What SYG does and doesn't have to do with Zimmerman

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Fri Apr 13, 2012, 04:07 PM - Edit history (3)

Florida's Stand Your Ground law did not permit Zimmerman's actions. If it did he wouldn't be in jail right now. QED.

The initial police and other investigators simply did not do their job. They did not apply the law properly, whether from bias, animus or ignorance. I do not like this law because it is written to appeal to cowboy morons and almost begs to be misapplied, but as written, if properly applied, the statute has no real bearing on the Zimmerman case and says less than one might think it says. Some police might have thought that it bore on the Zimmmerman case, but it doesn't. Here is how the police should have understood this law... (emphasis added, commentary in red)

Florida2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[20]

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: [font color=red]The word "reasonably" means this is NOT a state of mind determination. It is irrelevant whether someone was in fear unless "the reasonable man" would have been in fear in the same circumstances.[/font color]

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or [font color=red]As above, re: reasonably.[/font color]

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if: [font color=red]This presumption is troubling. It is, however, limited. It does not apply to the entirety of the SYG law. It applies only to unlawful invasion of a home or occupied car. You are at home or in your car. You have "reason" to think an illegal break-in is occuring. You are presumed to have a reasonable fear for your life. Long story short, you can shoot burglars in your own home even if they are not being overtly menacing at the time. This provision is indeed troubling but is not applicable to the Zimmerman case in any way.[/font color]

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. [font color=red]This section does apply to Zimmerman's claimed version of events, but changes little. If Zimmerman was not attacked out of the blue then this doesn't apply. The statute requires that you be attacked. And it is not a state of mind determination as to whether you think it NECESSARY, it is a reasonabilty determination. If, under the circumstances as revealed by evidence, a reasonable person would have feared for his life in the face of a criminal attack (as any attack would be on someone who was not commiting a crime at the time) and reasonably believes that force is NECESSARY to protect himself or others then he may meet force with force. This section says much less than it might seem to say. Somebody walks up out of the blue and punches you then walks away. A reasonable person would not, in that case, feel that using deadly force against the retreating attacker was necessary to prevent death or further injury.[/font color]

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. [font color=red]This is a noteworthy provision, but has nothing to do with the Zimmerman case. It means that the law presumes that anyone breaking into a house is presumed to have the intent to commit violence. That is absurd... most house-breakers seek houses they know to be unoccupied. But does the law actually say that? Little words in statutes mean a lot... if you are breaking into something by force then you have the intent of "force or violence." If house-breaking by force is an unlawful act involving force then it's a tautology. (Saying "and" would give it a different meaning.) But the point remains that the real idea of this law is to allow people to shoot burglars pretty much no questions asked. That's a big deal, but irrelevant to Zimmerman.[/font color]

(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful. [font color=red]This is almost meaningless... it says the police cannot arrest you unless they have probable cause to think you have commited a crime. That is not exceptional. I don't doubt that some dumb cop somewhere has or will misunderstand this, but the language is not exceptional.[/font color]

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

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

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless: [font color=red]This may come into play in the Zimmerman case. If Zimmerman started some shit then no protection in this statute would apply to him unless...[/font color]

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or [font color=red]When you start some shit with somebody then the law defaults to the most stringent notion of self-defense. You are REQUIRED to seek non-violent, non-deadly means to avoid having to use force.[/font color]

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law#Florida

[robinlynne]

1. uestion; self defence is always allowed, so i see no rhyme or reason to the stand your ground law.

If someone tries to kill me, I have the right to defend myself.
end of story. If noone is trying to harm me, no shooting. (I have never touched a gun in my life, but that is not the point.)

[cthulu2016]

2. Self defense is a legal concept

Self defense is always allowed, but this statute changes the definitions some. There is what you feel is self defense and then what the law feels is self defense.

It's primary effect is in whether people in a home can shoot burglars. It changes the law on that a lot.

But in anything related to the Zimmerman case, not so much.

[robinlynne]

9. if someone comes inot your home and threatens you, I understand, but when you chase someone

down, you attacking, not defending....

actually countries argue this case back and forth all the time, dont they?

[cthulu2016]

11. If you chase a burglar out of your home...

If you chase a burglar out of your home and pursue him down the street and shoot him in the back that is not permitted under the Florida SYG statute. In that case, you are no longer standing your ground, though you may have been SYG earlier.

That is not to say that some people would misinterpret the law. I am sure some would.

But being in real danger is always an element. (In the case of someone breaking into your home the statute defines the circumstance as constitutng real danger, which is why this law is most pertinent to burglary. But when someone is no longer breaking into your home that presumption would, or should, no longer apply... there is some point where your right to shoot burglars expires. For instance, you can't shoot them the next day at the supermarket.)

[robinlynne]

14. compare these interpretations of self defense to our motives for invading Iraq! It makes for

some interesting parallels.

[Jim Lane]

8. Many states have the "retreat rule" and your summary would be inaccurate there.

You write, "If someone tries to kill me, I have the right to defend myself.
end of story."

You're standing on the sidewalk in front of the police station and you have a loaded gun. A maniac 100 feet away is running toward you, brandishing a large knife and screaming his intention to cut your throat. Do you have the right to shoot him? In many states, no, because you could instead run into the police station. You're privileged to use deadly force to defend yourself only when such force is necessary to defending yourself. If there's a nonlethal option available instead, you must take it.

As I understand SYG, it changes that rule to say that the availability of the nonlethal option of retreat doesn't negate the privilege to use force. A Floridian standing outside a police station would be perfectly free to shoot the attacker instead of moving to an easily accessible safe location.

[cthulu2016]

10. Yes. But.

As written, even while substituting standing your ground for obligation to retreat the SYG law doesn't quite give you carte blanche in public places. (The situation in the law is different for public places versus your home.)

First, you have to be "attacked," which is undefined in the statute, but leaving that aside...
Second, a reasonable person would have to believe the violence was "necessary...to prevent death or great bodily harm."

So even in the hypothetical of the distant maniac there is a test of the legality of meeting force with force that is not dependent on your state of mind. It's a poorly dratfted section that is a morass for prosecutors and juries, but if interpreted and enforced properly (the point of the OP) it is not clear that dropping the distant maniac is uniformly permitted. It depends on whether a reasonable person would have thought shooting him was necessary.

Put another way, you are not required to retreat but there is still a test of the reasonability of your actions. It is not enough that you think you are being attacked or think you are in danger. That has to be a reasonable conclusion given the circumstances.

The word "attack" is puzzling. Has the distant maniac "attacked" you?

It is an expansion of self-defense, and an ill-intended one, and not a well-drafted law, but not as broad on paper as it may appear.

I am not a fan of the law but I am a big fan of reading a statute for what it says. It is interesting.

_________________________________


(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

[uponit7771]

3. SYG changed obligation to flee to reasonable belief of imminent danger EVEN..EVEN if you START the

...altercation.

Mutual combat statutes then apply just as if you were in your house by extending "castle" laws outside of the house

[cthulu2016]

4. The statute is right there

And it does not say what you describe. 776.041 Use of force by aggressor. If you start the altercation you can only use deadly force after exhausting all possible alternatives, including retreat.

[robinlynne]

6. i don't think if you start the altercation. because that is exactly the point the prosecutor brings up

[Hoyt]

5. Most folks who carry a gun care little beyond, "with my gun, I can stand my ground."

[spin]

12. Of course as a person who doesn't legally carry a firearm you are an expert ...

on what those who do legally carry a firearm know and feel.

Now I do have a Florida Concealed Weapons Permit and realizing that there is an enormous amount of responsibility in carrying a weapon in public, I do my best to understand the laws concerning concealed carry in Florida. I probably know a lot more individuals who have carry permits and carry than you do and I don't know a single one who believes that the "Stand Your Ground" law in Florida allows him to chase down another person, confront him and shoot him.

I fear you may have created your own personal fantasy world which is populated by violent blood thirsty individuals who obtain carry permits in order to to be able to blow some fool away.

Over 800,000 Floridians have concealed carry permits. If you were right, we would see shootings like the Zimmerman case occurring on a daily basis. We don't.

[cthulu2016]

7. ...

[spin]

13. Great post. Thanks! (n/t)