Defensive Carry banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

First salvo at the “Stand Your Ground” law.

6K views 60 replies 27 participants last post by  JD 
#1 ·
The news media and anti-gun groups are using the shooting in Sanford to attack the ‘stand your ground’ laws.

'Stand Your Ground Law' at center of Fla. shooting

MIAMI (AP) — Florida is among 21 states with a "Stand Your Ground Law," which gives people wide latitude to use deadly force rather than retreat during a fight. The self-defense law helps explain why a neighborhood watch captain has not been arrested in the shooting death of an unarmed teenager.

The Florida law lets police officers on the scene decide whether they believe the self-defense claim. In many cases, the officer's defer to making the arrest, letting the courts work out whether the deadly force is justified. In this case, however, police have said they are confident they did the right thing by not charging 28-year-old George Zimmerman, a white Hispanic.

The shooting's racial overtones have sparked a national outcry and debate over whether the shooting was warranted. And like many self-defense cases, two sides of the story have emerged.
EarthLink - Top News

[Moderator note: Any posts regarding the shooting itself should be posted to this thread: http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum...iscussions/137911-self-defense-murder-15.html ]
 
#6 ·
Just my opinion...and I am a Floridian, Doesn't appear "poorly written" to me.



776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle 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 entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) 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.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.
 
#29 ·
The rest of the story



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.

Remember sensationalism sells, so the media have motivation to fan the flames. Initially very little of the totality of the circumstances are available to the media and they can slant those tidbits either way without lying. Grand juries have much more information than the media. If there is an inditment, the trial jury will have even more evidence to weigh.

The justice system is not perfect, but overall justice, (under the rules of the law) usually prevails.
 
#13 ·
Trayvon Martin's Alleged Attacker Not Covered Under Law I Wrote | Fox News

Here's a link to Rep. Baxley's letter to concerning the law 'he wrote'...........
This is what I have been saying in the other thread on the issue. That the law was not written to allow or protect those who initiate the action. The author of the Law seems to agree that was not his intent.
There is nothing in the castle doctrine as found in Florida statutes that authenticates or provides for the opportunity to pursue and confront individuals, it simply protects those who would be potential victims by allowing for force to be used in self-defense.
I believe that it is a well written law.

Michael
 
#9 ·
AMEN!

Below is a DIRECT quote from Rep. Baxley, who sponsored the bill in 2005


The facets of the castle doctrine deal with using force to meet force as an act of self-defense when in your home, in your car, on your property, or anywhere you are legally able to be. The law also protects property owners and their homeowner's insurance from being wrongfully sued by perpetrators who claim to be harmed while committing a crime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: barstoolguru
#12 ·
The reason I say Florida's law is poorly written is that it's author claims it to not say what it says. If it were "well written" there would theoretically be no question as to its applicability in a particular case.
There is nothing in the castle doctrine as found in Florida statutes that authenticates or provides for the opportunity to pursue and confront individuals, it simply protects those who would be potential victims by allowing for force to be used in self-defense.
But what law is being broken by pursuing and confronting individuals? If pursuing and confronting someone is not "unlawful activity" how does that section of law not cover somenone who pursues someone? The only way it could be proven, as written, not to is if pursuer can be shown to physically attack the person he or she pursued.

If you follow me in a place we both have a right to be, and I stop and stand my ground and strike out at you have I lost my ability to claim self defense by attacking you? As the law is written it would appear that I have since I attacked you and am not "meeting force with force". As the person following have you given up your ability to claim self defense simply by following me. If so how? Where on a force continuum does "following" or "pursuing" or "chasing" fall?
 
#14 ·
I don't think there is anything wrong with the law itself. The problem lies in how it has been applied! But the liberal, anti-gun media is blaming the law itself, just like they blame the guns, etc., rather than the REAL cause of a problem. There isn't anything wrong with being able to defend oneself. But the law should not keep a wannabe cop mall-ninja from going to jail for "murdering" an unarmed youth! Just my .02.:yup:
 
#26 ·
Seeing as you were there(@ the scene of the Z/T incident, why haven't you offered a counter claim to what GZ said
Here;
"Mr. Zimmerman's statement was that he had lost sight of Trayvon and was returning to his truck to meet the police officer when he says he was attacked by Trayvon," Lee said.

Which was
taken from the OP's posted link.

If he was following T and lost sight of him,(one of the original 9-11 calls had him, GZ telling the operator he (T) was walking through a spot where vehicles couldn't go), and subsequently was going back to his (GZ's) vehicle, whereupon T quite possibly blindsided/came from behind suddenly and jumped GZ.
This would be a prominent facet of the stand your ground law, in a sense that if that is indeed what took place, and GZ was on the grass, (as has been reported by the initial responding police) he was most likely rattled by being jumped, and very likely in fear for his life, as any "reasonable person would be".
Who would be considered the attacker NOW???

GZ was approximately 60 lbs. heavier than T. That is IMHO not really a lot,

I'm gonna shut my pie-hole, before I go and get a boo-boo on my report card.
Seems to me, all you folks who saw the whole thing go down should have been questioned by the Sanford PD by now, and GZ should be in prison, EH?
 
  • Like
Reactions: sgb and Stubborn
#15 ·
Well, here we go. Round robins barn. I saw a clip in our local paper about the 21 states and the stand your ground laws. The media and antis are going to have fun with this.....
 
#16 ·
What's wrong in this case is not the way the law is written.....it's the way LE authorities are using civilians to do their job.
Usually the LE wannabees sign up for neighborhood watch......to let them be armed while volunteering is a mistake....IMO Watching and reporting is just that......not confronting.

What is intreiging to me is how they have forced this to be a Racial issue immediately......300,000+ signitures to Holder, a Federal Investigation......this guy wasn't even place under arrest by locals.....so.....let's bring out the Race Card.
IMO............the people signing these petitions are probably the ones this Law was meant to address.
 
#17 ·
it's not like this law just showed up and maybe it’s a good thing it gets aired. The more people understand the easier it is to except


edit:
What is intreiging to me is how they have forced this to be a Racial issue immediately......300,000+ signitures to Holder, a Federal Investigation......this guy wasn't even place under arrest by locals.....so.....let's bring out the Race Card.
IMO............the people signing these petitions are probably the ones this Law was meant to address.
I heard it was up to 900,000 and the hoodie march was a 1,000,000 so what happen to the other 100,000 hoodies?
 
#18 ·
I listened to a radio interview of one of the members of the Brady group yesterday on a local station. Man, what a bunch of crap comin' out of his mouth. Of course, I know for a fact that the guy interviewing his is an anti so he was serving up softballs and not asking one decent follow up question to dispute what this idiot was spewing. Basically, he was stating as fact, his conjecture and assumptions about the case and what Zimmerman was thinking during the shooting, not to mention, his own anti-biases.

I almost pulled my EDC and shot my car radio while driving 70 mph down the freeway.
 
#23 ·
"State Sen. Chris Smith, a Fort Lauderdale Democrat, said he is preparing a bill that would not allow a self-defense claim in cases where the shooter appeared to provoke the victim. That could have be a factor in the Martin case, where 911 calls and other evidence shows that Zimmerman was following the teenager in his vehicle and approached him aggressively despite specific instructions from police to back off."

It looks like there is going to be some change.
 
#24 ·
It's going to get real ugly before its all over. Prepare for civil discourse if Zimmerman does not get indicted. Also look for politicians to use this incident to change the "stand your ground law". Just like the NAACP and Al Sharpston is using the power of the media to get Zimmerman locked up by mobilizing the people to demonstrate, we must be ready to mobilize ourselves and demonstrate in unity on the streets if they try to repeal this law. The power is in the numbers and even-though the media does not like us, if they see us demonstrating peacefully in the streets for our G-D given right to bare arms, people will take notice. We're part of the silent majority, we can not afford to keep quiet any longer.

Local news outlets are reporting that the chief of police of the Sanford Police Dept. is temporarily stepping down.
 
#28 ·
Nobody should be making a big deal out of this just yet, including and especially the media.

The media fans flames and creates issues where there are none. This law is pretty clear: if you are met with deadly force, you have the right to respond with deadly force. If you can justifiably, reasonably, and with assurance prove you were in fear for your life, you have the right to defend yourself.

The thing is this case needs to go trial, and it really does need to go to trial -- for everyone's sake, the victims family, the shooter and his family, the law, the anti's, the pro's, the cops .... for everyone sake this case needs to go to trial and needs to be played out within the justice system. Then, at the end of that effort, we should all know:

1. The law is a good law when used properly.
2. It may or may not have been applied properly by the shooter in this case; if it was not, then justice should be served.
3. If it was not applied properly, and justice is indeed served, every pro-gun and every anti-gun should rejoice the same. That would prove that it wasn't the law at fault, and it will show that even pro-gun folks are smart enough to see the need for justice when someone does not apply the law properly.

The media needs to simply back off and start reporting the facts .... good luck with that, not gonna happen. But if they could for a little while resort to responsible journalism, then the entire situation could get played out with cooler heads.

And one more thing. 4. Don't worry about whether Z is arrested right now or not. He's not going anywhere. Get the facts on the table, if he's to be charged charge him, then incarcerate him and try him fairly. But he's not going anywhere, everyone needs to quit worrying about whether he's in jail right now or not.
 
#30 ·
Bigmacque.....One scenario you didn't cover. What if Zimmerman get's tried and acquitted? If you've lived in Florida as long as I have, you have to remember the Riots (in Miami) of the 1980's. Because this news has gone nationwide, the civil unrest may be nationwide. What do we do then? Innocent people were killed in those riots, just because they found themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time.
 
#33 ·
First of all, I believe the law is written so a reasonable person could understand it. It has become pretty standard procedure these days for people to define the meaning of words to suit their own agenda. Bill Clinton wrote the book on this and the media has read it chapter and verse. The wording and context of "confrontation, aggressor and provoking" are the crux of the matter and clearly stated. If civil unrest occurs and innocent citizens are killed or injured as a result of riots, the blame should be laid at the feet of the media and no place else! They are blowing this case all out of proportion, acting the judge, jury and executioner without any solid facts. Hearsay and circumstantial evidence, lack of credible witnesses and playing the race card is going to get somebody lynched and the media is shoveling the coal on the fire. This is a prime example of freedom of the press run amok!
 
#31 ·
IMHO, I don't see how FL's law is at variance with Common Law on self defense.

See: Lisa J. Steele's great write-up on Defending the Self-Defense Case @ Defending the Self-Defense Case and on a goodly number of Pro Self Defense sites.
 
#32 ·
Well.....Sharpton the antagonist is now there.........told ya, they always gotta play the Race Card......Sad that this is what it always comes down to.
Not the facts or let the investigation carry on it's course by the professionals.....but Federal Investigators, Constitutional Rights Are Violated and the All Mighty Race Card...........what a show.

Let justice prevail.............
 
#34 ·
bolocanolo, I do remember those riots well, it was nasty.

I like Lisa Steele's commentary on defending self-defense. It's very possible that the law itself is in the way -- if it's truly self-defense, then even without the stand your ground law people should be able to get a fair and square say at trial. And if it's truly not self-defense, then when the facts come out and a jury deems someone guilty of manslaughter or worse, then the law did it's job.

What if Z is acquitted? Then we may well have some humongous riots, and here's the deal with that: the cause of those riots need to rest squarely on the shoulders of every media pundit that fanned these flames, on the shoulders of any person with notoriety that has made it a point to get on television and mouth off about the injustice of it all, and on the shoulders of the sheep that followed them. I'll protect myself and my family.

I cannot tell you how much I despise our media. Loaded language in on-air reports and in print, biased attitudes that don't even grasp their own peril at stake, a pure profit motive when it comes to 'reporting' the news. It's sickening. The right to a free press and the right to free speech and the right to keep and bear arms ..... are all heavy rights that we Americans share with almost no one else in the world. And with great freedom comes great responsibility. The media is not responsible, nor held accountable for their actions. If Z is found guilty of manslaughter, then he was not responsible with his freedom and should be held accountable. And if he is held accountable, then even the pro-gun guys like us should stand up and shout 'hallelujah': the system works just as it should.

So much is at stake, and even the media doesn't understand the great risk they're taking by pushing for gun bans, more gun restrictions, tighter gun control. With that little freedom out of the way, who's to say the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press cannot also become more restricted, under tighter control and in many cases outright banned? But they press on, trying Z, trying the SyG law, trying the state of Florida as a bunch of hicks and hooligans -- never mind that more than half of our population came here from the midwest and northeast, we could not possibly be as refined and educated as those that still live in the frozen North.

Our media is at fault here. This needs to play out, and if it does play out the media MUST be held accountable in how they report on it, how they present the FACTS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bolocanolo
#41 ·
I like Lisa Steele's commentary on defending self-defense. It's very possible that the law itself is in the way -- if it's truly self-defense, then even without the stand your ground law people should be able to get a fair and square say at trial. And if it's truly not self-defense, then when the facts come out and a jury deems someone guilty of manslaughter or worse, then the law did it's job.
I agree that, in a perfect world, taking a shooting to a jury should give a proper outcome. BUT, there are several issues with this as follows:

1. Most people cannot afford to hire a good criminal defense attorney
2. Even if you can afford the criminal attorney, you will then have to hire a civil lawyer as if the CD law is removed, so is civil immunity
3. A jury trial is not about finding the truth, it is a drama and the best actor usually wins
4. There are other factors best left unmentioned

Now, if you defend you castle in the middle of the night in a clear cut case of self defense - I mean a slam dunk case - do you want to go broke because the authroities have to take you to trial even though they know what happened and that you acted responsibly? Or a worse outcome would be going to jail because you could not afford a competent defense.

Finally, ask youself this. Do you think Zimmerman could actually get a fair trial at this point?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigmacque
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top