The Trayvon Martin tragedy is shining a national spotlight on "stand your ground" laws in at least 2

[Julian Englis]

The laws — in places like Texas, Idaho, and Alaska — allow every day citizens to use deadly force against someone else if they fear for their life. They also say people do not have to retreat if threatened or attacked.

George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman in Sanford, Fla., fatally shot Martin as the 17-year-old was walking to his father's home from a 7-Eleven. Zimmerman told police he was attacked by Trayvon and acted in self-defense. He has not been arrested or charged. Civil rights groups are calling for Zimmerman's arrest, saying Martin was targeted because he was black. Zimmerman's father says he is Hispanic.

Police have said officers were prohibited from arresting Zimmerman because he claimed to have used "justifiable" force.

More at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-03-21/stand-your-ground-law-trayvon-martin-florida/53690608/1?csp=34news

[TheWraith]

1. Almost every state has these laws. They don't mean what people claim.

"Feeling threatened" is not legal justification for use of any amount of force, in any state. Period.

[Hoyt]

7. Except a lot of folks walking around with guns don't understand these laws.

"stand your ground" is all they hear and care about. Most folks carrying guns aren't attorneys.

[Lizzie Poppet]

10. I agree.

This is a weak link in the system of "stand your ground" laws and "must issue" concealed carry permit regulations. In many states, the level of education of when it is and is not permissible under state law to use deadly force is not adequate (IMO). You don't need to me a lawyer to understand the legal situation (that is, the laws' requirements are easily rendered in plain language), but there does have to be a strong emphasis on imparting this knowledge.

In my home state (Oregon), the CCW permit instruction course I took was very clear on this point...it was one of the most emphasized portions of the curriculum, in fact. But in some places, the matter is apparently given a very cursory treatment. Not good.

I think there should also be mandatory "refresher" courses on this subject, or at least materials giving a reminder of one's legal requirements when the permit comes up for renewal.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. Most states have required training for CCW or some cases even ownership

And requirements for defensive use of deadly force are always covered.

[Hoyt]

17. Except NRA and others are pushing for NO training requirements -- and a bunch of carriers don't even

want to be required to get a permit. There's a big push for that by NRA, similar groups, and (of course) gun manufacturers, gun shops, etc.

Do you have any links to video training of the SYG law? Only videos made before this shooting, because I'm sure most trainers have, or have been told, to scrub their SYG law speil. I mean, the commonly used reference -- WITH A GUN YOU CAN STAND YOUR GROUND -- pretty much sums up how most of the Zimmermans in the USA interpret the law.

And, every gun carrier who shoots an innocent person will claim that as part of their defense. That is wrong.

[teddy51]

2. "if they fear for their life" That leaves a major hole in interpretation to be sure. Who decides

about when you should fear for your life? You? And how do you make that determination? Stupid f***ing laws to say the least.

[slackmaster]

4. The fear has to be reasonable. California law explicitly states that a "bare fear" isn't enough.

From our Penal Code, underlining added for emphasis:

197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.

198. A bare fear of the commission of any of the offenses mentioned
in subdivisions 2 and 3 of Section 197, to prevent which homicide
may be lawfully committed, is not sufficient to justify it. But the
circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable
person, and the party killing must have acted under the influence of
such fears alone.

198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.

199. The homicide appearing to be justifiable or excusable, the
person indicted must, upon his trial, be fully acquitted and
discharged.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199

ETA also notice that there is no mention of any duty to retreat when you are attacked. In California there has never been one. I submit that California's implementation of Stand Your Ground is a reasonable middle ground between not having any legal protection when you defend yourself, and having so much protection that it can be exploited by bad actors.

[teddy51]

5. I'm happy that you explained this. Once someone is dead, they are dead and we can't simply

bring them back as might be somehow explained to the authorities in Sanford, FL. So many people suffer when a life ends, and in this case nothing is different.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. reasonable person standard is the norm in all 50 states IIRC

It has served us pretty well so far.

[msongs]

3. no witnesses around? blast away then lie thru your teeth. get off, no probs nt

[Rhiannon12866]

12. However, in this case, witnesses are coming forward...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. There is this newfangled scientific thing called forensics

You might have seen something about it on TV. Hard to fake too.

[spin]

6. When I read the actual law, I fail to see how Zimmerman could use it to cover his actions ...

The 2011 Florida Statutes]


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:

***snip***

(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. emphasis added
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

Perhaps the law could be better written and there is a good chance that it will be revised.

However, Zimmerman initiated the incident after he was instructed by a dispatcher to not follow Martin. The details of exactly what happened are not yet available but it's hard to claim self defense when you start the altercation. In all fairness, Martin would have had far more reason to fear for his life than Zimmerman. He was innocently walking down the street and found himself followed and accosted by some strange individual who was not a police officer.

If Martin had been legally armed and shot Zimmerman, it's my opinion that Martin would have a legitimate claim of self defense under the "Stand Your Ground" law especially if Zimmerman drew his weapon in order to gain leverage in the conformation (which is illegal in Florida).

I fault the police department in this incident. With the knowledge that I have learned from the news, I can see no reason why Zimmerman wasn't arrested.

[X_Digger]

8. The better listing is here..

http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/776.012.html

http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/776.031.html

http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/776.041.html

The statute you quoted (776.013) is 'castle doctrine', not 'stand your ground'.

[Hoyt]

18. How many people who routinely carry guns really care about studying it to that degree?

Not many. Maybe some will learn something from this shooting. Others, will just buy another gun.

[X_Digger]

19. Most that I know do. n/t

[Hoyt]

21. Most I've known stopped at "stand your ground."

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. Those who carry legally care a great deal about the law

Those who do it illegally, don't care in the slightest

[Hoyt]

22. Zimmerman is a good example.

[X_Digger]

9. The 'reasonably believes ... necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm' part..

.. is not new.

It's at the heart of all self-defense law, in one verbiage or another.

That fact seems to have been missed in a lot of reporting of this issue. I'm not sure if most reporters are unaware of this, or what.

[Hoyt]

23. That might be true. But somebody carrying a gun won't have time to

Run through all that in unlikely event a situation occurs.

[X_Digger]

24. It's not a difficult exercise..

Would a reasonable person believe that death or serious bodily injury was imminent? Do you have a legal right to be where you are? Are you in the process of committing a crime? Are you the aggressor?

Four questions. That covers the majority of states self-defense statutes.

[Hoyt]

25. Run through that in 1 second or less.

[X_Digger]

26. Done. Next?

Of course, this didn't happen in one second, so your directive is specious.

[Hoyt]

27. I bet Zimmerman would like to have time to study it.

[X_Digger]

29. Apparently he had plenty of time. That's why he's like to go down for murder 2 or manslaughter. n/t

[Hoyt]

30. Premeditated Murder is more like it.

When he strapped his gun on that day was just the start. I know, unlikely in Florida trials, but still premeditated.

[CakeGrrl]

11. "Zimmerman's father says he is Hispanic."

So that makes him a Hispanic stalker/racist/murderer. So what, dad? He still needs to go up the river. At the very least.

[frylock]

13. zimmerman's white daddy sez he's hispanic..

and, yeah, i don't give a shit how this murderous asshole self-identifies.

[Hoyt]

28. LOL big time.