Latest Headlines
- Farm-City: Volunteers Harvest Thanksgiving Dinner For 1,000 Needy Families (With Gallery)
- When Will New ‘Paper Park’ At Former IP Golf Course Open?
- Trump Backs Jimmy Patronis For Gaetz Seat; Michelle Salzman Not Running
- Cantonment Man Sentenced To Prison For Drug Possession, Evidence Tampering, Fleeing
- K-9 Tracks Down Man For Attempted Vehicle Burglary In Assisting Living Parking Lot
- Escambia County Fire Rescue Fire Academy Holds Graduation
- FHP Encourages Drivers To Register Emergency Contact Information
- These Are This Week’s Road Construction Trouble Spots
- Central High Cheerleaders Perform At Halftime Of Alabama Game
- ECSO: Truck Stolen In Bratt, Note Left Behind Claims Woman Was Attacked, Kidnapped
Florida House To Hold Hearing On ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law
August 4, 2013
A House subcommittee will look into the state’s controversial “stand your ground” law, but its chairman said he doesn’t intend to support any changes.
House Speaker Will Weatherford, R-Wesley Chapel, has directed Criminal Justice Subcommittee Chairman Matt Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach, to hold a hearing on the law during a committee week this fall.
“Our evaluation of its effectiveness should be guided by objective information, not by political expediency,” Weatherford wrote in an opinion piece published Friday in The Tampa Tribune. “Does the law keep the innocent safer? Is it being applied fairly? Are there ways we can make this law clearer and more understandable?”
Gaetz said the hearing will provide a platform for anyone to comment on the law, and members of the subcommittee can offer proposals about the self-defense measure.
Just don’t expect him to back any proposed change.
“I don’t intend to move one damn comma on the ’stand your ground’ law,” Gaetz said. “I’m fully supportive of the law as it’s written. I think any aberrational circumstances that have resulted are due to errors at the trial court level.”
House Minority Leader Perry Thurston, a Fort Lauderdale Democrat who on Thursday formally requested a special session on the state’s self-defense laws, would still like a broader review of Florida’s criminal-justice laws and policies.
“He’s concerned about the size and make-up of juries, especially in felony jury cases, and he would like a legislative review of criminal-justice polices beyond ’stand your ground,’ ” said Mark Holls, a spokesman for House Democrats.
The prospect of a hearing also hasn’t placated the Dream Defenders, a group that has staged a sit-in outside Gov. Rick Scott’s Capitol office to demand a special legislative session to consider changes to the state’s self-defense laws, initiatives to stop racial profiling and an end to zero-tolerance discipline policies in schools.
“Ultimately you’re still ignoring the root of the issue, at least in terms of the Zimmerman verdict, and that is the criminalization of our youth, the way that young people are looked at in Florida, black, white and brown, and that’s due to the school-to-prison pipeline and racial profiling that’s perpetuated throughout law enforcement,” Dream Defenders Political Director Ciara Taylor said.
The protesters were spurred to action by the July 13 acquittal of George Zimmerman in the 2012 shooting of teen Trayvon Martin. The law was not used as part of Zimmerman’s defense, but has become associated with the incident.
Weatherford wrote that he requested the hearing because of the “diverse” comments state representatives are receiving about the law.
He had told the Tribune’s editorial board on Tuesday that he is willing to consider changes to the 2005 law if law enforcement clearly outlines that any changes are needed.
Gaetz said the format and schedule for the hearing have yet to be set, and he is working on the process with Rep. Kionne McGhee, a Miami Democrat who has served on the subcommittee.
“We’ll work out a process to have people come forward and offer testimony he (McGhee) believes will flavor the issue,” Gaetz said.
Weatherford’s opinion piece comes as the protesters are in their third week in the Capitol and have undertaken their own “people’s session” in the lobby of Scott’s office, intending to create a report they can give to lawmakers.
“I was not in the Florida Legislature when the (“stand your ground”) bill became law with bipartisan support, but as the current speaker of the House, I have been asked to repeal it,” Weatherford wrote. ” ‘Asked’ is a generous term considering the threats of boycotts, union-sponsored protesters overtaking the governor’s office and Hollywood elites disparaging our state and threatening the livelihood of hard-working Floridians.”
Scott and Senate President Don Gaetz, R-Niceville, the House subcommittee chairman’s father, have both maintained their support for the law and have expressed no interest in calling a special session to review it.
Weatherford wrote that he supports the law, stating that it’s critical Floridians be allowed to defend themselves.
“Demands for a special session to repeal the law disregard the very foundation of our representative democracy by presuming that a law passed by the majority of a constitutional body should be reversed by the objections of a few,” Weatherford wrote.
by The News Service of Florida
Comments
16 Responses to “Florida House To Hold Hearing On ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law”
CONSIDERING:
“I still believe the law makes it nearly impossible for the prosecution to prove a killing, with no witnesse, is not self defense ”
It was intended to make it harder to prosecute an innocent person.
It was intended to spell out that citizens don’t have to cower from those who attack.
That will make it easier for a guilty person to get away with murder.
It’s a balancing act.
I don’t agree with the saying “better a hundred guilty go free than one innocent be convicted” but I also don’t go along with “convict them all and let the Lord sort them.”
I read about an interesting application a few months back.
Schools often have a “zero tolerance policy” regarding fighting; anybody fighting may be expelled from school.
Some child being beaten on a bus fought back.
The school meant to kick him out.
They didn’t care they knew he was attacked, just that he fought back.
(They had witnesses and recordings.)
His parents got a lawyer to successfully point out that the school was forbidden under Stand Your Ground to punish him for defending himself.
I have no idea where this will end, but the implications are far reaching. Avoid people you think might try to cover up your murder by SYG. Avoid threatening and beating other people even if they irritate your and are smaller than you.
Some expected a blood bath under the law. I imagine it has been misapplied a time or two. (It wasn’t even used for Z’s defense, since he was already covered by existing self-defense rulings of the Supreme Court.)
We shall see what we shall see.
David for interesting times
The bottom line for Bill is that it is upsetting to him that he cannot get this case to fit into clearly black and white lines. if there is real proof (evidence) of illegal activity someone can be found guilty. If not, they must be found not guilty. it sounds like you are hoping to be able to have someone found guilty on a what-if or possibility basis. that just isn’t the standard of justice. A very old maxim of law going back to Genesis in The Bible was stated by William Blackstone as “All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer”. This is considered a cornerstone of our justice system. You should really think a while on that one.
By the way, very nice job throwing that slider in there multiple times if the James Bond law. great tactics on pressing your phase . I really wonder where you could have learned that.
Toche’ David.
I should have said reasonable doubt. You’ve made some good points but I still believe the law makes it nearly impossible for the prosecution to prove a killing, with no witness’s, is not self defense and I rarely have any sympathy for prosecutors.
Bill for reasonable laws.
REGARDING:
“The evidence presented said the boy sat up and was shot with the gun 5 or 6″ from his body.”
Actually, the evidence indicated the gun was in contact with his clothing and four to six inches from his body at the time the single shot was fired.
For that to happen, according to the expert witness the child had to be leaning over him for his clothes to have pulled straight away from his body. Therefore, the beating had not ceased and it was tight quarters. Further the stunning effect of Z having his head pounded into the concrete may have affected his ability to reason out the best response, the best location of shot. So when you say “If Z. was just trying to defend himself then why didn’t he shoot the kid in the side, arm or leg. No, he shot him in the heart”, you are assuming he had plenty of time to pick a nonlethal target, that he reasoned it out and chose the heart and was such a perfect shot that he pulled it off while being beaten. (or you are denying the beating either existed or would have had any effect on his reasoning and aiming abilities).
One other point, “beyond a shadow of a doubt.” is not a standard of justice but of poor fiction. There are always shadows.
Reasonable doubt is the standard.
Is it reasonable to assume guilt from the facts presented, not “Can I dream up a scenario?”
David for reasonable people
David,
The evidence presented said the boy sat up and was shot with the gun 5 or 6″ from his body. If Z. was just trying to defend himself then why didn’t he shoot the kid in the side, arm or leg. No, he shot him in the heart after the kid sat up and looked down at him. Doesn’t sound like self defense to me but it is impossible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt.
REGARDING:
“although I think it was a revenge killing, because he got his butt whipped.”
You could be right, but usually revenge comes AFTER a beating, not while being beaten. Generally, if you defend yourself WHILE you are being beaten, it is called “self-defense”.
David for standard definitions
Yo Marshall,
Read my post again. No mention of Zimmerman, although I think it was a revenge killing, because he got his butt whipped. I was talking about the law and a local case where one man murdered another in a trailer park but there were no witness’s and the prosecutor had no evidence to prosecute the perp. The James Bond law allows this type of thing to happen with regularity.
Yo Bill…you say the “The James Bond (license to kill) bill”…
There is no “license to kill” in the Stand Your Ground law. It is simply the part that says you do not have to retreat from somewhere that you can legally be. The Self Defense part has always been legal. And when you are attacked, nose broken, and attacker on top beating your head into the concrete…they are not unarmed! They are a felon and if you are in fear for your life or of great bodily harm, you can legally defend yourself! But…ya know Bill…it is a pretty easy way of not getting shot…don’t attack someone with a firearm!!!
This ” Stand Your Ground ” law makes me proud to be a Floridian.
If the session brings changes then so should the elections.
If Zimmerman’s attacker would have been white he would have been just as dead, you just wouldn’t have heard anything about it on national news.
@Bill- I guess it does not matters that someone is on top of you beating your head into the side walk. You just have to say I’m sorry if I upset you—please forgive me. The law is OK with most people.
The James Bond (license to kill) bill has to be a nightmare for Prosecutors. How do you prove it’s not self defense, when the only other witness is dead. Even in wild west, shooting an unarmed man was usually prosecuted as a crime. The Castle doctrine was good law but was sometimes miss used, now all you have to do is get your antagonist alone, kill him and claim self defense. Without evidence to the contrary or a credible witness, then how can you prove it wasn’t. I believe we’ve already had a case like this locally.
Leave stand your ground alone. You expect the criminals to be against it. If you don’t like it , leave. If groups want to boycott the state, fine too many here anyway.
nothing wrong with the stand you ground law, zimmerman just protected himself under self defense. now he needs the stand your ground law moore than ever. if florida still had their old law ” a duty to retreat” he would have to move out of florida.
good for him staying, stand your ground. i don’t care much for zimmerman for his politcal sway though.
MEDITATING UPON:
“- – - – that’s due to the school-to-prison pipeline and racial profiling that’s perpetuated throughout law enforcement,” Dream Defenders Political Director Ciara Taylor said.”
school-to-prison pipeline?
Please let us know if she says more to explain this pipeline.
It is true that some people seem to leave school thinking they can continue to act like they did in school but instead are arrested and convicted of felonies.
Other than tolerance, I don’t see how the school was to blame for them believing they could commit crimes without repercussions.
Or is it that the law enforcement agencies should ignore crimes as a means of keeping certain youths out of prison?
If so, wouldn’t that be racial discrimination?
And if that is so, isn’t that illegal for the judicial system to practice?
It’s confusing, I hope The Dream Defenders Political Director can enlighten us further.
David for clarity