Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The Times analysis found that 67 percent of all defendants who invoked the law went free. For defendants who had at least one arrest, the success rate dropped to 59 percent. Serial law-breakers — those with three or more arrests — walked free only 45 percent of the time."
The same article you are using. Tally of 'stand your ground' cases rises as legislators rethink law | Tampa Bay Times unless you are talking about The New York Times, in which case that might be national stats and mine are for Florida. It could also be the overwhelmingly liberal NYT interpretation of data vs. the probably conservative Tampa Bay Times interpretation of data. The stats on murders and gun related fatalities I found on Google.
19/28 guilty of a crime =.678 or as I my math works roughly 68%
The whole point was to show we are talking about, regardless of the percentages, a very small number of cases both locally in Florida and Nationwide. Certainly something that does not require the kind of attention it is getting, that's all I'm saying.
The same article you are using. Tally of 'stand your ground' cases rises as legislators rethink law | Tampa Bay Times unless you are talking about The New York Times, in which case that might be national stats and mine are for Florida. It could also be the overwhelmingly liberal NYT interpretation of data vs. the probably conservative Tampa Bay Times interpretation of data. The stats on murders and gun related fatalities I found on Google.
19/28 guilty of a crime =.678 or as I my math works roughly 68%
The whole point was to show we are talking about, regardless of the percentages, a very small number of cases both locally in Florida and Nationwide. Certainly something that does not require the kind of attention it is getting, that's all I'm saying.
the point is even one death that happened because of some stupid law requires attention, and its way more than one
here is another interesting case, a guy killed his wife's lover and used SYG, claiming he thought the lover was raping her, it's getting ridiculous at this point Florida man, 70, acquitted of killing wife
Stand Your Ground has been invoked only 130 times in the last 5 years as a defense in Florida(only 70% of those, or 91 resulted in a fatality(that includes Gun,Bat, knife, fists everything). There are approximately 2,222 gun related fatalities in Florida every year. Multiply that by 5 and you've got 11,109 gun related fatalities over the same time frame. There were 5,023 murders. So its less than 1% of all gun related deaths and less than .3% of all murders(if you count the 19 people who were found guilty of murder who used this as a defense). And that is not even the whole picture.
Stand Your Ground allows the legal system to run more efficiently, instead of clogging up the court docate with clear cut cases of self defense. No jury, the lawyers for both sides discuss it(40% of the time) and decide on their own not to file charges, 14% of the time the judge decides.
Of the people that actually make it to trial and use this as a defense(In Florida, there have only been 28 cases to do this since 2005!), they are found guilty 68% of the time! That is why O'Mara made the smart call NOT to try this as ZImmerman's defense. There was no need to take the chance. He had a slam dunk case with regular self defense and reasonable doubt.
True, this is a very small sliver of the overall picture. I am still against it in principle. One question though, how many times have their been no charges filed do to "Stand Your Ground"?
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.
Your stats only account for the people who have had charges pressed against them and what the outcome was. This article from the Tampa Bay Times breaks down a lot of those same cases.
A comprehensive analysis of "stand your ground" decisions is all but impossible. When police and prosecutors decide not to press charges, they don't always keep records showing how they reached their decisions. And no one keeps track of how many "stand your ground" motions have been filed or their outcomes.
Basically, there could easily be many more cases where the law itself was applied, but it was done "proactively" by the prosecutors and police and never resulted in charges being filed.
There is little positive to argue in this law. All it says is that instead of having a duty to back down and retreat when you have the clear opportunity to do so, you are instead authorized to use deadly force even if you had the ability to simply walk away. Many people who have invoked SYG were purposefully putting themselves in harms way or even instigating the conflict. Some of the people who wrote the legislation in FL even admit that this was never intended and is a consequence of their poor wording.
Your argument that it "allows the system to run more efficiently" is also rather untrue. If there is such an impact, it only comes from lowering the bar. Law enforcement only requires you to satisfy three questions to invoke the law and clear you:
1. Did the defendant have the right to be there?
2. Was he engaged in a lawful activity?
3. Could he reasonably have been in fear of death or great bodily harm?
Satisfy all three (which means there was no convinving evidence to the contrary), SYG applies, no charges, no nothing, it was justifiable. Let's say law enforcement isn't sure though, then what happens? Well everyone invoking SYG gets an immunity hearing in front of a judge. The judge then decides "based on a preponderance of evidence" whether SYG applies. "Preponderance" is a much lower legal standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt". It basically means that 51% of the known evidence agrees with you being able to invoke SYG.
When someone is killed and it's NOT a straight up slam dunk case under classic self-defense, I would think there would be a real trial to determine what happened. SYG lowers the standards and has had extremely strange outcomes. It's a bad law and a bad philosophy even if it only impacts a small percentage of cases.
True, this is a very small sliver of the overall picture. I am still against it in principle. One question though, how many times have their been no charges filed do to "Stand Your Ground"?
Your stats only account for the people who have had charges pressed against them and what the outcome was. This article from the Tampa Bay Times breaks down a lot of those same cases.
Basically, there could easily be many more cases where the law itself was applied, but it was done "proactively" by the prosecutors and police and never resulted in charges being filed.
There is little positive to argue in this law. All it says is that instead of having a duty to back down and retreat when you have the clear opportunity to do so, you are instead authorized to use deadly force even if you had the ability to simply walk away. Many people who have invoked SYG were purposefully putting themselves in harms way or even instigating the conflict. Some of the people who wrote the legislation in FL even admit that this was never intended and is a consequence of their poor wording.
Your argument that it "allows the system to run more efficiently" is also rather untrue. If there is such an impact, it only comes from lowering the bar. Law enforcement only requires you to satisfy three questions to invoke the law and clear you:
1. Did the defendant have the right to be there?
2. Was he engaged in a lawful activity?
3. Could he reasonably have been in fear of death or great bodily harm?
Satisfy all three (which means there was no convinving evidence to the contrary), SYG applies, no charges, no nothing, it was justifiable. Let's say law enforcement isn't sure though, then what happens? Well everyone invoking SYG gets an immunity hearing in front of a judge. The judge then decides "based on a preponderance of evidence" whether SYG applies. "Preponderance" is a much lower legal standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt". It basically means that 51% of the known evidence agrees with you being able to invoke SYG.
When someone is killed and it's NOT a straight up slam dunk case under classic self-defense, I would think there would be a real trial to determine what happened. SYG lowers the standards and has had extremely strange outcomes. It's a bad law and a bad philosophy even if it only impacts a small percentage of cases.
exactly cuz they didnt even charge GZ at the beggining, only after the public outcry
it happens more often than we know
True, this is a very small sliver of the overall picture. I am still against it in principle. One question though, how many times have their been no charges filed do to "Stand Your Ground"?
I'm kind of indifferent to it, there are so many loopholes in all of our justice systems(criminal, civil and otherwise) that if it wasn't SYG it would be something else. Ridiculous unjust things happen everyday. Que sera, sera.
to answer your question, this article quotes 50/130 cases where charges were not filed due to SYG.
i understand its murky when one of the two people involved is dead. ideally, you have witnesses which would help reduce the murkiness but you wont always have that. so then you have to decide at what point is someone killable. is the "instigator" always the guilty one? i definitely agree that the instigator is in a worse position then the other person; but i dont think its clear cut. that would be saying that anyone that walks after you can be killed/attacked.
You make a good point here. To me this reinforces the need for actual trials and investigations into what happened. If you are reading the back and forth with tdstyles, you will see how SYG also short circuits the legal end of it by lowering the legal bar for being able to invoke SYG. That means that these "murky enconters" may never actually be investigated.
I'm kind of indifferent to it, there are so many loopholes in all of our justice systems(criminal, civil and otherwise) that if it wasn't SYG it would be something else. Ridiculous unjust things happen everyday. Que sera, sera.
to answer your question, this article quotes 50/130 cases where charges were not filed due to SYG.
It's funny. We have one from the TB Times saying it can't be counted and then another giving a count. None of the counts really seem to add up either. There are plenty of scary quotes though from your article to show why this law needs to go.
well im not a lawyer, but from what I see with these cases that keep happenin there, that seems to be the case
what if the other guy thought someone running after him is gon commit a violent attack? was he supposed to wait for the other guy to attack him? maybe he thought the other guy had a weapon and feared for his life so he punched him
it gets really murky, and thats why this law is unacceptable
Why on earth can't supporters of SYG see this? Still pissed it didn't protect a female victim of domestic violence, who didn't even wound the lowlife! Really sad...
Why on earth can't supporters of SYG see this? Still pissed it didn't protect a female victim of domestic violence, who didn't even wound the lowlife! Really sad...
complete close minded ignorance and refusal to educate themselves
yea, its fd up, and she actually has credibility protecting herself cuz the guy put her in the hospital before
o, well, thats FL, she got 20 yrs for firing a warning shot, while child molesters get less
i bet if it was a white girl, she would be cleared and the guy would go to jail for assaulting her
It's funny. We have one from the TB Times saying it can't be counted and then another giving a count. None of the counts really seem to add up either. There are plenty of scary quotes though from your article to show why this law needs to go.
In case it's not coming across I'm extremely pragmatic , so on one hand I agree with you that it's ridiculous on the other hand I know if it wasn't this it would be something else. If I was going to dedicate my time to doing some good and righting some wrongs I'd go after a bigger fish. But for now I need to paint my house, keep my wife happy,run a business and take care of 2 wild and crazy little kids...oh and also give my thoughts on the Best Pizza in NJ,the Fair Lawn Vs Hawthorne Battle Royale and on top of all that bbtnetworkings lawn needs reseeding!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, so on one hand I agree with you that it's ridiculous on the other hand I know if it wasn't this it would be something else. If I was going to dedicate my time to doing some good and righting some wrongs I'd go after a bigger fish. But for now I need to paint my house, keep my wife happy,run a business and take care of 2 wild and crazy little kids...oh and also give my thoughts on the Best Pizza in NJ,the Fair Lawn Vs Hawthorne Battle Royale and on top of all that bbtnetworkings lawn needs reseeding!!! 
