General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFlorida law enforcement objected to "Stand Your Ground"
But John F. Timoney, Miami's police chief, called the bill unnecessary and dangerous. Chief Timoney, who has successfully pushed his police officers to use less deadly force, said many people, including children, could become innocent victims. The bill could make gun owners, including drivers with road rage or drunken sports fans who get into fights leaving ball games, assume they have "total immunity," he said.
"Whether it's trick-or-treaters or kids playing in the yard of someone who doesn't want them there or some drunk guy stumbling into the wrong house," Chief Timoney said, "you're encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn't be used."
Chief Chuck Harmon of the St. Petersburg police and Sheriff Ken Jenne of Broward County also publicly opposed the bill. The Florida House of Representatives voted 94 to 20 in favor of the bill earlier this month, while the Senate passed it 39 to 0.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/27/national/27shoot.html?_r=0
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Who knows if they will have the seriousness and civic nature to fix that error or just keep getting those checks from guns and ammo companies.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)The NRA and or other right wing groups so that the gun manufacturers will make bigger profits.
Profits have always been more important then people.
Seems profits are more important than law enforcement wishes also.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)i.e., removing ones self from a threat, put one in a precarious position?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Of course, it's not always possible to do so, and perhaps more importantly, it's not always possible to tell, in advance, if you can get away or not. This is why I don't like (and will never blindly obey) "duty to retreat" laws.
But is SYG necessary to avoid those problems? Is there no middle ground between the law trumping an individual's prerogative to make their own decisions about how to deal with a serious threat and giving unstable and often bigoted people what amounts to a license to kill?
I think there may be. Here in Oregon we have neither an explicit SYG statute or a duty-to-retreat provision. Instead, we have (fairly) specific situations in which the use of lethal force is legal, and a good-sized body of legal precedent on the need to convincingly demonstrate that any use of lethal force complies with those requirements. There is at least some degree of burden of proof on the force-user. Not a perfect system, but better than either duty-to-retreat or SYG, in my view.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)That pretty much sums up "Stand Your Ground" laws.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Like I said, I think there's a middle ground between that sort of SYG law and "duty to retreat."
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)you are mistaken with respect to what "Duty to Retreat" means ... It does not mean "turn tail and run", nor does it mean, "Back away" or "attempt to escape." It simply means "Attempt to disengage, where possible."
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)But I do appreciate your reply. My objection is to any such legal mandate (rather than simply stipulating the specific scenarios in which lethal force is permitted).
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But I have no problem with such a "legal mandate", as it is fairly easy to satisfy AND has the effect of stopping stuff before it begins.
spin
(17,493 posts)over their loud music or the fact that they are walking through my neighborhood.
If I happen to get in a discussion with someone and it starts to turn into a heated argument, I will simply walk away. If someone confronts me in an aggressive manner I will also do my best to walk away rather than cause the situation to escalate to the point of violence. This may make me look like a coward to witnesses but I don't have to prove my courage to anyone and the last thing I every hope to have to do is to use my snub nosed revolver for self defense. Even if I were entirely within the right to shoot someone who was attacking me and had the weapon or the psychical ability to severely injure or kill me, I would have to live with the fact that I shot someone for the rest of my life.
But if I find that I have no other choice and the authorities largely agree with me, why should I have to hire an attorney and fight an overzealous prosecutor who claimed that I could have retreated? Also why should I have to bear the cost of a civil action by my attacker or his family which could easily bankrupt me? Since I live in Florida the SYG law provides me with immunity from both criminal prosecution and civil actions if I qualify.
However the Florida SYG law was poorly written and in my opinion needs a good overhaul.
Florida's Self-Defense Immunity Law: How it Really Works
Posted by Andrew Branca Thursday, July 18,
***snip***
Although many states have adopted some form of self-defense immunity law, Florida’s is remarkably broad in many respects. It provides not only immunity from both civil liability and criminal prosecution, but even from arrest in instances that lack probable cause to believe that the use of force was unlawful. In addition, to discourage aggressive plaintiffs who might be willing to “test” the immunity in a civil case, the law provides that the court shall–not may–award the defendant his attorney’s fees, court costs, and even compensation for loss of income, if the defendant’s immunity is affirmed at trial.
What the statute failed to address, however, was how it was actually to be applied, and by what standards. This task was necessarily to be undertaken by the various courts as self-defense immunity claims were presented to them.
Of course, give two courts the chance to interpret any statute and you’re likely to end up with twenty different conclusions. In Florida that’s exactly the mess that had developed by the time the state supreme court stepped in to clear things up in 2010. It did so by considering two appellate court decisions that had taken opposing approaches to interpreting and applying the self-defense immunity law.
***snip***
The Bottom Line
The bottom line, then, is that in Florida a defendant’s motion for self-defense immunity can be made at any time in a hearing before the relevant court, and the standard of evidence for acknowledging immunity is that of a preponderance of the evidence–if it is more likely than not that the use of defensive force was lawful, immunity attaches.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/floridas-self-defense-immunity-law-how-it-really-works/
Perhaps this year the law will be rewritten. Of course some hope that it will be overturned but that is highly unlikely in Florida as the law has a lot of public support. I personally do not feel the law should be repealed as that would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)when, by:
You are putting into practice the "duty to retreat"? I think the "over-zealous prosecutor" is a myth developed to excuse NOT doing what you have described.
spin
(17,493 posts)It should never permit me to egg on another person to get him to attack me so I can shoot him.
If I draw my handgun and my attacker flees, the threat to my life ends at that point. I should never be allowed to chase him down and kill him.
That's what I was taught when I was applying for my concealed weapons permit in Florida over 15 years ago and it sounds reasonable to me.
I also learned in a martial arts class I took many years ago, long before I got my carry permit, that if a argument threatens to turn violent it is best to break off and leave before I using the skills my jujitsu instructor taught the class.
If a man pulls a knife or gun on me and demands I turn over my money, I will appraise him. If he appears rational and sober and I truly believe that all he wants is my wallet, I will just give it to him. I can always replace my money, my credit cards and my ID. It's not as easy to recover in a hospital and you don't come back from the dead. There is no guaranty that what remains of my martial arts skills or my snub nose revolver will prevent me from getting injured or killed in the fight.
However if I seriously believe my attacker intends to severely injure or kill me even if I turn over my wallet or if he attacks me after I do so then I will try my best to stop his attack. I have little to lose by defending myself at that point.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)In only the most corrupted interpretation of SYG will you be able to "chase someone down and kill them." (BTW, that's not what happened in the TM case)
In my training, we were taught, "TWRD":
The Instructor drill us to the point where every student developed the confidence to overcome the "fear" of being thought the coward. The Instructor, also, monitored her students to judge the likelihood that a student gained the confidence (and therefore, willingness) to follow TWRD ... Whenever, she sensed that the student lacked the confidence or displayed aggression, she stopped teaching that student.
(BTW, she also refused to allow her students to "fight" in tournaments because the martial arts are for self-defense; not trophies.)
spin
(17,493 posts)The tactics we were taught in the jujitsu class were too violent to be used in a tournament. My instructor also taught judo and in that class his students did complete in tournaments.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)protocol (to reinforce her Defense philosophy) was to have her students spend the first 20 hours of training, learning to avoid being hit, followed by 40 hours of learning blocks. No one learned strikes or kicks before this. But by that time, we were confident that we could avoid any initial attack, giving us the opportunity to TWRD.
spin
(17,493 posts)We used rubber knifes and wooden guns for practice. Of course we learned a little karate but the instructor having primarily a judo background emphasized jamming an opponent who was throwing punches or kicks and taking him to the ground where judo can be an advantage. The main problem is in getting inside the range of your opponent's kicks and punches.
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)
struggle4progress
(118,236 posts)And it may not be much fun
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Augustine_Movement
Florida cops argued that Miranda warnings shouldn't require that a suspect know that he or she can have a lawyer present during questioning - http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-1175
Florida cops argued that it shouldn't need a warrant to peek at your stuff from a helicopter- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Riley
Florida cops argued that coerced confessions were perfectly valid- Chambers v. Florida.
For someone who has a real problem with the state when it comes to certain conspiracy theories, you seem to want to put a lot of faith in their opinion in other matters.
Seems to be a bit of cognitive dissonance, that.