Stand Your Ground Laws

[miami_fan]

I don't know how much attention this case has gotten nationally but Florida's Stand Your Ground law is back in the spotlight.

State of Florida vs Curtis Reeves

Basically a man shot another man in a movie theater after an argument about texting. There is a lot more to the case but I wanted to revisit the debate of this law without the specter of race.

In addition, Florida is looking at requiring prosecutors to prove that defendants were not acting in self defense as opposed to the current law that defendants has to prove they are.

Florida could flip burden of proving 'stand your ground' - ABC News

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I don't know how much attention this case has gotten nationally but Florida's Stand Your Ground law is back in the spotlight.

State of Florida vs Curtis Reeves

Basically a man shot another man in a movie theater after an argument about texting. There is a lot more to the case but I wanted to revisit the debate of this law without the specter of race.

In addition, Florida is looking at requiring prosecutors to prove that defendants were not acting in self defense as opposed to the current law that defendants has to prove they are.

Florida could flip burden of proving 'stand your ground' - ABC News

To me this has always been about private property vs. public property.

In a movie theater, I think you should have to prove you are in danger before shooting someone.

On your property with someone who clearly doesn't know you? Sorry, but at that point the homeowner shouldn't be on the hook for proving anything. He was running away? What if he was headed back to the car to get another person to help? Your adrenaline is skyrocketing, your home has just been robbed and your family threatened and people really think you are behaving rationally at that point?

Obviously, I don't think you should be allowed to torture the robber for 6 hours and kill them slowly. But trying to rationalize that type of situation with "what SHOULD the homeowner have done?" is kind of insane to me.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by TroyF

To me this has always been about private property vs. public property.

In a movie theater, I think you should have to prove you are in danger before shooting someone.

On your property with someone who clearly doesn't know you? Sorry, but at that point the homeowner shouldn't be on the hook for proving anything. He was running away? What if he was headed back to the car to get another person to help? Your adrenaline is skyrocketing, your home has just been robbed and your family threatened and people really think you are behaving rationally at that point?

Obviously, I don't think you should be allowed to torture the robber for 6 hours and kill them slowly. But trying to rationalize that type of situation with "what SHOULD the homeowner have done?" is kind of insane to me.

I do agree with your thoughts regarding the homeowners.

The reason I find this case and the law so fascinating is it seems (not sure this is legally correct) to be contingent on who the court believes is the "weaker" party. On the face of it, it seems easy to say yes, a seventy year old man is going to feel physically threatened by a forty year old man in a movie theater. Unless there is some sort of physical disability associated with the forty year old, I am not convinced that a court will find that a forty year old should feel threatened by a seventy year old.

[PilotMan]

Judge Nixes 'Stand Your Ground' Defense in Movie Theater Shooting; Case Will Now Go to Trial

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by TroyF

To me this has always been about private property vs. public property.

In a movie theater, I think you should have to prove you are in danger before shooting someone.

On your property with someone who clearly doesn't know you? Sorry, but at that point the homeowner shouldn't be on the hook for proving anything. He was running away? What if he was headed back to the car to get another person to help? Your adrenaline is skyrocketing, your home has just been robbed and your family threatened and people really think you are behaving rationally at that point?

Obviously, I don't think you should be allowed to torture the robber for 6 hours and kill them slowly. But trying to rationalize that type of situation with "what SHOULD the homeowner have done?" is kind of insane to me.

As a gun owner, I generally agree with this. I do think there are other "reasonableness" restrictions/constraints even if it is on your private property (e.g. finishing off a wounded criminal) but yeah, if I felt threatened, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot to kill even if the criminal was running away from me.

The couple were probable being jerks about it (I hate people using phones in the theater after the movie starts) but the shooter was definitely out of bounds and the husband did not deserve to be shot. There will likely be more of these with the more liberal gun carry laws.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Edward64

As a gun owner, I generally agree with this. I do think there are other "reasonableness" restrictions/constraints even if it is on your private property (e.g. finishing off a wounded criminal) but yeah, if I felt threatened, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot to kill even if the criminal was running away from me.

The couple were probable being jerks about it (I hate people using phones in the theater after the movie starts) but the shooter was definitely out of bounds and the husband did not deserve to be shot. There will likely be more of these with the more liberal gun carry laws.

I really don't think we are going to have huge issues with this. We have states with very open gun carry laws and this is something that really doesn't come up all that often.

I'm glad the judge did what he did in this case. If you fire at someone on public property with others around, you'd better damned well be able to justify your actions. I agree, the young couple in this case were acting dumb (seriously, throwing popcorn in an old guys face? Just walk outside the theater real fast and make your call) I also agree that based on the facts I have heard the shooter was not doing this is self defense. He was doing it because he was pissed.

[miked]

Why do people need to bring guns to movie theaters?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miked

Why do people need to bring guns to movie theaters?

Same question can be asked about anywhere else. IMO, the real question to debate is why should regular citizens be allowed to hidden/open carry guns in most public places.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by miked

Why do people need to bring guns to movie theaters?

Grizzly bears...

[Drake]

Also a gun owner...and I worry more about the average citizen carrying than I do about criminals.

Note: I live in a rural area and work in a city with a population of maybe 50k -- 100k when the university is in session. We really don't see a bunch of gun crime in this area...so guys carrying to church or the grocery store or WalMart seems a little unnecessary.

Which is to say: I'm not interested in stopping them if they want to carry, but they should probably understand that if they whip that gun out or have an accidental/negligent discharge anywhere in my vicinity, you can pretty much bet that I'm going to be the first guy in line filing the civil lawsuit.

[digamma]

Stand your ground laws suck. States which have them see an appreciable increase in homicides by gun, and an even greater increase in "justifiable homicide" as a defense to gun crimes. Also (and probably predictably) there is a disproportionate effect on minorities, with white defendants significantly more likely to get off on a stand your ground defense than a minority defendant.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by miked

Why do people need to bring guns to movie theaters?

There were 70 plus in Aurora that probably wished one trained person had been....

[miami_fan]

It is very early in the process of this case, but this seems like the next step in the Stand Your Ground debate. Is she required to contact law enforcement on her abuser or can she "stand her ground"?

https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/i...ranged_hu.html

[JPhillips]

A black woman?

She's going to jail.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

It is very early in the process of this case, but this seems like the next step in the Stand Your Ground debate. Is she required to contact law enforcement on her abuser or can she "stand her ground"?

https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/i...ranged_hu.html

This isn't a Stand Your Ground case because it happened on their own property. Still self defense as a defense, but the nuances change a bit.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by digamma

This isn't a Stand Your Ground case because it happened on their own property. Still self defense as a defense, but the nuances change a bit.

Thank you for the clarification. Is that because they both owned the property?

My broader question revolves around gender and gender stereotypes. It seems like most of the high profile SYG cases involve men shooting men and much of the debate centers on whether or not the shooter had reason to be in fear of imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily harm and/or death. My sense of SYG is it allows "a man to be a man". I think there is a societal belief that women have more reasons to be in such fear of such danger than men. I also think that is more of an expectation for women to not place themselves in or to remove themselves from positions where they may be in imminent danger than men. In the article, it mentioned that the wife did not use did not seek enforcement of the protection order at times. I am wondering what a change in that societal belief or of that expectation means moving forward.

In this particular case, I am curious about whether the wife (when not on her own property) is required to contact law enforcement or try to escape her abuser or can she defend herself using deadly means based on the threat or perceive threat. That perceived threat piece brings another set of questions IMO.In a broader sense, using an extreme, extreme, EXTREME hypothetical, could one of Harvey Weinstein's victims have blown him away before he assaulted them based on the threat and claimed SYG? I know it all depends on the particular state and how the law is written in that state.

[digamma]

Very generally in self defense cases, you have a duty to retreat if you have a safe exit from the situation.

In your home, that duty to retreat is lessened or in some cases (depending on state law) non-existent due to something called the Castle Doctrine. The idea is that your home is your "castle" and you shouldn't have to retreat from it in a self defense situation. There are going to be some exceptions on the edge, but the rule is generally that if you reasonably feel threatened at your home (ownership is not important), you can respond with force and potentially deadly force with no duty to retreat.

Stand your ground laws extend the Castle Doctrine beyond your home and essentially remove the duty to retreat in other places (parking lots, for example). Under SYG, if you reasonably feel threatened, you have no duty to retreat and can respond with deadly force. So the Florida parking lot shooting is a pretty good example of this. In non-SYG states you have two points of analysis, first, was the shooter reasonable in feeling threatened, and second, could they have reasonably escaped the situation safely? In an SYG state, you only have to answer the first question.

I couldn't tell from the article exactly why the police arrested the woman, but it must go to the basis for her feeling threatened. Once established, because she is at home, she can respond forcefully.

Maybe a rules of evidence question that someone like albion could answer, but I think the only way a failure to report the situation could be relevant is if it goes to how the person perceived the threat. For example, if 18 times before the woman had called the cops, what made this different (not sure the past calls are admissible)?

Stand your ground is generally bad policy. You typically see modest increases in gun homicides in SYG states. More than that though there is great racial disparity in the application of SYG laws. White shooters are more likely to have their shootings ruled justifiable homicides as compared to black shooters claiming SYG defense. Same is true for victims. If the deceased is black, the shooter is more likely to be successful in a SYG defense than if the deceased is white.

[miami_fan]

Thank you. I appreciate the information.

[Edward64]

Good move. Let's play it out in the courts, it'll generate the discussions on whether the law needs to be changed/updated.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ughter-n900181

Florida prosecutors on Monday filed manslaughter charges against the man who gunned down a father following an argument over a parking space — a killing that led to renewed scrutiny over the state's "stand your ground" law.

Michael Drejka, 47, was being booked into the Pinellas County Jail with a bond issued at $100,000, said Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri, who was initially criticized for deciding not to bring charges in the case.

[NobodyHere]

I feel like this case will end up being a tremendous waste of state resources

[PilotMan]

The defendant in this case is a prime example of a douchebag with a power complex when he has access to a weapon. He is exhibit A for why essentially open carry C&C laws are more of a danger to the public than any good.

His history and the number of people that have come forward to say that he threatened, waved a gun at, yelled at, followed, harassed and intimidated cannot be ignored. He called the company owner of a guy he had an argument with and told him he's lucky he didn't blow his employee's head off. I mean, this guys is a complete fucking idiot and really, he should feel some pain for it.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Good move. Let's play it out in the courts, it'll generate the discussions on whether the law needs to be changed/updated.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ughter-n900181

Michael Drejka Found Guilty Of Manslaughter In Clearwater Parking Lot Shooting | WUSF News

Michael Drejka Found Guilty Of Manslaughter In Clearwater Parking Lot Shooting

[RainMaker]

Interesting case. Not terribly surprising considering it is Alabama.


https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...ground-hearing

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I feel like this case will end up being a tremendous waste of state resources

Well I was in the wrong here.

[Edward64]

Wow. I guess the "rape" could is arguable but you would think the other evidence of violence would have been enough. Female judge also. I hope her appeals work out.

[miami_fan]

So does that mean the Jackson County jails will be filled with abused women and the Jackson County cemetery will be filled with abusive men? Though based on this case, I am not a guilty verdict would matter either way.

Former El Paso police officer gets 10 years of probation for rape