Florida's Stand Your Ground Law

[LC446]

From the FLA SYG statute:
Snipped
(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).

Is that the same in Texas? With all the tight budgets many towns are experiencing, that provision would certainly be in the back of any (elected) D.A.'s mind when a perpetrator commits a homicide that might fall under SYG. It could become quite pricey if SYG is determined as a valid defense.
Kind of ties their hands behind their back because of the fairly easy burden to meet the liability issue and get bucks back from the State..

No, that provision is not in the Texas law. I agree that it would definitely be costly so I'm sure that is a deterrent.

 

[jaded cat]

I'm curious to know what part of Florida's SYG statute is most bothersome to people. Is it the part that allows deadly force to prevent great bodily harm or the part that says no duty to retreat if in a place were he or she has the right to be?


http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

BBM

I think that's where this trips me up in this case. Both of them had a right to be where they were. If you add in a couple of guys possibly bumping chests, one of them has a gun, this really can't end well.

I think part of the law leaves too wide a path to error. Good thing I'm not a legislator in Florida who'll have to deal with this in the future.

 

[RANCH]

BBM

I think that's where this trips me up in this case. Both of them had a right to be where they were. If you add in a couple of guys possibly bumping chests, one of them has a gun, this really can't end well.

I think part of the law leaves too wide a path to error. Good thing I'm not a legislator in Florida who'll have to deal with this in the future.

I know what you mean. Obviously people want to be able to defend themselves were ever they happen be. But using deadly force changes things. Should it be ok to use lethal force when outside of your home?

 

[jaded cat]

I know what you mean. Obviously people want to be able to defend themselves were ever they happen be. But using deadly force changes things. Should it be ok to use lethal force when outside of your home?

I don't think so. Defending your home or even your car? I'm good with that. If someone is trying to rob or hurt me, I'll do whatever I have to do.

I think it's the combination of the wording of the SYG law and the CCW law that gives me pause. Put them together, no accountability, it's a recipe for disaster like we're seeing with this case.

 

[rotterdam]

I'm curious to know what part of Florida's SYG statute is most bothersome to people. Is it the part that allows deadly force to prevent great bodily harm or the part that says no duty to retreat if in a place were he or she has the right to be?


http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

I think the part that says no duty to retreat bothers me most. Obviously when in your own house, own car or even in your work place, the "no retreat" and deadly force does not bother me. But in public areas is another story. Do not want some nut case shooting in a busy shopping mall just because he gets in an argument with somebody and gets skeered.
I also think that somebody can fairly easy engineer a situation under the current SYG and gets away with premeditated murder.
I think most of us will retreat anyway when retreat is safely possible as opposed to killing a person regardless what the law says/allows. I know I would if I had the viable option.Retreating does not make you a coward, rather the opposite..

 

[Reality Orlando]

I know what you mean. Obviously people want to be able to defend themselves were ever they happen be. But using deadly force changes things. Should it be ok to use lethal force when outside of your home?

If Jennifer Kesse, Michelle Parker and the many other missing women were armed, would they be here today? No one should have to be a victim of crime. When it comes down to the victim vs. the criminal, the victim should always be allowed the upper hand, IMO. If it stops just one rape or murder of an innocent person, then SYG, when properly assigned, should stand.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Posted: 05/02/2012 3:20 pm

Why the NRA Wants the Trayvon Martin Case to Go Away
When the National Rifle Association's Wayne LaPierre finally spoke out about the Trayvon Martin shooting, it was to decry the media's coverage of the tragedy as "sensational reporting from Florida." It's understandable that the NRA would be uncomfortable with the intense media attention to this particular shooting tragedy.

For one thing, the shooting has thrown a spotlight on the real-world impact of the "Shoot First, Ask Questions Later" (aka "Stand Your Ground") laws the NRA has pushed in Florida and other states across the country that are allowing dangerous individuals to literally "get away with murder." But the NRA's discomfort has even deeper roots. In a real sense, Trayvon Martin's death at the hands of George Zimmerman exposes the mythology of the NRA's core narrative about guns and self-defense.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-a-henigan/why-the-nra-wants-the-tra_b_1471897.html

 

[Just K]

SYG could conceivably become Florida's 3rd biggest draw for tourism.

1. Disney World & theme Parks
2. Beaches & Warm weather
3. SYG...The travel brochure could say "Want to kill someone and then say you were defending yourself...heck, come on down..."

My prediction:
The number of SYG Homicide cases will skyrocket if GZ goes free.

 

[Concerned Papa]

From Representative Dennis Baxley, 24th district, Florida House of Representatives

Trayvon Martin's alleged attacker not covered under law I wrote

As the prime sponsor of this legislation in the Florida House, I'd like to clarify that this law does not seem to be applicable to the tragedy that happened in Sanford. There is nothing in the castle doctrine as found in Florida statutes that authenticates or provides for the opportunity to pursue and confront individuals, it simply protects those who would be potential victims by allowing for force to be used in self-defense.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012...er-not-covered-under-law-wrote/#ixzz1u2wq9fQ2

 

[rotterdam]

From Representative Dennis Baxley, 24th district, Florida House of Representatives

From same article:

Republican Dennis Baxley represents the 24th district in Florida's House of Representatives. He was the prime sponsor of the "Stand Your Ground" law in 2005. He is the principal owner and vice president of Hiers-Baxley Funeral Services.

Does that sound like a conflict of interest? :what:SYG could mean increase in business.:waitasec:

 

[rotterdam]

SYG could conceivably become Florida's 3rd biggest draw for tourism.

1. Disney World & theme Parks
2. Beaches & Warm weather
3. SYG...The travel brochure could say "Want to kill someone and then say you were defending yourself...heck, come on down..."

My prediction:
The number of SYG Homicide cases will skyrocket if GZ goes free.

No 3 could translate into competition for Aruba.:floorlaugh:

 

[Just K]

No 3 could translate into competition for Aruba.:floorlaugh:

I was thinking about that, too. A little less travel and no need for a passport and to deal with the Dutch detainment and all those crazy hearings...cost less, too.

 

[Just K]

I was reading a post over at the Poll...Guilty/Not Guilty:
Aedys mentioned the word, "Retreat" and she put it in parenthesis. Then it hit me...
GZ chose to live in "Retreat View." How Ironic...a daily reminder to retreat as opposed to initiating contact with someone who he found suspicious.

Just another odd aspect to this sad situation.

 

[AJ Noiter]

From Representative Dennis Baxley, 24th district, Florida House of Representatives

I thought it was the job of a judge to determine if words of a law, as written, fit for a specific scenario. This typically happens when they've heard the arguments for and against it also. For a representative, regardless of who they are affiliated with, to blindly state that it doesn't fit shows why we need better people in office all the way around. The writers of the law may have -meant- for it to be applied in situations X, Y and Z, but just because they didn't specifically think about situation Q does not mean it doesn't apply - they can't say, only a judge can. They should also realize that just because they wrote, sponsored, endorsed, pandered for, or lobbied for the law doesn't mean they get to dictate when it does or does not apply - especially when they've got a tv camera staring them in the face.

 

[mikeysmommom]

If the story in your post was true, then she had every right to pull the trigger. No one should be prosecuted for saving their own life. She's 65 and says he was choking her and they both went for the gun. So what if she pulled the trigger twice. The gun was a .22 that doesn't have much stopping action.

If her story is true,but what if she had helped this man because she had an interest in him that was not returned.They both were close in age so that could be a real possibility.Did she have injuries?Was her neck bruised,finger marks?Was she taken to a hospital or just put in jail?She shot him twice! Once should have been enough to at least stop him so she could call 911.A .22 might not have much stopping power but 2 shots sure does the job.JMO But how does ANYONE even a judge know if a person is telling the truth.

ETA http://florida.arrests.org/Arrests/Ernestine_Broxsie_4030532/

She does not look bruised or even upset in her mugshot taken that day.Her bond was only 50,000.00 and she shot him twice!

 

[dsntslp]

BBM

I think that's where this trips me up in this case. Both of them had a right to be where they were. If you add in a couple of guys possibly bumping chests, one of them has a gun, this really can't end well.

I think part of the law leaves too wide a path to error. Good thing I'm not a legislator in Florida who'll have to deal with this in the future.

This is exactly what happened in Port Saint Lucie, FL on the basketball courts at Sportsmans Park a few months back. Still no charges levied, last I knew.
He said - he said situation even with all of the basketball courts loaded. I will say I don't envy LE or investigators trying to sort that one out. Tons of witnesses. There are a lot more articles, some more recent but the more recent ones address security in future rather than the shooting. Google "Sportsmans Park Shooting".
http://m.tcpalm.com/news/2012/mar/20/port-st-lucie-police-recover-gun-thought-to-park/


I'm glad this thread was created. Thank you Desdemona and Mods.
I tried discussing the Port Saint Lucie case in context, as another fresh FL SYG case, in Trayvons thread and somebody screamed that they wished people would quit posting about other cases. I didn't do that again! LOL!

I'm interested in reading all of your posts here as I am not sure what I think about it yet. I see where I have my right to carry, protect myself and my home. I have carried for most of my life and have only had to pull and aim my weapon once. I would never, ever want to shoot somebody. My word, how hard that would be to live with? Taking a life? Uhm, yeah, I would have to be in fear for my life and not just injury. I would still try to find a way to diffuse the situation. But then, I also see where the criminal minds immediately made the jump to "I was in fear" as a Defense. I knew it would not take long. As soon as the law changed I knew it would be improperly asserted as a Defense by criminals intent on murder.

Me, I still don't feel I should have a duty to retreat, and possibly be run down or shot in the back, like the law here was before.

I don't know what the answer is...maybe more discretion to LE at the scene?
(Can't believe I just typed that.)

Maybe by reading your posts here I can make up my mind and get off the fence.

Now, I will go catch up. I wanted to post my thoughts before I read so I would not be swayed yet, ha!

 

[Concerned Papa]

I thought it was the job of a judge to determine if words of a law, as written, fit for a specific scenario. This typically happens when they've heard the arguments for and against it also. For a representative, regardless of who they are affiliated with, to blindly state that it doesn't fit shows why we need better people in office all the way around. The writers of the law may have -meant- for it to be applied in situations X, Y and Z, but just because they didn't specifically think about situation Q does not mean it doesn't apply - they can't say, only a judge can. They should also realize that just because they wrote, sponsored, endorsed, pandered for, or lobbied for the law doesn't mean they get to dictate when it does or does not apply - especially when they've got a tv camera staring them in the face.

The man has the same right of opinion as you or I. The article is an op/ed piece written on 3/21 and is clearly labeled as such under the "Opinion" tab of the site.

He tried to "dictate" NOTHING except the following which is ALSO in the article:

I would like to emphasize that the approach that is currently developing in this situation, to convene a grand jury, is the proper one in which to discern the facts of this case. I certainly agree with everyone that justice must be served.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012...er-not-covered-under-law-wrote/#ixzz1u4b6XnJj

 

[AJ Noiter]

The man has the same right of opinion as you or I. The article is an op/ed piece written on 3/21 and is clearly labeled as such under the "Opinion" tab of the site.

He tried to dictate NOTHING except the following which is ALSO in the article:

And the timing of his opinion plays no part in this? I find that hard to believe, given that the media was in a craze about the story at the time he gave the opinion. It's funny that when most politicians use the back door "I have no opinion" they're accused of just "playing politics," yet when they give their opinion at a crucial time it's not?

My point was made based on the number of people who mistakenly make the claim that his, and the law writers opinions, matter in determining whether or not a judge will find that this case does or does not fit the law's words. The fact is, his words are irrelevant to this case.

 

[rotterdam]

I thought it was the job of a judge to determine if words of a law, as written, fit for a specific scenario. This typically happens when they've heard the arguments for and against it also. For a representative, regardless of who they are affiliated with, to blindly state that it doesn't fit shows why we need better people in office all the way around. The writers of the law may have -meant- for it to be applied in situations X, Y and Z, but just because they didn't specifically think about situation Q does not mean it doesn't apply - they can't say, only a judge can. They should also realize that just because they wrote, sponsored, endorsed, pandered for, or lobbied for the law doesn't mean they get to dictate when it does or does not apply - especially when they've got a tv camera staring them in the face.

Rep Baxley is kind of in CYA mode.The SYG law is badly written IMO and very vague. And it does leave it up to the Judges as how to interpret the SYG. Judges will also go by past case history when interpreting this law.
Judges generally do not like to make controversial decisions that might be overturned at a higher appeal and use the fail safe approach by referring to past similar cases.
And there have been cases already where the killer was acquitted even though he was pursuing the victim. Whatever the outcome of the GZ case, other judges will take their cue from it when a similar case will come up again. And you are correct, they could care less what Rep Baxley spouts.
He has a degree in Funeral Services not Law:floorlaugh:

 

[AJ Noiter]

Rep Baxley is kind of in CYA mode.The SYG law is badly written IMO and very vague. And it does leave it up to the Judges as how to interpret the SYG. Judges will also go by past case history when interpreting this law.
Judges generally do not like to make controversial decisions that might be overturned at a higher appeal and use the fail safe approach by referring to past similar cases.
And there have been cases already where the killer was acquitted even though he was pursuing the victim. Whatever the outcome of the GZ case, other judges will take their cue from it when a similar case will come up again. And you are correct, they could care less what Rep Baxley spouts.
He has a degree in Funeral Services not Law:floorlaugh:

I still contend that his opinion was only sought because of the media coverage of this story. Why wasn't he asked of his opinion of the January killing where a man chased the perpetrator for a block before stabbing him*? It is not just his fault, I also blame the media. Where is the investigative journalism? Did anyone ask him "Do you have any facts to this case that the public hasn't seen?"

* - I have cited this case in another thread and will get the information from it if needed.