|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 5, 2012, 11:24 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 2,525
|
Florida task force examines Stand Your Ground law
It seems that state senator Chris Smith is setting up a task force to examine Florida's Stand Your Ground law. The governor of Florida is expected to follow with his own task force.
link Given the recently publicity with the Martin Zimmerman case, do you think the law will stand as is or be modified? Should the law be changed or are we overreacting? |
April 5, 2012, 11:42 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 28, 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 400
|
Complete overreaction. Zimmerman's lawyer even says the law doesn't apply, so there's no reason to even be speaking about it. But this does appear to be the perfect storm for the antis to push for new legislation
|
April 5, 2012, 11:46 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 5, 2007
Location: Smack Dab in the Middle of Nowhere.
Posts: 505
|
What's the liberal alternative, "Get On Your Knees And Beg For Your Life" law?
__________________
"We will do this: we will hang together, we will keep our organization, our arms, our discipline, our hatred of oppression, until one universal shout goes up from an admiring age that this Missouri Cavalry Division preferred exile to submission, death to dishonor". General Joseph O. Shelby, CSA (1830-1897) The only Confederate General who refused to surrender himself or his 1,000+ "Iron Brigade". |
April 5, 2012, 12:12 PM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
|
Quote:
In any case, it certainly seems like the SYG law would be applicable, at least if the events happened the way Zimmerman is claiming. |
|
April 5, 2012, 12:24 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
|
A lot of anti gun types think that the burden of proof should be on you or I to prove that we acted in self defence, rather than on the state to prove you did not. This country needs more stand your ground laws.
|
April 5, 2012, 12:58 PM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
|
Quote:
Here in Virginia, the way it works is that if you kill someone and admit to it, it's second-degree murder by default, and the shooter doesn't present a defense, the prosecution will win by default - the prosecution doesn't have to prove anything if the shooter admitted to the shooting. Now, if the prosecutor wants to go for a higher classification (like "first-degree murder"), or the defendant wants to go for a lower classification (like "justified"), then they both present their cases and the trial goes from there. Long story short - if you want a killing classified as "justified", then it's on you to provide the justification. You can't just kill someone and then say "prove it wasn't justified". |
|
April 5, 2012, 01:07 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 18, 2011
Location: 609 NJ
Posts: 705
|
You think innocent until proven guilty should be throw out the window?
__________________
"...with liberty and justice for all." (Must be 21. Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all states.) |
April 5, 2012, 01:13 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
|
Not at all - but if you've already openly admitted to shooting (possibly killing) someone, then you've already pled guilty to a crime as it's described in the statutes. The only way that the shooting *wouldn't be a crime* is if you can provide a justification.
Yes, it's sort of a "catch-22" in that you have to confess to a crime before you can convince a jury that it wasn't really a crime, but it's not strictly the same as saying that someone is guilty until proven innocent. |
April 5, 2012, 02:04 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 2,525
|
Does Florida's stand your ground law do more than eliminate the duty to retreat in a public place?
|
April 5, 2012, 02:27 PM | #10 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Given the circumstances of the Zimmerman matter and the brouhaha it's created, it would be almost inconceivable that Florida law would not come under this sort of scrutiny.
Quote:
However, this works somewhat differently when the when the defendant is claiming self defense. I'll provide a link below to some posts in which I describe this in greater detail. Quote:
Again, this is described in more detail at the links provided below. Quote:
Self defense and Florida law are more fully described here, and here and here.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|||
April 5, 2012, 02:43 PM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
|
Quote:
If you don't want to assume any of the burden of proof, then all you have to do is not even admit to the shooting - that places the burden of proof solely on the prosecution. The drawback is that you've given up the chance to claim justification, and all the prosecution has to do is prove that you shot the other person, and they've met the burden for the second-degree murder charge - they don't have to concern themselves with the actual circumstances surrounding the shooting, unless they want to go for a higher degree of murder (such as proving that you were in the middle of committing a felony when you shot the other person in order to support a first-degree murder charge.) |
|
April 5, 2012, 03:06 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 3, 2011
Location: Vernon AZ
Posts: 1,195
|
AZ's law, as I understand it, provides self defense as a presumptive defense. The prosecutors have to prove that it was not self defense. The Phoenix AZ road rage shooting is a good case study of how the law works. It also is a good study of what not to do when you are involved in a shooting.
|
April 5, 2012, 04:48 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 2,525
|
So the basic differences in Florida's SYG law compared with some other states rules are:
A person who claims self defense is presumed to have feared for his life and it's up to the prosecution to show that a reasonable person would not have been in fear of his life. This applies in both criminal and civil court. No duty to retreat if the person claiming self defense wasn't the original aggressor. Am I missing anything? |
April 5, 2012, 04:58 PM | #14 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
The way I understand Florida's law (and I think this is consistent with Frank Ettin's explanation) is that the law provides an affirmative defense that can be used to excuse what it otherwise an unlawful act: a homicide.
And IF that is a correct understanding, then it seems to me that much (most? all?) of the current furor can be directly attributed to the Sanford Police NOT having arrested George Zimmerman. In making that statement I am not even commenting on whether or not he might have been justified -- that's for a jury to decide. I'm just saying that the police department's claim that they are "prevented" from arresting him by the "stand your ground" law does not square with my understanding of the law. And I think if he had been arrested, even if he was allowed out on bail, it would have taken the wind out of a lot of sails regarding protests against the law. An arrest would have allowed everyone to see the law working as it was intended to work. What we are seeing instead is a circus. |
April 5, 2012, 05:10 PM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 720
|
AB,
You do bring up a valid point. The concern I do have though is noted in bold below: Quote:
The investigator will have to have what he/she feels are the majority of the facts in hand before any charge is filled, or he/she may risk violating this segment of the law. Perhaps you, Frank, and others may be able to show where I am wrong on this. As always have a chipper evening! Last edited by Fishing_Cabin; April 5, 2012 at 05:16 PM. |
|
April 5, 2012, 05:17 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 566
|
CA has no SYG law but does have a "last aggressor" justification for using lethal force justifiably in self-defense.
You can start a fight, but if you completely disengage, making clear your intentions and walking away, your opponent is the "last aggressor" if they pursue you, and they have started a new fight. If you then otherwise justifiably use lethal force, that you started the fight in the beginning is not the telling point. Zimmermann claims to have been disengaging, according to some accounts. If that is true, Martin may be the "last aggressor". I don't know what happened. Eugene Volokh did an interesting blog on the "duty to retreat" on his site earlier this week. It appears that both the Model Penal Code and how the "duty" has been integrated into common law recognize that retreat is not a viable, or even preferred, action in all circumstances. There is a point at which retreat is an undue loss of a person's liberty, which relieves that person of having to choose or affirmatively try to retreat.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will. — Mark Twain Last edited by HarrySchell; April 5, 2012 at 06:35 PM. |
April 5, 2012, 05:45 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,560
|
IMO the Florida Stand your ground law is defective. I doubt it would stand up to judicial review. I guess we'll see...
The law instructs the police to limit their investigation. The law absolves the shooter with no judicial review. The law places police lives above those of any other citizen. The law seems to set "REASONABLE" as a standard then denies a vehical for deciding what is reasonable, or what's not. The law effectively denies the police and the courts the option of control of the shooter and his ability to flee the jurisdiction. Last edited by Glenn Dee; April 5, 2012 at 05:51 PM. |
April 5, 2012, 06:49 PM | #18 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
So ... is that provision a good one, or a bad one? It's clearly a good one if you're the shooter and it's a justified shooting. It's perhaps not quite as good if the shooting is questionable but whatever the police have doesn't quite rise to the level of probable cause. |
|
April 5, 2012, 07:06 PM | #19 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Reports regarding the Zimmerman matter continue to be sketchy and often contradictory. Every time we start to get into the Zimmerman matter we get hopelessly mired in speculation. So -- Please hear me. We will not discuss the details of the Zimmerman matter. We have already closed multiple threads that turned into hairballs.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
April 5, 2012, 08:01 PM | #20 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
The bottom line is that if you are claiming self defense, you still
Quote:
You don't get a presumption just by saying you were acting in self defense. That is insufficient. You can't just say, "I was defending myself" and thus shift the burden to the prosecution to prove that you weren't. You must still put forth evidence establishing prima facie that all the elements required for justification were satisfied.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|||
April 6, 2012, 09:24 AM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,970
|
Quote:
We don't have a 'SYG' law per say in State of Ohio but there have been a few cases in which shootings have occurred which resulted in no arrests. I.E. Not to long ago, in Fairfield Co., Ohio, there was a fella lured to a remote area by a couple BG's on the premise of purchasing a piece of heavy equipment(bulldozer I think). The BG's attempted to rob him at gunpoint. He shot one(or both,don't recall). Shooter was thoroughly questioned by sheriff's dept. , no charges filed against him and he was never arrested. IMO,rightfully so. Why was he never arrested and no charges filed? According to Ohio law, all the elements required for a justified shooting were clearly satisfied. |
|
April 6, 2012, 06:36 PM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Swamp dweller
Posts: 6,187
|
My opinion is the law will stand and not be repealed. It the typical knee jerk reaction to a situation. From the laws inception as some would like one to believe FLA DID NOT turn into the wild, wild west as some stated it would.
The law was needed as this example shows, before the change in law if you were being car jacked with a weapon involved the state stated if you were a CCW permit holder you had the duty to retreat to avoid the use of deadly force. Everywhere else with the exception of your home the state said you have to retreat from the situation instead of standing your ground. I truely believe that when the dust settles the law will stand. As a side note and not meant to be political, the law makers asking and raising cane about the law are Democrats calling for the repeal of the law and the Republican law makers are asking to wait and see the outcome of the event in Sanford, FL.
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, NRA Certified Pistol Instructor,, USPSA & Steel Challange NROI Range Officer, ICORE Range Officer, ,MAG 40 Graduate As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be. |
April 7, 2012, 12:42 PM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2010
Location: WesTex
Posts: 958
|
Overreaction without a doubt. People expect the government to do something about everything.
__________________
"And I'm tellin' you son, well it ain't no fun, staring straight down a .44" -Lynyrd Skynyrd |
April 7, 2012, 02:26 PM | #24 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
While our laws recognize that under some circumstances it may be justified for one person to intentionally hurt or kill another person, such acts of violence have been, and continue to be, repugnant to most people. Most people will grudgingly accept the necessity to use violence in self defense, but generally only under the clearest and most compelling circumstances.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
April 7, 2012, 05:15 PM | #25 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,970
|
Quote:
One would like to think that with diligent investigating and today's modern forensics , if a person is guilty of shooting a person and claims SD and it's not, the shooter gets put away. On the other hand, if facts prove it is SD, then no charges pressed. A couple years ago, in the South end of Cols.,Ohio, we had a group of teenagers(anywhere from 10-15 teens) cruising the parks. They were ,as they put it, "playing a game they called 'knockout". They would randomly choose a victim and make bets before they approached the victim to see if a chosen teen could knock the victim out with one punch. Most of the victims were middle aged to older males. I believe the oldest victim was in his mid 60's. This went on about all summer before a group of teens was finally arrested. Prior to the teens hearings, the media showed up at the courthouse and interviewed some of the victims as well as the parents of some of the teens. One parent(term used loosely) actually said on camera that "she didn't feel her son was being treated fairly and that all the kids were doing was playing a game". At any rate, the judge passed out strict sentences to the teens along with a very stern tongue lashing which entailed not only was it possible to injure or kill someone with one punch but the possibility of someone shooting them in SD. Course, this same stupid mother that stated "the kids were just playing a game and her son was just being picked on and singled out", left the courtroom talking that same, all to familiar crap... ....Her son was specifically I.D.'ed as a hitter by a victim in the courtroom. Last edited by shortwave; April 7, 2012 at 05:22 PM. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|