[Scoutmaster]

You cannot start a fight and then claim stand your ground, so says, the man who authored the law and the governor that signed the law and everyone that voted for the law that has been ask.

They would have helped everyone out, then, if they had written that into the law. But they didn't.

Let's just make certain everybody has read the Florida law and it talking about the same thing. The Florida "Stand Your Ground Law" was enacted in 2005 and is codified at Florida Statutes Chapter 776, "Justifiable Use of Force."

You may read the entire chapter here.

The chapter says, in pertinent part:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—[A} person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself[.]

That's all it says. It doesn't say anything at all about starting fights and how it affects the right to claim the chapter. It may be in the legislative history (such as debate on the floor of the Florida state house and senate, or state legislative committee meeting minutes or reports), and a court could consider that in interpreting the law. However, there's an entire area of the law devoted to statutory interpretation. Unless the words of the statute are vague and ambiguous, you don't go back to the legislative history. You go with the clear meaning of the statute. Here, I don't see any ambiguity, and I don't see anything about not being able to claim the law if you start a fight. Do you?

You may consider the law ill-advised, but that's to change in a future legislative session, not to change ex-post facto by public opinion of those who talk the loudest.

As I said, in the established standards of statutory interpretation, courts wouldn't consider the author's intent except in the case of vagueness or uncertainty of the words of the statute. I don't mean vague as in "did you mean to add this to the statute?" I mean vague as in "nobody can understand what this part means because it's so vague" way. We still enforce the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890, but we don't try to dig up the late Senator John Sherman of Ohio to find out what he was thinking when he wrote it.

[org.whodat]

Proves what the author, and the two governors and several of the people that voted for the bill said. I am sure if they think anyone has trouble understanding it that they will change it shortly. Will that make you happy.

[stephenjohnbanker]

Thank you!

[Cboldt]

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.--The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force. History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

[Darren McCarty]

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself[.] That's all it says. It doesn't say anything at all about starting fights and how it affects the right to claim the chapter.

'Reasonable' in the eyes of the jury. Not "reasonable" in the mind of the posters here, George Zimmerman, Bacrock Obama, or Jesse Jackson.