STAND UR GROUND, MAKE MY DAY LAW 5TH YEAR ANN.

[russ1943]

Five years since Florida enacted "stand-your-ground" law, justifiable homicides are up. By Ben Montgomery and Colleen Jenkins, Times Staff Writers In Print: Sunday, October 17, 2010
After the law took effect on Oct. 1, 2005 You need only to "reasonably believe" that pulling the trigger or plunging the knife or swinging the bat is necessary to stop the other person from hurting you. But the law has also been used to excuse violence in deadly neighbor arguments, bar brawls, road rage — even a gang shoot-out — that just as easily might have ended with someone walking away.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1128317.ece

The number of murders WITH FIREARMS in Florida from 2005 to 2009 has risen by 33% The FIREARMS MURDER rate in Florida has risen also by 27.5% since "stand your ground".
http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/332e1b3d-2648-4b06-8be5-d322f340c95d/1971_fwd_murder_firearms.aspx


Nationally, in the rest of the country, the number of all murders from 2005 to 2009 have decreased by 8.7% while in Florida they have increased by over 15%. The murder rate for that same time frame nationally has declined by 10.7% while in Florida it has increased by 10%.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/murder_homicide.html

Just saying, & so you know.

[Tunkamerica]

1. must be a statistical anomaly

any person killed with a gun had to have been a bad guy, unless the person with the gun was a bad guy... more guns!!

[AtheistCrusader]

2. I'm guessing that without the law, they still would have had the spike in violence.

Other states have this law, or versions of it, my state for a very long time, and we don't see these levels of violence.

[friendly_iconoclast]

3. -1. You've conflated murder with justifiable homicide

Just saying, & so you know.

[russ1943]

5. I've not conflated.

I've presented some information. FYI. Thought the article presented a view not presented here too often. The stats on firearm murders are interesting in themselves.

[tularetom]

4. Guns are not the problem

Emotionally immature people with guns are the problem.

As far as I'm concerned there should be no restrictions on the ownership of firearms.

But if you use a gun to threaten, harm or kill another human being, even in self defense, the burden of proof should be on you to demonstrate that you were in mortal danger. None of this "stand your ground" bullshit or anything else meant to exonerate people who panic and fire out of fear.

[Abq_Sarah]

8. If I'm in my home and someone breaks in

The burden of proof shouldn't be on me to show the intruder was a danger to my life. The alternative to "stand your ground" laws is the "duty to run and hide" doctrine which I find absolutely unacceptable.

[shadowrider]

11. The only way to conclusively PROVE you were in mortal danger

is to be the one that was shot FIRST, stabbed FIRST, beaten FIRST. It's too late then.

[jazzhound]

15. So the innocent victim of an unprovoked attack has the

burden of proof? You are familiar with the concept that you can't prove a negative, right? Which is to say, you can never prove that you wouldn't have been seriously injured or killed if you didn't discharge your firearm.

[Euromutt]

19. "Stand Your Ground" doesn't absolve you of showing you were in reasonable fear of injury

The only thing a "Stand Your Ground" statute does is relieve you of a "duty to (attempt to) retreat." That's all it does. You still have to be able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the public prosecutor--and if necessary, a court of law--that you had a reasonable belief that you were under imminent threat of suffering permanent injury or death.

[RamboLiberal]

6. I'm still in favor of the stand your ground law and wish my

state of PA would find our governor sign the Castle Doctrine law. I was disappointed to hear Dan Onorato our Dem candidate would veto the law. I thought that hurt his chances a bit in my state and could be the margin of loss. I'm still voting for him since I'm not a one issue voter.

I have read cases where I believe someone who did shoot in self-defense has gone to prison.

I don't buy gang bangers are getting away with murder. If they are then there are chicken DA's IMHO in not charging & make a judge or jury decide.

Sure there will be iffy cases but isn't that a DA's job to decide if charges are warranted even if the prosecution could be thwarted by the law?

As a gun owner I'll do all possible to avoid getting myself in a position where I have to shoot someone to feel I'm saving my life or the life of someone else.

[safeinOhio]

7. Most castle laws violate the 7th Amendment.

Not allowing to sue in civil court.

[RamboLiberal]

9. Well excuse me if I think a criminal or his family have no right to sue me

If I injure or kill him/her to prevent them injuring or killing me and I'm never charged with committing a criminal act.

Oh and according to this the 7th amendment doesn't apply to state courts.


Second, a lawsuit must be brought in federal court before a litigant may invoke the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. This right is one of the few liberties enumerated in the BILL OF RIGHTS that has not been made applicable to the states through the doctrine of selective incorporation (Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. Bombolis, 241 U.S. 211, 36 S. Ct. 595, 60 L. Ed. 961 (1916)). The Seventh Amendment does not apply in state court even when a litigant is enforcing a right created by federal law. However, most state constitutions similarly afford the right to trial by jury in civil cases.



Read more: Seventh Amendment - Further Readings - Jury, Trial, Court, Claim, Cir, and Law http://law.jrank.org/pages/10187/Seventh-Amendment.html#ixzz13GhmvS4h

[PavePusher]

10. So, you think that criminals who break into peoples houses....

and get shot, should be able to sue the resident?

Fuckin' seriously?

[safeinOhio]

12. Seriously

Just because a prosecutor says something, it does not make it true. Kind of like letting the police chief decide if you should be issued a CCW. I want a jury to decide, not a public official.
So, you would most likely not have allowed OJ to be sued in civil court because he was not convicted in criminal court.

[oneshooter]

16. In Texas if you are found to be..

not guilty, innocent, are no billed by a Grand Jury, or are not charged by the DA, then you can not be sued in civil court.

I love Texas law.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Euromutt]

18. "Just because a prosecutor says something, it does not make it true."

Quite so. Just because a Florida prosecutor claims that it's the "Stand Your Ground" law that prevents him from bringing homicide charges, that does not make his claim true.

It strikes me that a large part of any perceived problem with Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law is that an awful lot of people in the criminal justice system--and the local news media--seem to be willfully ignorant of what it actually says. A "Stand Your Ground" statute merely says that, all other things being equal, when you are in a place where you have a legal right to be, and someone assaults you, you have no duty to (attempt to) retreat before using force in self-defense.

Florida Statute 776.013(3) reads:

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and 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 or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Many of the situations cited in the St. Petersburg Times article, and elsewhere, as examples of a defendant walking in spite of having committed a dodgy shooting cannot be explained by this statute alone.

Quoth the St. Petersburg Times:

You need only to "reasonably believe" that pulling the trigger or plunging the knife or swinging the bat is necessary to stop the other person from hurting you.

Well, no. As the statute says, to justify the use of lethal force in self-defense, you have to demonstrate that you reasonably believed that the other person would have inflicted "death or great bodily harm" on you, or an act of unlawful use of force that would constitute a felony offense. It should be noted that under Florida state law, assault and battery are not by definition felonies; "common," non-aggravated battery is a misdemeanor, which means that section 776.013(3) does not permit use of lethal force in self-defense.

What I'm getting at, in a roundabout way, is that when some Florida prosecutor claims that, instead of prosecuting people for committing shootings in dodgy circumstances, they're having to cut them loose solely because of this statute, I am highly skeptical.

[X_Digger]

20. I'm sure prosecuting attorneys everywhere also derided Miranda and the exclusionary rule.

I'm sure there are no end of legal constraints placed on prosecutors that they claim wreaks havoc with their ability to do their jobs.

[lepus]

27. OJ was the classic case of the LAPD trying to frame a guilty man.

No, If it does not fly in a criminal court, you should not be able to sue in a civil court. Bu the OJ case is not relevant to this thread

This is the protection that most stand your ground or castle laws present. When you have to hurt/kill to defend you and yours, unless you have been convicted of a crime in using that force, you cannot be tried in a civil trial.

This is pretty much the blanket rule given to the .gov. I want the same protections they enjoy.

[X_Digger]

14. They actually can sue.. it's just a civil immunity. Technically not violative of the 7th. n/t

[Euromutt]

17. I think you need to read what the 7th Amendment actually says

I also seem to recall this is not the first time I've told you to do that. The 7th does not say you have a right to sue; it says that if there are grounds to sue and the amount in question exceeds $20 (which was worth a damn sight more in 1791 than it is today), then you have the right, as either party in the case, to have the case decided by a jury, as opposed to having it decided by a judge alone.

Moreover, the Supreme Court has not incorporated the 7th Amendment as applying to the states.

[slackmaster]

13. Just think of how much higher the murder rate would be without the Stand Your Ground law

:hide:

[lawodevolution]

21. Given that you think gun laws determine the murder rate, to avoid being a hypocrite

Given the 22.8 percent increase in murder rate so far in New York in 2010, you would have to also believe the gun control laws that the MAIG leader has helped establish has harmed New York significantly.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/26/nypd-stats-city-murder-ra_n_513590.html

[russ1943]

22. You read minds? You're not very good at it.

Your repeatedly posting that you know anything ……………….............................about what I think is idiotic. On at least three occasions now you’ve replied to my posts with posts claiming to know what I think.
The increase so far in NY City that you now have posted & referenced more than once, was only for the first 11 weeks of the year. Since the statistic is published and available online weekly your referencing has been outdated both times I've seen you post it. If statistics on any particular subject, are of any importance to you, you would be well advised to seek out a current first hand, rather than third hand source. The murder rate in NY City so far (currently) is up less than 15%.
In this thread, I posted an article regarding the stand ur ground, make my day law as it exists after 5 years in Florida in a Florida City’s newspaper, given that I didn’t state nor opine that gun laws do or don’t determine the murder rate. Your calling me a hypocrite, based on your (again) knowing what I think and then telling me what I would have to believe is just nonsensical.

[lawodevolution]

24. So what you are saying is

You don't think the stand your ground laws are at fault for the increased rate of murder after those laws were passed?

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lawodevolution]

26. Sorry, I know how antis think and I know how excited you get when

You have some tragedy to use to advance your cause. Normally when someone posts something so malignant against me it's because I've struck some truth. You don't like for me to point out the inconsistent views you all have. That quote up there is a good one, 100% true. Each gun accident provides an opportunity for gun control groups to profit. If you don't like it when I point that out, too bad. Uhhhh ohhhhh some lurkers might read my posts. Look, if the public must be protected from certain information or certain views it indicates that those views are superior so by stating that you must police my posts so that innocent minds can't be corrupted shows that there is a risk my views can open up the minds of others to question the bad information gun control groups present to their audience.

But I welcome you to post you views here so we can discuss them, but if you have to resort to name calling and personal insults we won't accomplish much.

[Euromutt]

23. It appears some terms need to clarified (e.g. "Stand Your Ground" is not "Make My Day")

I've noticed that in a lot of discussion about "Stand Your Ground" laws and the like, various terms get mixed up, which hampers the discussion. So, for purposes of clarity and disambiguation, let's distinguish what the terms mean:

* "Stand Your Ground" law - relieves the victim of a violent crime from a "duty" to (attempt to) retreat before resorting to the use of force in self-defense.

* "Castle Doctrine" law - allows an occupant of a residence to assume that someone gaining forced entry into that residence has the intention of harming the occupants, and the means to do so. In jurisdictions with no "Stand Your Ground" statute, "Castle Doctrine" may also waive the requirement to (attempt to) retreat before resorting to the use of force in self-defense.

* "Make My Day" law - "Castle Doctrine" on steroids; where "Castle Doctrine" reduces the burden of proof to demonstrate a reasonable belief on the part of the defender, "Make My Day" throws it out entirely, granting immunity from criminal prosecution and civil suits to anyone using lethal force in their domicile against an intruder.

As a variation on the theme of "Make My Day" laws, certain states also have statutes and/or jurisprudence establishing that if a person has not been criminally charged, or been acquitted in a criminal trial, on grounds of self-defense, that person is immune from any civil suit relating to the shooting. Which strikes me as just: in a self-defense shooting, the facts (to wit, that the defendant shot someone) are typically not in dispute; the question is whether the shooting was justified, and the onus is actually upon the defendant to prove that. The very fact that you've managed to convince a criminal court that the shooting was justified should be sufficient evidence in and of itself to clinch a civil trial.

[pipoman]

28. hmm..the actual numbers are statistically irrelevant

one would expect some fluctuation of actual numbers from year to year. To determine societal effect one must look at numbers in relation to population. Then one must look at a period of time. It happens that 2005 was the lowest murder rate/100k population in over 40 years at 4.9 per/100k. 1999 was 5.6, 2000 was 5.6, 2001 5.3, 2002, 03 and 04 were 5.4, then in 05, again the lowest year in 40 years, 4.9, then in 06, 07, and 08 6.2, 6.4, and 6.2 respectively, then 2009 was 5.4 again. No, the numbers show a nearly static stat.

[russ1943]

29. U post rates, then call the numbers irrelevant and static, My post included both numbers and rates.

First, if there is some kind of point you’re trying to make please at least describe/define it. I’ve posted a linked newspaper article, linked statistics on Florida’s firearms murder numbers & rates and linked to a source for the national number of murders and rates for a comparison to Florida’s. You claim the “the numbers are statistically irrelevant”.
Which numbers are irrelevant to what?
The OP is about the 5th year anniversary of the “Make my day” law in Florida which became effective in the latter part of 2005. The period of time relevant to that subject IMHO would be from the time the law went into effect until now or at least the most recent reputable statistics available. Although you don’t specify,or link to anything, I can deduce you are referencing the murder rate, not the numbers, for Florida which I did reference, by comparing them to the National rate. In Florida compared to 2005 the murder rate was up. That rate went up by as much as 26% in both 2006 & 2008 and for the latest year available 2009 the rate, as I posted, was up from 2005 by 10%. The point regarding posting the statistic of Florida’s murder rate (not the number) is to illustrate the disparity when compared to the national murder rate which declined during that same time frame by 10%.
Since the Florida’s FDLE site and the FBI’s NCR’s Table 8 both make firearms murders available, they also can be compared, (even without Supplementary Homicide Data) insofar as trend is concerned. Nationally since 2005 the number of murders by firearm declined by 10%. During 2005 in Florida 521 people were murdered with firearms and the most recent statistics available for 2009 show 695 people were murdered with firearms, that’s a 33% increase. Florida’s murders with firearms has increased significantly while nationally over the same time frame murders with firearms has declined by 10%. Yes, those ARE numbers, and percentage changes, if you know, or want to calculate the rates let’s see them.