(Florida) STAND your GROUND--Part 2

[muff daddy]

And that is the problem with the law. The law states that if you fear death or great bodily harm. If I feel threatened how am I supposed to determin the level of tour threat? If someone threatens me I assume worst case scenario.

I think your interpretation is the issue.
What part of someone trying to kill you or hack you severely makes you pause? That's it.....right there.....your definition.
Just because someone is scared doesn't justify the use of deadly force. Deadly force is warranted when the situational outcome will be deadly for one or another party..

Put it this way, you are a very large man.....some guy 5 ft tall 100lbs says he'll kick your butt....you are scared.....he says he's going to wipe the floor with you, he confronts you and begins to kick you in the shins......is deadly force justifiable?

 

[southwind]

If you read the SYG law in FL it does not make any qualifications regarding what constitutes a threat. The biggest issue with the law is that it eliminates the duty to retreat. You exams of a phone booth or something similar are valid k of where the duty to retreat would be void due to the fact that you can't. In the cases of Martin and Jordan the shooters had the ability to retreat and chose not to.

The FL law is posted on the Fl government web site. Section three is what is at issue. Not sure why none of you have read it. According to the way the law is written, if you feel threatened, you may use deadly force to defend your self. This the defense Zimmer is using and will probably be the defense for Dunn.

Guess in your world it would be called the DTR (Duty to retreat) law !

 

[Knotbuyinit]

And that is the problem with the law. The law states that if you fear death or great bodily harm. If I feel threatened how am I supposed to determin the level of tour threat? If someone threatens me I assume worst case scenario.

A threat;
776.012 A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.

A threat with a weapon;
776.012 However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to stat. 776.013.

 

[muff daddy]

And that is the problem with the law. The law states that if you fear death or great bodily harm. If I feel threatened how am I supposed to determin the level of tour threat? If someone threatens me I assume worst case scenario.

Then again....what is a threat to you? Your definition would be what would be tore apart in a court of law.

Standard question from a DA is "Did you fear for your life? Did you think you were going to die" and you have to explain why.

That is what has to be met to justify the use of deadly force, and then its in your corner the outcome.

You have legitimate questions, you ought to look up a book called "In the gravest extreme " by Massad F. Ayoob. He is considered an expert in the use of deadly force in the US court system. It explains a lot you have issue with. Check it out.

 

[Knotbuyinit]

Put it this way, you are a very large man.....some guy 5 ft tall 100lbs says he'll kick your butt....you are scared.....he says he's going to wipe the floor with you, he confronts you and begins to kick you in the shins......is deadly force justifiable?

No justification to use deadly force in either case, you have a duty to retreat.

Now, put a gun, knife, baseball bat etc. etc. in the little man's hand or let the little man pin you to the ground or against a wall while delivering blows to your head and you have a different story. It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6!

 

[Knotbuyinit]

You have legitimate questions, you ought to look up a book called "In the gravest extreme " by Massad F. Ayoob. He is considered an expert in the use of deadly force in the US court system. It explains a lot you have issue with. Check it out.

Indeed !!

 

[Dog Wonder]

Put it this way, you are a very large man.....some guy 5 ft tall 100lbs says he'll kick your butt....you are scared.....he says he's going to wipe the floor with you, he confronts you and begins to kick you in the shins......is deadly force justifiable?

Laughing at him is justifiable.

 

[Ms Tree]

I think your interpretation is the issue.
What part of someone trying to kill you or hack you severely makes you pause? That's it.....right there.....your definition.
Just because someone is scared doesn't justify the use of deadly force. Deadly force is warranted when the situational outcome will be deadly for one or another party..

Put it this way, you are a very large man.....some guy 5 ft tall 100lbs says he'll kick your butt....you are scared.....he says he's going to wipe the floor with you, he confronts you and begins to kick you in the shins......is deadly force justifiable?

According to the law if you "reasonably believe" your life is in danger you may use deadly force. If Dunn can convince a jury that he was in fear for his life then is use of force was justified. Whether the fear was legitimate or not does not enter in to it.

The second problem is the lack of requirement to retreat. The law states that if you are in a public place doing something that is legal, you have no duty to retreat. Dunn and Zimmer should have retreated but chose not to and according to FL law states since they were in public neither of them had to retreat.

 

[Ms Tree]

I found this site while reading up on the issue. Quite a bit of information.

Tampa Bay News.

Expanding self-defense
People have had the right to defend themselves from a threat as far back as English common law. The key in Florida and many other states was that they could not use deadly force if it was reasonably possible to retreat.
That changed in 2005 when Gov. Jeb Bush signed into law Florida Statute 776.013. It says a person "has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground'' if he or she thinks deadly force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily harm or commission of a forcible felony like robbery.
"Now it's lawful to stand there like Matt Dillon at high noon, pull the gun and shoot back,'' said Bob Dekle, a University of Florida law professor and former prosecutor in North Florida.
Durell Peaden, the former Republican senator from Crestview who sponsored the bill, said the law was never intended for people who put themselves in harm's way before they started firing. But the criminal justice system has been blind to that intent.
The new law only requires law enforcement and the justice system to ask three questions in self-defense cases: Did the defendant have the right to be there? Was he engaged in a lawful activity? Could he reasonably have been in fear of death or great bodily harm?
Without convincing evidence to the contrary, "stand your ground'' protection prevails.
If prosecutors press charges, any defendant claiming self-defense is now entitled to a hearing before a judge. At the immunity hearing, a judge must decide based on the "preponderance of the evidence" whether to grant immunity. That's a far lower burden than "beyond a reasonable doubt," the threshold prosecutors must meet at trial.
"It's a very low standard to prove preponderance," said Weaver, the West Palm Beach lawyer. "If 51 percent of the evidence supports your claim, you get off."

Park Shooting I think this is a perfect example of the problem with the Florida SYG law. Here is another case. Harden.

Bottom line is the law was poorly written and is having unintended consequences.

 

[Ms Tree]

I finally got around to reading the ignored posts...

1) Dunn was in the military. Which branch of the military doesn't train on how to use a firearm? Even the Coasties go thru weapons qualifications.
2) Dunn had a concealed carry permit, which requires training under Florida law

Since Tree tends to only focus on what can be proven scientifically, it would seem that if he hada valid permit, either he provided proof of having been in the military, or he attended a class.

Just how does this incident prove that there are too people carrying firearms who have no training?

It might prove that even people with training can do stupid things, but being stupid isn't against the law. Yet.

No idea how well he did, or how long ago but he fired 8 shots and hit one person. Is that how well the military trains their soldiers?

Not disputed.

Not disputed.

I believe what I said is that many do not have the training or ability to differentiate a legitimate threat from from bluster. Mr Dunn is obviously one of them. He shot an unarmed teen.

No, stupid is not against the law. Murdering someone is. I think killing an unarmed teen because of a dispute that could have easily been avoided is a bit more than stupid. I hope you are as forgiving is something like this were to happen to someone you know.

All Dunn had to do was walk away. Now, if he can convince a jury that he “reasonably believed” that he was in fear for his life he will walk away from this. He will be able to do this because he was in a public place not engaged in unlawful activity and he had no duty to retreat.

 

[eolesen]

I believe what I said is that many do not have the training or ability to differentiate a legitimate threat from from bluster. Mr Dunn is obviously one of them. He shot an unarmed teen.

No, that's just what you're saying now that you're painted into a corner...

What you said was "This shows yet again that there are too many people carrying weapons who have no training"

It's a false statement in this case, and hardly an example. He was trained. He served in the military. And now you have the balls to question his abilities?

Go out to a shooting range at night sometime, and see how well you do. Better yet, volunteer to go thru basic training, and see how well they cover stuff like "legitimate threat" and firearms training. Then maybe you can be qualified to second guess people who wind up in a situation where they used deadly force.

I suspect the biggest threat you've ever faced was being surrounded in traffic by SUVs and duallies while driving a two-seat hybrid...

 

[Ms Tree]

No, that's just what you're saying now that you're painted into a corner...

What you said was "This shows yet again that there are too many people carrying weapons who have no training"

It's a false statement in this case, and hardly an example. He was trained. He served in the military. And now you have the balls to question his abilities?

Go out to a shooting range at night sometime, and see how well you do. Better yet, volunteer to go thru basic training, and see how well they cover stuff like "legitimate threat" and firearms training. Then maybe you can be qualified to second guess people who wind up in a situation where they used deadly force.

I suspect the biggest threat you've ever faced was being surrounded in traffic by SUVs and duallies while driving a two-seat hybrid...

OK, fine. Poor choice of words on my part. I have no idea what kind of training he went through, how long ago or how well he did. Judging by his actions and his performance that night I would say his training was either piss poor or non-existent.

How does his military service (I have not found anything confirming your assertion) some how exempt him from criticism? Does his service automatically grant him a pass for being a thug who just murdered a kid at a gas station?

Perhaps he needs to go through training again. Is it your argument that the military trains it's soldiers to escalate a situation in a public space to the point where he discharges his gun into a SUV killing one of it's unarmed occupants and jeopardizing the lives of everyone else who was at the gas station at the time? Are you arguing that the military trains it's personal to leave the scene of a crime, check into a hotel, sleep there over night. Have breakfast and want a news story about the shooting and then go home? Logic for most of us that you call the would dictate that if you are involved in a situation where your discharged 8 rounds that you call the cops. I know, neither of them had a cell phone and could not contact them till they got home.

I hope that he is not representative of the people in the military. Dunn has shown that he has no judgment, his training (assuming he had any) was basic at best and he obviously did not pay attention or remember any of it. He willfully placed all the lives at that gas station in jeopardy. He either poor marksmanship or had no business discharging a weapon when he could not see what he was shooting at.

He put him self in the situation. He could have walked away. He should have walked away. He made a choice to confront the teens (and I am sure he was as polite as can be saying please and thank you) and he made a choice to draw his weapon. By the way, did you miss the part that there was no legitimate threat? That shows a complete lack of judgment and training in my opinion.

I was held up by two men with semi-auto hand guns in March of 89. I was in a parking structure on the Westside Pavilion in Los Angeles. They got $6 and a money clip. Not sure what this has to do with anything.

 

[eolesen]

His having been in the military is irrelevant, as is his having been trained on how to use the firearm.

The only thing that is relevant is that it appears he shot someone when the circumstances didn't warrant it.

Judgement? Not something you can easily test someone for. Smart people with lots of training canstill make dumb mistakes.

 

[Ms Tree]

Then why did you bring it up? I said he had no training, you bring up his military back ground to say that he did, now you say it does not matter. Is this your final answer?

Ya think?

His actions go a bit beyond poor judegemt. His actions speak more to no judgement skills. Pulling a gun in a public place, discharging 8 rounds, killing an unarmed teen, fleeing the scene, sleeping all night, watching it on the news, go home ,,,,, then get arrested. One of those may quallify as bad judegment if you really stretch the envelope. Put all his actions together and in my opinion you have you have someone who is not firing on all 8 cylinders and needs to go bye bye for a long long time.

I just hope the SYG law doe snot get him off the hook. The Zimmerman trial is going on now so we will see how that one progresses. Florida needs to amend their SYG law before the whole places goes nuts.

 

[eolesen]

Then why did you bring it up? I said he had no training, you bring up his military back ground to say that he did, now you say it does not matter. Is this your final answer?

You claimed people without training were running around with guns, and that was the problem. I simply rebutted that lie.

You then went off on a little rant about how inadequate or flawed the training must have been if only one of his eight shots hit a target, how he never should have fired in the first place, etc...

Proper training does teach you how safely handle a firearm, and in the case of the military, how to assess and respond to a threat.

If anything, Dunn probably had more training than the average CCW holder.

What I'm saying is regardless of one's training, there's no guarantee it will be applied when the time comes.

Every pilot who ever crashed into the side of a mountain or stalled out was trained on how to avoid terrain or avoid/recover from a stall.

Poor judgement happens. And sometimes people die as a result.