Floridas "stand your ground law"

Status
Not open for further replies.
So, if the police do not have probable cause to suggest the shooter broke any laws, the SYG law presumes the shooter was justified and that no charges are to be brought?
 
Well, not sure if it is appropriate to speculate (I did ask the mods earlier in this thread) but I think this relates directly to the discussion of the law:

If you are the aggressor, pursuing someone. And that person withdraws, while you are advancing, but then attacks you from behind. Are you then covered under the latter provisions of SYG, because you are now faced with great bodily harm?

It would seem so.
 
Ed N., that's good insight. It sounds like the Florida legislature needs to hustle up and make some adjustments to steal the thunder of the antis.
 
Are you then covered under the latter provisions of SYG,

So, if the police do not have probable cause to suggest the shooter broke any laws, the SYG law presumes the shooter was justified and that no charges are to be brought?

You both need to go back and read what Ed N posted again. That is not the SYG law, it is a different section.

It seems a lot of people are mistakenly conflating various separate sections of Florida law and calling it SYG.
 
Posted by rajb123: So, if the police do not have probable cause to suggest the shooter broke any laws, the SYG law presumes the shooter was justified and that no charges are to be brought?
NO! Did you read Ed N's post #124?

It is not the stand your ground provision that is at work here.
 
I mispoke. Sorry about that, I meant Stand Your Ground, and specifically Florida's concept of it.... which on the surface doesn't seem to be flawed. I did review the wording. And, as I said, the problem is not the law.

The problem is a lack of knowledge about the circumstances.... and based upon what I've read on the internet and paper, we don't know what led up to the shooting. And may never know.... and that tells us whether this was self defense or not.
 
It seems a lot of people are mistakenly conflating various separate sections of Florida law and calling it SYG.

There are also problems with the actual code eliminating the duty to retreat when combined with the way the defense is treated in Florida's courts. While picking a fight with someone and taking the first punches is not illegal, shooting the puncher dead and claiming self defense would strike most as very questionable. Yet that's precisely what can happen under Florida's law as it is currently drafted. With the shooter as the sole witness, he can easily make his prima facie case of self defense and the state is left to scrounge for evidence to disprove self defense. Was the harm really "grave"? Who can say. Let's say there's a broken nose perhaps and some scrapes. The shooter can claim he was being beaten badly and nobody will be able to disprove him beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence that the shooter provoked the assault will be irrelevant, since verbal teasing or taunting is not criminal.

That's a problem, but it's fixable with some modifications to the law. The drafters overreached. They really overreached by trying to micro-manage the police investigations into such matters, which is a separate code.
 
"Stand Your Ground" doesn't mean "Look for Trouble" or "Give Pursuit".

You don't have to retreat, but it does not grant a right to pursue an individual based upon "suspicious" activity. If that person is not a reasonable threat, then force is not justified. If that person is retreating from the situation, force is not justified.



"Stand Your Ground" creates a situation where no party is necessarily obligated by law to retreat, but also where no party can rightfully pursue the other unless failure to pursue results in additional danger.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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

i am not sure i get this, so if one used justifiable self defense, of course he is "immune", if not, this clause doesn't apply (since force is not permitted). so this adds pretty much nothing?
 
There is no "of course" to immunity. Without the immunity provision, Self Defense is an affirmative defense offered at trial. If you are on trial you are being prosecuted, not to mention arrested. And without the immunity provision, one would still be subject to civil litigation regardless of the outcome of the criminal trial.
 
"Stand Your Ground" results in a person having two choices of action when in a threatening situation. The first is retreat, whereby an individual attempts to leave the situation, thereby reducing their risk of harm. The second is standing ground, which is slightly more complicated. The defender is justified in using deadly force for their own protection. The aggressor is forced to make a choice between retreating and reducing their own risk of harm, or continuing the confrontation and risking significant harm.

"Stand Your Ground" does not offer an option for precipitating or escalating the risk of confrontation.


Consider this:

1.) Walk down the street.
2.) Unknown individual approaches in vehicle.
3.) Unknown individual is not a law enforcement officer.
4.) Unknown individual stops to watch you. Unknown intent.
5.) Unknown demands information. Information is denied.
6.) Walk away from individual's vehicle.
7.) Unknown individual leaves vehicle to give chase. Hostile intent.

While this may not be entirely realistic, if an unknown leaves their vehicle to give chase, I would think that it shows possible hostile intent. If I was on foot, and someone leaves their vehicle to chase me, I must be suspicious of their intentions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
While this may not be entirely realistic, if an unknown leaves their vehicle to give chase, I would think that it shows possible hostile intent. If I was on foot, and someone leaves their vehicle to chase me, I must be suspicious of their intentions.

Chase? Or Follow? Are they the same thing? Or are they different.?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i am not sure i get this, so if one used justifiable self defense, of course he is "immune", if not, this clause doesn't apply (since force is not permitted). so this adds pretty much nothing?

I think you misunderstand what "immunity from criminal prosecution" means. From the statute,

"As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant."​

Without this immunity, the shooter could be arrested, charged with murder, held in custody, and (perhaps many months later) be brought to trial before finally being released upon proving self-defense and winning an acquittal. A person acting in self defense could incur great expense, lose his employment, lose his home, etc., etc., while awaiting trial when he had done absolutely nothing illegal.
 
... if an unknown leaves their vehicle to give chase, I would think that it shows possible hostile intent. If I was on foot, and someone leaves their vehicle to chase me, I must be suspicious of their intentions.

Understandable.

So, if you were in that hypothetical situation, with a hypothetical person giving chase, and you had a hypothetical cell phone in your hand, would you call a hypothetical girlfriend 200 miles away, or would you call 911?

Hypothetically speaking, of course.
 
Last edited:
Ed N., you raise a lot of good points. One wonders why you would not think of calling your father, who might be a few yards away.

I, for one, do not want to see the SYG law changed, certainly not repealed.

Here is another hypothetical:

You are walking after someone, talking to them. They are walking away. You are still advancing when you lose sight of them. Then, they come up behind you and hit you on the back of your head. You fall and they are on top of you, punching you. You shoot.

Are you protected by the SYG law? You are the aggressor, however you have met the three requiements: a) you are not committing an illegal act, b) you are in fear of great bodily harm and c) you cannot escape (you are on your back).

It would seem that c) would be where the controversy lies, but it may also be where you are covered under SYG because you have met both requirements.

Thanks
 
so if i get this FL case correctly, he is not arrested (actually the whole case) has nothing to do with SYG, just the law says until DA/LE got enough evidence to charge him, he stays free

Without the SYG provision of 776.012, 776.032 (Immunity from prosecution) wouldn't apply and the police wouldn't be able to say they're prohibited from making an arrest.

I think it's misleading to suggest SYG doesn't apply.
 
I meant to say that section 776.041(2)(a) also doesn't help, and is poorly worded:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(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

This law says that even if you did provoke the use of harm by another person, you're justified in using deadly force if you reasonably feel the other person is about to cause you "great bodily harm".

Nowhere in Florida law is "great bodily harm" defined.
 
Without the SYG provision of 776.012, 776.032 (Immunity from prosecution) wouldn't apply and the police wouldn't be able to say they're prohibited from making an arrest.

I think it's misleading to suggest SYG doesn't apply.

Exactly corrrect. 776.032 starts out by saying,

A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or...​

Without SYG, Zimmerman would not have been legal in defending himself unless it were impossible for him to retreat.
 
The FL SYG law DOES give protection to a potential aggressor, IF 3 tests are met:

A) you are not committing an illegal act
B) you are in fear of great bodily harm
C) you cannot escape

The article in the Miami Herald, from 3/22 states that Zimmerman told police that Martin jumped him from behind and beat him (presumably while Zimmerman was on his back).

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/19/2702809/police-release-watch-captains.html

So, it you take that at face value, and the physical evidence would corroborate that (wound on back of head, bloody nose, grass stains on back), that would tend to satisfy parts B and C.

Thus, for SYG not to apply, Part A would have to be in question. Correct?

So, I think what is left is this question: Is walking after someone and asking them questions an illegal act? Could it possibly be considered stalking?

Thanks

J
 
This law says that even if you did provoke the use of harm by another person, you're justified in using deadly force if you reasonably feel the other person is about to cause you "great bodily harm".

Nowhere in Florida law is "great bodily harm" defined.


Yes, you're entitled to use deadly force, but in this situation you have to try to retreat. Notice that under 776.041, in the case where you have provoked the violence, you no longer are entitled to stand your ground.

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​
 
Posted by absinthe: Nowhere in Florida law is "great bodily harm" defined.
It has been defined in appellate court findings and has, in fact, been included in jury instructions on occasion.

One cannot rely on an state law as written, or in particularly on any one stature taken in isolation, for an understanding of the law. One must also know the case law.
 
Ed N

Great points.

What if in provoking the confrontation, you are knocked to the ground and being beaten by the other person? Does that satisfy exhausting every means to escape?

Thanks

J
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top