Poll: Do you agree with the Stand Your Ground Laws
Yes. They are good self-defense laws
No. They are unnecessary and often abused and misused
Unsure. (Comment)
[Show Results]
 
Stand your ground laws
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-07-2013, 03:45 PM
RE: Stand your ground laws
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/inde...6.013.html
Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
View Entire Chapter
776.013Home 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 person’s 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
©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.
(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.
(4)A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5)As used in this section, the term:
(a)“Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b)“Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
©“Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2013, 03:50 PM
RE: Stand your ground laws
That is the actual statute and it is rather vague in the wording of the extension. If I were writing the law the words "Clear and Present Danger" would have to be included in the extension of the castle law to any public area (ie not your residence or vehicle) the problem is with the "Believe" portion in the wording too much wiggle room imo.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2013, 03:54 PM
RE: Stand your ground laws
(23-07-2013 03:36 PM)Jakel Wrote:  
(23-07-2013 03:20 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your comment is illogical in the context.

Sure. But the comment is just so fustrating and stupid in my opinion. The attitude presented in that example is the exact sterotypical image of americans I have. All I see in "Alan" is a trigger happy idiot waiting for an excuse to pull out hes weapon and use it. Self-defense is self-defense and SYG (at least in that case) is just looking for excuses to kill someone.

Then effectively you are admitting that you are applying your own bias to the situation.

SYG is about your legal rights in a particular situation (in your house, in your business, on your property, in public, etc.) The laws vary state to state but the underlying concept is basically the same universally - you are not required to leave a place where you are legally entitled to be.

Alan was walking down the street, wasn't looking for a confrontation, he was simply a guy walking down the street. It isn't relevant whether he was armed with a dry wit or a shotgun it was still Joe who created a situation. You have no foundation for applying intent to Alan.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2013, 04:00 PM
RE: Stand your ground laws
(23-07-2013 03:54 PM)joshChase Wrote:  
(23-07-2013 03:36 PM)Jakel Wrote:  Sure. But the comment is just so fustrating and stupid in my opinion. The attitude presented in that example is the exact sterotypical image of americans I have. All I see in "Alan" is a trigger happy idiot waiting for an excuse to pull out hes weapon and use it. Self-defense is self-defense and SYG (at least in that case) is just looking for excuses to kill someone.

Then effectively you are admitting that you are applying your own bias to the situation.

SYG is about your legal rights in a particular situation (in your house, in your business, on your property, in public, etc.) The laws vary state to state but the underlying concept is basically the same universally - you are not required to leave a place where you are legally entitled to be.

So what? Why not just leave anyway if ya' can? It's a great way of preventing violence!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2013, 04:00 PM
RE: Stand your ground laws
(23-07-2013 03:45 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/inde...6.013.html
[SNIPPED]

Thanks for the text. I don't see it being vague at all, as (3) speaks directly to the situation I outlined.

(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.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2013, 04:04 PM
RE: Stand your ground laws
(23-07-2013 04:00 PM)Julius Wrote:  So what? Why not just leave anyway if ya' can? It's a great way of preventing violence!

If you look in the earlier posts you will see that we modified the example to include Alan's physical incapability of retreating. Also previously stated was the notion that if you can escape that is always an option but that the law should not require it because you are breaking no laws. Threatening violence may break laws (IANAL) in which case the person making the threat(s) is already in the wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2013, 04:04 PM
RE: Stand your ground laws
(23-07-2013 04:00 PM)joshChase Wrote:  
(23-07-2013 03:45 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/inde...6.013.html
[SNIPPED]

Thanks for the text. I don't see it being vague at all, as (3) speaks directly to the situation I outlined.

(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.

Seems quite clear to me.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2013, 04:06 PM
RE: Stand your ground laws
(23-07-2013 03:42 PM)Julius Wrote:  
(23-07-2013 03:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  You are assuming facts not in evidence.

Again, it depends on the intent and wording of the statute. joshCase has made a logical case for the ethical basis of a stand your ground law.

The law should assign liability and responsibility. It is immoral to require a victim to retreat. Of course, one tries to defuse the situation, but that is not always possible.

In that sidewalk scenario, I would be physically unable to run away. What is my duty? What is my moral responsibility?

I have the right to be there and I have the right to defend my right.

So what about morals? We're talking about the potential for someone to get hurt or maimed. And...if you are worried about so-called "Tough Guys" like Joe going around and abusing people - then don't.

I mean, two of the worst ass-whoopings I've ever seen (I'm talking about baseball-bat beat down in-the-hospital whoopings) were administered by guys who did not "stand their ground". Instead of "Standing their Ground" these guys went off to get weapons and friends and waited to catch the bullies alone where no one could witness or interrupt their form of "payback". This is what eventually happens to all "tough guys" - and it comes sooner than later.

Such is life - and it's a reason why it's crazy to make a stand on the street.

Once again, you are flying off in some uncalled for direction. What you describe does not fall under the statute.

What "tough guys"? The only tough guy in the described scenario is the aggressor.

Get a grip.Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2013, 04:08 PM
RE: Stand your ground laws
(23-07-2013 03:50 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  That is the actual statute and it is rather vague in the wording of the extension. If I were writing the law the words "Clear and Present Danger" would have to be included in the extension of the castle law to any public area (ie not your residence or vehicle) the problem is with the "Believe" portion in the wording too much wiggle room imo.

The "Castle Law" applies only to home or vehicle.

In public, you have the right to meet force with force. How is this unclear?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2013, 04:12 PM
RE: Stand your ground laws
(23-07-2013 04:00 PM)joshChase Wrote:  
(23-07-2013 03:45 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/inde...6.013.html
[SNIPPED]

Thanks for the text. I don't see it being vague at all, as (3) speaks directly to the situation I outlined.

(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.

In practice it is too vague. Honestly I agree with the intent of this legislation (ie not making a victim a criminal) the problem is it can be used as a justification for vigilantism.

To illustrate I shall use your example. Joe makes a verbal "threat" (it is implied) by saying "You better get out of here" now does Alan have a reasonable belief that he is in imminent danger? Has Joe crossed the line from being a jerk into criminal intent to harm? Under the wording of the law as it stands it is murky and needs to be better established.

Under my wording "Clear and present danger" then until Joe has pulled a knife Alan does not have the right to escalate the situation however he has no requirement to retreat. It is then dependant on Joe's further action as to how this resolves. If we are in the real world Joe probably puffs himself up and sneers then moves on with another vaguely worded implied threat and nothing much comes of it (99.9% of the time) if we are dealing with that remaining .01% of the time and Joe brandishes a weapon Alan is in the clear to defend himself.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: