Stand Your Ground Laws, good idea or Bad idea.

[SerScot]

Zarathustra,

Because it creates the possibility that a Court may find no liability or no criminality when I get shot trying to break into my own house because Bob the gun enthusist "really believed" I had to be a burglar.

Poorly drafted laws create unintended consequences all the time. Common Law presumes "reasonability" as a prerequsite for a given action. Not so with the explict terms of a given statute.

[Rawedge Rim]

Zarathustra,

Because it creates the possibility that a Court may find no liability or no criminality when I get shot trying to break into my own house because Bob the gun enthusist "really believed" I had to be a burglar.

Poorly drafted laws create unintended consequences all the time. Common Law presumes "reasonability" as a prerequsite for a given action. Not so with the explict terms of a given statute.

No it doesn't. Law clearly states that if you have the right to be on the property, then regardless of the what the idiot thought, he is liable for unlawful use of force.

[SerScot]

RR,

Zarathustra,

Because it creates the possibility that a Court may find no liability or no criminality when I get shot trying to break into my own house because Bob the gun enthusist "really believed" I had to be a burglar.

Poorly drafted laws create unintended consequences all the time. Common Law presumes "reasonability" as a prerequsite for a given action. Not so with the explict terms of a given statute.

No it doesn't. Law clearly states that if you have the right to be on the property, then regardless of the what the idiot thought, he is liable for unlawful use of force.

Probably, but not necessarily. As I read the statute it all depends upon what the shooter "believed" that they saw. If they really "believed" that you were a burglar breaking into the house without any cause to do so, as I read the statute, they are not liable for their actions.

Now, a court may take a less literal reading of the Statute than I am and infer reasonablity standards to the "belief" standard. My problem is that it may not. We don't know until the statute is tested and I guarantee you that someone who kills someone based upon their "belief" that they see a burglar who turns out to be a locked out homeowner will find an attorney who will attempt to assert the "belief" standard to protect their client.

They'd be commiting malpractice if they didn't try.

[Rawedge Rim]

the idea of the stand your ground law was two fold:

1. To define when force could be used to defend yourself, and where you can exercise this right, and generally removes the stipulation to retreat if there is anyway to do so.

2. In many states with stand your ground laws, a claim of self-defense under a stand your ground law offers immunity from prosecution rather than an affirmative defense. This means that, rather than presenting a self-defense argument at an assault trial, for example, an individual could claim self-defense under the state’s stand your ground law and avoid trial altogether.

[SerScot]

RR,

Yes. I don't believe I've disputed that. I have said that in some cases, like Florida, I believe that the SYG laws have gone too far in defining the behavior they seek to protect.

[Vraith]

and I guarantee you that someone who kills someone based upon their "belief" that they see a burglar who turns out to be a locked out homeowner will find an attorney who will attempt to assert the "belief" standard to protect their client.

They'd be commiting malpractice if they didn't try.

I'd bet that's gonna happen.
I think something else is more likely to happen first, though:
Most neighbors don't get shot by accident, they get shot on purpose.
And it's only a matter of time before that guy who did it on purpose CLAIMS that "belief."
It might not get him off completely...but if he's a half decent liar with a half decent lawyer it's the difference between a max of 15 [and potentially zero] and Life [or death penalty].

[Cail]

"Common law" isn't common.

If my wife parks in the street, and on her way to the house gets attacked by someone, I will go to jail for shooting the attacker. If I shoot a home invader in my home in the back, I'm going to jail. If I shoot a home invader in my home, and he manages to stumble outside the house before he dies, I'm going to jail. If I come home and happen to have a pistol with me, and I use it to shoot someone I see breaking into my house, I'm going to jail.

So yeah, big fan of SYG laws here.

[Morning]

In Portugal, if I have a (legally owned) gun with me, and I shoot an assailant on, say, his right leg inside my home while he is wielding a cleaver over my wife's head, I am going to jail.

Explanation: I am not allowed to use a gun for defensive purposes. I may fire a warning shot into the air, or scream "I have a gun!", or let my hypothetical wife be cleaved and then file a lawsuit, which will cost me 15 years, 15 thousand euro, 15 bottles of whisky, 15 suicide attempts and 15 packs of 80 gram paper.

[SerScot]

Cail,

"Common law" isn't common.

If my wife parks in the street, and on her way to the house gets attacked by someone, I will go to jail for shooting the attacker. If I shoot a home invader in my home in the back, I'm going to jail. If I shoot a home invader in my home, and he manages to stumble outside the house before he dies, I'm going to jail. If I come home and happen to have a pistol with me, and I use it to shoot someone I see breaking into my house, I'm going to jail.

So yeah, big fan of SYG laws here.

Nope. Curtilage.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtilage

Castle doctrine applies to the Curtilage of your home as well as the inside of your home. At least in South Carolina it does.

[Cail]

Not in Maryland. If I fire a weapon outside of my home in defense of myself or my family, I'm going to jail....Even if I'm on my property.

[Rawedge Rim]

RR,

Zarathustra,

Because it creates the possibility that a Court may find no liability or no criminality when I get shot trying to break into my own house because Bob the gun enthusist "really believed" I had to be a burglar.

Poorly drafted laws create unintended consequences all the time. Common Law presumes "reasonability" as a prerequsite for a given action. Not so with the explict terms of a given statute.

No it doesn't. Law clearly states that if you have the right to be on the property, then regardless of the what the idiot thought, he is liable for unlawful use of force.

Probably, but not necessarily. As I read the statute it all depends upon what the shooter "believed" that they saw. If they really "believed" that you were a burglar breaking into the house without any cause to do so, as I read the statute, they are not liable for their actions.

Now, a court may take a less literal reading of the Statute than I am and infer reasonablity standards to the "belief" standard. My problem is that it may not. We don't know until the statute is tested and I guarantee you that someone who kills someone based upon their "belief" that they see a burglar who turns out to be a locked out homeowner will find an attorney who will attempt to assert the "belief" standard to protect their client.

They'd be commiting malpractice if they didn't try.

b) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened; or
(c) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force is engaged in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further a criminal activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

[Zarathustra]

Yeah, RR, that's what I tried to point out in my first post in this thread. Maybe I should have used a larger font, too.

[SerScot]

Mea Culpa.

That said, what if it's my brother who comes by and decides to prank me by knocking on my windows (my brother is living in Minnesota now so doesn't visit very ofter). If my neighbor shoots him because he's not familier with him, is my neighbor culpable for his actions?

My brother is not a resident at my house. He is there without my express permission to be there. He's unfamilier to my neighbor. Would the Florida law protect my neighbor after killing my brother?

[Rawedge Rim]

Mea Culpa.

That said, what if it's my brother who comes by and decides to prank me by knocking on my windows (my brother is living in Minnesota now so doesn't visit very ofter). If my neighbor shoots him because he's not familier with him, is my neighbor culpable for his actions?

My brother is not a resident at my house. He is there without my express permission to be there. He's unfamilier to my neighbor. Would the Florida law protect my neighbor after killing my brother?

There is little protection in the law from sheer stupidity

[SerScot]

RR,

Would my neighbor not be protected under the terms of the existing Florida law?

[Vraith]

RR,

Would my neighbor not be protected under the terms of the existing Florida law?

That is the question.
The emphasized "does not apply"
may not apply because the previous section says
"knew, OR HAD REASON TO BELIEVE."
If that section said "knew." it would be different.
As it stands, there is an inherent conflict between the two sections.