Stand Your Ground

[Maggot]

I would think there was some paper somewhere that had the law written on it. With all the clauses and addendume attached. Possibly easily found on-line.

[username]

I would think there was some paper somewhere that had the law written on it. With all the clauses and addendume attached. Possibly easily found on-line.

Go for it inspector clueso!

[Duchess]

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.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—


The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:



(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Florida's "stand your ground" statute

[Tammy75]

I hate that someone died because they would not respectfully turn THAT FUCKIN BASS SHIT DOWN!!!! Dunn was wrong and should have driven on but I lived beside one of those who poked me enough for 6 months, I for the first time considered buying a gun. I am the most non violent person in the world but being woken every.dern.morning to my windows rattling and even when the cops came (one weekend they were out here 20+ times) it wears on you. The music situation turned into verbal confrontation and then property damage to my home and the only reason it stopped was the MFer was finally put in jail after beating his girlfriend to a dam pulp....in front of her 3 kids. There is so much more to my personal story so I won't go further with this.

BTW I have over 20 minutes of this thug threatening us over the fence and telling us he didn't have to f*cking work so he could play whatever he wanted, when he wanted. And the classic ending of calling me a bitch and telling my hubby he was a punk ass b*tch for not defending me because hubs turned away, only to be called Mr Whitey White and Mrs B*tchy B*tch.

Sorry had to get that out my system.

Again Dunn should have drove off but then again why the hell doesn't anyone have basic respect for anyone else anymore puzzles and saddens me more.

[HairOfTheDog]

These states have enacted “Stand Your Ground” laws that remove the duty to retreat before using greater force in self-defense.

Alabama
Arizona
Florida
Georgia
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Montana
Nevada
New Hampshire
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Texas
Utah

Other states have adopted a stand your ground doctrine through judicial interpretation of their self-defense laws; those are not on the list above.

So, what's the difference?


In Florida and other states with specific SYG laws, the jury is instructed to consider whether the beliefs and actions were "reasonable" to the specific defendant him or herself.

But, in California (and some other state's without SYG laws, but with SYG-like self defense clauses) the jury is instructed to consider whether the beliefs and actions of the defendant be evaluated as either justified or not based on what the jury considers that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would do.

Big difference.

I think that the "pussy defense" would have been less likely to succeed in California than Florida (that doesn't mean that Zimmerman would have been convicted here; just that it would have required a different strategy by the defense and may have been more difficult to get an acquittal here, imo).

I read that Alabama is currently reviewing its SYG laws. I hope that others do too. Not as a result of one verdict in one case, but because I believe that it makes sense to revisit the intent of the laws and consider whether they've wound up making it too easy for people to legally kill others when it should/could have been avoided.

[HairOfTheDog]

Alabama legislators are reviewing its SYG laws.

Representative Merika Coleman-Evans said under her bill (for 2014) a person could not use the defense if they initially pursued another person engaged in a lawful activity in a public place and the pursuit resulted in a confrontation.

“This is not pursuing someone who just broke in or attempted to break in your home,” she said. Following someone in that case would not be part of the SYG exclusion.

Full story:
http://blog.al.com/wire/2013/07/lawmaker..._stan.html

[HairOfTheDog]

I merged three separate threads titled "Stand Your Ground" into this one.

Please post comments about SYG laws, which may also include how they impact specific cases, in this thread.

Thank you.

[HairOfTheDog]

Arizona legislators agree to review SYG law

In light of the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin case, state Sen. Steve Gallardo called on state lawmakers and leaders to review the state’s “stand your ground” law.

Flanked by legislative, city and community members during a news conference at the state Capitol on Tuesday, Gallardo said he agrees with U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who recently called for a review of the controversial law.

“These types of laws are fundamentally unacceptable and should be addressed,” Gallardo said.

“I call on the Arizona state Legislature to review Arizona’s ‘stand your ground’,” Gallardo said. “Let’s have a hard discussion, an honest debate.”

Gallardo said he agrees there is a need for someone to have the opportunity to protect himself or herself. But the problem with the law’s 2010 amendment is that it made the law applicable outside of the home.

“Anyone walking out in the street is able to stand their ground,” Gallardo said.

His biggest fear is that people who would normally walk away from a confrontation may now choose to stand their ground and use deadly force.

Full story:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/a...ck_check=1

[BlueTiki]

In light of the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin case, state Sen. Steve Gallardo called on state lawmakers and leaders to review the state’s “stand your ground” law.

Flanked by legislative, city and community members during a news conference at the state Capitol on Tuesday . . .

“These types of laws are fundamentally unacceptable and should be addressed,” Gallardo said.

“I call on the Arizona state Legislature to review Arizona’s ‘stand your ground’,” Gallardo said. “Let’s have a hard discussion, an honest debate.”

From the same article . . .

Gallardo said he did not have statistics that showed how many times the “stand your ground” defense has been used in Arizona.

His biggest fear is that people who would normally walk away from a confrontation may now choose to stand their ground and use deadly force.

Wants honest discussion and he doesn't have ANY facts to warrant this type of fear mongering before holding a presser?

His biggest fear isn't that SYG might provide a legal loophole for premeditated or calculated murder?

Fuck him!

[HairOfTheDog]

^ Yeah, I thought the bit about not having any stats was a clear sign that the senator is riding the current wave before the tides change.

I think the changes proposed in Alabama make sense, on the surface, regardless of any political motivations behind them.

SYG laws shouldn't be so broad as to encourage citizens to play cop, go all vigilante, or kill just because they wanna and then lie knowing that they have a legal defense that's hard to disprove.

I don't object to laws that allow people to defend themselves with greater force when they've been attacked or had some criminal act perpetrated upon them. But, if states wanna retain SYG laws in public places, it make sense to me that SYG not apply when someone follows another person and provokes the confrontation based only on suspicion or because they otherwise feel like it.

[SIXFOOTERsez]

I think its maybe a good idea to take a look at the states current SYG lays and close up some loopholes. I don't think Z wiggled through one necessarily, he didn't claim SYG anyhow.
Its obvious (to me at least) that there is some abuse of the statutes and that's wrong, but that's the part that needs fixing, and the domestic areas too.
I don't think I have heard of anyone here in Fl actually getting away with a murder and claim SYG, a lot of people will claim Z did.

[HairOfTheDog]

I think its maybe a good idea to take a look at the states current SYG lays and close up some loopholes. I don't think Z wiggled through one necessarily, he didn't claim SYG anyhow.
Its obvious (to me at least) that there is some abuse of the statutes and that's wrong, but that's the part that needs fixing, and the domestic areas too.
I don't think I have heard of anyone here in Fl actually getting away with a murder and claim SYG, a lot of people will claim Z did.

It'll be interesting to find out if the jury's verdict in the Zimmerman case was based on the SYG jury instructions they received or something else. It's not clear based on B37's interview alone.

Either way, I too am glad that some states are compelled to review the SYG statutes with any eye towards continuing to allow legitimate justifiable use of force, while minimizing opportunities for unjustifiable force to be used by those inclined to exploit the statutes' ambiguities.

[HairOfTheDog]

Florida: Speaker of the House open to SYG revisions

This is a good piece about why lawmakers in Florida should consider revisiting SYG laws in the state, despite the heavy gun-owner and NRA influence there. Not repeal, just revisit and amend.

Florida House Speaker (Republican) Matt Reed has made a public statement that he's open to doing so. The article cites examples of cases where the SYG law protected shooters from what seem to be very clear cases of manslaughter, at least, due to the difficulty in disproving the "reasonableness" of an individual's fear.

Snip:
Florida’s stand-your-ground law needs improvement — though not repeal — for the sake of fairness, safety and credibility with a public it was meant to protect. It needs change, regardless of the George Zimmerman case or any protests that followed.

As written and interpreted, the stand-your-ground law gives greater weight to a shooters’ convenience than to life itself. It bars police from detaining killers who claim self-defense, undermining investigations and the system’s credibility.

It immunizes shooters from civil wrongful-death lawsuits, even if they recklessly shoot bystanders or fire from a distance at someone running away. Courts must presume shooters’ claims of fear were “reasonable” and have cited the law in freeing suspects who should have faced charges.

Whose values could those conditions possibly represent? No one I know.

Fortunately, the Republican speaker from Wesley Chapel said Tuesday he is open to change.

“I think there’s been some misapplication of the law,” Weatherford told the Tampa Tribune. “To me, there’s nowhere in that ‘stand- your-ground law’ that says the aggressor who physically starts an altercation then has the right to claim self-defense.”

No, Mr. Speaker, it doesn’t specifically say so. But combined with case law and other Florida statutes, that’s just what this law has done.

Full story:
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/2013...ground-law

[Cynical Ninja]

I wanna be a concealed carry gun owner in these states! Its like the Charlie Bronson clause! If I'm scared I can turn on any unarmed motherfucker I like (it helps if he's darker skinned obviously) and say “this unarmed person made me fear for my armed ass” and knowing I can blow that motherfucker away legally with no criminal penalty?

That's the America I want it was previously known as the “wild west” but the sooner we arm everyone and make them more paranoid about race the better I think! Let's do that and see where we u as a country?

[Maggot]

I bet it makes criminals think twice before committing a robbery or any type of violent act.

[SIXFOOTERsez]

Yes it does, I have seen it happen many times. The moment they have made the decision to make the move, then they make eye contact. You can actually hear the wheels turning in their head, they hesitate a step, then cross the street.

[Cynical Ninja]

Nothing cries freedom like being able to execute an unarmed person in the street because you are a pussy who got skeered.

[Cynical Ninja]

“The cop I know he only got a little gun,”
“So when I go out I walk around with a bigger one!”

“Whoop! whoop!”

[Maggot]

I would carry a bazooka but it won't fit in my holster and would look ugly with these shoes. So I have to settle for the .38

[Cynical Ninja]

I would carry a bazooka but it won't fit in my holster and would look ugly with these shoes. So I have to settle for the .38

^

This post skeered me, bang! Maggotyboo you're dead!

I'd get away with too, maggot RIP was carrying a .38 Trayvon RIP was carrying skittles.