Posted on 01/03/2011 3:40:02 AM PST by marktwain
DAYTONA BEACH -- A decade-old law that gives criminal immunity to some people who defend themselves with knives, fists, sticks or guns is rearing its head more frequently in Volusia County courtrooms.
Under what is known as Florida's "Stand Your Ground Law," a Daytona Beach man recently avoided up to 15 years in prison for smashing another in the face with a 2-by-4 while defending himself and his girlfriend from a drunk attacker.
Circuit Judge Patrick Kennedy on Dec. 2 ruled that Vincent Strollo is immune from prosecution, records show.
It was interesting to see a man found immune from prosecution for delivering the July 19 blow that broke James Houghtaling's jaw, Houghtaling's lawyer said.
"I think the court made the right decision," said Strollo's lawyer, Mitch Wrenn. "Because had the case gone to trial, that would have been a big waste of financial resources. Charges should never have been filed in the first place."
The law expanded in 2005 what is known as the Castle Doctrine beyond the home, to allow self-protection in any place where you have a lawful right to be. The ability to retreat is irrelevant under the law.
Since the law broadened the defense, a spate of similar arguments have been heard in court. The issue has reached appellate courts throughout the state, though not yet here. In 2009, prosecutors in Miami dropped a murder charge against a man who admitted shooting a rival, fueling the debate.
Like any relatively new act of legislation, there are proponents and opponents and discussions of needed changes.
In Daytona Beach, three men have been shot and killed in the past year in what police described as acts of defense during drug deals gone wrong.
(Excerpt) Read more at news-journalonline.com ...
Yup. The right of self defense shouldn’t be second guessed by the police, prosecutors and the courts. They weren’t there. And people are intelligent enough to recognize the difference between that and murder. And if its murder, a jury can decide if it wasn’t legitimate self-defense but in a murder case, the defense never raises that argument.
FWIW, there was a perfectly logical reason for the centuries-old common law “requirement to retreat.”
It was to prevent the common situation where two men get into a mutual disagreement that becomes violent and one winds up dead. It does not make a lot of sense to allow the survivor to claim self-defense if the only real difference between the two men’s action was which was the more effective fighter. Or, in the case of a non-lethal fight, to allow both men to claim they acted in self-defense so no crime was committed by either.
Homicide in such a case may not be murder, but it also is not really self-defense.
I realize this is not what the CD law intends, but it is easy to see that it makes the distinction between perp and (intended) victim in mutual argument cases a little less easy to draw.
I am also aware the RTR evolved in the common law during a period when weaponry was a good deal less immediately lethal, which certainly justifies its reexamination.
No, but they still have to decide whether it was legitimate self defense or not. The dead guy isn't around anymore to give his side of the story and the survivor has a strong incentive to give a less than perhaps fully accurate narrative of what happened.
I disagree. If you have a legitimate right to be where you are and someone attacks you, you shouldn’t be required to leave before defending yourself. The onus should fall on the attacker not on the victim. Whether its your home, your car, the street, your workplace or a place of business you go to, you have the right to expect your person is safe. And if someone threatens that, they can’t say they weren’t warned.
Murder usually involves a personal dispute that gets out of hand or someone to collect an interest in the victim, be it money or property. Or someone can be murdered for not toeing the line or not doing their job, like in organized crime. Murder is still illegal. The “Stand Your Ground” law doesn’t change it - it merely clarifies the circumstances in which an act of self-defense can be considered lawful.
I agree.
Do you agree there are cases of mutual disagreement where it is not obvious which party is the attacker? Surely you've seen the bar argument that escalates into a fight, where a rational third party observer would assign some or even equal fault to both sides?
In such a case, should the survivor be automatically entitled to claim self-defense?
In ambiguous cases, a court can decide who is right. That is what we have courts for when no one is sure whose version of events is right.
Regardless of how “wise” or “smart” such events may be categorized, there is always an agressor. Granted, tactically, one should avoid all such situations, but alas, often circumstances step in.
The “stand your ground” law does not confer immunity for being an aggressor, only that one does not concede the right to self-dfense simply because they are not at home.
Most states allow such action-it is called “justified force”. One must simply not be the aggressor in the event.
Here in MO, such situations require the defender to be clearly the victim in order to have an “affirmative defense”, no need to run away, but the elements of lawful self-defense must present.
Now, if two idiots decide to have a duel to determine who is the better man, then there likely would be no such protection for either one, as dueling is unlawful to begin with, at least in MO.
Yes, even fools doing illegal things still retain the right to protect their lives from other fools, although avoiding the weight of the law may much less likely, even in FL. Get caught in a bad drug deal, and although one may avoid a murder charge, one still (and probably should) get pinched for a felony drug charge.
I see the point, but a little background on the deceased might be helpful, too, in deciding the finer point you raise. Say two seminarians get into a lunchroom debate and one gets popped. Alright, that might be reason enough to suspect to shooter. Second case (usual case) a slimebag mugs two innocents in a parking ramp. Very difficult to protect another person while retreating from a moving, aggressive assailant. Victim one shoots perp. Perp has record a mile long and the incident fits the perp’s MO. Case closed.
The “Stand Your Ground” law does not provide immunity from “investigation.”
What it does is protect the defender from prosecution if the responding officer determines it was a legitimate case of self defense. It is supposed to protect the defender from even being arrested, but obviously it will be tested in court many times before it is actually allowed to work as written.
If legal self defense then one good result.
I'm not that familiar with the law, but it seems unlikely to me that such a serious decision would be left up to the snap judgment of the officer in the field. Surely his decision should at minimum be reviewed by the DA's office in some formal way.
Interesting, but also bear this in mind, common law was an ideal method of governance for civilized people. As long as the percentage of civilized people in the USA continues to decline, we will always need to have the option of using lethal force to legally defend ourselves.
I understand your skepticism. Nevertheless, as written, the law protects a defender from even being arrested, let alone held civilly liable, if there is no reason to believe their actions were not justified. That the law confers that level of decision making to a police officer is indeed surprising, but simple deduction should convince a protection from "arrest" requires the determination be made by the responding officer.
Interestingly enough, the actual text of the law seems to have been "buried" by "broken links," and stories or opinions "about" the law insofar as internet search engines are concerned. I freely admit I'm recalling from memory, but I did read the actual statute several times online because I was intrigued by the level of histrionics produced by the professional ambulance chasers here in Florida.
The media here was so fixated on the right to use deadly force, they completely ignored the clauses that negated the existing protocols that allowed trial lawyers to make a defender's life a living hell, no matter how righteous the shoot...hence the caterwauling by the legal flacks.
I defer to your superior knowledge, but a person not being arrested on the site does not mean he is not potentially suspect to arrest at a later date if review of the case, if reason is found to believe their actions were not justified.
For instance, the shooter may claim he was defending himself against a random mugging. If investigation later shows the shot guy was known to the victim, I would assume the case would be reopened.
“such a serious decision would be left up to the snap judgment of the officer in the field”
If it results in a death, it wouldn’t be left up to a “field” officer. At minimum, a detective would investigate to determine, (even a cursory investigation), that what was said is what actually happened. If everything fits, then it should be closed.
“If investigation later shows the shot guy was known to the victim, I would assume the case would be reopened”
Definitely correct.
The right to self-defense is inherent in human nature. No government can give this right, or attempt to take it away. The right extends to protecting family members and/or weaker individuals.
Absolutely, but If I have the right of it, the potential exists of it never getting past the responding officer, even if it never happens that way "in practice."
As I said earlier...the law does not protect the defender from "investigation."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.