Florida's "Stand Your Ground" Controversy

disclaimer: This has been sitting far too long as a draft. I'll add links and/or expand this post later, as I see fit.

Swimming Against the Tides of Madness

 

A brief discussion about Stand Your Ground

 

Florida's "Stand Your Ground" laws, which became in effect in 2005, have recently come under scrutiny because of the shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman. I assume you've heard of this.

According to recent surveys, it is generally asserted that this law is good policy. Here are the pertinent numbers:

38. Florida has a law that says a person is legally entitled to fight back with deadly force if they feel threatened, even if they could retreat instead. Do you support or oppose that law?

                     Tot    Rep    Dem    Ind    Men    Wom    Wht    Blk    Hsp
 
Support             56%    78%    32%    58%    65%    48%    61%    30%    53%
Oppose              35     15     59     35     31     39     31     56     36
DK/NA                 8      7      9      8      4     12      7     14     11
 
                     North/                             AREA...............
                     Panhd  Bay    Cntrl  SthW   SthE   Urban  Suburb Rural
 
Support              65%    59%    57%    57%    46%    50%    58%    67%
Oppose               30     33     34     32     44     39     37     26
DK/NA                 6      8      9     11     10     12      6      6

White and Hispanic generally support the laws more than Black; Men more than Women; and Panhandle/Rural more than Urban.

Recently, a man described by neighbors as the neighborhood nutjob shot and killed a door-to-door salesman because, he claims, he was "in fear" of the salesman. First, he shot the salesman in the shoulder as he approached. Then, after falling to the ground, he shot him once in the back of the head.

Can "Stand Your Ground" be used a defense here? What is the law?

First, a disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but I have heard lawyers talk about this issue. I am writing this up so that I have a single page where I can point others to my thoughts.

Why was "Stand Your Ground" Needed?

 

Prior to 2005, Florida had two primary protections for people who use "self-defense" as a legal defense. The first is called the "Castle Doctrine". Under the concept that a Man's Home is His Castle, you have the right to use deadly force at any time from within your home or vehicle. If someone arrives at your door with a hammer and screwdriver, you can shoot them right through the door as long as they have no legal right to enter.

The second protection is self-defense in a public place. Here, the victim is obligated one action: the duty to retreat, and this duty is limited to those times where it can be done safely. Does the assailant have a gun? You cannot outrun a bullet and so have the right to use deadly force. If you run away will they be able to grab you? If yes, then you have the right to use deadly force.

Do we think that these laws are too restrictive? That they penalize the victims of assault?

What does Stand Your Ground do then?

So what is it that "Stand Your Ground" actually does? In short, it removes the duty to retreat. It applies the Castle Doctrine to anywhere you can legally be. But it does more than that as well. Here is the pertinent part of the text:

[...] 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.

Here is the text in the actual statute, where it is split up among the many defensible uses of force.

So there are a couple new things in there ... we're not talking self-defense any more when someone can use deadly force to (a) "prevent ... bodily harm to ... another" or (b) "prevent the commission of a forcible felony".

Let's imagine that you're part of a membership organization that has some cross-town rivals. The Bloods and the Crips, say, or the Hatfields and the McCoys. Everyone's just hanging out polishing their guns when one of them suddenly goes off. Being in fear of their lives, everyone starts shooting in order to prevent bodily harm to someone else.

But wait - it was an accident you say. There was no imminent harm. The law doesn't care if there was a real threat or not - only that the person using deadly force "reasonably believes" there is. And this person doesn't need to feel personally threatened as long as they think they are preventing a forcible felony.

Congratulations, you've just legalized full-out gang warfare.

But wait, there's more!

So, wait a second ... what's a forcible felony?

776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

Aha - discharging a destructive device is a forcible felony. So if you reasonably believe that you need to kill someone in order to prevent them from shooting their gun (again), in our scenario, go right ahead. According to the Stand Your Ground law, you are:

immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force.

So the OK Corral it is!


But let's start with something simpler. "Aggravated assault" - that sounds dangerous, too. What is it?

An Aggravated Assault is (emphasis mine) an Assault (a) with a deadly weapon without intent to kill or (b) with intent to commit a felony. An Assault is "an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent."

Hmm.

Perhaps you may want to think twice about the next time you say something along the lines of "Come over here so I can beat you with this hammer." Especially if you actually have a hammer. It may just be the last thing you ever say.

Now why, exactly, is this necessary?

Random thought:

I've heard people say that Zimmerman can't use SYG as a defense because he initiated the confrontation. Well, here's what the law says (again, emphasis mine):

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:

(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

(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.

So, here's the scenario: I chase you down. I start a fight. You turn around to defend yourself and I indicate that I am withdrawing and wish to terminate my use of force. You accept and begin to walk away. I punch you again. This time when you turn around and I clearly state my intention to withdraw you decide you've had enough and take a swing at me. Bang, you're dead, and I'm free. Even better, my buddy defends me so we have witnesses with corroborating accounts.


What is most sad is the ignorance espoused online. David Gray claims SYG was established for very valid, necessary, and common sense reasons. I would like to actually hear what those reasons are. I think the reality is more like the Tampa Bay Tribune states: these laws are really being used by violent criminals. They are unnecessary and not good policy.

Speaking of the Tampa Bay Tribune, they have published an excellent exposé on Stand Your Ground and shown numerous examples of who this law is really protecting.

And here's the final report to the governor, which I have not read: http://floridastandyourground.org/