Skip to main content

View Diary: RKBA: A question (241 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Actually, most SYG laws state you must be (9+ / 0-)

    the innocent victim of the attack. You can't be the aggressor. The fact that Zimmerman isn't in jail I'd pin on the lack of a jury instruction telling them to take into consideration who actually started the confrontation.

    Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

    by KVoimakas on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 08:11:38 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  But she wasn't in most states, right? (9+ / 0-)

      This occurred in, she was tried in, and she was convicted in Florida.

      And Florida says no duty to retreat.

      I despise that law. But I really see unequal application.

      Mandatory sentencing, as stated above, just makes it worse.

      Blerg! The whole thing is a mess. The legislators (at least some of whom seem to have certain lobbyist influence)  have desperately tried to take all the discretion away from judges. And this is the end result.

      © grover


      So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

      by grover on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 08:36:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not in Florida (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greengemini, lyvwyr101

      as a resident and property owner I can stand on my front porch  to cool off in the evening. And if I happen to have a gun, and you as a walker pass my house and some how make me fear (say whistling way off key) then  I can shoot at you.  No words need be exchanged by either one of us.  But I best hit you. Then I'm good. If I miss I'll likely get picked up for illegal discharge of a firearm or some such law. Long sentence is a real possibility. That's life in Florida today. And it happens apparently just about 20 times a year (that is shooter hits target)

      •  Where do you see that here? (8+ / 0-)

        link

        776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
        (1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
        (a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
        (b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
        (2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
        (a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
        (b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
        (c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
        (d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
        (3) 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.
        (4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
        (5) As used in this section, the term:
        (a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
        (b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
        (c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

        by KVoimakas on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 09:16:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't believe that's Florida SYG law n/t (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KVoimakas, lyvwyr101, oldpunk
          •  I could be wrong. Do you have a link to it? nt (4+ / 0-)

            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

            by KVoimakas on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 09:33:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ch. 776, sec 12: (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              greengemini, oldpunk, gerrilea
              776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, 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 or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
              (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
              States that a person is permitted to use deadly force pursuant to 776.013, which brings us to:

              And 776.013(3):

              (3) 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.
      •  No, that is totally incorrect. They must have (7+ / 0-)

        first committed an illegal act action against you...then you do not have a duty to retreat as long as you are standing in a place you have a right to legally be.  

      •  Look up Florida statue 776.012 and 776.013 (7+ / 0-)

        It is detailed there.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site