Florida task force examines Stand Your Ground law

Status
Not open for further replies.
You must still put forth evidence establishing prima facie that all the elements required for justification were satisfied.
Click to expand...

Precisely.

We don't have a 'SYG' law per say in State of Ohio but there have been a few cases in which shootings have occurred which resulted in no arrests. I.E. Not to long ago, in Fairfield Co., Ohio, there was a fella lured to a remote area by a couple BG's on the premise of purchasing a piece of heavy equipment(bulldozer I think). The BG's attempted to rob him at gunpoint. He shot one(or both,don't recall). Shooter was thoroughly questioned by sheriff's dept. , no charges filed against him and he was never arrested. IMO,rightfully so.

Why was he never arrested and no charges filed?
According to Ohio law, all the elements required for a justified shooting were clearly satisfied.
 
My opinion is the law will stand and not be repealed. It the typical knee jerk reaction to a situation. From the laws inception as some would like one to believe FLA DID NOT turn into the wild, wild west as some stated it would.
The law was needed as this example shows, before the change in law if you were being car jacked with a weapon involved the state stated if you were a CCW permit holder you had the duty to retreat to avoid the use of deadly force. Everywhere else with the exception of your home the state said you have to retreat from the situation instead of standing your ground.
I truely believe that when the dust settles the law will stand.
As a side note and not meant to be political, the law makers asking and raising cane about the law are Democrats calling for the repeal of the law and the Republican law makers are asking to wait and see the outcome of the event in Sanford, FL.
 
Crazy88Fingers said:
Overreaction without a doubt. People expect the government to do something about everything.
Click to expand...
While we might think this is an overreaction, it is a predictable reaction. Our culture has long taken a very dim view of one person intentionally hurting or killing another.

While our laws recognize that under some circumstances it may be justified for one person to intentionally hurt or kill another person, such acts of violence have been, and continue to be, repugnant to most people. Most people will grudgingly accept the necessity to use violence in self defense, but generally only under the clearest and most compelling circumstances.
 
Most people will grudgingly accept the necessity to use violence in self defense, but generally only under the clearest and most compelling circumstances.
Click to expand...

....and grudgingly accepting or rejecting by people as to the necessity to use violence in self defense should be weighed after all the facts are gathered.

One would like to think that with diligent investigating and today's modern forensics , if a person is guilty of shooting a person and claims SD and it's not, the shooter gets put away. On the other hand, if facts prove it is SD, then no charges pressed.

A couple years ago, in the South end of Cols.,Ohio, we had a group of teenagers(anywhere from 10-15 teens) cruising the parks. They were ,as they put it, "playing a game they called 'knockout". They would randomly choose a victim and make bets before they approached the victim to see if a chosen teen could knock the victim out with one punch.
Most of the victims were middle aged to older males. I believe the oldest victim was in his mid 60's.

This went on about all summer before a group of teens was finally arrested. Prior to the teens hearings, the media showed up at the courthouse and interviewed some of the victims as well as the parents of some of the teens. One parent(term used loosely) actually said on camera that "she didn't feel her son was being treated fairly and that all the kids were doing was playing a game".

At any rate, the judge passed out strict sentences to the teens along with a very stern tongue lashing which entailed not only was it possible to injure or kill someone with one punch but the possibility of someone shooting them in SD.

Course, this same stupid mother that stated "the kids were just playing a game and her son was just being picked on and singled out", left the courtroom talking that same, all to familiar crap...

....Her son was specifically I.D.'ed as a hitter by a victim in the courtroom.
 
Last edited:
shortwave said:
...the necessity to use violence in self defense should be weighed after all the facts are gathered...
Click to expand...
"Should"? What does "should" have to do with anything? This is real life.
 
"Should"? What does "should" have to do with anything? This is real life.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately you are correct Frank Ettin.

This IS real life and unfortunately, in real life, some people don't need all the facts. Just the ones they hear and choose to believe. This has been proven time and time again right here on TFL with members claiming guilt or innocents of a person from what they've heard in the media. The media of all places.:rolleyes:

Getting all the facts before jumping to conclusions should be the way it works but your right, this is real life.
 
I think a lot of the questions about the Florida SYG law revolve around the provision that:

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
Click to expand...

IMHO, this is one of the most important provisions of the law. It protects someone with a reasonable claim of self-defense from the expenses of defending his or her actions in court. While this is in some respects a laudable attempt to protect the innocent, it seems to substitute the findings of investigating police and prosecutors for those of a jury.

In the Zimmerman-Martin incident, it appears there are substantial questions regarding the facts of the case which should be presented to a jury.
 
....it seems to substitute the findings of investigating police and prosecutors for those of a jury.
Click to expand...

Isn't this the case with the majority of criminal proceedings. Law enforcement first ascertains the probability that a crime has been committed.
Police see a man climbing out of a broken store window and arrest him on suspicion of burglary vs they see a man two blocks away from a store with a broken window and don't arrest him. First man goes before the jury and second one does not.
 
Gary L. Griffiths said:
I think a lot of the questions about the Florida SYG law revolve around the provision that:

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
Click to expand...
IMHO, this is one of the most important provisions of the law. It protects someone with a reasonable claim of self-defense from the expenses of defending his or her actions in court. While this is in some respects a laudable attempt to protect the innocent, it seems to substitute the findings of investigating police and prosecutors for those of a jury.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. Other than a brief detention, the police in general cannot arrest anyone without having sufficient probable cause to persuade a judge or magistrate to issue an arrest warrant. It appears that ALL the Florida law is trying to do is prevent the police from jumping the gun (pardon the expression) and arresting someone before they have established probable cause.

I don't see that as a bad thing ...

And juries don't establish probably cause (unless there's a grand jury involved). If a case gets to a trial before a jury, someone has long since determined that there was probable cause for an arrest and charges.
 
Last edited:
I don't think so. Other than a brief detention, the police in general cannot arrest anyone without having sufficient probably cause to persuade a judge or magistrate to issue an arrest warrant. It appears that ALL the Florida law is trying to do is prevent the police from jumping the gun (pardon the expression) and arresting someone before they have established probably cause.

I don't see that as a bad thing ...
Click to expand...

I don't see this as a bad thing either.

I think a point to remember is just cause LE doesn't find sufficient evidence for an arrest in the initial interview, DOES NOT mean the investigation is over and they won't find sufficient evidence for an arrest at a later date.
 
Once again folks:

Please hear me. We will not discuss the details of the Zimmerman matter.

Speculation on conspiracies to do X, Y or Z or secret governmental motives don't do us any good. Wait the till the DA decides before intuiting motive.

Had to delete one like that.

Glenn
 
I beleive that the big divide on this law and laws like it, is an ideological one.

There are people who beleive that individuals cannot be trusted, that they run amok. But the actions of groups - mitigated by a group decision making process, can be trusted and yield a better result.

It's about power being aggragated at the individual level or power being aggragated at the societal level.

The Florida legislation limits what a society can do to an individual by requiring probable cause before an arrest.

The people who don't like the idea of empowered individuals really hate that provision because it makes it very difficult for the masses to enforce their will upon those whom they disagrre with. It makes it difficult for them to punish a shooter they don't like.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top