Stand your ground law

Anonyomous, thank you for your service to our country

Now, I would really like some input from LEO regarding the stand your ground law. What are your feelings about it? Do you agree or disagree with it and why? Anonyomous, please feel free to add your own input.

Thanks 8)

Most readers of this website will not be surprised that some anti-gun advocates have serious difficulties with facts, truth, logic and the derivatives thereof. Still, Brady bunch* attacks on Florida’s new self-defense law, which took effect on October 1, are so viciously misleading as to eliminate any credibility the group has or ever again will have, even among the more responsible of their own kind. Given the brevity and simplicity of the law, so clearly distorted by the Bradys, the cynical calculation of the group has to be that no one will actually read it.

On its website, in newspaper ads and in flyers handed out in Florida airports to inbound tourists, the Bradys repeatedly label the law as the “Shoot First” law and warn visitors not to argue with, shout at or make threatening gestures to “local people.” A Florida map is made to resemble a handgun. There’s more misrepresentative, hyperbolic scare-mongering.

The Florida law is not a gun law. Period. It contains zero references to guns or shooting, unless you feel propagandistically compelled to count one of those ubiquitous legislative “Whereases” that references the Florida Constitution’s “right of the people to bear arms…”

The Florida law is a self-defense, self-protection law. It has four key components:

It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.

In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.

If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.
Florida’s law, like countless others from legislative sausage grinders, could have been better drafted. It unquestionably will be challenged in court, over and over again, by those who abhor even the concept of applied individual self-defense or by legal gadflies with nothing better to do with their time.

It is a tough law — on those with criminal intent. As is often the case, its ultimate goal is as much to deter as to be used. Whether it ever results in much change remains to be seen. But by removing ambiguities regarding legal responses to imminent threats to life and property and removing an obligation to retreat, the law attempts to rebalance justice on behalf of innocent, law-abiding Floridians, as well as the state’s numerous law-abiding visitors, specifically included. Whether those visitors are comforted or frightened by the law should be based on accurately understanding it, not blatant attempts by a faltering advocacy group to harm Florida tourism.

* The group is one of those with a propagandistic official name which we cantankerously won’t repeat.

That was very informative -- thank you, but you didn't answer my question as to if you agree or disagree with it. I really want the perspective of a LEO regarding this issue.

I tend to agree with the fact that if someone enters my home that I should be able to protect myself and not retreat as they have entered my "castle". What I find of real interest is the castle doctine, no longer does it just refer to your home, but to basically any area that you may feel "reasonable belief" that using deadly force is necessary to prevent "imminent" death.

The key word in this is "reasonable". What's reasonable to one person may not be to another and that's what opens this doctrine up to interpretaton because of not having a clear and concise definition of the word reasonable.

If you make it to law school, you will find the "reasonable" standard to be used often. Probable cause itself, the standard for making an arrest and criminally charging someone, uses this standard. There is no clear cut definition for it. Every situation is different so the standard of reasonableness leaves enough wiggle room so actions and decisions can be articulated on a case-by-case basis. Police, prosecutors, judges and juries decide what a reasonable person would do in a given situation.

Thank you also for your response.

Now, I have another question for everyone, please don't get offended by it. I have spoken with a friend who's husband was a cop before going to law school and is now a prosecutor. I asked him this very same question and I wanted to see what your answers would be and if they would be the same as his. So, here goes, I've been told by numerous people that being a cop is like being a historian. Their reasoning behind this assessment is because the majority of the time you are taking down information that has already occurred. There are instances where you are there when the actual event is happening, but a majority of time the event has already occured and you are "recording" what has already taken place. Would you agree or disagree with the comparison of a cop to a historian? If so, why or why not?

I'm not trying to get into a fight with y'all or downgrade what you do, I just want your honest feedback to my questions.

On a side note, in the spring I take the first of my LSAT Prep Courses in order to sit for the LSAT. I will be taking this prep course in addition to my other school classes.

We don't care what you do in your life!!! You have no ties to ZPD so go away! Find another site to post on, we're tired of your mouth!

We don't care what you do in your life!!! You have no ties to ZPD so go away! Find another site to post on, we're tired of your mouth!

First, you aren't being very nice and I have every right to be on this board. Be careful that you don't violate the terms of this board by your posts.
Now, I would respectfully request that you don't post replies to my entries.

Now, back to my questions, anyone?

I guess that would be an appropriate analogy, much the same way that an attorney is like a supervisor: they do very little in the way of the finished product, but take all of the credit.

Let's talk about the new cruiser! WoW

I guess that would be an appropriate analogy, much the same way that an attorney is like a supervisor: they do very little in the way of the finished product, but take all of the credit.

Thank you for your response and I can understand your stance, it must be upseting (for lack of a better word) to feel that you don't get your fair share of the credit. I think since the attorney has to present the whole case it would appear to some people that they should get all the credit. Whereas, it takes many people to put a case together. We're all just spokes on a bicycyles wheel.