Florida 'stand your ground' law yields some shocking outcomes depending on how law is applied

[DonCoquixote]

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1233133.ece

From the article:
"• Those who invoke "stand your ground" to avoid prosecution have been extremely successful. Nearly 70 percent have gone free.

• Defendants claiming "stand your ground" are more likely to prevail if the victim is black. Seventy-three percent of those who killed a black person faced no penalty compared to 59 percent of those who killed a white.

• The number of cases is increasing, largely because defense attorneys are using "stand your ground" in ways state legislators never envisioned. The defense has been invoked in dozens of cases with minor or no injuries. It has also been used by a self-described "vampire" in Pinellas County, a Miami man arrested with a single marijuana cigarette, a Fort Myers homeowner who shot a bear and a West Palm Beach jogger who beat a Jack Russell terrier.

• People often go free under "stand your ground" in cases that seem to make a mockery of what lawmakers intended. One man killed two unarmed people and walked out of jail. Another shot a man as he lay on the ground. Others went free after shooting their victims in the back. In nearly a third of the cases the Times analyzed, defendants initiated the fight, shot an unarmed person or pursued their victim — and still went free. "

This is well worth reading folks. The teabaggers are already working on ways to use this law to "shoot hippies." See the Comments section for some choice peeks at the real Florida GOP.

[appleannie1]

1. I don't think I would even want to visit that state. I am sure a lot of people feel the same way.

[hack89]

2. Poorly written laws always have unintended consequences

needs to be scrapped and completely rewritten.

[AndyTiedye]

6. I Don't Think Those Consequences Were Unintended

They wanted it to be open season on minorities.

[lib2DaBone]

3. I don't know the purpose of "Stand Your Ground"?

Other than to sell more guns and ammo.. and to keep Attorneys and judges in business?

I collect antique guns...( American 1850-1900 wild west) and I have a great respect for firearms... but I can not understand how the Lobbyists got this law passed?

And why did they pass it?

[Skittles]

4. gun nut wet dream

self defense is just not good enough for them

[AnotherMcIntosh]

5. How did the lobbyists get the law passed? The is traceable to the Castle Doctrine which has the

English common law as its foundation. The explanations vary from legal writer to legal writer. As an example, see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

At common law, as explained by Edward Coke (an English Chief Justice of the Common Pleas), a man's home was considered his castle and he was entitled to used deadly force against an intruder without retreating. This was true even if he could safely retreat and even if deadly force was not necessary. An intruder was not protected by a duty-to-retreat doctrine. This common law doctrine did not originate with any lobbyists in Florida or elsewhere.

After the American Revolution, various states codified criminal laws and codified exceptions to the criminal law. As a general rule, under the Castle Doctrine, a prosecutor cannot prosecute a property owner who uses deadly force against an intruder. Under the general concept, once it is shown that a homicide victim is an intruder, that's it. In some states, the rule was modified to provide that a property owner cannot use deadly force against an intruder if deadly force is not necessary such as when the property owner can safely retreat. In those states, even when there is no prosecution of a property owner, the surviving relatives can bring a lawsuit against a property owner while alleging that deadly force was unnecessary.

In some states, such as Texas, the legislature did not invent a new concept but basically re-affirmed a common-law concept. In addition, in some states, the legislatures expanded the concept to go beyond a dwelling. In some Western states, this can include a front or back yard, for example. In Texas, for example, a person suffering from road rage can put themselves at risk (with no right of recovery for their relatives) if they reach through an open window of a vehicle to express their displeasure with the driving performance of another driver.

The MSM is at fault by creating a controversy with a false suggestion that the Florida legislature created a new concept in the law. It is a stretch for Zimmerman and his supporters to claim that he, as a volunteer neighborhood vigilante in a gated community who disregarded a police dispatcher instructions, was merely standing his ground instead of following or stalking Trayvon Martin. In a way, it is equal to a bizzare claim made by a shooter almost a century ago when he shot another person 4 times, with the 4th bullet clearly striking the shootee while he was on the ground, that he was merely standing his ground and the 4th shot was the result of an accident. Brown v. US, (256 U.S. 335, 1921). The Supreme Court held that the issue was a jury question. Zimmerman's attorneys will rely upon Brown.