home

Quinnipiac FL Poll: Majority Favor Stand Your Ground

A new Quinnipiac poll in Florida shows a majority of Floridians still approve of the state's Stand Your Ground law and oppose gun control

Republicans lean heavily in favor of the law, with 78 percent supporting it, while 59 percent of Democrats are against it. Fifty-eight percent of independent voters support the law, while 35 percent are against it.

The poll shows there remains a gender gap on the law as 65 percent of men and 48 percent of women say they support "stand your ground." There is also a major gender gap in Florida over gun control. According to the poll, 62 percent of men are against more gun control. A majority of women surveyed -- 54 percent -- back increased gun control in the Sunshine State.

The George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin shooting doesn't seem to have changed their opinions. [More...]

Commenters here have asked for a place to discuss the Stand Your Ground law in the context of the Zimmerman-Martin shooting. Here's a thread to so so.

If you are writing what you think the law allows and doesn't allow, or how it applies or doesn't apply, please state it as your opinion (so it doesn't end up on Google as TalkLeft's opinion or my opinion. )

You may also discuss your position on the laws, however, keep in mind that I oppose changing the law as well as most gun control restrictions, so do not use this site to promote (rather than state) your opinion by linking to petitions or groups trying to change the law. That moves the discussion from opinion to advocacy for a position I oppose.

< Friday Morning Open Thread | John Edwards: Judge Holds Conference on Potential Juror Issue >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Spelling Alert: it's "Quinnipiac" not (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Anne on Fri May 25, 2012 at 12:14:03 PM EST
    "Quinnipeac."

    As for the poll, the numbers don't surprise me at all.

    That being said, this is one of those laws that is eminently easier to support in theory than it is in practice.

    I'm not a big fan of guns, because I think that in general, having one, and even being taught how to use one, doesn't guarantee that it will be used intelligently; guns just don't make people smarter.  It's one thing to shoot at targets, but it's quite another to be in an adrenaline-charged situation and be able to make the right decisions.  

    I'm not saying people don't have the right to defend themselves, they do.  And while claiming immunity under SYG is not a given, the problem I have with it is the expectation that people may have that they will find safe harbor in a SYG claim.  I understand and appreciate the 2nd Amendment, but in this day and age, I'm not sure it makes sense to make it easier to shoot people, and I think that's what SYG laws ultimately do.

    I hope I have managed to stay on the right side of the line you didn't want us to cross; if not, feel free to delete.

    I hate to sound like one of the gun loonies (none / 0) (#69)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri May 25, 2012 at 06:59:21 PM EST
    but here I go anyway... the SYG laws make it easier for law abiding people to shoot someone in self defense.  It has always been very easy for criminals, thugs and punks to shoot people and it always                                                            will be.

    Parent
    I would like to see the results of a (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by oculus on Fri May 25, 2012 at 02:28:08 PM EST
    poll of the FL tourism industry on the same questions.    

    A teenager (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 26, 2012 at 05:18:00 AM EST
    Doing nothing wrong, armed with tea and skittles is dead after being stalked by a stranger.  That is a horror story.

    Why are you so anxious to (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by Anne on Sat May 26, 2012 at 08:41:42 AM EST
    prove that you've got the balls to kill other human beings?  Are you under the impression that somehow that would make you a better steward of a firearm, or a better decision-maker in a confrontation?

    I know plenty of people who own guns, but I don't know a single one of them that brags and swaggers like you do around the subject of shooting to kill.

    Speaking only for me, there is no way that a firearm in the hands of soneone who's dying to use it makes any kind of sense; "trigger-happy" and "responsible gun ownership" do not go hand-in-hand.

    I think we'll all feel safer if you just stick to video games.

    "Diamond District Jew"?!? (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Yman on Sat May 26, 2012 at 09:05:44 AM EST
    Wow.

    Love affair with guns (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Clara Bow Again on Sat May 26, 2012 at 11:27:31 PM EST
    If George Zimmerman did not have a gun, he would never have gotten out of his car & followed Trayvon Martin. George Zimmerman was not a dangerous man until he carried a loaded weapon. Once George Zimmerman was allowed to arm himself he ended up killing someone.

    Gun ownership is a recipe for disaster because guns are weapons & the average person does not need a weapon.

    However, considering there are 90 guns per 100 people in this country, it appears average citizens feel the need to be locked & loaded.

    Is there any way to address this mindset of fear & maybe reduce this need to be armed? Or, is this the type of behavior with which our culture is stuck?

    how about reducing (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 27, 2012 at 04:02:16 AM EST
    the mindset of fear of guns so everyone that chooses to exercise their constitutional right to possess one can do so without the irrational fear from others creeping in?

    It's called Hoplophobia, google it.

    Parent

    the fear is not irrational (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by Clara Bow Again on Sun May 27, 2012 at 04:48:49 AM EST
    unfortunately, the fear is not irrational - just ask Trayvon Martin. Oh, can't do that because he was killed by someone that chose to exercise his constitutional right to possess a weapon.

    Parent
    Is SYG even relevant? (none / 0) (#3)
    by trimblco on Fri May 25, 2012 at 01:32:02 PM EST
    Can someone explain this to me, I don't understand how stand your ground is even an issue in this case. Why are liberals (I am one, don't get defensive) making a big deal out of this law?

    I don't see how it could be invoked by Zimmerman as a defense. If I understand correctly, he asserts that Martin hit him, they got in a fight, and Martin eventually was on top of him, mounting him "MMA style."

    If that's true, SYG doesn't matter. Typical self-defense doctrine demands that if you have an opportunity to leave, you must leave, rather than staying put and physically defending yourself. SYG gets rid of that leave-if-possible requirement. But if Martin was mounting him MMA style, he had no opportunity to leave. Anything prior to that point isn't relevant, as what matters is Zimmerman's intent when he fired the gun, not when he flagged down Martin.

    Can someone explain this to me?

    Speaking for myself (4.00 / 3) (#4)
    by CST on Fri May 25, 2012 at 01:37:59 PM EST
    I am opposed to this type of law - and that has nothing to do with Zimmerman.

    As you mention, we already have self-defense laws.

    Why would you want to "get rid of that leave-if-possible requirement"?  The law strikes me as not placing enough value on human life.  If you don't have to kill someone, you shouldn't do it.

    Parent

    during the time that you are retreating (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat May 26, 2012 at 08:27:04 AM EST
    you may still be at risk.  If the other person is intent on doing you harm, if they are unstable, drunk, in a rage etc.... retreating is just prolonging the inevitable.  Why should anyone have to prolong the risk to their life or well being? Why should the life of the criminal be more precious than the life of the person he or she is attacking?  Yes, sometimes the risk is not as great as perceived.  Sometimes the guy breaks a window to get in to your house and ransacks the place and won't kill you, maybe the guy who rapes you won't kill you.  But frankly I am not about to run or hide in a closet to find out and I don't think anyone else should have to either.
    If you do not want to get shot do not threaten people in a way that makes them fear for their life.  Do not break in to their home, do not sit on them and slam their head in to the cement side walk(if that is indeed what happened).

    Parent
    Because of other cases (none / 0) (#10)
    by trimblco on Fri May 25, 2012 at 02:05:52 PM EST
    Personally, I don't think staying put and defending yourself should be treated the same as being the aggressor. Under current self-defense law, it is treated the same. Self-defense is a legal defense not available if you could have left the scene, and without the defense, the original charge sticks.

    Should it be criminal? Maybe, perhaps a reduced charge? If being the aggressor would be manslaughter, then maybe being an unreasonable defender should be aggravated assault.

    That's my take, but yeah, nothing to do with this case.

    Parent

    Post hoc analysis (none / 0) (#16)
    by Cylinder on Fri May 25, 2012 at 02:31:24 PM EST
    Why would you want to "get rid of that leave-if-possible requirement"?

    IMO, it leaves a person too vulnerable to post hoc decision making, becoming a prosecution based on what if. In my opinion, it subjugates essential freedoms (e.g. assembly) to the whims of the criminal.

    SYG does not remove the requirement of neccessity, which is a better standard by which to judge the legality of a justification claim.

    Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.

    Oliver Wendall Holmes
    Brown v. United States

    Parent

    In my opinion (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by CST on Fri May 25, 2012 at 02:35:52 PM EST
    It forces you to think hard before you shoot someone.  Which people should be doing in any case, or not carrying weapons of that nature.

    Parent
    Yes, in theory (none / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Fri May 25, 2012 at 03:11:41 PM EST
    But in reality, how much thoughtful analysis do you think gets done in a matter of seconds if someone thinks they are in danger?

    Parent
    Well, that's the problem with carrying a loaded (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Angel on Fri May 25, 2012 at 03:24:58 PM EST
    gun right there.  Nanoseconds are critical when in stressful situations - need a little more time than that to do any "thoughtful analysis."  And that's even if you're trained in the use of firearms.  From my perspective GZ was an amateur, he hadn't had his concealed weapon permit all that long.  Couple that with the facts it was dark, he isn't a trained law enforcement officer and you've got a bad situation.  Why he couldn't stay in the truck and wait for the police is beyond me.

    Parent
    he did not stay in the truck (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri May 25, 2012 at 08:29:09 PM EST
    that has nothing to do with anything.

    At the point where Zimmerman was on the ground with TM on top of him, beating him, he thought his life was in danger and if he was right then it is a good thing, not a bad thing that he had the gun.  There is no obligation to wait and see if someone kills you before you defend yourself.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#73)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri May 25, 2012 at 07:16:51 PM EST
    When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.

    I was robbed literally 3 blocks from the main police station in Baltimore city. The guy had a gun, I had maybe 5 seconds to decide to accede whilst my life flashed before my eyes.

    While it is unlikely concealed carry or heck ANY kind of "personal weapons" laws would have done me good there - the guy had me isolated and covered with a weapon - it underscores that the police can't protect you. Of course legally they don't even have a duty to do so no matter how much you beg for their help.


    Parent

    The Zimmerman/Martin event is a totally (none / 0) (#74)
    by Angel on Fri May 25, 2012 at 07:27:39 PM EST
    different scenario than the one you paint.  Zimmerman should have stayed inside his truck and waited for the police; by doing so he wouldn't have had to make a quick decision about whether or not to use his gun.  He put himself in that position...

    Parent
    He might go to prison (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by lousy1 on Fri May 25, 2012 at 07:49:02 PM EST
    But, if you are too afraid to walk around your own condo grounds you are already in prison.

    Parent
    Zimmerman - IMO - didn't seem to be afraid of (none / 0) (#132)
    by Angel on Sat May 26, 2012 at 10:07:43 AM EST
    walking around in his own condo complex, quite the opposite.  And apparently neither did the boy walking his dog. Or Trayvon Martin.  What makes you think anyone was afraid of walking around that complex?  

    Parent
    Coulda , woulda, shoulda (none / 0) (#77)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri May 25, 2012 at 07:43:46 PM EST
    I said nothing about Zimmerman and Martin in my post. I was talking about self-defense, the cops, and guns in general.

    Parent
    Well, considering my post was about Zimmerman (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by Angel on Fri May 25, 2012 at 08:20:34 PM EST
    and the necessity of having a reasonable amount of time to make the call on whether or not to use your firearm...my response seems correct.  "We don't need you to do that."  Seems like he should have listened to the advice he was given.  If he had we wouldn't be having this conversation.

    Parent
    Exactly why I favor stronger gun control. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Dr Molly on Fri May 25, 2012 at 03:37:20 PM EST
    To me, to use the second amendment argument for basically unlimited gun rights, means you're making a choice to elevate the (unnecessary) rights of some to make themselves feel tough with guns over the rights of others to be safe and (in some cases) to live.

    Parent
    Unneccessary rights? (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Cylinder on Fri May 25, 2012 at 03:43:10 PM EST
    Can you elaborate on uneccessary rights? I don't know if I understand that term. Rights are rights. It's not neccessary that I post political opinions here, but the government is prohibited from substancially interfering with it, nonetheless.

    Parent
    I'm not speaking legally. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Dr Molly on Fri May 25, 2012 at 03:53:49 PM EST
    It's just my opinion that handgun ownership is not necessary to the pursuit of life, liberty, etc.

    Whereas demonstrably, widespread gun ownership is dangerous to others.

    Parent

    The question: (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by lousy1 on Fri May 25, 2012 at 08:21:35 PM EST
    Is widespread legal gun ownership dangerous to others?( Excluding criminals of course)

    I would be interested in examining the references that you used to make this assertion. I assume you have some.

    Also how do you explain Switzerland where all males are given assault rifles at the completion of their conscripted training?

    Many families have generations of guns dating back to WWI error rifles in their closets. Yet injuries due to guns are extremely rare.

    Parent

    Because the people in Switzerland who (none / 0) (#90)
    by Angel on Fri May 25, 2012 at 08:28:02 PM EST
    legally have guns keep them at home as part of their military duty.  It's a requirement.  And they've been trained on how and when to use them.  That's part of the deal over there - good training and responsibility.  Unfortunately that isn't the case in this country.

    Parent
    But I asked about the scope of the problem (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by lousy1 on Fri May 25, 2012 at 08:42:15 PM EST
    I am still unconvinced that legal guns are a significant problem. Could you expound?

    As per Switzerland

    In the United States AFAIK all handgun carry permits require state mandated training.

    But if you would like to mandate NRA or other qualified training/testing for all gun owners I could support that. Actually a written test would probably suffice.

    Perhaps we should do the same for illegal drugs. If someone is busted for illegal drugs without having  completed a drug consequences course maximize the penalties.

    This might actually do something to reduce gun violence

    Parent

    So you support mandatory training? (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by CuriousInAz on Fri May 25, 2012 at 10:09:15 PM EST
    How about mandatory firearms safety/marksmanship/Law training for K-12?

    See that would give us responsible gun owners...ones that vote.

    IMO that is not the real goal IMO of folks that wring their hands about firearms related deaths and "lack of training".

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by lousy1 on Fri May 25, 2012 at 11:11:33 PM EST
    for many training is a straw hat.

    However training with a weapon is always a good thing. I learned how to respect and safely use knifes, axes and guns as a Boy Scouts.

    However since Columbine schools have tended to reject any relationship to guns including voluntary training. This seems counter intuitive.
    Even high school ROTC has suspended marksman ship training

     I can see potential bottlenecks imposed by hostile political force if training is required - however its a great idea that user at least have the opportunity for training with any lethal system

    In the case of firearms the training cannot be used to abridge 2nd amendment rights.

    Parent

    If someone is for unlimited gun rights (none / 0) (#72)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri May 25, 2012 at 07:11:20 PM EST
     I haven't seen them in this thread, Dr.
    That would imply civilian ownership of full automatic machine guns and (depending on how you defined "arms" ) tanks and guns.

    So while your post might apply to some loon who thinks every person should be free to have their own ICBM complete with nuclear warhead, I fail to see how it has anything to do with this discussion.

    Personal handguns, shotguns, and types of semi-automatic rifles for self-defense - that's what we are discussing.

    Parent

    You can buy a 50 cal in this country (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 25, 2012 at 10:00:23 PM EST
    It is legal for any of us to own a weapon that can down jet.  I think that's insane, but I've always been considered intemperate to some :)

    Parent
    How many (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by lousy1 on Fri May 25, 2012 at 10:09:36 PM EST
    50 calibers have been used in a crime?

    One could achieve the same level of destruction (if almost but not quite the range ) with smaller high velocity rounds.

    One could also use a 50 cal to disable vehicles crashing through a house gate. In the 70's it was legal to own even larger weapons.

    So what?

    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#116)
    by Sentenza on Sat May 26, 2012 at 12:54:26 AM EST
    Depending on the .50 caliber rifle, one could pick up a couple of SA-7 surface to air missiles for the same price. They're much more likely to be effective against a commercial airliner, too.

    They were also made by the Russians, so any peasant can probably figure one out.

    Parent

    I'm aware of what's being discussed (none / 0) (#102)
    by Dr Molly on Fri May 25, 2012 at 09:06:52 PM EST
    and it doesn't change my opinion at all.

    Parent
    Thank God! (1.50 / 2) (#155)
    by lousy1 on Sat May 26, 2012 at 09:32:46 PM EST
    You are aware! Well, at least, in your opinion. You can't estimate how reassuring that is.

    Parent
    What you should do is think out a (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Doug1111 on Fri May 25, 2012 at 04:06:26 PM EST
    number of scenarios ahead of time.

    I'm sure I could apply that real fast in the event.

    It's really not that complicated in most situations.

    1. not the initial aggressor, didn't start the physical fight.

    2. reasonable fear of yourself or someone else suffering great bodily harm or of suffering a forcible felony, or death.

    3. Ok to shoot, don't try to kill.

    If you're held up / mugged at gunpoint, stupid to go for your gun.  Not for legal reasons, for getting shot and killed reasons.  If home invaded, blast their asses off. Same with car invaded, if can get the drop on them.  

    Held up at knife point, can pull your gun.  To be safe I'd at least start to say something like "run or I'll shoot you", but if he lunges before I can get that out, he's shot.  

    This all seems not all that thought demanding, fast to cognate, and practical to apply.  

    Parent

    Life is not a video game, Doug; (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Anne on Fri May 25, 2012 at 04:36:53 PM EST
    the only thing missing from your comment are the sound effects.

    Parent
    First of all (none / 0) (#28)
    by NYShooter on Fri May 25, 2012 at 03:27:44 PM EST
    In self defense laws the requirement (obligation) to leave if possible is not ambiguous. No "what ifs" left behind. The leave, "if possible" stipulation carries with it the suffix "with no danger of death or injury whatsoever."
    There's no more common sense possible than to leave the shooting, and/or apprehension  of aggressors to trained police officers....if, at all possible.

    It just seems so apparent how much mischief SYG laws can spawn. Using the Zimmerman case as a template ( truly not this case, for a lot of reasons) you don't need a great imagination to see how staged, self-defense shootings are possible. In my opinion SYG is the offspring you can expect when the lunatic Tea Party is allowed to morph from venting nonsensical slogans to actually enacting suicidal laws.


    Parent

    Trayvon wouldn't be excusably shot (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Doug1111 on Fri May 25, 2012 at 04:10:42 PM EST
    and dead if he hadn't been committing aggravated felonious assault and battery on Zimmerman, putting him in reasonable fear of serious bodily injury.

    I think it a good thing that people are afraid of getting shot if they do such things.

    And no I don't think the more law abiding parts of the population aught to have to endure serious bodily injury or credible threat of it if they don't comply with some forcible felonious demand, without fighting back with potentially deadly force.

    Parent

    I don't think it's been determined that (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Anne on Fri May 25, 2012 at 04:32:54 PM EST
    Trayvon committed
    aggravated felonious assault and battery on Zimmerman, putting him in reasonable fear of serious bodily injury

    which is why there will either be a SYG hearing or an actual trial, at which a judge/jury will make that determination.

    As for this

    I think it a good thing that people are afraid of getting shot if they do such things

    you are leaving out the part where the decision about what does and does not represent fear of serious bodily harm rests solely with the people who have the guns.  True, it also rests with a judge, who could find the claim not credible, but the thing is that by the time someone is in a SYG hearing, someone else is already either dead or wounded.

    Parent
    The net result is less thuggery (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 26, 2012 at 07:46:32 AM EST
    at the cost of some more deaths and gunshot woundings mostly of thugs.

    Parent
    Complete safety (none / 0) (#32)
    by Cylinder on Fri May 25, 2012 at 03:40:26 PM EST
    IMO, retreat in complete safety (which is how my Arkansas statutes are written) is the same as neccessity. If the occasion to retreat in complete safety exists, then the suspect/defendant already is lacking in the unchallenged element of neccessity.

    One should at least agree that Zimmerman had no occasion to retreat in complete safety.

    Parent

    I don't comment on Zimmerman (none / 0) (#42)
    by NYShooter on Fri May 25, 2012 at 04:04:13 PM EST
    Don't need to to discuss the law

    Parent
    One reason (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Fri May 25, 2012 at 01:39:05 PM EST
    SYG makes an individual immune from criminal prosecution and civil litigation.

    Parent
    False. (none / 0) (#9)
    by trimblco on Fri May 25, 2012 at 02:00:56 PM EST
    Again, only with the escape requirement. It doesn't give someone a license to kill if it's not necessary to do so.

    Parent
    No, my statement is true (none / 0) (#12)
    by jbindc on Fri May 25, 2012 at 02:13:34 PM EST
    The SYG laws put in the immunities.  Before that, an individual would have to claim self-defense and go through the judicial process.  Even if a defendant was found "not guilty" because of self-defense, he or she could still be sued civilly.

    SYG does not impose a duty to retreat if, and only if, an individual believes they (or someone else)are in imminent fear of death or greate bodily harm.  SYG is also not allowed if the defendant is shown to be the aggresor.

    Parent

    Exactly right (none / 0) (#13)
    by ruffian on Fri May 25, 2012 at 02:20:22 PM EST
    That is the extra twist that makes it different from state without the Florida-style PAC-written, NRA-pushed, language 20 or so states have added in the last few years.


    Parent
    Agreed. Your statement is true. (none / 0) (#19)
    by KeysDan on Fri May 25, 2012 at 02:53:22 PM EST
    But, commenter interplay illustrates, to me, that there is a difference between SYG perceptions and realities--which, of course, can affect any polling.  The laws are fairly recent, and it would be instructive to obtain a compilation and evaluation of SYG laws, including the number of times SYG hearings have been held, their dispositions, the number of appeals and the results.  And, of course, use or reliance upon SYG in cases at trial.  Moreover, how many involve as the fatal weapon, guns versus knives, or other deadly objects.  It seems incumbent upon Florida, as a state with SYG, to conduct such a study of its law.

    Parent
    reasonable belief that they or someone else (none / 0) (#23)
    by Doug1111 on Fri May 25, 2012 at 03:19:11 PM EST
    who was not the aggressor are in imminent danger of death, great bodily harm or suffering a forcible felony (e.g. rape, grand theft auto, mugging at gun or knife point.)

    Florida's SYG law would I believe allow you to shoot someone who was trying to mug you at knife point. Robbery with a deadly weapon is a forcible felony.  However if it's only a knife and you pull a gun I think you many be in some danger if you don't yell out something like: run or I'll shoot.  

    Not so if he's got a gun on you but then it would be pretty stupid to try to draw a concealed weapon against a guy who's near you with a gun pointed at you.

    Parent

    you will be surprised to know (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat May 26, 2012 at 08:57:38 AM EST
    However if it's only a knife and you pull a gun I think you many be in some danger if you don't yell out something like: run or I'll shoot.

    that at close range a knife is deadlier than a gun.  By the time you get your hand on your gun, aim and pull the trigger, the knife has killed you in ten different ways.
    Dead is dead.  I doubt that there is any requirement to yell "stop or I'll shoot".

    Parent

    Rightly or wrongly (none / 0) (#11)
    by ruffian on Fri May 25, 2012 at 02:12:01 PM EST
    SYG laws were what the Sanford PD invoked as the reason why they did not arrest Zimmerman. Maybe they were wrong, but that is what make it relevant.

    Parent
    No they weren't wrong, certainly (none / 0) (#24)
    by Doug1111 on Fri May 25, 2012 at 03:23:37 PM EST
    not entirely, because the 2005 law in addition to doing away with the duty to fee if you could before using potentially deadly force, also gives those claiming self defense immunity from criminal and civil jury trial if they can show by the preponderance of the evidence that they acted in reasonable self defense.  On top of that, their charging Zimmerman with weak evidence against him would make it likely that Florida would be on the hook for his legal expenses and loss of income due to loss of employment.  

    Parent
    I think that in general conversation (none / 0) (#29)
    by ruffian on Fri May 25, 2012 at 03:33:24 PM EST
    and in polling it is important to define what you are including in the general category of 'stand your ground law'. When I talk about it I am including the implementation in the FL 2005 law as you describe. I don't think everyone is always talking about the same thing when they support the generic idea of the stand your ground defense.

    Parent
    The SYG which is really written as (none / 0) (#18)
    by Doug1111 on Fri May 25, 2012 at 02:42:22 PM EST
    no duty to flee if you can before using deadly force is sufficiently attacked, isn't involved here since the evidence is strong that Zimmerman couldn't flee since he was on his back pinned to the ground by the stronger Trayvon.

    However I believe the same 2005 bit of legislation that put the no duty to flee provision of Florida's self defense statute, also added a the provision that gives you immunity from being tried before a jury, and and also immunity from civil suit, as well as your attorney fees and reimbursement from lost employment from the state of florida if you can convince a judge by a preponderance of the evidence that you weren't the aggressor who started the fight, were in a place you had the right to be, an reasonably believed you faced great bodily harm or death if you didn't use potentially deadly force.  

    So that part of the 2005 SYG law is very much in play.

    Parent

    not gun control laws (none / 0) (#7)
    by jharp on Fri May 25, 2012 at 01:55:58 PM EST
    "People who strongly support the 2nd amendment want to preserve their right to shoot back."

    We've always had the right to shoot back. And no one is suggesting legislation than would change that.


    Umm (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by lousy1 on Fri May 25, 2012 at 07:27:58 PM EST
    Don't you need something to shoot back with?

    Parent
    What (none / 0) (#8)
    by lentinel on Fri May 25, 2012 at 01:59:22 PM EST
    this all means to me is that citizens are frightened.
    And there is no help.

    My personal opinion is that ... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 25, 2012 at 02:20:31 PM EST
    ... "Stand Your Ground" statutes in some locales can be interpreted by some folks as a license to lynch -- and indeed, may already have been.

    It's what my former boss -- a state senator and retired Army officer's spouse with a gift for timely delivered salty language -- quite appropriately used to call "lawmaking by d*ck-swinging," back when she was chair of the Health & Human Services Committee in the State Senate.

    When "Stand Your Ground" was introduced by the Republicans (and, to be honest, a couple conservative Democrats) in the Hawaii Legislature, we never even gave the bill a public hearing at the committee level.

    Further, based upon my personal experience as a state legislative analyst and former chief clerk of the Judiciary Committee, it is my considered opinion that "Stand Your Ground" laws neither encourage responsible gun ownership, nor discourage irresponsible gunplay.

    Rather, given the extensive public testimony I've reviewed from those state legislatures around the country where "Stand Your Ground" legislation WAS given a public hearing and in some instances even passed, it tends to offer those dim bulbs in our chandeliers a patently false sense of personal security, a legal justification that yes, carrying a gun somehow makes one safer.

    Again, as we've probably already seen in some locales, this can possibly embolden some people to engage in risky behavior, which can further result in some rather wretched personal decision making.

    As I've cited here time and again, statistics from the Centers for Disease Control show that those persons who tend to carry firearms on their person are many times more likely to be involved in a personal confrontation involving firearms, than those who do not pack heat. What part of that painfully obvious correlation do we not understand?

    And if we're at all honest with ourselves, we'd admit forthrightly that "Shoot first -- ask questions later" more often than not leads to "Oops! My bad!" This, of course, provides little comfort to those individuals who wind up suffering the tragic consequences of our collective affinity for both gunplay and gunslinging.

    Now, that's all I'll have to say on the subject, unless we deal with it as a proposed resolution during our State Democratic Convention in Waikiki this weekend, which begins this afternoon.

    Aloha.

    Carrying a concealed gun if you both (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Doug1111 on Fri May 25, 2012 at 03:13:15 PM EST
    know how to use it and know the self defense laws of your state does make you safer.

    It also cuts down on crime, studies have shown.  

    Parent

    What freakin studies? (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 25, 2012 at 03:26:47 PM EST
    The study of American toe jam? Ask my soldier husband, he'll tell you that everyone carrying weapons that they know how to use really really well makes nobody safer.  Makes large numbers of people tightly grouped much less safer.  Makes people with no business or right to approach others and make demands feel momentarily safer though. But hey, what do I with all these people I know in coffins know?

    Parent
    What studies are you referring to? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by lousy1 on Fri May 25, 2012 at 03:33:25 PM EST
    Perhaps your husband would be safer if all the soldiers were disarmed?

    Parent
    Do you know how many soldiers (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 25, 2012 at 03:41:13 PM EST
    Do NOT own personal weapons?  You would be freakin shocked.  Now those who do, they tend to own whole arsenals.  And those who don't are even stranger, because they've seen what weapons do.  They've seen it up close and they have decided to not bring that into their homes and they've decided to stick with less risky civilization.  Now we all laugh that if there's a zombie apocalypse we are all going to Major "O"s house and we will approach very very carefully calling out clearly, but many soldiers do not own personal weapons.

    My husband is an Apache master gunner, and he also qualifies expert on a SAW machine gun which I'm told is very difficult to do if you aren't using one frequently which he never has.  He has an innate gift for killing things deemed needed killing, and that's scary all by itself.

    Parent

    Tracy, (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by NYShooter on Fri May 25, 2012 at 04:25:47 PM EST
     you may not have discussed this

    With your husband, but he knows, unquestionably, how difficult it is even for virile, physically fit, professionally trained, soldiers to aim, and fire with intent to kill another human being. I can just imagine what his thoughts would be about giving every granny and daughter a gun, and that choice to make. (I only used "granny" and "daughter" for dramatic effect)

    Undoubtedly, some could do it. But, ten times more could not, and introducing a gun into the situation makes them infinitely more prone to being killed or seriously wounded.

    I'm sure hubby would think "ridiculous" doesn't begin to describe that idea. Even "effen" ridiculous doesn't do it.


    Parent

    Yet (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by lousy1 on Fri May 25, 2012 at 04:50:32 PM EST
    We read accounts everyday of a variety of people using weapons to defeat or discourage criminals.

    Weapons can be empowering to many senior citizens and women  - particular in high crime neighborhoods. In many cases guns provide the only practical means of defending life and property.

    I don't have daughters but if ever so blessed, they like my sons will become well versed in weapons safety and marksmanship well before they became teens.

    I do agree that it does depend on the individual but I think that aiming the weapon and pulling the trigger is easier than you postulate.

    PS I am ex military


    Parent

    That's anecdotal, nothing more. (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 25, 2012 at 07:55:13 PM EST
    Lawmaking by anecdote is no more effective or sensible than lawmaking by scenario.

    Perhaps if we address the specific causes of high crime rates in certain neighborhoods, i.e., poverty, unemployment and hunger, we just might mitigate the need for residents to walk down the street pretending that they're Dirty Harry.

    Parent

    one size does not fit all (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat May 26, 2012 at 03:12:18 PM EST
    I live in a rural area where people collect guns because they like them.  Many people have permits because they live in remote areas where the police can not be summoned in time to be of any use during a break in.  Most people carry hand guns.  Most people have a gun on the night table.  
    Guess what?  No children are getting shot by accident.  There is no gun crime.  Everyone is trained in how to handle their weapons.  Kids don't take the guns to school.  
    Explain to me why these people need to be punished by laws that are made to protect other communities which can't get it together?

    Parent
    Easy one for me (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 26, 2012 at 05:49:48 PM EST
    Explain to me why these people need to be punished by laws that are made to protect other communities which can't get it together?

    I value the prevention of tragic gun accidents as well as the prevention of tragic intentional shootings well above the value of the desire of some people to have gun collections, or indulge their gun protection fantasies.

    And, BTW, children and others DO get shot accidently, and  I don't believe this has never happened anywhere in your area.

    Parent

    Sounds like utopia (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Yman on Sat May 26, 2012 at 06:00:50 PM EST
    Guess what?  No children are getting shot by accident.  There is no gun crime.  Everyone is trained in how to handle their weapons.  Kids don't take the guns to school.

    But it doesn't sound real.  I grew up in a rural area in PA.  Lots of people owned guns (including me) and half my class was absent on the first day of deer season.  That being said, there are gun crimes and gun violence everywhere.  In fact, the risk of death by gunfire is virtually identical between urban and rural areas.


    Explain to me why these people need to be punished by laws that are made to protect other communities which can't get it together?

    As I said, people in rural areas don't have it any more "together" than people in urban areas when it comes to gun violence.  Gun control laws aren't "punishment".

    Parent

    Don't forget (none / 0) (#89)
    by lousy1 on Fri May 25, 2012 at 08:26:54 PM EST
    Perhaps if we address the specific causes of high crime rates in certain neighborhoods, i.e., poverty, unemployment and hunger.

    Don't forget criminals. I can find neighborhoods with poverty, unemployment and hunger that do not have high crime rates,

    Can you find areas full of criminals , dope and gang-banging with low crime rates?


    Parent

    Look, (none / 0) (#115)
    by NYShooter on Sat May 26, 2012 at 12:31:21 AM EST
     I don't doubt your military creds, but your deduction, " pulling the trigger is easier than you postulate" is factually wrong.

    I can't really debate this issue with you because this a "Defendant's Rights" site, and Jeralyn, being the host, wants to focus on that side of the ledger. It's not censorship as she states her position right up front and she's certainly entitled to construct the site any way she wants to.

    Now, I don't know how long you've been visiting here (not very long, I surmise) but the fact is we simply can't have an unfettered "back and forth" regarding these issues. And, truth be told, I'm o.k. with that. You're perfectly free to research the archives to understand my history with firearms, combat, and mortal encounters. Since my experience, and thus my position, runs counter to that of many/most posters here, she has asked me to refrain from engaging in debates of that nature.

    I'll say good night now, but first I'll leave you with this thought. There are some, a very, very tiny minority, who with proper training, experience, attitude, and supervision may, in extremely rare cases benefit from possessing and using firearms. But, that is true with many skill sets. But introducing and encouraging gun possession and use by the vast majority of  our citizenry is lunacy, not anecdotally, but statistically.

    And, by the way, with your military history I'm disappointed that you weren't exposed to certain facts our military leaders freely teach us. And that is, over the last century, in every war we've fought, they devise their battle plans with the knowledge that less than 25% of our soldiers will fire their weapons at our enemies with the purpose of killing them.

    I can't tell you about it, but Google can.

    nite  

    Parent

    Actually if you look past the hideously flawed (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by lousy1 on Sat May 26, 2012 at 08:53:00 PM EST
    Samuel Lyman Atwood Marshall treatise on WWII experiences I think you will find that actual studies put the percent of combat troops who fired on the enemy at near 100%. Most of these studies are from 1951 to now.

    One should beware of single sourcing, particularly when referencing sites with a political ax to grind

    How Many Soldiers Actually Fired Their Weapons at the Enemy During the Vietnam War is a good place to start a neutral, serious study of the phenomenon.

    Granted, being confronted a drunken ex paramour, banging down your door with a ball peen hammer may be difficult.

    I have no doubt that it is less stressful for a trained potential victim with a fire arm.

    In any case lacking explosions, dying men crying for their mothers and bullets whipping in the air it does not rise to the level of trauma of Saving Private Ryan.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#117)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 26, 2012 at 04:50:25 AM EST
    Have you read about the family fight that ended with one of them dead in Alabama and nobody investigated at all because of SYG?  Oh, you haven't?  PS, lots of people are ex military and some of them are ex military for the reasons that their life philosophies aren't very stable.

    TM and GZ aren't the only current SYG horror story out there, just the only one the MSM is talking about.

    Parent

    I was just thinking (4.25 / 4) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 25, 2012 at 03:57:41 PM EST
    I can have a fist fight with my next door neighbor and decide a year later that it is all stupid and go have a beer with them.  It is much harder to do though after a gun fight, because the beer keeps leaking out of the holes.  I can move, I can leave, I can grow, I can change, I can take back many many many things, a bullet is not one of them.

    Parent
    Of course (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by lousy1 on Fri May 25, 2012 at 04:11:56 PM EST
    you could stop instigating fist fights with your neighbors :)
     

    Parent
    Who the (none / 0) (#58)
    by Zorba on Fri May 25, 2012 at 04:45:37 PM EST
    he!! said that she would be the instigator of such fist fights?  I hardly think that Militarytracy would do such a thing.

    Parent
    Please (none / 0) (#62)
    by lousy1 on Fri May 25, 2012 at 04:52:10 PM EST
    Note the smile.

    Parent
    Okay (none / 0) (#68)
    by Zorba on Fri May 25, 2012 at 05:27:18 PM EST
    I am taking that to mean that you were snarking.  Sorry!  ;-)  
    Note the wink!

    Parent
    "You have to reasonably fear......" (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by NYShooter on Fri May 25, 2012 at 03:42:36 PM EST
    And, who determines "reasonably?"

    You do!

    This is a law written by the NRA and the legislation passed by the recipients of their bribery.

    Why is it that the overwhelming majority of police organizations and prosecutors vehemently opposed this law?

    Parent

    Yes! (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 25, 2012 at 04:00:20 PM EST
    Ever known anyone with a really bad anxiety disorder?  Everything is a reasonable fear for some of us.  And it isn't something to be ashamed of, but it shouldn't allow for the killing of others either.

    Parent
    Yes, MilitaryTracy (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri May 25, 2012 at 07:05:13 PM EST
    And blood shall run RED in the streets!

    You sound hysterical.
    In fact, 90 percent plus of the firearms deaths in this country are one criminal shooting another, usually involving the drug trade.

    There are many states where concealed carry is "shall isssue" and suprisingly, the (mostly mythical anyway) "Wild West" has not reappeared.

    Seriously, all the hysteria over this subject matches hysteria over other subjects. For instance, a pregnant woman is more likely to get hit by lightning then killed by her spouse. Well, same thing here: the vast majority of people seem to be trustworthy with guns.

    Parent

    That's absolutely, unequivocally false. (3.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 25, 2012 at 08:24:18 PM EST
    Slayerzero: "In fact, 90 percent plus of the firearms deaths in this country are one criminal shooting another, usually involving the drug trade."

    As the late Sen. Pat Moynihan once observed, while you have the right to express your own opinions, you do not have the right to manufacture your own facts. Don't just come here and think you get get away with extracting random items from your own rectum in support of your arguments. This isn't a Fox News blog.

    According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, which tracks such statistics, 54% of all firearms-related deaths are suicides, while 42% are homicides and 4% are either of an accidental or undetermined nature.

    Further, most homicides are not the result of an attack by a stranger (31%), but are instigated by an argument between people who know each other and are often related (69%).

    For firearm homicides in the year 2007 where the victim-offender relationship could be identified, 8% of homicide victims were directly related to their killers, 16% were intimately acquainted with them, and 45% knew their killers at least casually. For female victims where the victim-offender relationship was known, the majority (58%) were killed by intimate acquaintances.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    You should check your stats dude (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri May 25, 2012 at 10:47:44 PM EST
    Ok, I'll buy that you decided to put in the stats on suicide because I wasn't clear that I was referring to homicide. But the rest of your argument? You seem to be making my points for me!

    First how many firearms related deaths are there per year, extracting suicides since even by your account nearly half of all suicides don't involve guns and there's no evidence that most of those that use guns wouldn't have ended up using some other method and suicide wasn't what I was talking about anyway.

    1. According to various sources there are about 30,000 (give or take a few thousand) firearms related deaths per year. This includes suicides of course. The population of the US is currently over 310 million people.
    2. Most deaths are not by a stranger? Perhaps but then I did say most firearms deaths were due to homicides committed by criminals, usually against each other. Here's the deaths in Baltimore, one of the most violent cities in the USA.
    http://chamspage.blogspot.com/2011/08/2011-baltimore-city-homicidesmurders.html
    Of 196 murders, how many involved a victim with no criminal history?
    34.
    How many of these 196 murders involved a gun?
    It seems approx 150.
    http://www.baltimorecity.gov/Residents/HealthSafety/SaferCity/PressReleases/tabid/1647/ID/1876/Mayor _Rawlings-Blake_Commissioner_Bealefeld_Report_2011_Crime_Reduction.aspx

    Once again, criminal subculture and a gun equals murder. What are my odds of getting shot to death in Baltimore City given that  I have no criminal convictions and are not into the drug trade?

    Well, a rough calculation would be approx 30 deaths divided by 600 thousand people in Baltimore City ?
    .005 percent per year. In one of the most violent cities in this country.

    Heck, lets find the overall US firearm death rate including suicides:
    30,000 give or take divided by 310,000,000 yields:
    .0097 per year or, assuming a one hundred year life span JUST under one percent.
    And this calculation includes "threats" such as suicide, justifiable homicide, accidental death and doesn't control for ages - and surprisingly it's the age group in the 20's who have the highest rates of firearm deaths. If you don't commit suicide and don't belong to a criminal subculture your actual odds of dying from a gun are around 20 to 30 times less, assuming you live 100 years.

    So, I'd like to know what the "big deal" is, given that we have over 100 million firearms. It would seem if people were as irresponsible with these as you would seem to assert things should be much worse.

    Parent

    In this and most laws (none / 0) (#50)
    by lousy1 on Fri May 25, 2012 at 04:14:22 PM EST
    reasonable refers to a legal standard - "what would a reasonable individual believe"

    Parent
    Fine, feel free to share with us (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 25, 2012 at 04:22:20 PM EST
    that legal standard that leaves out the person's "belief".

    Parent
    The point is that an individuals (none / 0) (#65)
    by lousy1 on Fri May 25, 2012 at 04:59:39 PM EST
    stated mind set must be creditable under the circumstance.

    Loony Bob cannot hose down an fellow citizen because he thought her second hand smoke and immediate threat. It fails the reasonable person clause.

    This provision is interpreted and applied to a set of circumstances by police, prosecutors, judges and juries.

    Parent

    But, Mr. Zimmerman (none / 0) (#111)
    by NYShooter on Fri May 25, 2012 at 10:50:39 PM EST
     merely claimed to be in fear of death or grave harm, and ten minutes later he's on his way home.
    and a 17 year old boy is in the morgue.

    Parent
    10 minutes later? (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri May 25, 2012 at 11:08:26 PM EST
    I suspect Jeralyn will be deleting your comment soon enough as it contains a falsehood.

    Zimmerman was taken in for questioning that very night, and did not go home prior to questioning.

    Geez, NY, and here you were doing so well in that older thread. Why'd you have to get sloppy?

    Far as it goes the more I find out about what skittles can be used for, the less I'm sure that TM was the innocent kid walking home from the store that he was initially portrayed as.

    Still, we will likely never know. What we shouldn't do is lie about this case.

    Parent

    I think you miss the point (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by lousy1 on Fri May 25, 2012 at 11:28:41 PM EST
    merely claimed to be in fear of death or grave harm, and ten minutes later he's on his way home.

    The issue is did GZ reasonably fear for his safety at the moment when he pulled the trigger.

    He could have gone bowling immediately after the shooting. Who cares?

    Your example is both factually incorrect and irrelevant. Is that self cancelling?

    Parent

    That's a total fabrication. (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 26, 2012 at 08:17:27 AM EST
    You're either stating your ignorance a made up scenario as a fact, or you're lying. Which is it?

    Zimmerman was by any common understanding of the term arrested as soon the the Sanford police arrived on the scene, since he was handcuffed and taken down to the Sanford police station for questioning whether he wanted to go or not.

    He was held there and questioned from about 8pm (having been arrested about 7:30-40) and held until about 3am, or for about 7 hours, when he was released without charge at that time.  

    Parent

    That's 17 year old teen (4.00 / 3) (#124)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 26, 2012 at 08:22:42 AM EST
    wouldn't have been shot and as it turned out killed if he hadn't been committed aggravated felonious assault on Zimmerman, breaking his nose, giving him two black eyes, and repeatedly bashing his head against the concrete sidewalk, which Zimmerman could reasonable fear would soon result in a severe concussion, coma, or even death.

    Trayvon may have started out just getting skittles and Arizona iced tea, but he ended up beating the hell out of someone he believed had "dissed" him by racially profiling him, suspecting him, and following him, I believe, at a distance.  I find Zimmerman's story that Trayvon hid and ambushed him initially form behind, after first exchanging some words (and Zimmerman probably turning around to face Trayvon when that occurred) to be credible.  

    Parent

    There you go again, Doug, assuming (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Anne on Sat May 26, 2012 at 08:52:06 AM EST
    a determination that hasn't been made: "aggravated felonious assault" may be your opinion about what happened, but last I checked, your opinion wasn't determinative.

    And this:

    ...but he ended up beating the hell out of someone he believed had "dissed" him by racially profiling him, suspecting him, and following him, I believe, at a distance.  I find Zimmerman's story that Trayvon hid and ambushed him initially form behind, after first exchanging some words (and Zimmerman probably turning around to face Trayvon when that occurred) to be credible.

    just makes more assumptions, and takes other people's versions of what they say Zimmerman told them, and elevates them to facts that have yet to be proven or tested.

    There's nothing wrong or ill-advised about someone deciding to walk to the store and back; there is clearly a lot that is ill-advised about someone with no authority and no experience - who is also carrying a weapon - taking it upon himself to step into a quasi-law enforcement role and getting out of his very safe vehicle because he thinks he somehow has to keep sight of some person he has deemed suspicious.

    That's where all of this went sideways, Doug.

    Parent

    What? (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by lousy1 on Sat May 26, 2012 at 11:58:20 AM EST
    there is clearly a lot that is ill-advised about someone who is armed ... irrelevant conjecture... getting out of his ...irrelevant conjecture ..vehicle because he thinks he somehow has to keep sight of some person he has deemed suspicious.

    what is that pray tell?

    Parent

    Why is the majority of politically appointed cops (none / 0) (#76)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri May 25, 2012 at 07:39:54 PM EST
    Don't like this law?

    You tell me.

    Parent

    What's the evidence for that? (none / 0) (#125)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 26, 2012 at 08:25:39 AM EST
    And what do you mean by politically appointed?

    As well, generally speaking, I think cops want a total monopoly on the means of violence in the civil community.

    They can't get that re: determined career criminals, but they likely want as much of that as they can get.  After all, they're armed.

    I wonder what percentage of cops carry firearms when off duty.

    Parent

    That's a feature NOT a bug (none / 0) (#83)
    by Cylinder on Fri May 25, 2012 at 08:01:11 PM EST
    Why is it that the overwhelming majority of police organizations and prosecutors vehemently opposed this law?

    That's a feature, not a bug. If police and prosecutors could be trusted to weigh the evidence fairly and put themselves in the shoes of the suspect, consider the totality of the circumstance and come to a fair and honest conclusion, we probably would not need more than traditional justification statutes.  


    Parent

    Because DA's like playing god and the cops like (none / 0) (#95)
    by redwolf on Fri May 25, 2012 at 08:31:39 PM EST
    being the only people who can defend themselves.  Given how many innocent people we lock up in jails and the sure amount corrupt cops we have running around I'm not sure why anyone would appeal to the moral authority of DAs and police when it comes to your right of self defense.

    Parent
    I totally agree with your statement: (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Mary2012 on Sat May 26, 2012 at 10:45:11 AM EST
    ... "Stand Your Ground" statutes in some locales can be interpreted by some folks as a license to lynch -- and indeed, may already have been.

    And, speaking for myself only, I don't think it's a coincidence that it's a law pushed and supported by the hard right wing for their own agenda in general.  

    Parent

    To get a concealed carry (none / 0) (#20)
    by Doug1111 on Fri May 25, 2012 at 03:09:59 PM EST
    permit in Florida you have to take a class that includes learning in detail what Florida's self defense laws actually say.

    There is only a license to shoot with possibly deadly effect if you reasonably fear imminent great bodily harm or death to yourself or another, or to protect yourself from suffering a forcible felony (e.g. rape).    

    There isn't license to kill if you are mugged by being hit over the head knocked to the ground, and you have your wallet stolen.  

    There is a license to shoot if someone pull a knife or gun on you and demands  all your money.  That's a forcible felony.  

    You can't shoot someone and get away with it just because you get into a fist fight with him even if he starts it.  You have to reasonable fear great bodily harm and a black eye isn't going to qualify.  

    However if you are set upon by a violent flash mob and are beaten multiple times by multiple people with that showing no signs of ending soon, I think you could reasonable fear great bodily harm or even death.  E.g. a white reporter/blogger in Philly was set upon as was the friends she was with by a black flash mob for apparently race hate reasons, was badly beat and had her leg badly broken.  She was all not blaming  them or even admitting it was a hate crime, but had she a gun and be so inclined she could have shot an assailant or two until the mob started fleeing and if in Florida or the 21 other states with similar laws gotten immunity from prosecution.  Which I think is as it should be.

    Parent

    That's "lawmaking by scenario." (none / 0) (#80)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 25, 2012 at 07:48:35 PM EST
    While it does happen, the odds of people being set upon by flash mobs are pretty low. When you write legislation that specifically singles out and addresses the improbables and exceptions in life, rather than reflecting the general rules and norms, you're going to increase the probability of creating confusion and problems -- I don't care whether it's in criminal law or the tax code.

    Parent
    If you had a little imagination (none / 0) (#103)
    by lousy1 on Fri May 25, 2012 at 09:33:04 PM EST
    I bet you could envision a virtually unlimited amount of scenarios where the ability to project or threaten deadly force, without the fear of civil lawsuit or politically motivated criminal charges, would save lives.

    How about:

      Women being pummeled to death by her boy friend.

      Gays being beaten by bigots ( Put that in for    you and Barney)

      Children being abducted.

      Confronted in the dark by probable rapist.

      Campus mass shooting.

      Break in at a neighbors house.

      Inner city wilding.

      Skin head wilding.

    If you work at it you might even think of a few.

    Granted all of these are unlikely even in their totality but how likely is it that a legally owned gun will be used in a crime?


    Parent

    Donald... (none / 0) (#85)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri May 25, 2012 at 08:07:02 PM EST
    have you heard anything about ALEC being involved in getting this introduced?  I'd heard it was one of their model laws that they were pushing.

    Supposedly, they backed off of this issue when started bleeding membership, but I remain skeptical.  

    As I recall, the GOP is the minority in both houses out there--all but 9 seats in total, IIRC?  Was the bill sent to a kill committee or just die on the vine, so to speak?

    Parent

    Yes. (none / 0) (#91)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 25, 2012 at 08:28:11 PM EST
    Boiler-plate legislation for proposed "Stand Your Ground" laws were initially created by ALEC, with support of the NRA, which also contributes financially to the support of ALEC.

    Parent
    So hypothetically lets suppose (none / 0) (#27)
    by lousy1 on Fri May 25, 2012 at 03:27:12 PM EST
    some suspicious individual walks up to Henry Goodcitizen walking in his condo complex. This individual announces that he was going to F* Mr Goodcitizen up if he didn't get out of his sight immediately. Henry declines to retreat.

    If an altercation ensued and the threatening individual was ultimately shot.

    What are the legal and civil ramifications under SYG vs the previous Florida law.

    My guess is that without SYG Henry would face serious civil and criminal risks for not retreating.

    I recollect similar circumstances where a home owner was sued after shooting an intruder, at night in his home. Under existing law he was obligated to leave his home even though his family was sleeping in other rooms.

    This was before the adoption of the castle doctrine in many locations.

    SYG allows honest citizens legal insurance when faced by intimidation.

    Wrong (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by NYShooter on Fri May 25, 2012 at 03:46:23 PM EST
    "....Henry would face serious civil and criminal risks for not retreating."

    Only if he could retreat with 100% certitude that his retreat could be carried out safely.

    Parent

    Huh (none / 0) (#43)
    by lousy1 on Fri May 25, 2012 at 04:04:31 PM EST
    How is that relevant? Lets say Henry could retreat with his tail between his legs.

    Why should he? What are the ramifications before and after SYG?

    Parent

    Under the FL SYG (none / 0) (#45)
    by ruffian on Fri May 25, 2012 at 04:08:21 PM EST
    package, that includes immunity from prosecution, I think that if Henry can convince the authorities that he reasonably believed himself to be in grave bodily harm, he would be immune from prosecution. So a lot depends on the nature of the altercation you describe.

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#47)
    by lousy1 on Fri May 25, 2012 at 04:09:50 PM EST
    After SYG that is my understanding also.

    Parent
    I'm leaving, but I'm not sure about (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 25, 2012 at 04:02:40 PM EST
    these dogs :)  When the caca hits the fan, I can't always speak for them :)  Good luck, there are five not counting the poodle and I think she might have learned a couple of bad things from these other dogs :)

    Parent
    In my opinion (none / 0) (#39)
    by ruffian on Fri May 25, 2012 at 03:59:00 PM EST
    If Henry can retreat safely and he chooses to kill someone instead, he should be penalized.

    If someone else is in the house to defend, of course that is different.

    Parent

    In the hypothetical (none / 0) (#46)
    by lousy1 on Fri May 25, 2012 at 04:08:50 PM EST
    Henry can retreat or simply stand there and refuse to give in to the demands that he leave.

    He is subsequently assaulted. Whie defending himself he shoots the suspicious individual.

    What are his legal liabilities before and after SYG?

    Parent

    Regarding FL SYG if he (none / 0) (#56)
    by ruffian on Fri May 25, 2012 at 04:37:12 PM EST
    reasonably believed he would be in grave bodily harm he would be immune from prosecution.

    So as I said before, it depends on the nature of the assault.

    Parent

    I see I misunderstood the first (none / 0) (#57)
    by ruffian on Fri May 25, 2012 at 04:38:57 PM EST
    question. This is my opinion of how I think the law should be, not necessarily what it is.

    Parent
    Why? (none / 0) (#96)
    by redwolf on Fri May 25, 2012 at 08:35:23 PM EST
    Why should anyone have to bow to physical threats?  Shouldn't humans be allowed the dignity of fighting back instead of running like cowards? Self defense is a human right.

    Parent
    Are you living in a John Wayne movie? (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 25, 2012 at 08:44:27 PM EST
    I fail to see any dignity in getting maimed or killed for no reason other than a misguided sense of machismo.

    Man's most basic instinct is self-preservation. If one is cornered without an escape route, that's one thing. But if there are ways to avoid a physical confrontation, then that's the path one should take. Violence should always be the very last resort.

    Parent

    Are you having a Quisling moment? (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by lousy1 on Fri May 25, 2012 at 09:05:55 PM EST
    Well believing that all traditional avenues should be utilized before one exposes himself to danger,
     some times courage is required  to combat an evil. I think that it is a basic tenant of citizenship.

    Running into a burning building to rescue a trapped inhabitant is an obvious example.

    If your neighborhood is being victimized by occupied homes being burglarized then your family is experiencing an obvious danger to life and limb.

    Given the minimal risk of observing a suspect until the police arrive would you be brave enough to assume the risk, or do you think your security is the exclusive province of others?

     

    Parent

    I don't engage in hypotheticals ... (none / 0) (#97)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 25, 2012 at 08:37:18 PM EST
    ... and scenarios, because fictional accounts provide no sound basis for responsible lawmaking.

    Any legislator who would draft and / or support a proposed law on the basis of specious anecdotes and hand-crafted hypotheticals is a fool -- as are those voters who would support such nincompoops at the ballot box.

    Parent

    Hypotheticals are a valid way (none / 0) (#138)
    by lousy1 on Sat May 26, 2012 at 11:52:20 AM EST
    to test and predict results that might otherwise go unforeseen.

    I guess I am a fool for I would much rather vote for a comtemplative candidate than one who votes based on hand crafted statistics or political slogans.

    Wish we had a few more fools and a few less preening vipers.

    Parent

    Startling, so much so (none / 0) (#70)
    by KeysDan on Fri May 25, 2012 at 07:04:01 PM EST
    that, at first bounce, I thought it was an early Memorial Day weekend garbling of 'femme fatale'.    But, you got it faster than I did and it has no place here.

    and it's been deleted (none / 0) (#105)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 25, 2012 at 09:39:43 PM EST
    Doug111, if you want to stick around, please avoid insults to other commenters. Disagree with their position without name-calling and mockery.

    Parent
    Ok. I really don't remember what I said. (none / 0) (#144)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 26, 2012 at 02:52:35 PM EST
    Perhaps you will let me note however that I get mocked around her with great regularity by two or three particular commenters, and insulted, but virtually never return it.  

    So I'm genuinely a little puzzled.

    Parent

    Really? You don't remember? (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Dr Molly on Sun May 27, 2012 at 09:12:57 AM EST
    Unfortunately, many of us do - you called Anne some fat chick slur that sounded like it came out of the mouth of a 14-year-old brat.

    So, either you're lying about not remembering, or you engage in so much of this behavior that it's difficult for you to remember any particular instance of it. Hmmm.

    Parent

    A new Quinnipiac poll in FLA also (none / 0) (#78)
    by DFLer on Fri May 25, 2012 at 07:44:04 PM EST
    showed that the favorite baseball team of Floridians is the Yankees.

    Must be something in the water down there.

    Not really (none / 0) (#79)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri May 25, 2012 at 07:47:13 PM EST
    Not really. About the Yankee thing I mean. Even if true, it wouldn't surprise me if over half of all Floridians are retired. Baseball isn't very popular in Florida and most of the people who are fans are propbably fans of the teams whose states they left.

    Parent
    ya I know...but don't be so literal (none / 0) (#106)
    by DFLer on Fri May 25, 2012 at 09:51:40 PM EST
    I was just cracking wise.

    Parent
    Kind of like (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by NYShooter on Sat May 26, 2012 at 02:24:56 PM EST
     my use of "ten minutes, and he's on his way home" quip being taken literally rather than the poetic license most sentient beings would infer.

    But the real comical irony is the developmentally challenged Junior Charles Bronsons here who, from morning to night spout speculative delusions as proven facts demand my "ten minutes" comment be deleted as "not factual." lol


    Parent

    The Yankees. (none / 0) (#151)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 26, 2012 at 04:47:52 PM EST
    That's funny.

    Parent
    OK Another ideologue in a huff (none / 0) (#100)
    by lousy1 on Fri May 25, 2012 at 08:49:11 PM EST
    I said

    Don't forget criminals. I can find neighborhoods with poverty, unemployment and hunger that do not have high crime rates.

    Sorry to challenge your dogma. Do you have any proof of causative or is it just a correlation.

    It is just as valid to conclude that high crime rates cause poverty, and unemployment.

    They carry around (none / 0) (#134)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 26, 2012 at 10:15:27 AM EST
    highly valuable and highly negotiable but hard to trace quasi commodities all the time, or many of them do.  Most others in our society in a time of credit cards no longer do.

    I know the diamond district quite well. (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Angel on Sat May 26, 2012 at 10:30:26 AM EST
    I have a jeweler friend who does business there.  

    Your silly attempt to cover for the slur against Jewish people is pathetic.  

    Parent

    Doug111's comment (none / 0) (#137)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 26, 2012 at 11:21:21 AM EST
    with that characterization was deleted. Apparently, he doesn't understand why his labeling was offensive, so there's no point in going off-topic and educating him.

    Doug111, this is the second time in one thread you have used negative stereotypes in comments. One more and you will have to be banned from the site.

    Think before you write and preview your comment. And please don't be a "blogclogger" trying to dominate the thread -- that goes for everyone.

    I obviously disagree with almost every comment in this thread but I am only deleting ones that that are objectionable under our comment rules (and those that repeat the objectionable part of the deleted comment in response.)

    Parent

    I had no intention of slurring (none / 0) (#143)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 26, 2012 at 02:41:56 PM EST
    Jews at all. By far most of the professional skilled workers in the NY wholesale diamond district are Jews, as most long time Manhattanites of a certain education know.  Not sure why that's the case but it is.

    I also said with respect to getting a gun permit in NYC, and others, but that just seemed like an obvious occupation where you could probably get one in NYC.

    I work with tons of Jews and have a good number of Jewish friends.  Crimme, my ex wife was Jewish.

    Lots of people are hair trigger and jumping to groundless conclusions around here.

    Parent

    Now I am More Confused Than Ever (none / 0) (#140)
    by RickyJ on Sat May 26, 2012 at 01:15:59 PM EST
    about what SYG is.  It seems that it has two parts, one, providing for an immunity hearing for all self defense cases and two, extending the definition of self defense.  

    The first seems to be relatively easy to understand.  If it is claimed that certain acts were done in self defense, a hearing is held before a judge, who may decide to grant the defendant criminal and civil immunity if a preponderance of the evidence shows that the self defense claim is valid.

    On the other hand, how SYG laws extend what acts are to be considered self defense is murky to me and I think others.  One first needs to get a handle around the concept of aggressor and non-aggressor.  I am not sure how that is legally determined but let's say we have that issue settled.  Then I think, SYG doesn't extend what the aggressor can do and later claim self defense.  AFAIK, it might be nothing.  On the other hand, the non-aggressor is allowed to kill the aggressor if the non-aggressor can't get away in complete safety.  What confuses me is how that changes the original non SYG law.  Is it in the definition of aggressor?

    Under SYG (none / 0) (#142)
    by NYShooter on Sat May 26, 2012 at 02:35:23 PM EST
    The non-aggressor has no obligation to consider "getting away."

    "...if the non-aggressor can't get away in complete safety."


    Parent

    I think NYShooter is correct (none / 0) (#146)
    by RickyJ on Sat May 26, 2012 at 03:30:36 PM EST
    about the extension to self defense made by SYG.  So I gather previously, people were prosecuted for not running away from an aggressor when they could have?  

    It is often claimed that the reason that Zimmerman was not arrested immediately was SYG.  I can't find a detailed justification for that claim.  It is debatable whether, under the old rules, they could have proven BRD that Zimmerman could have run away after the initial sucker punch.  Wolfinger saw that under the new rules, his chances were even worse.  Now Corey sees how, under the new rules, how to prosecute for Murder 2, no less, mostly on the basis that Zimmerman's injuries show that he was unreasonable to fear permanent injury or death when shooting Martin.

    Parent

    Under the immunity hearing part (none / 0) (#148)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 26, 2012 at 03:51:56 PM EST
    of SYG, if they charge a defendant who claims self defense as the non aggressor, and he wins immunity at a hearing before the judge, Florida is liable for his attorney's fees and lost wages due to losing his job in connection with the charges.

    So that creates addition incentives to not want to change him if they don't think the state will win at the immunity hearing.

    Parent

    Immunity Hearing (none / 0) (#149)
    by RickyJ on Sat May 26, 2012 at 04:10:04 PM EST
    Will the judge make a determination with respect to manslaughter or second degree murder at the immunity hearing?  Or is the question he has to answer somehow independent of what actual criminal charges were brought?  Obviously, the answer has to be independent of the particular charges in order to grant future criminal and civil immunity. So, if I understand anything about trials, there has to be some concept of "element" of self defense and I guess the judge must decide that each element has been shown to have a preponderance of evidence in its favor.

    Parent
    If we wins immunity then (none / 0) (#150)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 26, 2012 at 04:45:18 PM EST
    he will be considered innocent of any type of homicide.

    He would be guilty of manslaughter but not 2nd degree murder if he unreasonably believed he was in danger of great bodily harm, or what amounts to almost the same thing, he panicked but not because a reasonable person would think he faced great bodily harm if he didn't shoot Zimmerman.  

    2nd degree murder would obtain if Zimmerman had no cold blooded plot or plan to kill Trayvon from first suspecting him (which would be first degree murder), but was pissed that he was losing the fight, or might lose it, and didn't care whether Trayvon died or not, in a "depraved" indifference to Trayvon's life.  

    Parent

    You're right about the two parts. (none / 0) (#147)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 26, 2012 at 03:48:00 PM EST
    However only persons who were arguably not the initial aggressors can get an immunity hearing which may grant him/her immunity from both criminal and civil trial, plus reimbursement of his attorney's fees and any lost wages from loss of employment  As well only non aggressors can stand their ground without a duty to flee if possible.

    According to a Florida criminal lawyer who blogged about this issue a month and a half ago, no one has been deemed to be the aggressor under Florida case law who didn't initiate physical contact.  Whether a light shove (because say person A felt person B was invading his physical space) followed by the other person punching you in the face with enough force to break your nose and knock you to the ground would I imagine but a close issue for judge initially at an immunity hearing.  My guess is that if the judge believed due to say an eyewitness that person B was aggressively getting in person A's face/physical space without having yet touched person A quite, person A wouldn't be deemed to be the aggressor.  

    Parent