Number of "stand your ground" cases rises as legislators rethink law

[Starboard Tack]

The controversial law which police have cited in their decision not to charge the man who shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin has been invoked at least 130 times statewide since 2005.

A Tampa Bay Times survey, compiled from 31 Florida newspapers and public records, shows that the number of cases in which "stand your ground" has been invoked has climbed dramatically in the past year and a half. The analysis shows that police and prosecutors continue to apply the law unevenly.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/22/2708767/number-of-stand-your-ground-cases.html#storylink=cpy

[DrDan]

1. these legislators need to remove the hand of the NRA from their backsides and reverse these perverse

laws

[Hoyt]

2. But, but, if you read paragraph 22 or whatever of the SYG law, it doesn't apply.

Most like Zimmerman never get past "when I carry a gun . . . . . . I can stand my ground."

[mvccd1000]

3. Title is incorrect

And I know it's not yours; it's the title of the article in the paper. Nowhere in the article, however, did it say legislators are "reconsidering" the law.

Police chiefs and prosecutors have decried the law for years, but it wasn’t until the Martin shooting that notable Republicans, including the bill’s author, Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, have said the law may need to be reconsidered.

"As far as I’m concerned, that Neighborhood Watch guy was breaking that law as soon as he started following that kid. He was stalking him. That’s not standing your ground," said Rep. Richard "Rich" Glorioso, R-Plant City, who voted for the bill. "If the law is applied right, it’s a fine law. But we worried about how people would interpret it, and how it would be applied, when we were discussing it."

I bolded the part where the reporter claims the legislators want to reconsider the bill, then quoted the legislators comments below. Apparently my reading comprehension skills are not yet up to par with those of the reporter, because I don't see a word about reconsidering the bill.

Another nit I have to pick with the article is the conclusion the reporter is apparently trying to lead us to - that more people are "getting away with something."

The Times analysis shows that more than 70 percent of the 130 cases involved a fatality. In the majority of the cases, the person who plunged the knife or swung the bat or pulled the trigger did not face a trial.

In 50 of the cases, the person who used force was never charged with a crime. Another nine defendants were granted immunity by a judge and nine cases were dismissed.

In 10 cases, the defendant pleaded guilty to lesser crimes.

Of the 28 cases that made it to trial, 19 people were found guilty of a crime.

Twenty-two cases are still pending. (The outcomes of two could not be learned by press time.)

OK... so more people are claiming the protections of this law. The reporter gives no background whatsoever to tell us if these people are the local sandwich store owner closing up at midnight who shoots an attempted robber, or the teenage girl at home who uses a shotgun to defend herself, or simply some drug dealer blasting away at the competition. I have no problem with more people claiming the protection of this law if it's doing as it's intended to do - protecting crime victims who chose to defend themselves. Unfortunately, the article is slanted so far that any claims of fair reporting have slid right off the other side.