The new "Stand Your Ground" law in Florida is apparently just a correction to the self defense laws we have had all along. However, the gun control advocates are sure doing what they can to make it look like we’ve jumped back to the days of the old west and everyone is going to go around shooting everyone else.
Previously you had to attempt to retreat or refuse to engage in a confrontation to qualify for self defense and therefore not be held liable for shooting an attacker. Apparently defense lawyers had been using this to make arguments that the people who shot their clients did not try to retreat. If they could prove that then the attacker could sue the person who shot them even though they were the one who started the confrontation. It is not that uncommon to hear of similar lawsuits in the news.
This change in the law takes that argument away from the defense and also keeps it out of the hands of a jury or grand jury to decide. All any jury needs to be decided is whether or not the person attacked you and if you felt your life was in danger and not also the fact of whether or not you tried to retreat.
I feel this law was not explained thoroughly enough by the state. The law doesn't mean you HAVE to stand your ground. You still have the option, which I'm sure many level headed people will take, of retreating and not having to use deadly force if you feel your life is in danger. It also doesn’t mean you can shoot anyone you have an argument with. You can't use it because someone pushed you or yelled profanities at you like gun control advocates would like to make everyone think.
I was not in favor of this law until I read more about it. Now I feel it is one of the laws that seems to make more sense than many others out there.
Previously you had to attempt to retreat or refuse to engage in a confrontation to qualify for self defense and therefore not be held liable for shooting an attacker. Apparently defense lawyers had been using this to make arguments that the people who shot their clients did not try to retreat. If they could prove that then the attacker could sue the person who shot them even though they were the one who started the confrontation. It is not that uncommon to hear of similar lawsuits in the news.
This change in the law takes that argument away from the defense and also keeps it out of the hands of a jury or grand jury to decide. All any jury needs to be decided is whether or not the person attacked you and if you felt your life was in danger and not also the fact of whether or not you tried to retreat.
I feel this law was not explained thoroughly enough by the state. The law doesn't mean you HAVE to stand your ground. You still have the option, which I'm sure many level headed people will take, of retreating and not having to use deadly force if you feel your life is in danger. It also doesn’t mean you can shoot anyone you have an argument with. You can't use it because someone pushed you or yelled profanities at you like gun control advocates would like to make everyone think.
I was not in favor of this law until I read more about it. Now I feel it is one of the laws that seems to make more sense than many others out there.