Surprising Stand Your Ground Law results

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

But if you go get a gun to continue an argument, that's fucking premeditation, not SYG.

Wendy P.

My sentiments, too.
And on top of that, IMO, the law is so poorly written that it is rife with loopholes that allow defense attorneys to apply it in many situations where it wasn't intended.


An aside: Wendy! Such language!

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Results of recent claims of Stand Your Ground in Florida
Certainly has made me think.....

We haven't heard back from you yet.

What are you thinking about?

Poll
a) bad law
b) good law
c) boobies.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[normiss 906]

Good law.
Poorly written.

[wmw999 2,602]

Quote

An aside: Wendy! Such language!

When I became a jumpmaster, the primary criticism was that my language was too likely to offend students

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Good law.
Poorly written.

As noted earlier, I concur.
You know, thinking about this, it's not so surprising after all that the law has been bastardized as it has been. Many, many laws have consequences that the lawmakers didn't intend. I think there is a good reason for that.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

LEO have had training, and are formally investigated, if they shoot someone. It's not a perfect system, but it's understood, and since there's some downtime for a cop who shoots someone, it's not something they look for.

The same happens with citizens, except that they usually get jailed and they don't get paid administrative leave. Take Zimmerman - how well is he doing in the aftermath? In and out of jail, unemployable, has credible death threats. That's hardly something anyone would look for. Cops have it much better than that, usually get the benefit of the doubt given the tough situations they can get placed into.

Quote

There are plenty of yahoos out there who are perfectly capable of manipulating the situation so that they end up in an SYG situation multiple times.

Such as? Again, Zimmerman isn't coming out too well here. Why on earth would he manipulate a situation to get into it again? I think you'll find a lot more cops with multiple shootings than citizens claiming SYG.

At Frontsight's 4 day (or 2 day) defensive handgun class, they spend a couple hours talking about the best case scenarios after a defensive shooting. It includes going to jail, spending 6 figures on your defense....the conclusion is that you better be sure you're willing to accept that cost and really believe that you or your family is in peril. I believe the CCW classes are no different in this regard. They are not encouraging people to go Charles Bronson on society.

Quote

But if you go get a gun to continue an argument, that's fucking premeditation, not SYG.

why? A cop walks up to a speeder he just pulled over with his stick out or his hand on the holster. Called being prepared. If I had to have a face to face meeting with someone I suspected might escalate a dispute into a violent attack, I'd bring a conceal weapon in spite of the CA laws prohibiting such. That's not a premeditated plan on my part to commit murder, it's my planning not to get killed.

The mere possession of a gun cannot be translated into preconceived intent to use it. Especially not for a CCW permit holder, but nor for any citizen with a reasonable concern for his own safety. (The last part is more my opinion, but with mixed case law to support it)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You know, thinking about this, it's not so surprising after all that the law has been bastardized as it has been. Many, many laws have consequences that the lawmakers didn't intend. I think there is a good reason for that.

Initiatives are especially vulnerable to this, but still true to a large degree for legislation as well. Simple bills are easier to sell. 3 strikes and you're out. Use a gun, go to prison (extra time for gun crimes). Commit any sex crime, be registered for life (even for teens sexting each other).

To write a well crafted proposal that covers the grey areas well...now you have a complicated bill and maybe there's a few compromise decisions between members of the subcommittee. More ammo for an opponent to make a scare out of it.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

You know, thinking about this, it's not so surprising after all that the law has been bastardized as it has been. Many, many laws have consequences that the lawmakers didn't intend. I think there is a good reason for that.

Quote

To write a well crafted proposal that covers the grey areas well...now you have a complicated bill and maybe there's a few compromise decisions between members of the subcommittee. More ammo for an opponent to make a scare out of it.

Yep, Exactly what I was thinking. It's tough enough to do in its own right never mind the behind-the-scenes shuffling AND the after-the-fact armchair quarterbacking....don't get me started on that, please.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

An aside: Wendy! Such language!

When I became a jumpmaster, the primary criticism was that my language was too likely to offend students

Wendy P.

I see NAVY in your background.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[kawisixer01 0]

I'm a CC permit holder that often carries, but admittedly not ALWAYS. I tend to have good manners and good etiquette as well (grandma beat it into me!). When I see slobs in action or people do inconsiderate things I often call them on it publicly. I believe that one of the reasons people continue rude behavior is because they have never been called on it or taught any better. It's something that seems to be getting worse and worse. I don't thin I'm some kind of tough guy, I just appreciate a little consideration for other people. Now I typically will point things out tactfully in a non-confrontational manner.
To the point. The other day there is these two local college kids in a restaurant making a big ass mess, being slobs, and then get up to leave. I was between them and the exit and just caught eyes with them and stated something to the effect of "are you going to clean up after yourselves or do you expect someone else to do it for you who isn't paid nearly enough to have to do it?" Now they both looked shocked and sheepishly went back and grabbed their crap, wiped up their spillage, and threw everything away.
Now that interaction could have went very differently. Those two could have pounced on me and beat me to oblivion as has been shown in previous bystander videos taken from Mcdonalds for daring to point out that they were clods. Since I "started a confrontation" am I now not entitled to protect myself with my concealed arm should these fellas have decided to pummel me? I didn't act a bit different than I would if I were not armed. But because I happened to be armed am I now guilty of some premeditated murder because I "started a conflict"?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Good law.
Poorly written.

As noted earlier, I concur.
You know, thinking about this, it's not so surprising after all that the law has been bastardized as it has been. Many, many All laws have unseen consequences that the lawmakers didn't intend. I think there is a good reason for that. I think that for the most part, they know exactly what those conseqences are

FIFY

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[RonD1120 62]

Your scenario is going to become one of many here in the Sunshine State. The SYG Law is going to be raked over the coals as a result of the GZ/TM incident.

I too have a CWFL issued in FL. Because of my age and the areas in which I travel, I carry more often than not.

My personal philosophy is to avoid conflict at all costs unless I witness domestic violence or child abuse. I used to be a professionally mandated reported and that training is difficult to set aside.

I have a mindset that states, take one step back. If the bad guy takes one step forward the Rule of 3's kicks in. That is the bad guy will be within 3 yards and I have 3 seconds to fire 3 rounds. I practice 2 center mass and 1 head shot.

If the tragedy has taken place I will now call 911. Two mandatory statements to make to the dispatcher are 1) send an ambulance, I had to shoot someone, 2) I have never been so scared in my life or, I was in fear of my life. These statements should be made in the beginning before the dispatcher can start asking questions.

The 911 calls are recorded and will be presented as evidence in court. Your defense must indicate concern for the victim and extreme fear.

To Andy9o8, davjohns and lawrocket: Please evaluate my philosophy.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[devildog 0]

Quote

Quote

the right of people to act on their own, rather than call the police

I'm not particularly for gun control, but I think that in deadly force situations, yeah, I want them extremely tightly circumscribed.

LEO have had training, and are formally investigated, if they shoot someone. It's not a perfect system, but it's understood, and since there's some downtime for a cop who shoots someone, it's not something they look for.

There are plenty of yahoos out there who are perfectly capable of manipulating the situation so that they end up in an SYG situation multiple times.

LEOs draw their gun more often than citizens with a CCW, and LEOs are more likely to make a bad shooting than someone with a CCW. If anything, the LEOs should have less guns and we should have more ;)

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

LEOs draw their gun more often than citizens with a CCW, and LEOs are more likely to make a bad shooting than someone with a CCW. If anything, the LEOs should have less guns and we should have more ;)

And besides that, they are too heavy to carry around.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

But because I happened to be armed am I now guilty of some premeditated murder because I "started a conflict"?

the specific example up above - I don't think it was Pops - was one where a guy started the fight with only words - so I'm assuming the answer (at least from some posters) is 'yes'.

I'm being wry here - his example was someone purposely aggravating another with the intent of a fight. But there you go - how do you really address intent.

For that matter, what if you come up to a known wife beater, who's wife is really a whore, and then call them on it with the "intent" to try to get these two into therapy........and then he attacks you. Apparently you need to sit back and take a beating.

Or,.....you see a pimp beating on his wife and yell - "Hey, stop beating your whore wife" - Apparently you need to sit back and take a beating if he interprets that poorly.




on review - apparently I mixed up "wife is a whore" with "kid raping" - the wry discussion can still progress, just replace the words above

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

When I see slobs in action or people do inconsiderate things I often call them on it publicly.....Now I typically will point things out tactfully in a non-confrontational manner.

Personally, I would strongly advise against that tact.
Continue, and I can almost assure you that sooner or later some bozo is going to take offense and put you into a situation where all your choices are bad ones.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

the specific example up above - I don't think it was Pops - was one where a guy started the fight with only words - so I'm assuming the answer (at least from some posters) is 'yes'.

I'm being wry here - his example was someone purposely aggravating another with the intent of a fight. But there you go - how do you really address intent.

For that matter, what if you come up to a known wife beater, who's wife is really a whore, and then call them on it with the "intent" to try to get these two into therapy........and then he attacks you. Apparently you need to sit back and take a beating.

Or,.....you see a pimp beating on his wife and yell - "Hey, stop beating your whore wife" - Apparently you need to sit back and take a beating if he interprets that poorly.




on review - apparently I mixed up "wife is a whore" with "kid raping" - the wry discussion can still progress, just replace the words above

Or, once the fight has escalated to violence the other guy can pull his gun, shoot you, and claim SYG.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

When I see slobs in action or people do inconsiderate things I often call them on it publicly.....Now I typically will point things out tactfully in a non-confrontational manner.

Personally, I would strongly advise against that tact.
Continue, and I can almost assure you that sooner or later some bozo is going to take offense and put you into a situation where all your choices are bad ones.

silence = consent.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Or, once the fight has escalated to violence the other guy can pull his gun, shoot you, and claim SYG.

good point - in a polite and armed society, it's a lot less likely that someone will try to aggravate an assault if they think there's a possibility the other guy is just as well armed. I'd suspect that anyone that does carry might just always have that thought in their heads more than someone that doesn't


caviat - this barring the old westerns where the kid does that just to try and boost his reputation as a quick draw expert - then all bets are off. The short answer to that situation is not to play poker with a smart aleck farmhand with twitchy hands and a squint

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[livendive 8]

I think the key is escalation of threat. If you threaten someone (by word or action) without them first having threatened you, SYG should not be an option. If you tell kids to clean up their mess, and they come after you, SYG is available. If you push them back and threaten to kick their butts if they don't clean up their mess, SYG should not be an optional defense. Yes, obviously this would be difficult to enforce, but I think it does get at the heart of the matter. A question of provocation would be even worse, but could be implemented, i.e. if you were deliberately provoking someone, with full knowledge that they might react physically, SYG could come off the table. I dunno how to fairly include such qualifiers, but a complete lack of them makes for an unjust law.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

silence = consent.

Nope. Not the point.

Point is that you may want to be selective in choosing your battles. You may not like the response you get.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I can think of many circumstances where this would be perfectly appropriate.

Punks harassing a woman at the bus stop.
People defacing/grafitizing a park.

Harassing the woman... Yes, you should say something.
Graffiti? No, walk away and call the police.

The law was never intended to make citizens the police. It was intended to not allow an overzealous DA to ruin a guys life because he defended his life when attacked.

It was never intended to allow a criminal with an illegal gun to use the law. This might be the only problem with the law.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

LEO have had training, and are formally investigated, if they shoot someone.

Many civilians have more training than the police. And EVERY civilian shooting is investigated. Even the SYG cases are investigated, just not by GJ.

Quote

There are plenty of yahoos out there who are perfectly capable of manipulating the situation so that they end up in an SYG situation multiple times.

It'll happen. And it most likely won't be unlucky people.

Do you have an example of a single person using SYG more than once? The law has been in place for quite a few years now.

Quote

But if you go get a gun to continue an argument, that's fucking premeditation, not SYG.

And that is NOT covered by SYG. In fact a woman just got 20 years in FL for leaving, getting a gun and then going back into the house to get her keys. The 20 years is WAY to much, but it shows WHY SYG was needed. See FL has a 10-20-life law. If found guilty of just having a gun during a crime then you get 10 years. Shoot it and you get 20. Shoot someone and you get life. This lady gave a warning shot to prevent her BF from attacking her.... And that was found to be illegal and now she is facing 20 years in prison.

The SYG law was put in place to protect people that lawfully use a weapon in SD. The problem is that "duty to retreat" is just not that simple. In the report listed it seems like a large portion of cases were "unsure" if the person could have retreated.

It seems you are not alone in not totally understanding the SYG law.