Latest Headlines
- Special Election To Replace Matt Gaetz In Congress Set For April Fools’ Day
- Escambia Schools Announce Top 10 Teachers Of The Year
- Cantonment Man Charged With Sexual Battery, Molestation Of 5-Year-Old
- Truck Driver Airlifted After Crash On Quintette Road
- Two Newly Elected Escambia School Members Installed
- Bratt Elementary Releases Honor Roll, Perfect Attendance
- Century Correctional Inmate Charged With Drug Trafficking Inside The Prison
- Bogia And Mystic Springs Railroad Crossing Closures Planned For The Weekend; Becks Lake Next
- Northview Chiefs Fall To Pensacola Christian Warriors (With Gallery)
- Matt Gaetz Withdraws From Attorney General Consideration
Stand Your Ground Law Clarification Needed
March 29, 2012
While there’s no consensus on whether the state’s “stand your ground” self defense law may apply in the Trayvon Martin case, and not everyone agrees on whether it’s bad or good law, a consensus is emerging that it may not be as clear as it could be as to what it allows and doesn’t.
As the 2005 law has come under intense scrutiny in the wake of the Sanford shooting of the unarmed 17-year-old Martin, veteran lawmakers haven’t been able to agree even on what the measure allows, which, the bill’s sponsor acknowledges may point to a need for clarification.
“There’s nothing in the statute that provides for any kind of aggressive action, in terms of pursuit and confront,” said Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, who sponsored the measure in 2005. “So I think that’s been some misapplication of this statute. If anything could come out of this very tragic circumstance, it could be some clarification of when this applies and how.
It’s always hard to predict what lawmakers might do on a particular issue, but several members of the Legislature on both sides of the law – supporters and opponents – did say this week that it likely would come in for some clarification. And while there have been calls for repeal, particularly from a few black lawmakers, most said they thought some sort of change was more likely.
“There’s a critical and urgent need to look at the law, and at least clarify it, or explain it,” said Rep. Darryl Rouson, D-St. Petersburg, one of several African-American legislators who have called for revisiting the statute either in a special session, or when lawmakers convene.
The incoming Democratic leader in the House, Rep. Perry Thurston, D-Plantation, and also African-American, acknowledged that a full repeal of the law isn’t likely, but also referred to the general sense that prosecutors, police and even judges may not know exactly where the lines are in terms of self defense in a public setting.
“The concern is that the application has not been fully explained, there’s some vagueness about some of the terms,” said Thurston. “We just need to make sure it’s being applied appropriately.”
Supporters of the law, which allows the use of defensive lethal force in public without a duty to retreat first, say it’s not clear yet whether it would apply in the shooting death of Martin last month in Sanford. George Zimmerman, a community resident who had volunteered for the neighborhood crime watch, shot Martin in what he told police was self defense. The case has gained national attention but has also drawn new attention to the stand your ground law, which was first passed in Florida, but is now law in several other states. Zimmerman’s lawyer, Craig Sonner, said in a nationally televised interview, that the stand your ground defense probably would come into the case. Zimmerman hasn’t been arrested or charged with anything.
The measure largely expanded common law doctrine about what people may do to defend themselves when attacked in their home or car – they have long been able to stand their ground and fight force with force in those places. Under the 2005 law, that also goes for people who feel threatened out in public, in a street, a business, or at a public event, for example.
Meanwhile, the incoming Senate Democratic leader, Sen. Chris Smith, D-Fort Lauderdale, again urged Gov. Rick Scott to let lawmakers look at the issue sooner rather than later, pleading for the governor to call a special session. Smith had asked earlier this week for a special session on the stand your ground law, but Scott said he wants to wait until a law enforcement investigation is complete and then have a task force meet make recommendations on what, if anything, to do about the state’s self defense law.
“A preventable death is exactly what you’re risking now,” Smith responded in a second letter on Wednesday. “…We have more than enough evidence already on hand of the deadly confrontations and self defense claims to begin a closer examination of the law’s track record and whether changes are needed to stop its abuse. There is absolutely no reason the public should accept any delay when seven years of history already exist.”
Rep. Dwight Bullard, a Miami Democrat, said earlier this week that many who don’t think the law works very well might be OK with a new measure that seeks to clarify how it should work – but said that at a minimum that had to happen.
“If not, I can definitely look to see multiple offerings of repealing the law,” said Bullard.
Lawmakers aren’t currently scheduled to return until next year and won’t file new legislation until after the November election.
By The News Service Florida
Comments
17 Responses to “Stand Your Ground Law Clarification Needed”
to derrick.lol.i hope all you have is a fuzzy dog when they kick your door in.ill be ready in my home.car or anywhere i am
REGARDING:
“The 911 operator had told him not to follow him. ”
Everything in the tape indicates he stopped as soon as told to do so. He continued the conversation for quite some time after agreeing, giving details and arranging where to meet with the police. No evidence pursuit was continued.
Taken from
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/326700/full-transcript-zimmerman.pdf
“Dispatcher: He’s running? Which way is he running?
Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.
Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he’s heading towards?
Zimmerman: The back entrance…(profanity deleted dhg)
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don’t need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Ok
Dispatcher: Alright sir what is your name?
Zimmerman: George…He ran.
Dispatcher: Alright George what’s your last name?
Zimmerman: Zimmerman
Dispatcher: And George what’s the phone number you’re calling from?
Zimmerman: [redacted by Mother Jones, they provided the transcript dhg]
Dispatcher: Alright George we do have them on the way, do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there?
Zimmerman: Alright, where you going to meet with them at?
Zimmerman: If they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the club house, and uh, straight past the club house and make a left, and then they go past the mailboxes, that’s my truck…[unintelligible]
Dispatcher: What address are you parked in front of?
Zimmerman: I don’t know, it’s a cut through so I don’t know the address.”
David for truth and justice
and cameras, lots of cameras
“The 911 operator had told him not to follow him. ”
You have no legal obligation to do what a 911 dispatcher says to do. While it would have been smart to listen to that advice, it wasn’t “legally” necessary.
REGARDING:
“People need to learn to keep quiet until the investigation over, and then peacefully protest if they feel that the outcome was bogus.”
Actually, they did. Their problem lay in the fact that the local authorities said they had investigated and determined no cause to charge the killer. Many did not like that determination because they disagreed with it, so they protested, peacefully so far although Rosie O’Donnell and a few others gave a false address to any who wanted to kill Z. That way, if anybody decides to take justice in their own hands, they’ll just kill the old couple caught up in the mess by living at the wrong address.
David for acceptable results
There is nothing wrong with the stand your ground law. What is wrong is, a black kid was killed by a hispanic man. Before any information has come out from the investigation, people are racially profiling this man. Had it been a black man killing a white kid, the local news would have been as far as it went. People need to learn to keep quite until the investigation over, and then peacefully protest if they feel that the outcome was bogus.
REGARDING:
“One problem in this case is what authority did Z have to stop or question the kid? ”
The problem with that question is the assumption that he ever DID stop or question the kid.
We know he was watching SOMEONE. We know he reported suspicious activity of someone standing in the rain and looking into houses he passed. (He may have lied, but that’s what he reported.) We know when the 911 operator told him they didn’t need him to follow the suspect/child that he said, “Okay.” We know both had a right to be there as long as neither was committing a crime.
What we don’t know, we can assume. We can just assume cold blooded murder on Z’s part and crucify accordingly.
David for wild assumptions
One problem in this case is what authority did Z have to stop or question the kid? The 911 operator had told him not to follow him. Only two people know what went on that night—-none of us were there. Granted the kid had a hood pulled up and was looking like a hood or punk. If i happen to be walking down the street and some one tries to detain me, I would be more than a little up set and might do something dumb. The boys family are going to go after Z and the home owners asst. that had formed the neighborhood watch group in civil court. One last thing— I wish the teachers who had all of the young blacks walk out of the class room to protest would have a pop test the next day. ( I know it will not happen) You have a choose– protest or get an education— not both.
This law seems pretty clear to me…break into my house and I can shoot you. Try to grab me while I am in my car at home and I can shoot you. The law doesn’t say we should be vigilanties or go around shooting people. It means protect yourself and your family, preferably at home. I would prefer not to shoot someone but I will protect myself.
WOW!
Anybody else catch this quote from the article:
“Lawmakers aren’t currently scheduled to return until next year and won’t file new legislation until after the November election.”
It’s JUST MARCH!! I know they are supposedly only “part-time” but still, it’s just March and they are not scheduled to return until next year? Is this right?
“Stand Your Ground Law Clarification Needed”
No clarification needed here. Seems pretty clear cut.
@hmm Where do you get your information? Zimmerman reportedly never touched Martin before Martin began his assault. Are you saying that Martin has the RIGHT to beat the crap out of someone without repercussion? (sorry for the big word) Are you also saying that someone/anyone should have to endure a brutal assault and just lay there? You can’t have it both ways.
why is it when a black man is shoot and it makes national news black law makers the plack panther al shap and jessi jackson jump on the band wagoon when the suspect is anything but black why are they not on the news every day yelling at the top of the lungs about all the black on black shootings or blacks killing whites / hispanics/ asians and so on? why is it lets not forget al sharp i belive accused a man in new york of a hate crime a bussiness owner after he was beat and left for dead it was later found out he had the wrong guy and no crime was ever committed or the thee white colledge kids accused of rape we all know how that ended and how led the charge al sharp and jess jackson oooo if u noticed i left of the rev part they are no were close too that
Well lets see how many lives this law has saved, before we go changing any thing. Lets see if the anti-gun media can get that right with out cooking the numbers. But I agree, if I am attacked or attempted to be robbed, I am going to do my personal, best to make sure that person, regrets not having gotten a honest career .
It doesn’t really matter in this case, anyway. He was following the victim and instigated the fight. He should have been arrested, regardless. “Stand your ground” doesn’t apply if you instigate or provoke. What about the shooting in the Piggly Wiggly parking lot in Davisville? The shooter didn’t provoke the victim, warned that he would shoot, didn’t kill the victim, and STILL went to jail and was charged. There’s something fishy here…
I agree with Charlie.
If you do away with this law how many indecent people will be hurt or killed because of the fear of getting in trouble with the law if they use deadly force to protect their self and their family. I have dogs and guns and i want all of the local thugs to know this and I want them to know the law allows me to protect myself. If they go and make changes to the law where you are not sure if you or in the right or wrong and the thug already knows what he is going to do, well need I say you are not going to get the best end of the confrontation.
It’s a shame, people in a free country have to use a gun to protect themselves! If you scared get a dog! A cute fuzzy one! don’t be so scary. I am Treyvon
It makes no difference wheather the stand your ground law is repealed or not. If anyone fools around my home unanounced, Sam Colt will speak to them. It does not matter if they are 16 or 80. The law does not matter, I will shoot!!