WOW!! SYG is so broad and horribe!!!

[uponit7771]

776.041?Use of force by THE AGGRESSOR (SO YES, IF YOU START THE FIGHT YOU CAN END IT!!!!!)

—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1)?Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2)?Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a)?Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b)?In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.


Police to shooter - Did you feel your life was in danger
Shooter to police - Yes

Police to shooter - have a nice day


Who in the hell wrote this law?!?!?!?


Who in the hell let it pass?!?!?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

1. This is one of ALEC's "model laws"

I believe?


BTW I just thought of something. Republicans hate federal laws b/c they believe that states should have the freedom to enact their own solutions to things but then ALEC- which is inextricably tied to Republican legislators- tries to blanket the country with their so-called "Model Laws" so that as many of the states as possible are passing their horrible pro-business anti-99% laws, not to mention dangerous laws like this. I don't know if it was ALEC-related or not but Indiana recently passed and got signed into law the right of homeowners to fight back against police if they feel the police are acting unlawfully.

What a sad, sick world we are creating for ourselves.......

[dixiegrrrrl]

26. "the right of homeowners to fight back against police "....????

oh my...that WILL NOT end well, at all.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

38. It was a response to a court decision

that prevented people from lawfully resisting law enforcement entering your home. I'm still having a hard time understanding how it is supposed to work and how average people are going to decide whether or not they are lawfully resisting police trying to gain entry to the home. This may become a big problem with so-called "sovereign citizens".

[X_Digger]

39. Wasn't that about the no-knock drug warrant where the cops got the wrong address? n/t

[Proud Liberal Dem]

40. Might have been

I'll have to re-check that.

[TheWraith]

2. No, it isn't. You might want to reread what you posted.

You might also want to try and understand the definitions of the terms involved. "Reasonably believes" doesn't mean "if you just say you think so." You have to have a belief that any other reasonable person would come to in the same situation, for instance if someone is coming at you with a knife. And in that situation, someone who started the incident still cannot legally defend themselves until "he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force".

[uponit7771]

6. Reasonably believes isn't falsifiable

[cthulu2016]

13. You are misunderstanding

Reasonability is NOT a state of mind standard. The reasonability of an action is an objective determination made by a jury.

It does not rely on the shooter's state of mind, real or as represented. It compares the shooter's actions to those of the legal hypothetical "reasonable man."

"Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger"

If a reasonable man would have perceived not imminent threat from a teenager armed with skittle walking the other way then it doesn't matter what Zimmerman believed or claims he believed. Would a reasonable man have believed it?


He could mount an insanity or competence defense based on what was going on in his head, like if he thought Martin was the devil or something, but that would not have anything to do with the statute you quote.

[uponit7771]

17. K, objective determination made by a jury....on who's facts in the case? Because another person is..

..dead ZMan gets to make up his own facts and gets to say his head was being bashed etc.

My understanding is BEFORE SYG people had an OBLIGATION to flee no matter what the reasonable belief of imminent danger was.

It's that obligation that SYG negates that makes the law so horrible

[cthulu2016]

23. The prosecutor and defense would both

offer evidence that suggest what would or would not be "reasonable." Then the jury has to decide.

There is no evidence that proves or disproves reasonability because the standard takes in the totality of the circumstances.

A guy might say, "I was paranoid because I was on Meth and I thought the guy was going to kill me," and he way well have thought just that. But the jury says, "The reasonable man is not on Meth and would not have thought that."

Or a guy might say, honestly, "I thought dropping lit sticks of dynamite off a building wouldn't hurt anyone," but a reasonable person doesn't think that.

(In practice, most jurors use themselves as the stand-in for the reasonable man, not surprisingly.)

Regarding the obligation to flee (retreat)... I am not a fan of SYG. It is certain to lead to situations exactly like the Zimmerman case.

[uponit7771]

24. Got you, it sound like "reasonable" still has to be proven buy the jury but it makes the burden

of proof higher for the prosecution because the other person might be dead.

Why would they make a law like this...

Sounds like duty to flee was pretty good...

sigh

[COLGATE4]

42. DING! DING! DING! We have a winner! nt

[CanonRay]

3. Who the hell signed it into law?

[lunatica]

11. Jeb Bush

[dkf]

4. Geez are you finally seeing the dilemma of the prosecutor in the Martin case?

Yeah you can arrest Zimmerman on probable cause but then you have 175 days to gather evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not defending himself.

People who are calling for an arrest now do not understand how the law works because arresting him now puts burdens on gathering evidence that they might not be able to meet in a limited time.

[uponit7771]

9. I do now, the law is horrible

[csziggy]

16. One "expert" on Politics Nations said that Zimmerman was arrested the night

Of the killing so that 175 days began on February 26. I don't remember who it was was, though and it's been maybe two weeks since I saw that.

[MoonRiver]

18. I think they could easily prove he was not defending himself.

Trayvon was unarmed, unless you count ice tea and Skittles lethal weapons.
Trayvon tried to walk away from Zimmerman (proven by his cell phone calls to witnesses).
Trayvon was screaming for his life (voice analysis highly indicative of the voice heard NOT being Zimmerman's).
Zimmerman disregarded police instructions to stop following Trayvon. He followed him and shot him dead.
There are no visible wounds on Zimmerman indicating he was in a life and death fight.

There are many other reasons. This was a racially targeted killing, proven by Zimmerman's racial epitaph on phone recordings and previous statements about black youth terrorizing the neighborhood. It was covered-up by the Sanford police and FL D.A.

[dkf]

43. All your "evidence" is unofficial or leaked or often not based on the original source material.

This is exactly how the jury will have been tainted by all the media coverage.

What a mess.

[MoonRiver]

44. Have you listened to the tapes? Have you looked at Zimmerman minutes after he killed Trayvon?

Have you heard the experts stating that it was not Zimmerman's voice crying for mercy? Do you understand that Zimmerman refused to go to the hospital in an ambulance right after he killed Trayvon?

This wouldn't be a mess if the police had done their duty and arrested Zimmerman for probable cause.

[dkf]

45. I listened to the tapes.

I don't know what Zimmerman said under his breath...coon, goon, cold, punk...

I have no idea who is screaming for help.

I don't know who punched who or who was on top of who.

I don't know if there is a gash on Zimmerman's head or not.

I do know it was a tragedy and that Trayvon did not deserve what happened to him.

But acknowledging that may not be relevant because of the laws that Florida has passed.

[LynneSin]

5. "stand your ground" is nothing more than legalized human hunting

nuff said!

[lunatica]

7. Jeb Bush signed it

[X_Digger]

27. No, this law was passed in 1974, then amended in 1997.

Reubin Askew (D) signed this section of law (which is not 'stand your ground'.)

[uponit7771]

30. Are you saying 'mutual combat' negated obligation to flee?!? TIA

[X_Digger]

32. The classic example of this is two guys in a bar..

One taps the other on the shoulder and says, "My pecker's bigger'n yours, wanna fight about it?" They go outside to engage in 'fisticuffs' and the first guy starts to get his ass kicked. He throws his hands up and says, "Fine, yours is bigger'n mine! I give up!"

The second guy continues to pound on the purported-pecker-fight-picker, making him (or a reasonable person in that situation) think that he's going to be killed or grievously wounded. After having tried to get away and being unable to do so, and having clearly communicated his intent to disengage, he would be justified in using deadly force in response.

[uponit7771]

34. ...don't understand this response in relation to the question. Was asking if Duty to Flee was change

....changed by SYG.

Thx in advance for any input

[X_Digger]

35. If you are the aggressor, you *still* have a duty to flee. n/t

[uponit7771]

36. unnn, The "duty to flee" has been superseded by "reasonable belief of imminent danger"

...where before it wouldn't matter if you were in "reasonable belief of imminent danger"...you still had to flee.

[X_Digger]

37. "and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger"

Basically, 776.041 says that you don't get to use any of the previously listed defenses if:

1) you are committing a felony or

2) you are the aggressor unless:

-- you are in imminent danger of harm and you tried to flee

-- or you clearly communicated your intent to disengage, and your opponent doesn't.

eta: added the "and" in the title

[cthulu2016]

8. The word "reasonably" has great and established meaning in law.

It's not a throw-away term.

The law does not say what you think it says.

[uponit7771]

10. Reasonably believes isn't falsifiable though esepcially when one can just make up the reason

[cthulu2016]

15. see post #13

[uponit7771]

20. I'll still go with "reasonable belief" isn't falsifible if the other person is dead. My understand..

...of the law before SYG outside of the home was that the person had the OBLIGATION to flee even if they reasonably believed their life was in danger if they could.

My understanding is SYG negated that obligation to flee and put the onus on the court to prove that the person was under imminent danger to negate immunity vs able to flee...

The law is still horrible

[X_Digger]

12. This is the 'mutual combat' statute.. not SYG

It pre-dates 'Stand Your Ground'.

s. 1190, ch. 97-102

It was updated in 1997, years before 'stand your ground'.

http://laws.flrules.org/node?field_list_year_nid=5212

[uponit7771]

14. SYG on wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law#Florida

[X_Digger]

22. Did you miss the part about 1997?

The quoted section, 776.041 -- was amended in 1997.

You want to know what was amended in 1997?

[div class='excerpt']
Section 1190. Subsection (2) of section 776.041, Florida Statutes, is
amended to read:
...
against himself or herself,
...
Such force is so great that the person he reasonably
...
assailant that he or she desires


That's right.. the only changes in 1997 were to make it non-gender specific.

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

Go to the bottom of that page and look at the notation at the bottom.

[div class='excerpt']History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

It was originally passed by the Florida senate in bill S.13, in 1974.

The wiki page quotes it because it is an exception to all self-defense claims- including 'stand your ground'.

[uponit7771]

29. Regardless of when it was inacted and what it's called now it's a horrible law that was passed

[X_Digger]

31. *headdesk*

Damned near every state has a similar statute, and they have for a looooong time.

You don't get to claim self-defense if you are the aggressor unless you clearly try to disengage first.

This isn't new, it's not ALEC-sponsored, it's not (R) funded stuff.

I'm really pleased to see more folks reading and understanding the laws on self-defense- something that a lot of commentators and newscasters have been not doing recently. But because it's all new to you doesn't mean it's all the same.

[uponit7771]

33. SYG changed duty to flee, bottom line... regardless of WHEN mutual combat was put in place

[Solomon]

19. Obviously, "reasonableness" depends on who's white

and who's black.

[JDPriestly]

21. At English common law, the law that our law is based upon,

self-defense is rather strictly defined. In sum, traditionally, in our culture, we value human life too much to easily accept self-defense as the justification for killing.

A very famous case establishing the outer parameter of self-defense is Regina v. Dudley and Stevens (1884). It is summarized below.

A man who, in order to escape death from hunger, kills another for the purpose of eating his flesh, is guilty of murder; although at the time of the act he is in such circumstances that he believes and has reasonable ground for believing that it affords the only chance of preserving his life.

At the trial of an indictment for murder it appeared, upon a special verdict, that the prisoners D. and S., seamen, and the deceased, a boy between seventeen and eighteen, were cast away in a storm on the high seas, and compelled to put into an open boat; that the boat was drifting on the ocean, and was probably more than 1000 miles from land; that on the eighteenth day, when they had been seven days without food and five without water, D. proposed to S. that lots should be cast who should be put to death to save the rest, and that they afterwards thought it would be better to kill the boy that their lives should be saved; that on the twentieth day D., with the assent of S., killed the boy, and both D. and S. fed on his flesh for four days; that at the time of the act there was no sail in sight nor any reasonable prospect of relief; that under these circumstances there appeared to the prisoners every probability that unless they then or very soon fed upon the boy, or one of themselves, they would die of starvation:

. . . .

It is not suggested that in this particular case the deeds were devilish, but it is quite plain that such a principle once admitted might be made the legal cloak for unbridled passion and atrocious crime. There is no safe path for judges to tread but to ascertain the law to the best of their ability and to declare it according to their judgment; and if in any case the law appears to be too severe on individuals, to leave it to the Sovereign to exercise that prerogative of mercy which the Constitution has intrusted to the hands fittest to dispense it.

It must not be supposed that in refusing to admit temptation to be an excuse for crime it is forgotten how terrible the temptation was; how awful the suffering; how hard in such trials to keep the judgment straight and the conduct pure. We are often compelled to set up standards we cannot reach ourselves, and to lay down rules which we could not ourselves satisfy. But a man has no right to declare temptation to be an excuse, though he might himself have yielded to it, nor allow compassion for the criminal to change or weaken in any manner the legal definition of the crime. It is therefore our duty to declare that the prisoners’ act in this case was wilful murder, that the facts as stated in the verdict are no legal justification of the homicide; and to say that in our unanimous opinion the prisoners are upon this special verdict guilty, of murder. [n. 1]

Much more at

http://www.justiceharvard.org/resources/the-queen-vs-dudley-and-stephens-1884-the-lifeboat-case/

[X_Digger]

25. Who was governor in 1974? Reubin Askew (D)

Cause that's when this section of law was originally passed.

It was amended in 1997, to make it gender-neutral.

[div class='excerpt']History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

http://laws.flrules.org/1997/102 -- that's the act of the leg to modify it, in 1997, I can't find a reference online to the senate passage in 1974.

[Turbineguy]

28. I drive in Florida

and fear for my life because people drive so badly there . Is it OK if I just shoot the other drivers?

[AndyTiedye]

41. Here is the Original DU Thread on the Law When it Passed in 2005

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3434217

[dkf]

47. Wow they called it.

This situation was foretold. Florida chose to do this.

It didn't necessarily change the outcome unless Zimmerman had internalized what this bill means. But it makes prosecuting him a lot more difficult.

[fascisthunter]

46. it's a pro-psychopath law