to use force.

It's imperfect, like any law, and by its nature any law will have some outcomes in individual cases where it may fail to mete justice, but overall I think it metes out more than the alternatives of requiring some kind of retreat. Starting with presumption against the person who creates the physical threat may give an opportunity to someone to dare their neighbor to "do something about it" and them foolishly oblige, but it also gives a battered woman a legal defense when she shoots her husband rather than take another beating.

At some point we have to give juries the flexibility to make the right choice in a given case as well. I do worry some of our laws try to force a jury to make some decisions no matter what, and the whole point of judges and juries is that we can't foresee every possible case and have to let them apply the law as cases come along.

 

[bluegrassarms]

When you decide to carry a gun you've made a choice to carry a deadly weapon. As such you have an obligation to use that weapon only as a last resort, to defend yourself or your family from immanent bodily harm, or death. If it becomes necessary for you to shoot, the question should be did you do everything "reasonably" possible to avoid having to do so. Could you have "safely" walked away? Driven away? Having to shoot another person should mean that you considered all other options but found none (understanding that sometimes you don't have time to do this). Having spent 35 years as a LEO I have faced that situation numerous times. I was lucky, I always found a Plan B. For other officers there were no options, resulting in a shooting. Because the law allows us to shoot someone (under SYG) means that it's legal. But is it always moral? If we're ever involved in a shooting that's a question we'll be asking ourselves.

I don't disagree, but the laws got changed b/c when prosecutors and juries asked those questions they answered "yes he/she could have gotten away" and the voters on average disagreed. One too many women in abuse situations or people being threatened standing in their front yard by a criminal, etc. got convicted and sent to jail b/c they didn't do enough to get away, even though that person thought at that point they had no other option.

I'm standing in my yard. Guy starts towards me with a knife (to make the threat clear and established). OK, I can go to my house, lock my door. Do I think I can make it? Get it locked in time? Will he start running at me and close the gap? What about my wife working around the back yard, will he go there next and find her before I can get there?

As you said, all those questions no doubt go through one's mind. Too many times in too many states people were convicted of murder/manslaughter when they thought they were making the right decision to protect themselves or loved ones and didn't see retreat as the right option.

So we changed presumption to a standard where the law is presumptively against the person making the threat. the standard whereby I will be sent to some prison hell is raised because I'm the innocent guy who didn't start the physical conflict.

With SYG if I am in my front yard and the knife wielding lunatic comes at me and in my mind I say I need to stop him b/c he may get to my wife in the back yard or get into my house and hurt me or my family, then the presumption of the law will be with me and against the knife wielding lunatic.

That's a bit of a cherry picked analogy, but IMO it is why the laws changed. presumption in the "retreat" law states was too often with the criminal, the aggressor, with juries questioning the thinking of the law abiding person being attacked. Better to give that person the benefit of the doubt and focus on whether there was any aggression or not, not on the decisions of someone facing it.

You've been in those positions, I haven't, so I have no leg to stand on to describe what I'd do or if it would be right or wrong. I agree if we can avoid bloodshed we should, but in every one of those situations you were in I'd want you to have the law presumptively on your side as a LEO trying to do the right thing. You may be found in the wrong, I may be, but I like where the basic concept of SYG puts presumption and starts the investigation and questioning by a potential jury.

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

Well, at the risk of throwing water on a hot topic, SYG can be a bit of a problem, and we managed to do pretty good with self defense for a long time without SYG. SYG basically does away with the traditional preclusion test that historically has been a part of analyzing self defense. . . .

I support SYG but it does create a new legal concept, essentially taking Castle Doctrine out of the castle and into the street. As I tend to support "shoot when you must" instead of "shoot when you can" I do see some issues with it, and that is why it is controversial.

I think that the argument arises because of frequent lack of honesty. Everything you say makes sense, and in the end I would have no argument with you even if you concluded against SYG, because I feel that you hold an honest position in an attempt to arrive at justice. The average common-sense kind of guy perceives (correctly) that this is generally NOT the case with politicians and others who oppose SYG. I have the greatest respect for our elected leaders, but it's hard to fool them circle flies.

 

[adwjc]

It’s strange that he would say that because the stand your ground law was not even used in the Martin case.

Its another example of "don't let a crisis go to waste."

Worked in NY, NJ, Conn, Colorado & how many others with ridiculous new laws blamed on the Newtown shootings.

 

[walnutred]

Why does a criminals “right” to attack me outweigh my right to be left alone?

 

[TexasArmed]

I understand your POV, however I look at it through the lens of my own situation. I am 66 years old, not physically fit (but healthy even after a heart attack, and I have no fighting skills or experience. I cannot expect to successfully run away in most situations. I will not attempt to "fight back." If you attack me and I am in fear of being seriously hurt (and I most likely would be) I will use what means I have at hand to try to stop you. SYG laws may help me after that happens if it ever (God forbid) does.

But, please recognize that Mr. Holders comments have nothing to do with SYG laws. He, and his master, just want to take away your gun.

"You cannot have the ability to defend yourself. That makes you free. Free men cannot be controlled." jlrhiner

Ken

Well I am worried about their agenda. If the feds are going to exercise veto power over every state murder trial when they do not like the verdict, then I think the US is heading for a breakup like the USSR and I for one live in Texas and I will never lift my hand against Texas even if Texas decides to become a Republic once again.

I too am 66, and I do retreat if possible but not if it endangers me or my family. If they do away with SYG and even outlaw firearms, then I would have no choice but to be an outlaw, because I will not surrender my guns.

I just hope it does not deteriorate to the point I need a passport to travel to other states.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

What's next, if you wake up in the middle of the night to a break in, you should flee your house and let them take whatever they want? After all, they never threatened your life, right?

Good point... but even if they did threaten your life....

Homeowner (HO) is in bed and awoken by the sound of the front door being kicked in. HO grabs a gun and hides behind a chest of drawers in the bedroom then calls 911. 90 seconds into the 911 call the BG breaks into the bedroom with gun in hand. HO shoots BG. Clearly self defense and end of story, right? Well... absent SYG, HO could be on trial with the prosecutor making the case that 90 seconds was more than ample time for the HO to slip out the backdoor of the bedroom to the back deck and then out to the backyard and gone from there, totally avoiding any potential conflict with the BG. Furthermore, the HO actions show intent to ambush and kill a 17 y/o child who was just looking for a box of candy for his younger brother. Then rhetorically asks- Is a box of candy worth killing a child? Blah blah blah. SYG avoids all this nonsense.

----------------

Tennessee has a version of SYG. It applies to being in and around your home and business.

It makes perfect sense to me that the home owner is under no obligation to accommodate the criminal by fleeing their own home, or otherwise having to prove in a court of law that fleeing was not an option, before self defense would be considered a legal action.

Failure to Flee = Giving up your legal right to self defense? No thanks.

 

[joesmith357]

Tennessee has a version of SYG. It applies to being in and around your home and business.

It makes perfect sense to me that the home owner is under no obligation to accommodate the criminal by fleeing their own home, or otherwise having to prove in a court of law that fleeing was not an option, before self defense would be considered a legal action.

Agree with you completely but why limit that right to your home or place of business?

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Agree with you completely but why limit that right to your home or place of business?

In Tennessee, no duty to retreat isn't limited to just your home, business or car. However, those who force entry are presumed to be intending violence, and therefore the law extends reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury in these situations. It also provides immunity from civil liability.

 

[David Armstrong]

1. The overwhelming majority of gun owners are responsible, decent people who have no desire to shoot another person. Your post mirrors a lot of anti-gunners logic that believes that gun owners are wackos looking to shoot someone.

Actually my post mirrors a lot of posters on gun forums and a number of students I have had at my classes.

2. A person should not have to run and hide on their own property.

That is certainly one view. Of course, I'm not aware of anyone that has suggested that a person should have to run and hide on their own property, so I'm not sure what relevance it has to the discussion.

What's next, if you wake up in the middle of the night to a break in, you should flee your house and let them take whatever they want? After all, they never threatened your life, right?

Historically and traditionally inside one's home has been looked at differently than outside the home. Given that the traditional concepts of SD and preclusion have been around for a long time without that issue, again I fail to se what relevance it has to the discussion. We are discussing SYG, not Castle Doctrine.

You seriously need to reassess your thought process on this issue. Your position is completely dismissive of property rights, the pursuit of life and liberty and common sense/law traditions.

Well, given that my thought process reflects pretty much the way courts, law and society have looked at the issue for centuries perhaps you are the one that needs to reassess?

 

[David Armstrong]

I think that the argument arises because of frequent lack of honesty. Everything you say makes sense, and in the end I would have no argument with you even if you concluded against SYG, because I feel that you hold an honest position in an attempt to arrive at justice. The average common-sense kind of guy perceives (correctly) that this is generally NOT the case with politicians and others who oppose SYG. I have the greatest respect for our elected leaders, but it's hard to fool them circle flies.

As I said, I do tend to support SYG in concept. I think the devil will be in the details, as they say, as is true with so many laws.

 

[David Armstrong]

Good point... but even if they did threaten your life....

Homeowner (HO) is in bed and awoken by the sound of the front door being kicked in. HO grabs a gun and hides behind a chest of drawers in the bedroom then calls 911. 90 seconds into the 911 call the BG breaks into the bedroom with gun in hand. HO shoots BG. Clearly self defense and end of story, right? Well... absent SYG, HO could be on trial with the prosecutor making the case that 90 seconds was more than ample time for the HO to slip out the backdoor of the bedroom to the back deck and then out to the backyard and gone from there, totally avoiding any potential conflict with the BG. Furthermore, the HO actions show intent to ambush and kill a 17 y/o child who was just looking for a box of candy for his younger brother. Then rhetorically asks- Is a box of candy worth killing a child? Blah blah blah. SYG avoids all this nonsense.

Let's not mix up legal doctrines. Inside the home Castle Doctrine applies. AFAIK Castle Doctrine is the law in all 50 states. SYG has nothing to do with what goes on in your home, it is most applicable outside of the home. IIRC we currently have 16 states with specific SYG laws and another 7 or 8 that incorporate the concept in other ways or have combined the doctrines into one broad legal concept. So even if you do not have an SYG law you still can stay and fight in your home.