Stand your ground

[Maria de Luna]

So in Florida there have been a few (some less publicised than others) cases where this law has been brought up, do we think it is being applied equally? Does the law seem ambiguous? Where do we think the issue (or not) of this law could be fixed? Should the recent cases be looked at under a different light, without application of the law? and does anyone else feel like there may be some really odd holes in the law (again or not.) and discuss!

[Doc_Holliday]

Re: Stand your ground

I know with the recent issue where the lady received 20 years for warning shots. She removed herself from the danger, got a weapon, went back to the problem and then fired the shots.

Unless I am incorrect, that voids the stand your ground law.

[Hawkfeathers]

Re: Stand your ground

I don't think the woman who fired a gun NEAR her abusive husband should have been sent to prison. She knew good and well what would befall her if she stood meekly by and did nothing. That being said, I don't know all the ins & outs of FL law, but it does seem ambiguous, and open to interpretation, as do many laws under scrutiny.

[monsno_leedra]

Re: Stand your ground

]I don't think the woman who fired a gun NEAR her abusive husband should have been sent to prison.[/B] She knew good and well what would befall her if she stood meekly by and did nothing. That being said, I don't know all the ins & outs of FL law, but it does seem ambiguous, and open to interpretation, as do many laws under scrutiny.

It's still the unlawful discharge of a weapon that is the issue here. I have a friend in West Virginia who went to jail for a year for firing a warning shot to try and avoid a fight. The charge was the same thing in that he went inside and then came back out into the situation just as the woman in Florida left the scene, obtained a weapon then returned and fired it.

Now I do agree that 20 years is an awful stiff sentence for what was done. However I truthfully think that a result of her turning down a plea bargain earlier and the court then going for the maximum sentence which is another topic I think.

The law itself is very suspect to me in that I have not seen any definite description of what qualifies as a legal or valid usage of the law or what makes a valid and legal situation for its usage. IN that regard similar to the many Home Defense laws that state one can kill to protect int their homes against an intruder but must ensure the body is fully in the home and there were no available exits the family could have retreated out of.

[Hawkfeathers]

Re: Stand your ground

And every state is so different. Here, if someone broke into my home and I shot them, they'd probably throw me a parade in the town square. Back where I used to live they'd lock me up (if I could have even owned a gun in the first place, which is a whole 'another topic).

[anunitu]

Re: Stand your ground

One rather large problem with the Stand your ground law is perception. In your own perception you might feel your life was in jeopardy,and so felt you had the right to use deadly force. But,and it is a big but..If another person sees the confrontation,and in their perception they feel you are NOT in a situation that allows for using deadly force then you end up trying to sort out what was the actual facts in the confrontation. This is why I feel the law as it stands is not useful. Perception of your safety being in mortal danger is subjective. Police are trained as far as possible to access if deadly force is needed,but even a policeman has human failings as far as perception. When a law depends on perception then it fails to be a logical device to determine truth from perception. Also if the force is used where no one else sees the circumstances that brought about that use,it is very hard to judge if the force was warranted or not.

[Maria de Luna]

Re: Stand your ground

It's still the unlawful discharge of a weapon that is the issue here. I have a friend in West Virginia who went to jail for a year for firing a warning shot to try and avoid a fight. The charge was the same thing in that he went inside and then came back out into the situation just as the woman in Florida left the scene, obtained a weapon then returned and fired it.

Now I do agree that 20 years is an awful stiff sentence for what was done. However I truthfully think that a result of her turning down a plea bargain earlier and the court then going for the maximum sentence which is another topic I think.

The law itself is very suspect to me in that I have not seen any definite description of what qualifies as a legal or valid usage of the law or what makes a valid and legal situation for its usage. IN that regard similar to the many Home Defense laws that state one can kill to protect int their homes against an intruder but must ensure the body is fully in the home and there were no available exits the family could have retreated out of.

I think what is confusing me the most is, how does someone shoot and kill someone and get no jail time, none, except his original arrest... but a woman who hurt No one and may or may not have been trying to shoot her husband, (no one was hurt, not anyone except for the wall.) this woman is likely to get 20 years... in the same state.... Yes, I understand that she "could have" left, but she didn't, she was in her home. There are also some conflicting stories about whether she even could get out of the garage, apparently she tried and the door was stuck, which is what apparently prompted her to go back in. My argument is, if Mr. Ziommerman can follow someone, he had no reason to follow, then shoot the person and recieve no prison time because he was allowed to invoke "stand your ground" Why cannot this woman not invoke the SAME LAW with the SAME JUDGE? In her own home? That's the ambiguity... In my opinion, the law should apply evenly, or not at all. Keep in mind she was also technically convicted of aggrivated assault with the gunshot, which hit NO ONE. Which is why the sentencing judge was obligated to give her 20 years. Another law which has its own problems and implications "the 10-20-life" law.

[monsno_leedra]

Re: Stand your ground

I think what is confusing me the most is, how does someone shoot and kill someone and get no jail time, none, except his original arrest... but a woman who hurt No one and may or may not have been trying to shoot her husband, (no one was hurt, not anyone except for the wall.) this woman is likely to get 20 years... in the same state.... Yes, I understand that she "could have" left, but she didn't, she was in her home. There are also some conflicting stories about whether she even could get out of the garage, apparently she tried and the door was stuck, which is what apparently prompted her to go back in. My argument is, if Mr. Ziommerman can follow someone, he had no reason to follow, then shoot the person and recieve no prison time because he was allowed to invoke "stand your ground" Why cannot this woman not invoke the SAME LAW with the SAME JUDGE? In her own home? That's the ambiguity... In my opinion, the law should apply evenly, or not at all. Keep in mind she was also technically convicted of aggrivated assault with the gunshot, which hit NO ONE. Which is why the sentencing judge was obligated to give her 20 years. Another law which has its own problems and implications "the 10-20-life" law.

I think part of it goes back to what the charges were that were filed and taken to court. Zimmerman got found innocent of the charges brought by the state. That's not to say he would have been found innocent of aggravated assault for instance or involuntary manslaughter had that been a charge. The woman in question was not charged with attempted murder or such but something else for which the evidence supported the charge. With Zimmerman you figure there was always a doubt as to who was guilty of what and to what extent. Zimmerman probably could have been convicted of stalking, aggravated assault leading to involuntary manslaughter or such but that's not what was presented by the state as their charges.

Unfortunately, he can't be retried on it as he was acquitted of those charges so he'd have to be re-tried on civil rights violations or something along those lines. Sort of like OJ Simpson was acquitted of the murder of Nicole Simpson but later found guilty of other things connected to her death. Personally I think that is what will occur with Zimmerman.

I think that many read the law and make an assumption of it but pay little to no attention to the charges the state brings against the person. Zimmerman trial was for murder which the state couldn't prove conclusively to the jury so they found against those charges. It's a poor comparison but it reminds me of the old clue game movie where the ending and who did what changes from area to area. The players had to try and convict or discover who did it but each player had a different idea of what should be done and how to view it.

IN some ways I think its also a matter of Zimmerman had no prior history with Martin so had no idea of what he would or could do. The woman in question had both history and knew the extent he could or would go to and choose to return to the scene even with that knowledge. I suppose in some ways one might say with Zimmerman it was a series of unforeseen events where with the woman it becomes almost premeditated in that she knew what would probably happen but returned anyway. Even going to the garage removed her from the incident as the man did not follow her there to continue the argument / fight so it could be seen as she initiated it at that point of her return.

So I suppose the law was applied evenly and equally but the charges presented is what caused such a grave difference in returns.

[Ophidia]

Re: Stand your ground

The base given reason why Marissa Anderson was tried for aggravated assault was because:

She used a gun. In Florida, any crime committed where the perpetrator has or uses a firearm goes under their 10-20-Life law. Aggravated assault while in possession of or using a deadly weapon gets a mandatory 20 year sentence. It's a zero-tolerance law in that no mitigating circumstances may be considered if the charges being filed against the perpetrator fall under the 10-20-Life mandates.

She left the house and then came back for her car keys, which indicated she was not as fearful as she was trying to make herself out to be.

And lastly, she fired the gun in the direction of a room where children were present, which was why the whole thing went to trial in the first place.

Nevada is a stand-your-ground/castle doctrine state. Our law states that as long as you have a right to be where you are at (like your home, public property, etc.), you didn't start the fight and you feel as though you are in danger of serious bodily harm or death, you can use deadly force to stop the aggressor. (Here's the text: AB321) In a way, it makes it seem like you can kill someone at any time and in almost any place. It's a broad-spectrum law, and could definitely use some narrowing of the definitions.

In Alabama, you have to be in a dwelling or residence, in a vehicle or on federally licensed nuclear power facility property. Those are pretty narrow parameters - if Zimmerman and Martin had been in Alabama, Zimmerman could have easily been found guilty of murder because he wasn't in a dwelling/residence, vehicle or nuclear power plant when he shot Martin. Florida's rules are much more like Nevada's than they are to Arizona.

[thalassa]

Re: Stand your ground

And, the next victim.

[monsno_leedra]

Re: Stand your ground

And, the next victim.

Well on the surface I'd say this is a clear case of murder not a case of Stand Your Ground because your threatened or think your threatened.

[Luce]

Re: Stand your ground

Zimmerman followed Martin, after being told not to. Not guilty.

This lady had to go back for her keys to leave the scene. Guilty.

This law is applied selectively, and apparently based on the skin colors of the people involved.

[anunitu]

Re: Stand your ground

One big thing is always in the forefront,that is we are all paranoid,for one reason or another and afraid of each other. Differences bring out the worst in people,what you do not know or understand you fear. It could be said we are all biased in one way or another,mostly it is something we all carry around and in many cases are not even aware of. If a person honestly seeks to understand their undefined fear,then they become master of that fear,but to Deni that we are only human and flawed in many ways,is to allow the darker parts of ourselves to control our actions even though we might wish only for peace and caring as the norm.

[Rick]

Re: Stand your ground

Yeah, no crap. Even if he thought he saw a gun, even if he DID see a gun, ya can't just shoot into a car and drive off about your business... OK, drive away if you're scared and threatened, but once somewhere safe, stop and call 911, and stay there until the 5-0s arrive.

Whenever I've been in that situation, I just popped in Rogues CD (rock n roll bagpipe band outta Texas) and cranked my stereo. The looks I get are priceless (often they actually look terrified). Once or twice, a lil gangster asked me what it was... I told 'em it was Native White Music, which confounded 'em even more. Never felt the need to shoot any of 'em.

[MaskedOne]

Re: Stand your ground

The base given reason why Marissa Anderson was tried for aggravated assault was because:

She used a gun. In Florida, any crime committed where the perpetrator has or uses a firearm goes under their 10-20-Life law. Aggravated assault while in possession of or using a deadly weapon gets a mandatory 20 year sentence. It's a zero-tolerance law in that no mitigating circumstances may be considered if the charges being filed against the perpetrator fall under the 10-20-Life mandates.

She left the house and then came back for her car keys, which indicated she was not as fearful as she was trying to make herself out to be.

And lastly, she fired the gun in the direction of a room where children were present, which was why the whole thing went to trial in the first place.

Nevada is a stand-your-ground/castle doctrine state. Our law states that as long as you have a right to be where you are at (like your home, public property, etc.), you didn't start the fight and you feel as though you are in danger of serious bodily harm or death, you can use deadly force to stop the aggressor. (Here's the text: AB321) In a way, it makes it seem like you can kill someone at any time and in almost any place. It's a broad-spectrum law, and could definitely use some narrowing of the definitions.

In Alabama, you have to be in a dwelling or residence, in a vehicle or on federally licensed nuclear power facility property. Those are pretty narrow parameters - if Zimmerman and Martin had been in Alabama, Zimmerman could have easily been found guilty of murder because he wasn't in a dwelling/residence, vehicle or nuclear power plant when he shot Martin. Florida's rules are much more like Nevada's than they are to Arizona.

I have issues with the idea that warning shots fall under aggravated assault. Shooting at a wall near you instead of actually shooting at you should generally be interpreted as just about anything except an intent to cause severe injury or death. That's the whole point. If she'd been actively trying to shoot him and just sucked at using a gun, that'd possibly be something else but "I'm deliberately shooting a target other than you" should almost never equal "I'm trying to kill you". The fact the charge ever got to court in that fasion perturbs the hell out of me. Doubly so when Zimmerman didn't get charged till after massive public outcry. There are possibly other charges that might have been relevant based on circumstances but that one should never have been used.