Florida Stand Your Ground...

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by ArtVandelay, Jul 14, 2013.

  1. romeg8r
    Offline

    romeg8r VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    27,511
    Likes Received:
    633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Rome Ga
    Ratings Received:
    +2,731
    I'm a gun owner. I believe a man has a right to use his gun to defend his life. I am a member of the NRA. I also believe that SYG laws are not needed and are a bad idea. I think that they tend to create an environment where some will believe they have the right to push a situation into a life or death event. I think that in most cases, the facts will reveal whether it is self-defense or not.
    However, I also believe that percentages do not prove something is wrong. It may very well be that there really ARE more cases where a white person is justifiably protecting himself against a black person. I just don't think there are as many cases of white people out there trying to rob or attack black people. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm basing it on what I see on the news and we all know the news is piss poor these days, but it certainly seems like there are more black people victimizing white people than vice versa. If someone has evidence to the contrary I would truly like to see it because it could change my perspective.
  2. MichiGator2002
    Offline

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    15,679
    Likes Received:
    412
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,763
  3. rpmGator
    Offline

    rpmGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,653
    Likes Received:
    137
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +529
    Attacks away from home can kill you just like one inside the home. Like I said, now it is legal to fight back, no matter where you are when attacked.

    The choice between fighting for your life and going to jail and SYG, only takes away punishment for fighting off attackers. If that bothers you, just don't attack anyone and you should be fine.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Matthanuf06
    Offline

    Matthanuf06 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    10,825
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +17
    Not true at all. Of course the downside is one person cannot tell their story on who started the fight.

    So sure, the loophole is this. You can start a fight, and provided nobody knows you started the fight as well as the forensic evidence being inconclusive on who started the fight, you can presumably start the fight, lose it, and kill.

    Much more difficult done than said.

    But no, I cannot walk up to you in broad daylight with people around and punch you. And then allow you to have the upper hand and then shoot you. SYG wouldn't work
  5. leogator
    Offline

    leogator Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,268
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Melbourne, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +51
    According to some it might be used in the civil suit against Zimmerman.
  6. Lawdog88
    Offline

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,187
    Likes Received:
    482
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,631

    Thanks for that.

    You made my day.
  7. Minister_of_Information
    Offline

    Minister_of_Information I'm your huckleberry Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,741
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    In my prime
    Ratings Received:
    +970
    A higher standard of duty and prudence must attach to CCW citizens, or you will end up with enough George Zimmerman Barney Fifery to undo the good CCW does accomplish. I suggest strict criminal and civil liability for acting provocatively without probable cause. CCW must not become super citizens with police powers that are de facto more intrusive than what the police are allowed, and that is what SYG as written allows.
  8. wgbgator
    Online

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,550
    Likes Received:
    361
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,409
    This. My chief concern here - everyone with a CCW tries to be a hero, with dubious results and very little liability, criminal or tort.
  9. Minister_of_Information
    Offline

    Minister_of_Information I'm your huckleberry Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,741
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    In my prime
    Ratings Received:
    +970
    The primary idea must be to avoid a potentially deadly confrontation unless it is truly necessary -- such as to defend oneself or others from crime where an articulable and reasonable suspicion exists that one is being committed.
  10. MichiGator2002
    Offline

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    15,679
    Likes Received:
    412
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,763
    SYG doesn't allow citizen police powers, that's absurd, nor does it create super citizens. Well, wait, let's be clear because (Frankenstein vs. Frankenstein's monster) we're not talking about a procedural mechanism, we're talking about substantive law. You want to abandon Florida's (and the majority rule's) lack of general duty to retreat (we have one for those engaged in unlawful conduct).

    I don't see what you gain out of strict liability for CCW carriers; if you are stipulating it applies to acting "provocatively", you're walking in the law's own footprints, since that would already be dealt with in a number of legal theories that involve a mental state (negligently, recklessly, knowingly, willingly, malice, etc), but you're also necessarily going to open a whole can of terrible law pertaining to what will count as provocation or not.

    Oddly enough, it really all does seem to come back to the argument during the jury conference over following someone not actually being illegal. Just trying to find a way to make it illegal.
  11. wgbgator
    Online

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,550
    Likes Received:
    361
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,409
    "Crime" is kind of generic. I would hope it would be violent crime, with a real fear of death or grave bodily harm. I recall a situation recently where a wanna-be heroic dude blasted away in a parking lot at a suspected thief fleeing in a car. That's certainly the kind of thing we don't need.
  12. Minister_of_Information
    Offline

    Minister_of_Information I'm your huckleberry Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,741
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    In my prime
    Ratings Received:
    +970
    MichiGator, I hope you are able to appreciate that some actions, while less than criminal, are certainly provocative.

    All you really need to ask yourself is this: would SYG protect the survivor of a duel from criminal culpability?
  13. MichiGator2002
    Offline

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    15,679
    Likes Received:
    412
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,763
    I don't think it would. Leaving outside whatever argument you might want to have over consent, consider -- each participant, once they line up to walk off their paces, or stand off like in the old west, or draw swords, or whatever, is already committing any number of arguable crimes. So we're into the territory of engaging in unlawful conduct (assault? reckless endangerment? Any number of ways to frame it). We're deep into the woods where they may actually trigger their duty to retreat that still applies even in Florida's self-defense statute. We're outside the realm of circumstances where a reasonably cautious and prudent person would have to use lethal force.
  14. Minister_of_Information
    Offline

    Minister_of_Information I'm your huckleberry Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,741
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    In my prime
    Ratings Received:
    +970
    I'm fine with some sort of refinement being put into the crime requirement, though I don't think that drawing a weapon to stop a property crime is a bad thing (though, as ever, the application of force ought to correspond to the scope of threat to people). Held at gunpoint for jaywalking on the other hand may be going a bit far.
  15. MichiGator2002
    Offline

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    15,679
    Likes Received:
    412
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,763
    And not one word of Florida's self-defense statute would permit a citizen with a CCW to do this.
  16. wgbgator
    Online

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,550
    Likes Received:
    361
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,409
    The point is that the penalty for most crimes (well, any) isnt summary execution. That really shouldnt change all that much if you're packing and happen to witness a robbery of someone else's property, where you are in no danger. If it's on your home or property, then by all means, blast away at your discretion. I'll give you more benefit of the doubt that you feared for your life.
  17. Minister_of_Information
    Offline

    Minister_of_Information I'm your huckleberry Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,741
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    In my prime
    Ratings Received:
    +970
    I don't think it is necessarily the case that two men standing opposite one another on the street before a duel are guilty of a crime before their weapons are drawn.
  18. MichiGator2002
    Offline

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    15,679
    Likes Received:
    412
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,763
    The fact that they are in a duel doesn't more or less presuppose an assault? You've got too problems here trying to make dueling the crusade case against our self-defense statute --

    1. Really hard to see how either duelist would be able to claim that they had no duty to retreat, even under Florida law --

    I just don't see how you are going to safely escort your surviving duelist through that language into a defense.

    Other problem is reasonable use of deadly force. Look at how the instruction was framed in this trial -- "to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force."

    There is nothing there with this duel hypothetical. Don't know if you just bought it from someone or if you're the one selling it, but it's a lemon.
  19. Minister_of_Information
    Offline

    Minister_of_Information I'm your huckleberry Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,741
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    In my prime
    Ratings Received:
    +970
    "He drew first"
  20. MichiGator2002
    Offline

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    15,679
    Likes Received:
    412
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,763
    Still doesn't get through the statute. We haven't even gotten to the section on initial aggressors before this hypo falls apart. Dueling may not be explicitly banned by statute, but you can't consent to an aggravated assault, aggravated battery, or attempted murder in the state. You can't conspire to commit these. You can't assist suicide. There's any myriad of ways in which both participants are engaged in activity that puts them outside the defense. Your 'surviving duelist' does not have a viable defense pre-trial or at trial under Florida's self-defense statute.

    EDIT: What you'll have is a guy going to trial where the prosecution can nail him by proving he didn't satisfy the duty to retreat, which he absolutely would have per the cited statute. And that is the sort of thing that you probably could convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, unless they had this duel in a phone booth.

    And, by all means, keep drilling down until you've crafted a working hypo that is so byzantine and implausible that I will gladly say "great, yeah, that guy would have a defense. I just... don't care, because the Nth of a percentage chance of all these circumstances falling into place in the equally unlikely event we get a rash of pistol duels going does not outweigh the virtues of the statute.

Share This Page