FL: Governor Scott Signs Reform of "Stand Your Ground" Law

Gun Watch ^ | 21 June, 2014 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

The media coverage given to the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case, and the attention paid to Florida's "stand your ground" law, resulted in the legislature considering flaws in the law.   They passed a reform bill that was signed by Governor Rick Scott yesterday, 20 June, 2014.  From tallahassee.com:

The legislation, which marks one of the most significant changes to the state’s self-defense laws since the 2012 killing of teenager Trayvon Martin, was one of nearly 60 bills signed by Scott on Friday.

The state mandatory sentencing law, the "10-20-life" law, was being used by some prosecutors to obtain plea bargains from people who had attempted to defend themselves, but had not shot anyone.   The case of Marissa Alexander was one that caught the media attention.   Marrisa claimed that she fired a shot that qualified under the "stand your ground" law, but a judge ruled otherwise.  She faced a mandatory 10 years in jail.

The new law allows people to threaten the use of deadly force, even to the point of firing shots that do not hit anyone, to claim the "stand your ground" defense, and not be subject to the mandatory "10-20-life" sentencing.    A similar law was passed in Arizona to ensure that the defensive display of a weapon would be  legal. 

The vast majority of defensive uses of firearms involve the display of the gun without a shot being fired, so it makes sense to clarify that less than lethal defensive uses are legitimate.

The Arizona law was passed because one of the first prosecutions of a person who had a concealed carry permit, involved a permit holder who defended themselves by displaying their defensive firearm.   The aggressors in the case had also called the police after being thwarted in their attack.   It is not uncommon for criminals to use the criminal justice system as a means of revenge.   They often understand the system better than most citizens, and how to manipulate it to their advantage.

Fortunately, in the Arizona case, there was a third 911 call that was independent of the two involved parties.   It confirmed the version of events given by the permit holder, but was not revealed by the prosecution until just before the trial was to begin.

The aggressors in the incident were never charged.

The reform signed into law by Governor Scott has a good chance of saving lives.  It confirms that citizens have the legal option of using the deterrent effect of a firearm instead of a black and white choice of no use of the firearm or full use of deadly force.    In this, it conforms to reality.  Firearms are used for deterrence by defenders about 1000 times as often as they are used to kill.  Most aggressors do not want to be shot, and most attacks stop when a firearm is displayed.  Ensuring that law abiding citizens have and understand that option is a good thing.

©2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

[buffaloguy]

The police are quite aware that frequently the first call to 911 will be the perp, particularly in domestic violence situations. Making the first call gives one no advantage whatsoever.

[bravo whiskey]

THANK YOU? those 7 rules explain exactly how i feel. I will print them out.

[bravo whiskey]

The question mark was suppose to be an exclamation point. Fat fingered typing.

[ansel12]

Since common sense died years ago we have to make laws so intricate as to be useless. No more “Spirit of the Law”, it is all “Letter of the Law”. Zero tolerance is a good example.

Race issues is what led to that unfortunate policy.

[ansel12]

Nonsense, warning shots and revealing your position? That isn’t a situation when warning shots are used.

Precious resources and lethal to bystanders? My Glock 17 and firing into the ground?

Malfunction? Because you only get 1 shot out of your Glock so it has to count?

In a confrontation where you can’t get the man to see reason, pumping two rounds in the ground in front of him and then pointing it at his chest will really get his attention.

Warning shots are great, it may not be suitable for the terrified and weak, but for people capable of asserting some control over situations, some physical presence, it gives another powerful assertive tool to diffuse situations.

If guns are used a couple of million times a year to diffuse situations, then clearly your gun does not need to draw blood every time it is pulled.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Much more frequently I can buy. But a thousand times as often?"

Actually, the ratio is probably even higher than that. The statistical studies vary all over the map, depending (typically) on the prejudices of the author. The best work is probably by Gary Kleck, who started out anti-self-defense, but switched his position based on his research. I believe his number was on the order of 6,000,000 defensive gun uses (DGU) per year.

Contrast that with Jens Ludwig (rabidly anti-gun), who started out to debunk Kleck's work, but whose own raw numbers showed defensive gun usages on the order of 20,000,000 DGU per year. He spent most of the rest of his report DEBUNKING HIS OWN DATA. Hilarious and sad simultaneously.

[Still Thinking]

Good job, Flow-da!

I read the title and was afraid it was going to be a cave, given all the whining about SYG during the Zimmerman trial.

[OneWingedShark]

That is an interesting point; however, the real purpose of a warning shot is to prevent someone from attacking you by letting them know you are able to defend yourself (warning them).

"Warning shots" tend to violate this: Always be sure of your target.

[Dead Corpse]

Was nervous reading the headline, but it sounds like a needed change.

Cool...

[N. Theknow]

“It is not uncommon for criminals to use the criminal justice system as a means of revenge. They often understand the system better than most citizens, and how to manipulate it to their advantage.”

1973-74, there was a TV show called the Snoop Sisters starring Helen Hayes and Mildred Natwick as two older amateur sleuths.

One exchange with a suspected felon went something like this, Suspected Felon to Helen Hayes as Agatha Snoop, "Madam, I know the law."

Helen Hayes' reply, "Scallywags always do."

There were only 5 episodes as it rotated on Wednesdays with Banacek and a couple of other shows, but the ladies were a delight to watch.

[N. Theknow]

OOPS!

Helen Hayes' character was Ernesta Snoop. Not Agatha Snoop.

[TigersEye]

I don’t think this is the reform that Fat Al and The Race Baiters were looking for. lol

[Manly Warrior]

Those who have know what can go wrong likely will. Do it how ever you chose. Some say they know it all and have the stones to stand and waste ammo into the “ground” etc. How many live on concrete and pavement? C’mon, friend.

Best;

[MrB]

They were hoping more for something along the lines of the

“Thug protection act of 2014”

[TigersEye]

Sometimes you win sometimes you lose,
Big Al Sharpton's got the blues!

[ansel12]

As someone who has used an unloaded single shot 410, to control 4 robbers, please don’t take away my options.

Most confrontations when one is trying not to kill a neighbor or family member and one has already displayed the gun to no effect and the person wants to fire a warning shot, will take place in a situation where someone can fire a warning shot, safely, more safely than shooting someone in the heart.

“Every year, people in the United States use guns to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.”

“Of the 2,500,000 times citizens use guns to defend themselves, 92% merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers.”

[GeronL]

The Criminal Protection Act

[ExSoldier]

Thinking just a little bit ahead to my retirement, I wonder if anybody from North Carolina can say whether good laws like these five stand any sort of chance for passage in North Carolina? I'd hate to leave my home state of Florida for a better climate just as things were getting really good in this arena and then have to lower my expectations in the new state. If anybody here knows freezers from NC can you ping them to this post?

[mlo]

There are some inaccuracies in this article.

"Marrisa claimed that she fired a shot that qualified under the "stand your ground" law, but a judge ruled otherwise. She faced a mandatory 10 years in jail."

She claimed it was self-defense. The "Stand Your Ground" principle is only one element of self-defense, it isn't the entire law.

And she faces three counts of the 20 mandatory, for 60 years. Not 10.

"The new law allows people to threaten the use of deadly force, even to the point of firing shots that do not hit anyone, to claim the "stand your ground" defense,..."

The new law says nothing about allowing warning shots. It says the threat of force should be treated the same as the actual use would be, as long as the threat does not risk public safety. That would rule out warning shots most of the time.

Also, again it cites "stand your ground" when it should just be saying "self-defense". SYG has nothing to do with it.