Stand Your Ground laws confuse me

[Sheepshank]

Because of the Martin/Zimmerman issue, the whole Stand your Ground law has been in the news a lot. I don't know that I care for the law in part because it's practical application "seems" to be very subjective...and very slanted towards the survivor. I don't think I understand it. So here is a scenario.

-Two people walking in the same direction on a lonely dark street, late at night.

-Person in front is feeling uncomfortable and nervous at hearing the footsteps behind him on a street that is normally quiet and deserted at that time of night.

-Person behind picks up a little speed and the person in front can hear the footsteps getting closer.

-Person in front turns around and confronts the person behind and asks them what they want.

-Person behind gets nervous and feels person in front is being aggressive, and tells person in front to back off and he pulls out a knife...possibly/probably because he is nervous and feels he needs the protection.

-Person in front sees the knife and assumes his initial nervousness is confirmed, and he is in danger.

-Fight ensues. One of them gets killed.

Who was standing their ground?


ps, I left a similar post on a site frequented by RW's. I though it would also be interesting to compare the types of responses....and how this law is viewed in a practical situation

[WingDinger]

1. It's all about the illusion of safety.

Gun nuts are scared shitless to take a punch. Likely they largely have never been in a real fight. So, they insist on having the upper hand, now that they are old. Or not teens. That is why they back Z so much. They want to be able to kill any smart mouthed teen that challenges anything.

Witness that most of the gun nuts talk about Z being in diapers forever, in about another lambs tail shake. Then, they talk about T covering both Z's mouth and nose, and he was about to pass out. Horseshit. NOONE fights like that.

They could care less how many humans are killed, slongas they FEEL safe. Same as why they all feel like al qaeda is two steps behind themall with a bomb.

[TheWraith]

5. You have some entertaining opinions about things you know nothing about.

Reminds me a lot of how the right goes on and on about how liberals don't want anyone to work for a living, etcetera, etcetera. Try informing yourself before you go off on ill-conceived rants about other people.

[WingDinger]

6. You want proof? I could show you plenty.

And Z thru poppy now is saying that T plugged his mouth and nose, with one hand each.

I know a hell of a lot about gun nuts, adn right wingers in general.

What in particular do you think yourself rightly critical about, in my rant?

Oh, and I know FIRST HAND, about stand your ground, and concealed carry. I had a long discussion about it, when the police contacted me about a guy I had to fire, and he wanted to do a workplace massacre. Special ops trained, and rich as hell.

[badtoworse]

10. So go ahead and post some proof.

[WingDinger]

15. I just did, Z's dad first tried out that Z was about to need diapers, and needed to kill T fast.

Now, it has morphed to T was holding his hands over Z's mouth and nose. Gun nuts almost all call T, who did nothing, a thug. If you really want to hear rightwingers, there are thousands of posts saying JUST EXACTLY WHAT I SAID. Not that they are cowards, but that they dont care that the stats show you are more likely to die owning a gun than not. They dont care about gun grabbers, and dont show much caution about staying away from any trouble while carrying. They show a deathly fear of being punched, and often talk about being killed with one punch.

If you want me to point you to threads where the gun nuts say these things, PM me.

PS, also witness the dirth of gun nuts calling for a level playing field, with teens and blacks allowed to carry as well.

[badtoworse]

18. Posts on an internet message board prove nothing about what a real CCW permit holder would do...

and neither does one incident. Trolls and morons post on the internet as do intelligent people.

Are you painting all people who legally and responsibly own firearms with the gun nut brush?

[WingDinger]

30. did I say so? I said I too was one that NEEDED a ccw, even though they dont exist in OC, Ca.

[WinniSkipper]

49. This point is actually not true

"PS, also witness the dirth of gun nuts calling for a level playing field, with teens and blacks allowed to carry as well."

I have actually found that here on DU - 2A proponents often cite that the poor and minorities, specifically in DC and Chicago, are unfairly denied their rights. Pro 2A people seem to see that the biggest issue facing poor communities - be they in Appalachia or the South side - is drugs, no jobs, and no education. If you read their posts - they are heavily in favor of giving blacks, and all minorities, access to legal firearms for their protection.

The teens part - no they should not be carrying. I have not seen that proposed by many, if any, 2A supporters.

[WingDinger]

52. I dont consider that we have many if any GUN NUTS.

[WinniSkipper]

53. I agree with you there.

And I agree that there are some of those that you mention out there as well.

And I was sorry to read your post about your grandfather.

Peace

[badtoworse]

8. As Harry Callahan said...

Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one.

[11 Bravo]

12. And they usually stink.

[badtoworse]

14. Thanks, I forgot that part

[Ghost in the Machine]

21. You nailed that one! N/t

[backwoodsbob]

22. why would anyone

want to *take a punch* from someone much larger and stronger if that is the case?

[WingDinger]

35. I would gladly take a punch, if the choice was killing a human.

[Lizzie Poppet]

31. Take a punch? Seriously?

I'm a 5'3", 109lb female, with what's been called a "delicate" build. You're damn right I'd be scared to take a punch from even an average-sized male. It could kill me. Fights aren't about "honor" or some other sort of macho dickwaving nonsense. They're about survival. If there's a tool available to allow me a better chance of surviving, I'm using it.

[WingDinger]

36. Women, packing or no dont chase anyone.

They are much more rational about danger. certainly there are many rational CCW holders. They will not make excuses for those doing stupid things while packing.

[Lizzie Poppet]

39. That's most often true.

Obviously there are scads of exceptions, but in general, women are more likely to take the "flight" option in a "fight or flight" scenario, at least when it's available to us. The genders have somewhat different sets of evolutionary priorities and influences operating, and instinct plays a huge part in determining our reaction is high stress situations requiring instantaneous decisions.

I have a CCW, and I assure you I have no use for hotheads or (worse) sociopaths genuinely looking for an excuse to shoot someone. Such persons are thankfully rare (or, given the number of civilian firearms and carry permits, there woudl be hundreds of thousands of deaths per week), but statistical rarity is scant comfort to someone one of these idiots shoots.

[spin]

33. The question was, "Who was standing their ground?" ...

In the scenario in the OP, one person pulled a knife. A knife is a deadly weapon. You mention that "gun nuts are scared shitless to take a punch." This may or may not be true in many situations, but it doesn't have anything to do with the situation described.

However, let me address your own scenario. I would probably qualify as a "gun nut" as I have enjoyed target shooting handguns for over 45 years and have had a concealed weapons permit for over 15. I also am over 65 so I am "old."

I fully realize that I would be at a significant disadvantage if attacked by a much younger person in far better shape than I am even if he was unarmed. That doesn't mean that if that ever happens, I will whip out my concealed handgun and blow the younger person away. I still have some martial arts skills remaining from the training that I received 20 years ago that may prove handy. I also carry pepper spray. If some young fool tried to punch me out, I might attempt to "jam" him and use the techniques that I learned to take him to the ground. Of course if I had the time to grab my pepper spray, I might be able to employ it to stop his attack and walk away unharmed.

I have been in real fights before and I never lost one. My record at winning contests with rules and regulations lacks such success. My mindset in a real fight is to win and to walk away with as few injuries as possible. Of course, I don't want to use any more force than is absolutely necessary.

You mention that old gun nuts like me wish to have the upper hand. Any intelligent person in a real life or death encounter would wish to have every advantage possible despite the age difference. We are not talking merely winning a fight for bragging rights, we are discussing being in a fight with someone who intends to put us in a hospital for an extended stay or six feet under. We are not discussing fighting for a trophy in a certain weight class, we are dealing with survival.

Since I am a candidate for a hip replacement and also suffer from degenerative disc disease, I have one of those tags that allows me to park in handicapped parking spaces. In all probability, I could legally use my handgun to stop an attack by an younger individual in better physical condition even if he was unarmed. However, the last thing I would ever want to do is to shoot another person. I have no desire to suffer the psychological aftereffects that often result from such action. I currently sleep well at night. Therefore, depending on the situation I prefer to have non-lethal options available.

Of course, the best way to survive any fight is to not be in one. Therefore, I practice something called situational awareness. To sum this tactic up in a simple manner, it means I don't walk down dark streets with a cell phone glued to my ear. It's very similar to "defensive driving," which I also practice and I have been able to successfully avoid being responsible for any accidents in the 50 years since I got my license. I have had people run into the rear of my car while I was stopped in traffic. This didn't surprise me but there was absolutely nothing that I could do.

It is also wise to realize that it is wise to avoid a developing confrontation by being aware that a potential for violence exists and being willing to walk away from an argument even if it makes you look like a coward. This is even more critical if you are legally carrying a firearm.

I know a lot of people who have carry permits and carry on a regular basis. I will admit that most are individuals who shoot frequently. Many are retired police or military. Some have marital arts training. Most are well educated and own their own business or hold highly professional jobs such as doctors, lawyers, engineers, members of the clergy, teachers, bankers and financial advisers. Some hold blue collar jobs and work as technicians or assemblers in factories or are plumbers, carpenters, electricians, truck drivers or locksmiths. None appear to me to be excessively paranoid.

You state:

They could care less how many humans are killed, slongas they FEEL safe. Same as why they all feel like al qaeda is two steps behind themall with a bomb.

I have never known one single person with a carry permit who expressed any fear of a terrorist with a bomb being near them. It's not exactly a common occurrence at this time in our nation and even if it does become common, it is hard to imagine how a concealed firearm would stop a suicide bomber.

I should also point out that I and many other people with carry permits do not support Zimmerman with the evidence we currently have. If I had been in Zimmerman's position and a police dispatcher would have told me to not pursue Martin, I would have followed the instructions. I am not a cop wannabe nor am I a vigilante.

You may believe that propaganda that every person who is licensed to carry a firearm is paranoid or looking for an opportunity to kill another person. If so, I would point our that over 800,000 Floridians have a Concealed Weapons Permit. If only one out of ten carried on a regular basis, 80.000 would be walking the streets of Florida every day packing heat.

If that number of people were as frightened and dangerous as you suggest, Florida would have incident similar to the Trayvon Martin shooting a a daily basis. The statistics simply do not support that conclusion and in fact such events are extremely rare.

[WingDinger]

40. You are talking about responsible concealed weapon permit holders. Not Right wing gun nuts.

PS, the nra is fighting every states requirements of training. Yet wants concealed in all states without restrictions, or few.

[spin]

48. I believe that a training requirement for anyone who legally carries ...

a concealed firearm is very reasonable. I also believe that a background check should be run before a license is issued.

The NRA is making a foolish mistake by trying to make it too easy to carry concealed. It will backfire far worse than the poorly written "Stand Your Ground" law in Florida.

[spin]

2. In your scenario, the person who was following pulls a deadly weapon ...

when the person in front turns and confronts him. Therefore the person in front has reason to fear for his life.

The person in front many have been confrontational but a reasonable man standing in the shoes of the person following would not have felt that the person in front was threatening life or heath by asking, "Why are you following me."

[SATIRical]

44. And likewise, when the person in back said

"back off" any reasonable person would see the person in back was afraid and just wanted the front person to get away.

[badtoworse]

3. I would say the person that drew the knife had no reason to do so.

The basis of SYG is what a reasonable person would believe and I don't think a reasonable person would have felt sufficiently threatened to draw a weapon under those circumstances. SYG would not apply for him.

The other person is in a different situation because a reasonable person would believe that a person drawing a weapon intends to use it. I would say SYG would apply if he killed the person with knife AND the person with the knife was still a threat when he did so.

[TheWraith]

4. You really should try reading the law.

There is NOTHING in it about "feeling nervous," "feeling threatened," or "feeling" ANYTHING at all. Feelings have nothing to do with it. Lethal self defense is only legal if you are under threat of imminent death or severe bodily harm. Period.

[Junkdrawer]

7. Any witnesses? No.... Then the survivor was.

Prove he's wrong.

[Taitertots]

25. We better lock them all up, just to make sure n/t

[kctim]

9. What do you get

with the same scenario in a state without a SYG law? The same result.

Contrary to all the 'tough talk' from the fearful anti-gun nuts, people don't go out looking for somebody to kill simply because their state has a SYG law.

[WingDinger]

11. Incorrect

In states that rely on self defense, there is a duty to TRY to retreat. Stand your ground, means you need not retreat. That means that if a burglar is begging you not to shoot him, and his hands are raised, you can still send him to hell.

[badtoworse]

13. Sounds like bullshit to me

A person with their arms raised is not a threat. SYG does not apply and killing him would be criminal.

[WingDinger]

16. Indeed that is correct. Witness that the gun nuts only concern themselves about if T punched Z

Somehow, T never had any right to stand his ground, nor walk unimpeded, or without fear. And when T begged for his life, and it continued for some time, that PROVES he was no longer a threat. No matter, stand your ground, till they are in the ground.

Add to this, Z didnt think T dead enough, and lunged flipped and mounted him. This not being any issue. After you shoot a man point blank in the chest, they usually are not a threat, especially after they fall over, while saying, ostensibly, OK, you got it.

[badtoworse]

17. It does not appear that SYG applied to Zimmerman...

But it's not clear what all the facts are and we will need to wait for the trial to find out what each side has. In any case, the OP was not about Zimmerman.

[WingDinger]

19. Not according to the Governor that signed it, nor many others involved in it's creation, including i

it's creator.

[X_Digger]

37. Then the story changes, were that true.

It's funny how folks think that a Truly Bad Man (tm), bent on killing someone, "empowered" by SYG laws, wouldn't just change their story.

We've seen it in one version of Zimmerman's story- that he was knocked down from behind, and was under Martin.

^ That? That bullshit story? Would be what you'd hear from them. That they were trying to retreat, but couldn't safely do so.

[kctim]

46. Wishful fearful thinking

It is human nature to defend oneself and a person is not going to stand there and think about the law before acting. Fight or flight is determined by the person and the situation, not on a law they have probably never heard of or have forgotten about.

Stand your ground laws are not a license to kill. Your fears are unfounded.

[juxtaposed]

20. stand your ground is nothing more than legalize lynching............................................

legalized lynching, and I stand by that. It was sold in Florida as such, just like "Just say no" war on drugs.

[badtoworse]

23. Great! Another "informed" opinion. - nt

[juxtaposed]

28. u know i do not waiste time with idiots.

[badtoworse]

29. I occasionally do.

[WingDinger]

42. You sure think highly of yourself. You said not one word that made me or my posts as IDIOT.

And yet you hold yourself up as some kind of sage.

[badtoworse]

45. I used the term "informed".

Juxtaposed introduced the term "idiot". I wasn't thinking of you when I responded to him.

With respect to your posts, I found your use of the term "gun nuts" to be insulting if you're applying it to the millions of people who, like myself, legally own fireams and support RKBA. It's not clear to me who you think is a gun nut and what your position is on the relevant issues. Once again, I wasn't implying that you're an idiot.

I think I am reasonably well informed on RKBA issues, but I'll be the first to admit there are many posters on DU that are much better informed than I am.

[Taitertots]

24. How could that confuse you?

You don't get to pull knives on random people.

There was no sound reason to assume either was in imminent danger until someone starts brandishing a knife. At which point it is pretty obvious that the person held at knife point should be able to defend themselves, up to lethal force. Do you think the person who was held at knife point should be charged with murder and have the victims family take all their money?

[bongbong]

26. Dead men tell no tales

SYG is a license to murder & get away with it.

[slackmaster]

27. "Person behind" blew it when he pulled out the knife

That's generally called brandishing.

If you want some real clarity on the law, take a self-defense class. Any kind - Firearm, edged weapon, or empty hand. Any good course will teach you the basics about the legal and moral issues of using force for self-defense.

The last one I took was at the Front Site Institute near Pahrump, Nevada. They teach a philosophy that can help you stay within the law no matter what state you happen to be in.

[Lizzie Poppet]

32. Excellent advice.

The CCW permit qualification class here in Oregon was about 90% about what the law requires in potential self-defense scenarios.

[spin]

34. You say that you posted the same scenario on a very conservative site ...

I am very interested in how the results compare.

[Sheepshank]

38. Not too many responses but of the few, there are basically two categories

1. (and includes a person who lives in Fl)...not sure how the law would be applied.

2. I'm posing a trick question attempting to corner them into saying Zimmerman was not covered by any Stand your Ground laws.

[spin]

51. In my opinion and at this time with the information that I have read ...

Zimmerman should not be covered by Stand Your Ground law.

The law does not and should not, allow a person to pursue and confront.

[X_Digger]

41. The 'person behind' would be the aggressor.

Confronting someone, even shouting questions at them is not illegal, nor would that pass the 'reasonable man' test of fearing imminent death or grave bodily harm.

You don't have a right to kill someone who confronts you, asking questions.

[Sheepshank]

43. What if there were witensses and ther one behind was the one killed?

The witnesses confirm the aspects in the OP. The witnesses also confirm that therperson behind lives in the neighborhood and this was their normal route home from a late job. But during the fight the person behind is killed.

Does that change anything?

[Lex]

47. It shouldn't be whether one "feels" in danger but if the facts suggest

that one is justified in their conclusion that they are in danger.

IF it's just based on "feelings" then the jumpiest, scaredy-cat (like Zimmerman, imho) can just shoot whomever makes them "feel" in danger. No objective facts justify his "feelings" however.

[ctaylors6]

50. this is long but ...

Self defense is a claim used by the person who survived against charges that he committed homicide. Don’t try to think of it in such a theoretical way. Apply it by asking if the person charged with homicide should be excused because of self-defense.

“Stand your ground” in Florida is a little wonky. It is first a type of immunity to prosecution. At a hearing in front of a judge, Z can claim immunity from prosecution. Z has to show that the immunity applies by a preponderance of the evidence. If he does, the case ends there. If the judge rules against Z on this motion, then it goes to trial. Z can still claim self-defense/SYG at trial.

Self-defense laws usually provide something like: A person is justified in using deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself/herself or to another person.

The key part there is “reasonable belief.” And that question - whether the person claiming self-defense ”reasonably believed” the force he used was necessary to prevent death/great bodily harm - is usually a question for the jury to decide since it’s a subjective, fact-based determination.

2 other issues can come into play. First, whether the person claiming self-defense had a duty to retreat. If you’re in your home, you do not have a duty to retreat. SYG basically extends that to when you’re not in your home. In other words, if you meet all the requirements to claim self-defense, you don’t have to try to get away before you defend yourself.

Another key issue is that usually the person claiming self-defense as justification to homicide, cannot have provoked the use of force against him. (The pertinent Florida statute is quoted below.) Sounds like this is what the prosecution is relying on with Z case. According to 776.041, even if Z initially provoked (and that of course is a question – whether whatever he did when first following Trayvon rose to “provocation”), the statute still does not take away defense if Z’s actions met 776.041.

In your scenario, the question for the jury would be: Did the person who did the killing (and presumably was arrested for the killing) have a reasonable belief that the force used was necessary to prevent death/great bodily harm. Juries traditionally decide the reasonable belief standard because it’s subjective: what would my peers in the same situation reasonable believe, and the jury is considered a body of peers.

776.041?Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter [self-defense] is not available to a person who:
(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.

[Sheepshank]

54. Thanks - very much!

I appreciate you taking the time and effort in laying out the various aspects of the law.

(b) is interesting imho.