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.
Stand your ground has the same burden as any other type of self defense. A reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.
All it does is clearly stipulate that you have no duty to retreat.
The dishonesty here is mind boggling. The vast majority of these cases that are thrown out on SYG could be thrown out based on plain old self defense just as easily.
Whether you think there should be a duty to retreat is an entirely debatable issue. I'd gladly engage in a debate about said issue if it were approached honestly.
Stand your ground carries the exact same burden as self defense, excluding the duty to retreat.
I'm pretty sure that makes a HUGE difference. Evidenced by the fact that people have actively pursued someone who was no longer a threat and gotten off on SYG. Are you telling me that standard self-defense would apply when you're chasing someone down?
This guy's defense was modeled around SYG, but could have been modeled around self defense law. You picked a horrible case to support your argument, given that the defendant claimed he thought his wife was being raped. This was the core of his defense. Surely he could have telepathically taken over here body and "retreated" her in such a case, in which case he would have been found guilty were SYG and the "defense of others" statute not in place.
Based on this guy's defense, a duty to retreat would have had zero effect.
Those lawyers invoked stand your ground for one simple reason. In Florida, the stand your ground law is basically written as a separate law, rather than a simple enhancement to existing self defense statutes. So it will pretty much always be cited. Had SYG not existed, they would have claimed "defense of others" which is Florida statute 776.031. Very similar statutes exist in most states in the country.
I'm pretty sure that makes a HUGE difference. Evidenced by the fact that people have actively pursued someone who was no longer a threat and gotten off on SYG. Are you telling me that standard self-defense would apply when you're chasing someone down?
It makes a difference. It's a different law. But not in the way you all are purporting it to.
SYG as it is written does not justify pursuit. Read the law.
Your allusion to whatever cases you may have read about on some left wing blog somewhere does not make a very strong argument. That was not the scenario in the case you just posted either.
Even if killers were able to get off in the situation you have just described, this is not because of SYG, this is a because of blatant misinterpretation of SYG.
Of course you're free to blame SYG, but you're also free to blame Martians. That would make about as much sense.
You seriously believe that he believed his wife was getting raped?
No. Did I say that? I said that was his defense.
But that has nothing to do with SYG.
They claimed SYG because it is the strongest self defense statute on the books.
Had this happened in another state, they would have made the exact same argument, and cited that state's self defense law. As I said, in this particular case, a "duty to retreat" would have had absolutely no effect. Zero.
And that "duty to retreat" would have been the only substantial difference between Florida's SYG law and any run of the mill self defense law.
Any other differences lie in semantics or are extremely minor.
You know you are losing because you can't even make a legal argument. All you can do is cite cases and draw loose and unfounded conclusions with no real legal basis.
It makes a difference. It's a different law. But not in the way you all are purporting it to.
SYG as it is written does not justify pursuit. Read the law.
Your allusion to whatever cases you may have read about on some left wing blog somewhere does not make a very strong argument. That was not the scenario in the case you just posted either.
Even if killers were able to get off in the situation you have just described, this is not because of SYG, this is a because of blatant misinterpretation of SYG.
Of course you're free to blame SYG, but you're also free to blame Martians. That would make about as much sense.
They claimed SYG because it is the strongest self defense statute on the books.
Had this happened in another state, they would have made the exact same argument, and cited that state's self defense law. As I said, in this particular case, a "duty to retreat" would have had absolutely no effect. Zero.
And that "duty to retreat" would have been the only substantial difference between Florida's SYG law and any run of the mill self defense law.
Any other differences lie in semantics or are extremely minor.
You know you are losing because you can't even make a legal argument. All you can do is cite cases and draw loose and unfounded conclusions with no real legal basis.
So you're saying that he would have gotten off of self-defense, regardless of SYG?
I'm not sure how "stand your ground" was applicable here. Are you? The limitations imposed by the law that were referenced are not necessarily in the "duty to retreat" clause which is really the core of what "stand your ground" means. If you have an issue with the law, it may simply be an issue with the way the law is written. This is not an issue inherent to stand your ground itself as a concept.
But I won't speak on this because I don't exactly understand how SYG was able to be used as a defense here. The defendant was in pursuit.
"Delbono said he thought Huse was "going for something. I feared for my life.""
Sounds like a simple case of someone lying about defending themselves when they were not. Hardly an indictment of SYG itself. In this case, yes, the SYG law may have helped the shooter get off, although were it not to exist he could have simply claimed that he did not have the ability to retreat. His story sounds like BS already, and would not be much more ridiculous had he claimed such.
It doesn't sound like he had a reasonable fear to begin with. But I won't take what happened here and apply it to "stand your ground" as a concept. Because SYG requires the same reasonable fear as plain old self defense does.
This was in no way justified by SYG as the law reads, and you do not have any more insight into why the jury acquitted as I do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good
So you're saying that he would have gotten off of self-defense, regardless of SYG?
Yes. A "duty to retreat" would not have been applicable in this case. Whether Florida's self defense laws are flawed is one thing, but you can't apply any and all flaws of them to SYG.
Your issue is with this (his defense rested here):
Quote:
776.031 Use of force in defense of others.—A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
Not with this:
Quote:
A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
The latter is what makes a law a "stand your ground" law. The former is similar to any self defense statue. Perhaps a little lax compared to your typical left wing state, but that's an entirely different discussion and has nothing to do with SYG itself.
I honestly think that at the end of the day what you are doing is applying the flaws of Florida's self defense laws to SYG even when not warranted.
Again, all SYG is supposed to do, as the law reads, is exempt a potential victim from the duty to retreat before using force. Is the validity of this logic debatable? Sure. But this is hardly what most of you on this thread are trying to make it out to be. Not even close.
An important example, SYG does not give you the right to start an altercation, kill the person, and claim self defense. If you initiate an altercation, the only way you can claim self defense is if you make it clear that you no longer wish to fight, or you do everything you can to retreat. In addition to this, the burden of proof is now on you to prove that you did so. Can this be abused? Sure. By cleverly fabricating evidence and a story to go with it. But then again, by that criteria, any self defense law can be abused.
I never said it was exactly the same. I said the burden was the same.
What is wrong with you?
So explain to me the difference between stand your ground and a plain old self defense law? Clearly I am missing something here is you say they are different.
So explain to me the difference between stand your ground and a plain old self defense law? Clearly I am missing something here is you say they are different.
I explained this numerous times.
All SYG does (in theory, admittedly possibly not doing so perfectly due to other unrelated legal flaws in these statutes) is exempt a potential victim from the duty to retreat before using force.
Again, it is debatable, but blatant lies and misrepresentation are not conducive to an honest debate. SYG is in no way a license to kill. It can be abused, but would require a level of fabrication that could also be used to abuse practically any self defense law.
It would be just as easy to commit a murder, beat your head against the wall a couple times, and claim self defense than to initiate an altercation and then do so (and claim SYG). Because by initiating the altercation, you are putting the burden of proof of intent to cease the fight and/or retreat on yourself. At that point, you are effectively subject to the same legalities of any self defense law that does require a duty to retreat.
All SYG does (in theory, admittedly possibly not doing so perfectly due to other unrelated legal flaws in these statutes) is exempt a potential victim from the duty to retreat before using force.
Again, it is debatable, but blatant lies and misrepresentation are not conducive to an honest debate. SYG is in no way a license to kill. It can be abused, but would require a level of fabrication that could also be used to abuse practically any self defense law.
It would be much easier to commit a murder, beat your head against the wall a couple times, and claim self defense than to initiate an altercation and then do so (and claim SYG). Because by initiating the altercation, you are putting the burden of proof of intent to cease the fight and/or retreat on yourself.
In practice, not theory, SYG can be used to instigate a fight and when you get punched. . allows you to return that punch with a gun.
I really can't believe people are okay with this. In practice it is being used by people who seek confrontations, and then respond to the confrontation that they created with violence.
In practice, not theory, SYG can be used to instigate a fight and when you get punched. . allows you to return that punch with a gun.
I really can't believe people are okay with this. In practice it is being used by people who seek confrontations, and then respond to the confrontation that they created with violence.
But explain to me how this is any more difficult than shooting someone, punching yourself, and claiming plain old self defense?
Again, if you admit to instigating a fight, you are essentially denying yourself the protections of SYG. If you don't admit to instigating a fight, well, you are in no different a situation than anyone who commits murder and lies with a claim of self defense.
This may come as a shock to you - but I am not sure I am okay with this.
I am however 100% sure that I am not okay with the blatant misrepresentation and lies that abound when the subject is being discussed.
All SYG does (in theory, admittedly possibly not doing so perfectly due to other unrelated legal flaws in these statutes) is exempt a potential victim from the duty to retreat before using force.
Again, it is debatable, but blatant lies and misrepresentation are not conducive to an honest debate. SYG is in no way a license to kill. It can be abused, but would require a level of fabrication that could also be used to abuse practically any self defense law.
It would be just as easy to commit a murder, beat your head against the wall a couple times, and claim self defense than to initiate an altercation and then do so (and claim SYG). Because by initiating the altercation, you are putting the burden of proof of intent to cease the fight and/or retreat on yourself. At that point, you are effectively subject to the same legalities of any self defense law that does require a duty to retreat.
But how is that different from a plain old self defense law?
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.
I said the burden was the same.
