Latest Headlines
- Century Woman Charged With Smuggling Meth Into County Jail
- EREC Walnut Hill Office Closed For Renovations
- One On One With Sidewalk Prophets (Their Live Concert Is Tonight In Atmore For $5)
- No Injuries When Toyota Collides With Semi Truck On Highway 29
- Photos: Molino Library Hosts Back To School Bash
- Florida’s Back To School Sales Tax Holiday Continues
- Hot With More Afternoon Showers And Storms
- Here Are This Week’s Road Construction Delay Spots
- Wahoos Game Suspended Again by More Chattanooga Rain
- Band Camp Tradition: Tate High Showband Preps For The Upcoming Season (With Gallery)
Florida ‘Stand Your Ground’ Panel Hears Emotional Testimony
July 11, 2012
The task force created by Gov. Rick Scott to review Florida’s controversial “stand your ground” law heard from experts on security and neighborhood-watch programs at its third meeting Tuesday – along with emotional statements from members of the public who said crime had touched their lives.
The speakers included the widow, mother and friends of Scott Standard, who was killed in front of his home in Citrus County in January 2011. James W. Conner III, a neighbor engaged in a long-running dispute with Standard, shot Standard at least twice, but pleaded self-defense under the “stand your ground” law and was not charged. The only witness, Conner’s wife, supported his claim, but Standard’s family has insisted that Conner was the aggressor.
“This law is written as a license to kill,” Barbara Standard, Scott Standard’s mother, told task force members who met in the rural community of Arcadia. “Are we bitter? You better believe it.”
Other members of the public described their own ordeals.
“This law failed my son,” said Debra Peoples of Tampa, who said her son Chyvas was attacked by gang members in Ybor City and is now serving 30 years for killing one of them. “There’s a disparity in the application and interpretation of the “stand your ground’ law.”
Peoples said her son’s case, “where he was in fear for his life, needs to be reinvestigated and a hearing held.”
But others who testified, like Ed Johnson of Arcadia, said they were crime victims and urged the panel not to weaken the statute. “We need the ’stand your ground’ law to protect us from evil people,” Johnson said.
The governor formed the task force after neighborhood-watch volunteer George Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed teen, Trayvon Martin, who was walking in a gated community in Sanford. When Zimmerman pleaded self-defense under the “stand your ground” law and wasn’t immediately arrested, charges of racism sparked protests across the country.
The task force, which is chaired by Lt. Gov. Jennifer Carroll, is expected to make recommendations to lawmakers about whether the law needs changes, and is collecting testimony and data, with meetings planned through November.
Tuesday morning’s agenda was devoted to expert testimony, while the public spoke in the afternoon.
The expert consensus was that crime-watch volunteers “are not to engage in any kind of confrontation,” as Jane Meier of the Melbourne Police Department’s Volunteer in Partnership Program put it.
Expectations vary from program to program, but crime-watch volunteers agreed that trained volunteers are not vested with any law enforcement authority.
“Our objective is a visible presence,” said Len Smally, manager of the Meadows Community Association in Sarasota, which employs private security. “It certainly deters crime.”
One member of the panel, Judge Krista Marx of Palm Beach County, said the common thread of the expert testimony is that crime-watch volunteers shouldn’t act as law enforcement.
“Under the present state of the law, under ’stand-your-ground,’ if a neighborhood watch individual were to pursue or confront, they would be perceived as the provoker, and therefore, not be able to avail themselves of ’stand-your-ground’ immunity,” Marx said.
But Karl “KC” Poulin, president of the Florida Association of Security Companies, said watch volunteers can find themselves in some pretty difficult situations. He said private security officers and neighborhood watch volunteers are often on the front line against crime, when police aren’t always right there.
“I had an officer last year killed in one of these neighborhoods. He was gunned down by a gang member. And then we’re going to ask them as citizens to go out there in that same neighborhood, and get involved with us and communicate with us and tell us what’s going on? That’s a lot to ask,” Pullen said.
After the public testified, which took about 90 minutes, Carroll took a moment to address charges of racial disparity in application of the law. One speaker, Andrea Ortiz, a student of ethics at New College, had referred to an investigation of roughly 200 “stand your ground” cases by the Tampa Bay Times last month.
“Justice cannot be done if white shooters are killing black kids,” said Ortiz.
But Carroll cautioned that the Times’ sample was too small and said the University of Florida is examining all “stand your ground” cases documented by state attorney’s offices and law enforcement agencies for the panel’s review.
“That data we receive to this task force should be what we look at to see if there is disparity in the application and the use of the law, and not just a very small sample coming out of a newspaper article,” Carroll said.
By The News Service of Florida
Comments
15 Responses to “Florida ‘Stand Your Ground’ Panel Hears Emotional Testimony”
Thank you David for clarifying what a vigilante is.
Doug why should decent people be forced to stay away from the mall theaters or other places most people like to go. I am all for a little vigilante action even under David’s definition.
Jesse for Decency
Well some folks just want to grab the tiger by the tail, I do agree with you on one thing, never , never, put your self , or love one’s in a bad situation.It is not our job to be the social police. Hey if they are drunk and rowdy, or strung out on drugs that is what the cell phone is for, and that would be what the police are for.But if it is a direct threat, and you are in danger, deal with the threat.Pulling a weapon is the very last resort, but if you must , then use it. and do it with out batting an eye.
Bob, Jesse & Doug… I agree with your inputs, but you are missing the point of my post. I’m all for an individual who is being attacked defending themselves (or their family/others in danger) even if it means using deadly force. I also believe those who “qualify” should be allowed to legally bear arms (I own weapons myself). The problem is more people are purchasing guns and gaining a false sense of confidence. Just because you have a weapon, doesn’t mean you have to use it as the first option or to retaliate because you got your butt whipped – yeah I know a good old fashioned fist fight died out in the early 80s. Trust me, if I felt I was about to be killed or seriously injured I would use a weapon to defend myself. Alternatively, if I’m in “town shopping and being forced to subject my wife and children to offensive language, lewd behavior and other offensive behavior by thugs and punks”, I know how to get in my vehicle and look for entertainment somewhere else. More times than I feel it’s worth, I see people confronting these malcontents (thugs) simply because they have a weapon in their possession or in close proximity. Is it really worth it? The life you save might be your own. “Real” thugs carry weapons – I don’t know about the punks.
REGARDING:
“A lot more innocent people are going to die before this vigilante mind-state is reversed.”
All innocent people die eventually since all people die eventually, but I understand you mean as a result of the “vigilante mind-state” leading to an early death.
Further, I understand few actually care what words mean , that what matters is what they mean them to mean and that everybody else is supposed to know what that is.
Nonetheless, I would like to point out that vigilante actions are not people failing to run away from bullies or defending themselves from attackers, but rather are non sanctioned reprisals against those thought to have committed crimes. Thus, a person defending himself from what he considers a threat to his person is not committing vigilante action whereas a person IS committing vigilante action when he tracks people down after the fact and kills them for a crime he THINKS they committed (whether they did or not).
David considering words and meanings
To: Doug
A lot more innocent people are going to die before this vigilante mind-state is reversed.
There was a certain amount of vigilante work done up until 40-50 years ago. Also during that time there was significantly less theft, robbery, sexual crimes, harassment of decent people by trash, less property damage and you could go to town shopping and not be forced to subject your wife and children to offensive language, lewd behavior and other offensive behavior by thugs and punks. Maybe that was because people were able to stand their ground and fight back. We have become a society that relies on police for all of our self defense. Unfortunately the good police and other law enforcement cannot be everywhere and are extremely busy. It is my opinion that a little vigilante work is necessary.
For got one thing, even if I do not have a gun, I am still going to(stand my ground)
I would say most of us who support this law(99.999999%) do not go out “looking” for a (confrontation ) But IF it does,(and I pray it never does) no I will (not back down) as you say, I will stand my ground and if at all possible, make this person sorry they ever took up a life of crime.IT is my God given right to protect myself,my family and others.I would rather go down fighting than submit to some cheap thug who is going to do it again. That is what anti-gunners hate, independence and back bone. By the way a cell phone is a lousy weapon.
A good lawyer can make it sound like you’ve been threatened or felt your life was in danger. It’s like “homemade reasonable doubt” and that’s all you need in a criminal case. The state has been unsuccessful (or unwilling to continue) dealing with the thug culture, so they are allowing citizens to take care of the problem. With the current laws, you can kill just about anyone and an experienced lawyer can eliminate or minimize the possibility of conviction. It’s best to avoid confrontations if at all possible. I know the spirit of the law is to “Stand Your Ground”, but the interpretation is more often becoming “Don’t Back Down”. A lot more innocent people are going to die before this vigilante mind-state is reversed.
REGARDING:
“The only witness, Conner’s wife, supported his claim, but Standard’s family has insisted that Conner was the aggressor.”
Since they know what went on before, they are quite possibly right. The problem lies in the fact they are NOT witnesses to what happened at the time of the shooting.
Conner may have provoked it.
Connor may have shot him in cold blood.
“May have” isn’t the basis for a conviction.
David for reliable witnesses
It’s amazing to me that the good law abiding citizens are to be put in jeopardy because a bunch of gang thugs and drug addicts that don’t like the fact that they get shot down. To bad….stop bothering the rest of us and you won’t need to worry. I’ll stand my ground so it’s best to stay far away from my family, my home and myself. Got it?
I’m a widow,who never leaves home with out my sig,and if I feel that my life or the life of my family is in danger you can bet I will do what is necessary to protect myself and my family
IF its a threat, treat it like a threat, stand your ground, and we’ll worry about the rest after the threat has been dealt with!!!!!!
As the old saying goes: “better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.” No matter what the law says, I will defend myself against an attack with anything that is available including my firearm.
It should be the ‘right’ of all Americans to ‘Stand Your Ground’ to protect yourself and those under your care. Some people carry this too far and each case should be ‘thoroughly’ investigated. If I feel my life or my family’s life is threatened, the one who is threatening better say a prayer, because I will do whatever I can to make that threat go away.
Just saying… I don’t need a law telling me that it’s ok to meet force with equal or greater force. If my life is in danger, so is the life of the person who’s attacking me, legal or not.