Stand Your Ground Laws, good idea or Bad idea.

[SerScot]

The idea behind them is good. People who are in legitimate threat of their lives or serious physical injury shouldn't have an obligation to run before they can seek to act to defend themselves.

However, in some circumstances :cough:Florida:cough: the scope of these laws has, in my opinion been made far too wide. For example, in Florida, lethal force has been authorized by the Florida Statute in circumstances where someone else's property in danger.

Imagine, I've locked myself out of my house. My overzelaous neighbor with whom I'm not terribly familier takes it upon themselves to take out someone they believe to be a burglar. In reality it's me. I really don't want Bob the Gun enthuesist to use me for target practice because he thinks I'm breaking into my own house.

Now, when limited to situations where someone has broken into your home (which the castle doctrine should have covered) I think SYG makes some sense. I simply think giving everyone the right to shoot at anyone they see and believe to be breaking into a car is a bad plan.

Here's the Florida Statute:

www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm? ... 6.013.html

The Statute:

776.013 Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(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.
(3) A person who is attacked in his or her dwelling, residence, or vehicle has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use force, including deadly force, if he or she uses or threatens to use force in accordance with s. 776.012(1) or (2) or s. 776.031(1) or (2).
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

I think it is a good example of the metamorphosis of an appealing slogan into bad policy.

[Orlion]

Hold on, I thought the property portion of SYG was only relevant if it was YOUR property. In other words, Bob the gun enthusiast has no lawful excuse to shoot anyone breaking into YOUR house, just BOB's house.

That's what I thought anyway. If it is how you said, that's...frightening.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

It makes each person a moving zone of inviolability.

While I think the defense of others needed to be permitted under the law, the above is a recipe for carnage. And it is happening.

[Zarathustra]

Imagine, I've locked myself out of my house. My overzelaous neighbor with whom I'm not terribly familier takes it upon themselves to take out someone they believe to be a burglar. In reality it's me. I really don't want Bob the Gun enthuesist to use me for target practice because he thinks I'm breaking into my own house.

Isn't that fear already covered by the following part of the statute?

(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, ...

None of the statute quoted sounds wrong to me. How would the rest of you write a law that guarantees you the right to defend yourself from, say, a carjacking? I think we all agree that you have the right to defend yourself in this case, as well as someone breaking into your home. And I see no problem with bystanders stopping a carjacking in progress. Or simply a really bad case of road rage, or any case where someone gets out of their car and tries to assault you through the window (like Michael Brown). It happens. I've been attacked through my own car window myself.

[SerScot]

Orlion,

This is the part I find really problematic:

(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.

It makes no mention that must you own the property in question.

Zara,

And ideally the portion you quote should control but can't the person doing the shooting argue they "had reason to believe" the person they were shooting at was breaking into someone else's home and not their own?

It takes what would normally be a clear cut "Why the hell were you shooting" to a "Well, did that person reasonably believe Bob was a burgular".

[Zarathustra]

Orlion,

This is the part I find really problematic:

(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.

It makes no mention that must you own the property in question.

Why do you have to own it? Renters can't defend themselves?

I think anyone should be able to protect the lives of others.

[SerScot]

Zarathustra,

And if they are acting in "defense of others" and happen to kill the actual homeowner?

Opps?

[Zarathustra]

Well, I'm sure they'd be charged with manslaughter in that case. How is it the fault of the law? The law doesn't make it okay to shoot the owner. Thus, the burden is on the gun owner to make sure he doesn't shoot an innocent person.

Notice that this law also covers the threat of lethal force. I assume that means, "Stop or I'll shoot." At that point, the situation could be cleared up. But without this law, anyone could break into a home in broad daylight, go inside and murder whomever they want, and the rest of us have to just watch and wait for the cops to arrive ... hopefully in time.

[SerScot]

Zarathustra,

No. This law is simply a statutory recitation of the existing "Castle Doctrine" that says you have no duty to retreat when attacked on your own property. If this law were repealed the common law doctrine would be back in place.

What disturbs me is the thought of a vigilante taking the law into their own hands and shooting me because I locked myself out of my house. Regarless of what happens to the idiot I'll still have be shot, or dead.

[Zarathustra]

So how would you rewrite the law to avoid that? Would you just make it illegal to defend anyone except yourself? What about your children? Your friends? You have to stand by and let them be murdered in front of you until the cops arrive?

[SerScot]

Zarathustra,

I would not create a special statutorily based priviledge to go shooting at people you "believe" are burglars. I'd go back to the common law where there is a right to defend other people at risk of death or serious injury. Not the right to go shooting because you "think" somone is breaking into a house.

[SoulBiter]

I would never shoot someone over their material goods. Stuff is replaceable but lives are not. Now if my neighbor is being threatened with 'harm' I might shoot depending on the situation and if I or my family is being threatened then yeah, I am armed most of the time and I am a better than average shot.

I love stand your ground laws, but yeah I think its overboard when you can shoot someone you 'think' is robbing your neighbors house.

[Zarathustra]

SB, the reason you can shoot someone who is breaking into your house is because it's assumed that someone who is violating one's most intimate space might also kill or harm the inhabitants, not merely steal their TV.

The question isn't whether or not to shoot people over property, but if it's okay to defend your neighbor with the same force you'd defend yourself, in the same situation.

SS presents one of the potential downsides to that argument. But let's say I know my neighbors very well. In fact, I know my neighbor is a white, wheelchair bound elderly woman (this is actually the case). Now suppose I see three black men breaking into her back door. Noting how they are a) not white, b) not elderly, c) not confined to a wheelchair, d) not my neighbor, am I justified in protecting her with the same force I'd use to protect my wife? Or do I just call 911 and hope she doesn't get murdered in the next 2 minutes?

[Morning]

Thanks, Z. Saved me a post.

[SerScot]

Zarathustra,

In your hypothetical I think you have a legitimate right to attempt to defend your neighbor under common law. The statute, poorly drafted as it is, is not necessary to give you the right to act to defend your neighbor.

My concern is not your situation. My concern is someone acting without the knowledge your hypothetical assumes then using the law to attempt to justify their actions.

[Vraith]

Noting how they are a) not white, b) not elderly, c) not confined to a wheelchair, d) not my neighbor, am I justified in protecting her with the same force I'd use to protect my wife? Or do I just call 911 and hope she doesn't get murdered in the next 2 minutes?

What if you fail to know e) they saw fire through the window, or heard a lady calling for help and the front door wouldn't open?
You'd probably get off, and probably feel pretty bad.
Why can't you shout out the window "The COPS ARE ON THE WAY!"
[[if they turn and aim at you or come after you, then you can shoot them]].

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I think it is a good example of the metamorphosis of an appealing slogan into bad policy.

This sums up the Florida law nicely. Remember that this is Florida, which is highly populated by folks over the age of 50 who think that every identity thief in the world is after their 401(k) or that there is a burglar lurking around every corner just itching to break in and steal their DVD player.

SYG is an excellent idea, though, in the limited and very rare situations in which your life (or the life of your family/friends with you) is in imminent danger. The guy has drawn his knife and is approaching. She pulled a gun out of her purse. He has a baseball bat and has swung it at you. In those instances, you do what it takes to put that person down and then you call 911.

Someone outside your house and you think they are breaking in? Get everyone to a secure inner room and call the cops. If they come in after you, kill them. Otherwise, sit tight.

Getting carjacked? Comply until everyone is out of the car safely, let them take it, then call the cops and let the insurance deal with it. I suppose you could always have everyone duck while you floor it and hope to get away but that could be risky.

In most instances, SYG isn't really needed since, as noted, "castle doctrine" suffices.

[SoulBiter]

SB, the reason you can shoot someone who is breaking into your house is because it's assumed that someone who is violating one's most intimate space might also kill or harm the inhabitants, not merely steal their TV.

True.. I agree 100%. I never said differently

The question isn't whether or not to shoot people over property, but if it's okay to defend your neighbor with the same force you'd defend yourself, in the same situation.

Again I agree with you on the question. I dont think your neighbor is quite so cut and dry. When you are bring broken into, you know whats going on. At your neighbors, you don't know the situation but what you have done is, without knowing the circumstances, applied the death penalty to breaking and entering.

[Zarathustra]

I dont think your neighbor is quite so cut and dry. When you are bring broken into, you know whats going on. At your neighbors, you don't know the situation but what you have done is, without knowing the circumstances, applied the death penalty to breaking and entering.

Yeah, good point.

However, I think people are worrying about extremely improbable scenarios. Home invasions happen all the time. People getting shot while breaking into their homes are pretty rare. If your neighbor is such a gun nut that he's going to shoot you before confirming your ID, a law probably is not going to affect him either way.

However, if your neighbor really is about to be killed, and you DID do something to stop it, does this mean you'd be charged with a crime even if you're right (without the SYG law)?

I suppose that's where SS's point comes in:

In your hypothetical I think you have a legitimate right to attempt to defend your neighbor under common law. The statute, poorly drafted as it is, is not necessary to give you the right to act to defend your neighbor.

So then what exactly causes the situation to be worse with the SYG law, if you can already defend others?