Understanding "Stand Your Ground" Law

[Kleanbore]

The jury determines along with the judge what is reasonable and that is beyond the scope of the information presented here because so many of the facts are absent.

The jury alone decides what is reasonable.

They do so on the basis of the law as it is explained to them, and evidence that is presented to them--evidence available from the scene, and other relevant testimony that may apply, but only that evidence that is admitted by the judge. Other things will not be known to them.

The jury may also base their determination on expert witnesses for one or both sides, when and if their testimony is admitted by the judge--expert testimony on things like reaction time, what can generally be considered deadly force, the impact of stress on perception, and so on.

Because the jury is to make its determination on the basis of what a reasonable person would have done in similar circumstances and knowing what the defendant knew at the time would have done, the judge will almost always refuse to admit evidence that the defendant cannot prove he knew at the time (the Tueller drill, for example, or the assailant's criminal record).

The judge acts as the gatekeeper regarding the admissibility of evidence, and he or she also explains the law, including relevant case law, to the jurors in his or her instructions to them. Those can include whether the defendant is permitted to claim self defense in the first place; when the use of force, deadly or non-deadly, is lawfully justified; such things as whether the failure to retreat in a state, in which there is no such requirement and where safe retreat was possible, may be considered by the jurors in weighing the question of reasonableness; and what can constitute provocation.

That list is not exhaustive.

With that single clarification, Post #75 is worth digesti--slowly and competely.

 

[boom boom]

The jury alone decides what is reasonable.

They do so on the basis of the law as it is explained to them, and evidence that is presented to them--evidence available from the scene, and other relevant testimony that may apply, but only that evidence that is admitted by the judge. Other things will not be known to them.

The jury may also base their determination on expert witnesses for one or both sides, when and if their testimony is admitted by the judge--expert testimony on things like reaction time, what can generally be considered deadly force, the impact of stress on perception, and so on.

Because the jury is to make its determination on the basis of what a reasonable person would have done in similar circumstances and knowing what the defendant knew at the time would have done, the judge will almost always refuse to admit evidence that the defendant cannot prove he knew at the time (the Tueller drill, for example, or the assailant's criminal record).

The judge acts as the gatekeeper regarding the admissibility of evidence, and he or she also explains the law, including relevant case law, to the jurors in his or her instructions to them. Those can include whether the defendant is permitted to claim self defense in the first place; when the use of force, deadly or non-deadly, is lawfully justified; such things as whether the failure to retreat in a state, in which there is no such requirement and where safe retreat was possible, may be considered by the jurors in weighing the question of reasonableness; and what can constitute provocation.

That list is not exhaustive.

I think that we are talking a bit past each other to some degree as I was referring to the whole legal process rather than just the trial result itself. In many states, one has to reach an evidentiary threshold before a judge will allow any discussion of self defense or raising of an affirmative defense before the case even goes to a jury. Differences between states in caselaw and statutory law give judges more or less authority in such cases.

Georgia, for example, allows a pre-trial hearing before a judge only if self defense is invoked that allows a defendant to avoid a trial altogether through a judicially declared immunity for their actions if the defendant can demonstrate that the preponderance of the evidence is that they acted in legitimate self defense. In State v. Hipp, Georgia judges can even revisit their decision to deny self defense immunity after a trial occurred and a jury convicted the defendant. The trial court ordered a new trial and ultimately the Supreme Court of Georgia concurred that was within a judge's powers.
https://www.bernardbrody.com/ga-supreme-court-permits-revisit-of-pretrial-self-defense-order/

In a few cases, a judge alone decides both law and fact which happens if the defendant declines a jury trial. Normally, a jury also confines itself to the facts in a case but there have been instances that juries have more or less decided that the law is an ass and acquitted the defendant because they believe the law is not valid or should not be applied in a certain context. Jury nullification is an issue that both lawyers and judges dance around but has happened in certain situations. This also happens informally when prosecutors recognizing public sentiment take a plea for a lesser charge because they believe that a trial would not be successful nor desirable.

From legal research, one finds that the categories in textbooks often shortchange the reality of what actually occurs in specific cases. Our system of law depends on thousands on individual actors and their countless actions and motivations. It is bound to get messy in reality.

There is an old joke that the reason that a person hires a lawyer is so that after the person tells their story to the lawyer and wants to know the possible outcomes, the lawyer can stroke their chin and say something like, --"Well, it depends"-----while turning to their voluminous case reporting books.

 

[Kleanbore]

In many states, one has to reach an evidentiary threshold before a judge will allow any discussion of self defense or raising of an affirmative defense before the case even goes to a jury.

Yes. I did mention that. Are there any states in which that is not true?

In a few cases, a judge alone decides both law and fact which happens if the defendant declines a jury trial.

Yes.

Normally a jury also confines itself to the facts in a case but there have been instances that juries have more or less decided that the law is an ass and acquitted the defendant because they believe the law is not valid or should not be applied in a certain context. Jury nullification is an issue that both lawyers and judges dance around but has happened in certain situations.

Yep. Had on here in Missouri a few months back.

 

[BSA1]

Unless I missed it nobody has brought up what Drejka saw after he was attacked and was on the ground. The video does not show what he saw. The camera angle is actually to the far side and slightly behind the shooting victim. Drejka could not see that side and movements of his leg and arm.

My thought was based solely on the video is it was a good shoot between two hotheads. Remember the initial call by the Sheriff was it was self-defense.

However I can not disagree with the jury. As I previously posted Drejka was interviewed for six hours about a incident that lasted 20 or so seconds. Moving beyond the fact that most of us agree that we would not have confronted the girlfriend I still wonder if he would have been charged with a crime if he had kept his mouth shut after saying “I want to talk to a lawyer.”

p.s. Having the Judge decide the case instead of a jury is a interesting argument.

 

[Kleanbore]

Remember the initial call by the Sheriff was it was self-defense.

That was not really the "initial call". The sheriff misunderstood and misstated the requirements to arrest and charge, having become confused on the immunity from prosecution issue, which did not apply.

 

[boom boom]

Unless I missed it nobody has brought up what Drejka saw after he was attacked and was on the ground. The video does not show what he saw. The camera angle is actually to the far side and slightly behind the shooting victim. Drejka could not see that side and movements of his leg and arm.

My thought was based solely on the video is it was a good shoot between two hotheads. Remember the initial call by the Sheriff was it was self-defense.

However I can not disagree with the jury. As I previously posted Drejka was interviewed for six hours about a incident that last 20 or so seconds. Moving beyond the fact that most of us agree that we would not have confronted the girlfriend I still wonder if he would have been charged with a crime if he had kept his mouth shut after saying “I want to talk to a lawyer.”

p.s. Having the Judge decide the case instead of a jury is a interesting argument.

There was a Virginia case where a guy was convicted after shooting his neighbor during an attack. VA allowed at the time (and maybe still does) jurors to swear that they will ignore their personal relations with the defendant or victim in reaching their verdict (done when it was difficult to round up twelve people who did not know either). Guy was convicted after a few jurors with personal relations with the victim were seated. Overturned on appeal for a new trial and the defendant sought a bench trial to avoid anything similar in a second trial. He won that one. Mas Ayoob, I believe wrote about it in one of his stories.

In a case of self defense where a jury seated would be hostile to an individual regardless of the facts in the case, a bench trial might be a better option for an unpopular defendant.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

I think the “key” would be “standing your ground” in an incident YOU created that would not have otherwise occurred had you not instigated it and subsequently escalated to the point where you killed someone. You don’t like where someone else parked, call someone responsible for enforcing the laws. Just because you can defend yourself doesn’t mean you should go looking to inject yourself into bad situations.

ding ding ding!!! We have a winner!!! (No more calls please.) Finally. The voice of reason and sanity. Thank you.

 

[cheygriz]

I guess that living out here in the semi-rural mountains I haven't kept up with all of the changes in our society.

It really makes me want to cry if our society has degenerated to the point that a man could be charged with a crime for punching out a jack-wagon that insulted his wife.

Have we really become such a nation of cowardly blissninnies and whining nincompoops that a man can no longer defend his wife's honor?

Are we now such craven cowards that we go tattle and whine to the authorities if we get punched in the nose??

The Founding Fathers pledged to one another their lives, fortunes and SACRED HONOR. Notice that lives were not sacred, fortunes were not sacred, but honor was sacred.

I guess that today, honor is no longer sacred. In fact, you can go to jail for defending your honor.

How did we sink to this level???????

 

[Kleanbore]

I guess that living out here in the semi-rural mountains I haven't kept up with all of the changes in our society.

It really makes me want to cry if our society has degenerated to the point that a man could be charged with a crime for punching out a jack-wagon that insulted his wife.

Have we really become such a nation of cowardly blissninnies and whining nincompoops that a man can no longer defend his wife's honor?

Are we now such craven cowards that we go tattle and whine to the authorities if we get punched in the nose??

The Founding Fathers pledged to one another their lives, fortunes and SACRED HONOR. Notice that lives were not sacred, fortunes were not sacred, but honor was sacred.

I guess that today, honor is no longer sacred. In fact, you can go to jail for defending your honor.

This has been the law for centuries.

The Founding Fathers took their law from the English Common Law, which was very, very old then.

The Founding Fathers were declaring independence. They knew they were committing the most serious of crimes, and were willing to be hanged if they failed in their rebellion. They did not expect a trial and acquittal.

 

[Kleanbore]

This a perfect illustration of why people should stay out of stupid places, refrain from doing stupid things, and avoid stupid people.

The shooter stupidly took it upon himself to get into an argument over a parking place, and stupidly shot someone without lawful justification. He will be incarcerated for most, if not all, of the rest of this life. Hedid not haveto do any of that.

The victim stupidly attacked the man in the argument. He was shot to death.

Had he not been shot, he would have been charged with a crime of violence.

He did not have to do that.

 

[P5 Guy]

Drejka was out of line ranting about parking without a disabled hang tag in a handicap parking slot.
Ms McGlockton could have defused this by moving the car. Mr McGlockton had no need to escalate the confrontation, just get in the car and have the missus drive away.

Since none of this happened; one person is dead another will be in prison for a few years and a family will be suing with little hope of getting a payout.

 

[jmorris]

It really makes me want to cry if our society has degenerated to the point that a man could be charged with a crime for punching out a jack-wagon that insulted his wife.

While that was a crime, he won’t be doing that again because the pushed guy subsequently killed him.

 

[GEM]

Let's move on from decrying that we can't use physical violence over verbal insults. Using such is not a sign of a civilized society. That line of argument is close to trolling the thread. That's a hint.

 

[Basura Blanca]

Curtis Reeve case?
It was Florida, lot's of media attention, lot's gnashing of teeth over SYG, more legitimately so than Drejka's imo since there's no question in my mind it wasn't lawful use of force
.
Short story, Reeves confronts man in theater for texting, an argument ensues, Reeves leaves to alert management, returns and argument with other man continues, man throws popcorn at him, Reeves shoots him dead. This one gets over the mismatch of force thing since Reeves is pushing 80 years old and the man he killed is a big, much younger guy. The case is in limbo because of the SYG claim.

I would hope that a jury would wholesale reject the self-defense claim in this one. It amazes me that it's managed to stall justice so far.

 

[FlSwampRat]

Many times the media uses the term "stand your ground" when that's not the case. The media claimed the Zimmerman case was a SYG encounter. It was not, it was simple self defense.

I don't think Zimmerman was standing his ground, I believe he was laying on his back. I agree, SD, but the media liked stand your ground because they hate that law.

I don't know if the media is willfully ignorant or just pushing their agenda, but SYG just means you don't have to retreat.

I think the public at large is willfully ignorant, doesn't want to know the facts or reality and the media uses this to push their agenda.

 

[Mike M.]

From my perspective, SYG does not relieve a non-LEO of an obligation to avoid an encounter if possible. What it does is attempt to stop overzealous prosecutors from charging people because they did not try to run away from an assailant who had a clear physical advantage.

A CCW should never be considered a hunting license. It's the equivalent of a seat belt.

 

[Kleanbore]

From my perspective, SYG does not relieve a non-LEO of an obligation to avoid an encounter if possible.

You are correct. It does not.

And in many states the jury instructions say that, while retreat is not required, the failure of an actor to retreat if retreat had been safely possible can be taken into account in assessing whether the use of use off force had been lawful.

What it does is attempt to stop overzealous prosecutors from charging people because they did not try to run away from an assailant who had a clear physical advantage.

It' not really "try to run", it's a matter of knowing, in the heat of the moment, whether or not a safe avenue of retreat is available, and if it is, taking it.

A CCW should never be considered a hunting license. It's the equivalent of a seat belt.

Well said.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

Curtis Reeve case?
It was Florida, lot's of media attention, lot's gnashing of teeth over SYG, more legitimately so than Drejka's imo since there's no question in my mind it wasn't lawful use of force
.
Short story, Reeves confronts man in theater for texting, an argument ensues, Reeves leaves to alert management, returns and argument with other man continues, man throws popcorn at him, Reeves shoots him dead. This one gets over the mismatch of force thing since Reeves is pushing 80 years old and the man he killed is a big, much younger guy. The case is in limbo because of the SYG claim.

I would hope that a jury would wholesale reject the self-defense claim in this one. It amazes me that it's managed to stall justice so far.

I remember that case. That happened in the same theater my teen age son goes to. What makes this case all the more terrible is that the shooter was a retired Tampa Police Department officer (I think he was a Captain.) and had been head of security at Bush Gardens theme park for many years. That "80 year old man" was fully trained in lethal force confrontations. One of the articles I read when it happened, stated that, seconds after he shot the man, the shooter's wife said "you didn't have to do that" to which the shooter replied "****!" He knew he was in it deep. And I agree. I wondered why I never heard anymore about it; guess they'll drag it out until the shooter dies of natural causes. Justice delayed is justice denied.

 

[Phaedrus/69]

This a perfect illustration of why people should stay out of stupid places, refrain from doing stupid things, and avoid stupid people.

The shooter stupidly took it upon himself to get into an argument over a parking place, and stupidly shot someone without lawful justification. He will be incarcerated for most, if not all, of the rest of this life. Hedid not haveto do any of that.

The victim stupidly attacked the man in the argument. He was shot to death.

Had he not been shot, he would have been charged with a crime of violence.

He did not have to do that.

You very neatly encapsulated my views on the situation. If I ever have to use my CCW in self defense it will already be the worst day of my life. If I ever fire my CCW it will be even worse. I view my sidearm in the same light as I view a parachute or fire extinguisher; it's to save a life not to avenge an insult. This case is a great example of stupidity writ large. Minding your own business is rarely a bad idea, and if you're armed then you really have to avoid being a moron. The presence of a firearm ratchets the stakes up considerably. As you say, it was very foolish to get into a verbal row over a parking spot, and just as stupid to barge into a situation you know nothing about and physically assault a man as McGlockton did. Now one fool is dead and another fool is going to prison for the rest of his life. There's no level on which this was a win for either of them.

 

[Kleanbore]

You very neatly encapsulated my views on the situation. If I ever have to use my CCW in self defense it will already be the worst day of my life. If I ever fire my CCW it will be even worse. I view my sidearm in the same light as I view a parachute or fire extinguisher; it's to save a life not to avenge an insult. This case is a great example of stupidity writ large. Minding your own business is rarely a bad idea, and if you're armed then you really have to avoid being a moron. The presence of a firearm ratchets the stakes up considerably. As you say, it was very foolish to get into a verbal row over a parking spot, and just as stupid to barge into a situation you know nothing about and physically assault a man as McGlockton did. Now one fool is dead and another fool is going to prison for the rest of his life. There's no level on which this was a win for either of them.

Very well written, I think.

 

[GEM]

One conclusion is that Parking Lot guy, Popcorn guy and Zimmerman were poster children for gun carrying idiocy. That Zimmerman got off and there were politics in his case, doesn't ameliorate his stupid actions. Good post, Phaedrus/69!

 

[Styx]

One conclusion is that Parking Lot guy, Popcorn guy and Zimmerman were poster children for gun carrying idiocy. That Zimmerman got off and there were politics in his case, doesn't ameliorate his stupid actions. Good post, Phaedrus/69!

This is why I love this forum... I'm reminds me that I'm not going insane. Seems like on just about every other forum as well as in social media, the majority beleives all of the above are good shoots.

 

[Kleanbore]

Seems like on just about every other forum as well as in social media, the majority beleives all of the above {Zimmerman, Popcorn Guy, and Drejka) are good shoots.

The Zimmerman shooting was ruled lawful self defense in court--and there is no real basis to contest that. He was unlawfully violently attacked without provocation, and he had no alternative to deadly force to defend his life.But the costs were astronomical ($1.7M), and it is likely that Zimmerman might well have avoided that by going about things differently at the outset.

The popcorn case remains untried. The altercation could have been avoided, and the shooting would appear to have been unlawful.

Drejka was convicted. One can only speculate as to whether the the jury might have reached a different verdict had the State's expert witness not misstated the meaning of the Tueller drill numerous times, had the Prosecutor not mad a big issue out of that using the distorted meaning, and had Drejka's defwnse attorneys been sufficiently competent to effectively counter that falsehood during the trial. But had the loudmouth avoided doing stupid things, he most likely would not have ben attacked in the first place.

 

[Styx]

The Zimmerman shooting was ruled lawful self defense in court--and there is no real basis to contest that. He was unlawfully violently attacked without provocation, and he had no alternative to deadly force to defend his life.But the costs were astronomical ($1.7M), and it is likely that Zimmerman might well have avoided that by going about things differently at the outset.

The popcorn case remains untried. The altercation could have been avoided, and the shooting would appear to have been unlawful.

Drejka was convicted. One can only speculate as to whether the the jury might have reached a different verdict had the State's expert witness not misstated the meaning of the Tueller drill numerous times, had the Prosecutor not mad a big issue out of that using the distorted meaning, and had Drejka's defwnse attorneys been sufficiently competent to effectively counter that falsehood during the trial. But had the loudmouth avoided doing stupid things, he most likely would not have ben attacked in the first place.

According to many of those who sat on the jury's comments after the case was decided, they reached the decision of not guilty because there wasn't enough evidence either way even though some had the opinion that he was guilty of murder or manslaughter. No one witnessed what initially happened. From my understanding, all they knew was they heard Zimmerman was getting the short end of the fight. With that said, I don't understand how you and many others, come to the "factual" conclusion that Zimmerman was "violently attacked without provocation, and he had no alternative to deadly force to defend his life." The guy was a hot head with a prior rap sheet for assault. Travon had no criminal record of violence, but he did have at least a fight or two in school. Either one of them could have initiated the fight. A few sitting on the jury "felt in their hearts" he was guilty; however, correctly understood that there wasn't enough evidence to substantiate their gut feeling.

IMHO, the popcorn guy and the parking lot guy were bad shoots. With Zimmerman and Trayvon, like some of the jury members have stated, it's my gut feeling that was a bad shoot also, but I do agree that there wasn't enough evidence to convict Zimmerman.

In July 2005, when he was 21, Zimmerman was arrested after shoving an undercover alcohol control agent while a friend of Zimmerman's was being arrested for underage drinking. The officer alleged that Zimmerman had said, "I don't care who you are," followed by a profanity, and had refused to leave the area after the officer had shown his badge. The charges were subsequently dropped when Zimmerman entered a pre-trial diversion program that included anger management classes.

Not only did he shove a police officer, he had other run in with the law involving assault prior to the murder case... Like I said, we just do not know what happened that night. The fact that he was losing the fight isn't proof that he didn't start it....

 

[Rule3]

I still wonder why the trial was not moved to another County??

The verdict was probably only bad because the Jury had a video and watched it fram by frame and decided that in the 3 seconds it took he should have just stayed on the ground and guess if he was gonna get kicked in the head, (easy for them to "judge"

To bad past criminal records were not allowed. Guess that has nothing to do with the state of mind of the deceased??. A swell family man.

https://florida.arrests.org/search....fname=Markeis+&lname=McGlockton&fpartial=True

That said, I think Zimmerman hunted down Martin and he was guilty . He was told not to pursue Martin. But there again I was not there, and Martin was not the angel as portraed by his young photos.