Replies

Sigh. Let’s try one more time. Please be advised that anytime more of this “SYG doesn’t apply” pops up I will simply reference this post as a hotlink - over and over displaying your ignorance of this useful and powerful law.

First, SYG is an expansion of the castle doctrine giving you the right to defend yourself ANYWHERE you are lawfully present in Florida. You may meet force with force and if threatened with death or serious bodily harm you may use deadly force.

IF YOU REASONABLY ASSERT THAT YOU WERE LAWFULLY IN A PLACE IN FLORIDA AND WERE ATTACKED AND FEARED GREAT BODILY HARM OR DEATH THEN SYG APPLIES. PERIOD.

This applies in your living room or the parking lot of Target. Previously, outside of your home, place of business or car you had a duty to retreat, to prove that you tried to get away from the threat.

Secondly, the law provides for IMMUNITY from arrest, prosecution AND civil liability if you establish a valid self defense claim.

As in the GZ case, once GZ claimed self defense he was IMMUNE from even arrest and the law was followed. Immunity from ARREST though can be overridden if the LEOs find “probable cause” that the force used or other circumstances made the self defendant acting unlawfully. Then he can be arrested.

Thirdly, claiming self defense, you have the right to a hearing to dismiss all charges, pre-trial, before a judge who acts as BOTH the trier of fact and law. Many cases are dismissed at this point with the judge finding that the self-defense claim was valid. No trial, although the hearing on dismissal can be like a mini-trial with deposition, physical, witness statement evidence, etc. coming in complete with live testimony.

Fourthly, if a valid claim of self defense is established you are immune from civil prosecution and if the charges are dismissed OR a lawsuit is brought before the charges are resolved you can recover attorney’s fees and costs from whoever sues you (usually the perp or his family).

In summary, if you are lawfully in a place in Florida and are forced to defend yourself then SYG applies. The immunities kick in, the LEOs better carefully preserve evidence and think long and hard before arresting you, you’ll have a chance to dismiss all charges without a jury crap shoot and reduce your defense expenses.

In addition, your burden of proof at the dismissal hearing is only 50%+1 that you were reasonably in fear of death or serious bodily injury making a complete dismissal of charges easier.

Even if the motion for dismissal fails it can be raised at trial itself while the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were not reasonably in fear of death or serious bodily injury.

BTW, if you are protecting another being attacked the same SYG provisions apply - you need not be imminently threatened but you can step into the shoes of the person being unlawfully attacked.

Lastly, please do not question anything I have said here without having reviewed FS 776 in its entirety and studied Peterson vs Florida and the Dennis FL S.Ct. decision affirming Peterson. Thanks.

SYG applies in the GZ case. /Rant

I was using the term SYG in its non-technical sense, which I believe is also generally used by the media, to refer to a claim of self-defense allowed by the new law which would have been disallowed under the old law. The removal of the “duty to retreat.” The public/media perception of SYG in this non-technical sense appears to be something along the lines of a movie western confrontation in the streets of Dodge City. Two guys trying to face the other person down.

Since, if his story is true, and nobody seems to be disputing this part, Z was on his back being attacked when he fired, he had no opportunity to retreat and so no duty to do so. Prior to his being attacked he had no particular reason to believe he would need to retreat and so this duty would not apply in that case either. Thus his claim to self-defense does not rest on “standing his ground” rather than retreating and would have been allowed under applicable law before SYG passed.

You are, of course, quite correct that many other aspects of the SYG law are applicable, notably the immunity from arrest and prosecution.

Personally, I dislike this aspect of the law. At present it appears that the determination of whether it is applicable and the killer cannot be arrested is an administrative decision by local DA. Which means there is no ruling filed by a court that the killing was justified under the law, just a refusal to arrest or prosecute. This was, of course, a very considerable reason why the case originally picked up attention, as it looked like collusion by the cops and DA in the case.

If I understand correctly, without a judicial ruling that SYG applies, some future DA can change his mind about whether to prosecute and the killer has such a possibility hanging over him for the rest of his life, since there is no statute of limitations on murder. Over time the evidence becomes less available and ability to prove what happens deteriorates. I am also unclear how the immunity from civil lawsuit can be determined without a judicial ruling that SYG is applicable.

I would greatly prefer that all killings where a claim of self-defense is made go before a judge, as the law presently provides for if an attempt at prosecution is made, for a ruling on whether SYG applies. Then it is over and done with, and anybody who wants to dispute it can argue with the court, which is less susceptible to political pressure than the cops or the DA. The law should allow for reasonable legal costs to be reimbursed if the SYG immunity from prosecution is ruled to apply.

The present law also really does allow for possible improper collusion between cops/DA and the killer. While this was not apparently the case here, it certainly could be in another case. Think of a black DA refusing to prosecute, for political reasons, the black shooter of a Tea Party type. I’m uncomfortable with giving this power to the cops or DA rather than to a judge. (Not that judges are perfect, just less exposed to political pressure.)

JMO