Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: A man claiming self-defense shot another man to death at a Walmart near my house... [View all]X_Digger
(18,585 posts)44. Quote the whole thing, please..
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html
Now, looking at the actual SYG statute:
Same page, lower down..
Notice the lack of 'presumptions'? It would not say 'if he or she reasonably believes' if there was a presumption of such.
The presumption that the defendant had a reasonable fear only applies in one's home, in case of unlawful entry.
But since we're talking about Arizona:
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/00411.htm
Again, nothing about presumptions here.
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:
(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 persons 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.
...
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a persons dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(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:
(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 persons 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.
...
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a persons dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
Now, looking at the actual SYG statute:
Same page, lower down..
(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.
Notice the lack of 'presumptions'? It would not say 'if he or she reasonably believes' if there was a presumption of such.
The presumption that the defendant had a reasonable fear only applies in one's home, in case of unlawful entry.
But since we're talking about Arizona:
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/00411.htm
A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.
B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section.
B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section.
Again, nothing about presumptions here.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
88 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
A man claiming self-defense shot another man to death at a Walmart near my house... [View all]
Gravitycollapse
Feb 2014
OP
Stand your ground laws require a reasonable fear of serious bodily harm or death.
Gravitycollapse
Feb 2014
#6
Approximately 12 times more people die annually from firearms than from fists or feet.
Gravitycollapse
Feb 2014
#9
You chose long guns because it gives the false perception that fists are deadlier than guns.
Gravitycollapse
Feb 2014
#16
Fighting a man at a Walmart register in the middle of the afternoon is not a street fight.
Gravitycollapse
Feb 2014
#31
The real split between stand your ground and not would be illustrated when we get to the question...
JVS
Feb 2014
#27
If someone is on top of you, you've already fulfilled your obligation to retreat. So I don't see...
JVS
Feb 2014
#55
How is it self defense to hold someone so they can't get away and then shoot them?
reusrename
Feb 2014
#56
You're talking about laying down and yelling for help as a way to fake trying to get away.
JVS
Feb 2014
#58
If he's backing off, the other guy has no business following him to pursue a fight. That is the...
JVS
Feb 2014
#62
I understand the law. I get it. And the law makes this particular type of murder legal.
reusrename
Feb 2014
#66
Or pretend you're just some guy getting severely pummeled by a guy who is strong from...
JVS
Feb 2014
#71
With SYG laws it doesn't matter WHO started the fight. The person with the gun that kills
bluestate10
Feb 2014
#17
I still think if you have concealed gun, you should have more responsibility.
reusrename
Feb 2014
#60
I have gotten to the point that if I bump in to someone, I immediately apologized, not
bluestate10
Feb 2014
#8
Per all of my friends and family in Chandler and the news....no charges will be filed
blueamy66
Feb 2014
#88