• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Florida Law on use of deadly force [W:390]

Do you agree with Florida Law on use of deadly force?

  • Agree

    Votes: 41 70.7%

  • Disagree

    Votes: 15 25.9%

  • I oppose the Second Amendment completely

    Votes: 1 1.7%

  • There should be no rule of law

    Votes: 1 1.7%
  • Total voters
    58
I agree with the law as I understand it, but I think it is being misapplied in the Trayvon Martin case. I don't see how any shooting, even if self-defense is verified by witnesses can't lead to an all-out investigation by the police force.
 
ecofarm said:
One cannot be baited into committing battery. What's next? Battered wives are responsible for their husband's actions? The chick in the sexy cloths escalated the attack against her thereby nullifying her right to self defense?

Forcible felony = *bang*
No excuses.
Click to expand...

No, but by following Martin he intentionally put himself in a dangerous situation. What he did was incredibly stupid and goes against everything that is taught about self-defense. Martin could have possibly attacked Zimmerman. This could have been Martin standing his ground against someone following him. We don't know exactly what happened. What we do know is that Zimmerman intentionally escalated the situation when he followed Martin.
 
Dion said:
Within the confines of the law?
Click to expand...

I think the ability of a person to defend oneself is a natural born right. If in the end it requires deadly force to save oneself from a 'bad guy', so be it.

To hell with the law on this issue. Any law that does not allow self defense at all levels, is against freedom, is against liberty, and is against a persons right to life.

And I say that because we all know many different liberal groups out there have constantly tried to remove this natural born right from the citizens of this country.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
No, but by following Martin he intentionally put himself in a dangerous situation. What he did was incredibly stupid and goes against everything that is taught about self-defense. Martin could have possibly attacked Zimmerman. This could have been Martin standing his ground against someone following him. We don't know exactly what happened. What we do know is that Zimmerman intentionally escalated the situation when he followed Martin.
Click to expand...

Can you show me where, in the FL statutes, the law specifies that "putting yourself in a dangerous situation by following and approaching someone" nullifies SYG? As far as I know, doing so does not justify battery nor does it nullify ones right to self defense. Such a clause is absurdly subjective and subject to abuse.

When someone follows you, approaches and asks a question, you're not allowed to hit them (let alone invoke SYG!). SYG does not include possible misdemeanors.

"Hey, this guy is following me and then approached!!11!!" *bang*
No. No SYG for Martin unless Z committed a forcible felony.
 
Last edited:
Personally I think the SYG law and others like it are chickensh**. IF the concealed carry citizen is considered competent enough to carry around his fellow citizens then he should be allowed to carry around politicians, judges, bars and schools. It seems a bit cowardly those who write these laws don't want concealed carry people around them if possible. It is like they are saying you can carry, just not around me.

Anyway the SYG laws are a misnomer, there are laws that say when confronted a person must first attempt to flee and if trapped only then can use deadly force to stop violence. That pretty much precluded a 3rd armed party from stopping an assault on a fellow citizen. Most states that have more lenient deadly force laws never had flee first laws.

I wouldn't mind CCW having a bit more training before issue. Most classes barely cover the laws and have precious little live fire training. Open carry is one thing but concealed just doesn't seem as Constitutionally permissible. Bit underhanded, but then again just my opinion.
 
notquiteright said:
Personally I think the SYG law and others like it are chickensh**. IF the concealed carry citizen is considered competent enough to carry around his fellow citizens then he should be allowed to carry around politicians, judges, bars and schools. It seems a bit cowardly those who write these laws don't want concealed carry people around them if possible. It is like they are saying you can carry, just not around me.
Click to expand...

Those places have dedicated and active police forces of far greater concentration than the general public. The argument is that carrying under such circumstance is more likely to be a problem than a solution. I don't agree with that argument but I can understand keeping private guns out of government buildings and places that serve alcohol. I disagree with 'gun free' schools.

Anyway the SYG laws are a misnomer, there are laws that say when confronted a person must first attempt to flee and if trapped only then can use deadly force to stop violence. That pretty much precluded a 3rd armed party from stopping an assault on a fellow citizen.
Click to expand...

What? SYG = no obligation to flee. Castle Doctrine means no obligation to flee and it doesn't matter if the intruder is armed, in a home.

How is it a misnomer?
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Can you show me where, in the FL statutes, the law specifies that "putting yourself in a dangerous situation by following and approaching someone" nullifies SYG? As far as I know, doing so does not justify battery nor does it nullify ones right to self defense. Such a clause is absurdly subjective and subject to abuse.
Click to expand...

Even the law's author stated that the law would not apply here. Stand your ground implies that you are not obligated to defuse the situation by retreating when trying to defend yourself. Zimmerman did the exact opposite; he followed the suspect. When he followed Martin, Zimmerman escalated the situation. How could Zimmerman not believe that he was escalating the situation when he followed Martin unless he was being very reckless?

ecofarm said:
When someone follows you, approaches and asks a question, you're not allowed to hit them (let alone invoke SYG!). SYG does not include possible misdemeanors.
Click to expand...

I only raised this as a possibility. The issue requires greater investigation

ecofarm said:
"Hey, this guy is following me and then approached!!11!!" *bang*
No. No SYG for Martin unless Z committed a forcible felony.
Click to expand...

We don't know Martin's state of mind. We don't know what the encounter between the two was like, but the fact that it took place at all is the issue.
 
Why does Zimmerman have a lawyer if he hasn't been arrested?
It seems to me what he needs is a bodyguard, now that the Black Panthers have gotten involved.
 
Problem is the SYG laws ignores the duty to retreat and in fact escalates conflicts by disregarding the need to deescalate confrontations. Many sherrif offices, district attorneys, police officers and law enforcement organizations speak out against these laws as they see firsthand how tense situations can be escalated by making legal space for using firearms on citizens.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Why does Zimmerman have a lawyer if he hasn't been arrested?
Click to expand...

You saying he doesn't need one? You don't need to hire a lawyer every time you shoot someone in self defense, but if they turn up unarmed... you'd be a fool not to. Whether or not he was legally in the right in this case, Mr. Zimmerman carried a gun to defend himself with and he used that gun in a situation where his life was in danger. Now his life is still very much in danger, but the gun is useless.

In a life or death situation, it's important to use the right weapon to defend yourself. Making sure that you always have the right weapon-- in his current situation, a lawyer-- is just being smart.

Dittohead not! said:
It seems to me what he needs is a bodyguard, now that the Black Panthers have gotten involved.
Click to expand...

You're not wrong, but I doubt Mr. Zimmerman can afford a bodyguard; for the most part, lawyers are cheaper. He'll have to rely on his own gun to deal with any would be anti-vigilante lynch mobs.
 
RadicalModerate said:
Problem is the SYG laws ignores the duty to retreat and in fact escalates conflicts by disregarding the need to deescalate confrontations. Many sherrif offices, district attorneys, police officers and law enforcement organizations speak out against these laws as they see firsthand how tense situations can be escalated by making legal space for using firearms on citizens.
Click to expand...

When confronted with someone carjacking your, or robbing you, or just going after you because you are not like them, how often does 'running away' work? And how many times to people just get chased down or shot attempting to run away?

Law enforcement often speaks out against anything that puts citizens rights to defend themselves above police 'protection'.
 
Arbo said:
When confronted with someone carjacking your, or robbing you, or just going after you because you are not like them, how often does 'running away' work? And how many times to people just get chased down or shot attempting to run away?

Law enforcement often speaks out against anything that puts citizens rights to defend themselves above police 'protection'.
Click to expand...

You always have the right of self-defense. The problem with the law is it establishes a legal protection for using lethal force without the usual restrictions of Castle law, which is why you can't shoot someone for breaking into your car for instance. Similar situations with SYG laws in place have an tendency to encourage confrontation because now the average citizens feels they have legal backing for confronting the carjacker with their rifle.

I doubt very much law enforcement wants to make more victims out of people. Besides, as I said, people already have a right to self-defense well before SYG laws were established. THis just expands the area in which legal shootings can happen, and with fewer restrictions.
 
RadicalModerate said:
You always have the right of self-defense. The problem with the law is it establishes a legal protection for using lethal force without the usual restrictions of Castle law, which is why you can't shoot someone for breaking into your car for instance. Similar situations with SYG laws in place have an tendency to encourage confrontation because now the average citizens feels they have legal backing for confronting the carjacker with their rifle.

I doubt very much law enforcement wants to make more victims out of people. Besides, as I said, people already have a right to self-defense well before SYG laws were established. THis just expands the area in which legal shootings can happen, and with fewer restrictions.
Click to expand...

You should be able to shoot someone for breaking into your car. I guarantee you car theft and car burglary will drop.
 
I guess I'll move to Florida and become a hit-man. Oh, wait, I can stay here and do the dirty deeds for high dollar. I'll just need to catch the targets when they are all alone.
 
SYG is a misnomer because most of the states with Castle or SYG never had a must flee law beforehand. It also allows for an active attack in the event of a third party being attacked. That isn't stand your ground.

When it comes to courtrooms, schools, town hall meetings and the like you would be surprised how few LE types are present and most of those who are present have prisoner escort duties to perform. if you search courtroom shooting you will find quite a few.

HOWEVER the issue isn't NEED for the firearm, my state has a shall issue statute not a show need one. It doesn't matter the need but the right. One could argue ANYPLACE a semi to barely trained pistolero draws and starts shooting he/she is more likely to shoot everyone but the bad guy!

The point I am trying to make is those who wrote the more assertive carry laws and use of deadly force made sure they placed a prohibition zone around themselves, but quite content to have the concealed carry people wandering about the 'common' citizen.
 
Dion said:
Here is the link.

Lawful Self-Defense - Weapons - Division of Licensing, FDACS





Here is link of an interview with the Stand Your Ground author.

Author of "stand your ground" law: George Zimmerman should probably be arrested for killing Trayvon Martin - Crimesider - CBS News
Click to expand...

You don't have links to all the laws that apply to your poll. The link you you give is to a pamphlet that advises people in a way that is understandable and readable. It is only the SYGL that screws stuff up. See
Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's not to hard to read and you can understand how a defense lawyer can use it.
 
Last edited:
RadicalModerate said:
Problem is the SYG laws ignores the duty to retreat and in fact escalates conflicts by disregarding the need to deescalate confrontations. Many sherrif offices, district attorneys, police officers and law enforcement organizations speak out against these laws as they see firsthand how tense situations can be escalated by making legal space for using firearms on citizens.
Click to expand...

I was able to find some sheriff in Iowa against SYG. There were some police officers concerned about the Indiana SYG may be interpreted to allow citizens to use it against police officers. There were some district attorneys in Philadelphia against SYG but i cannot find anything near what your implying that there is significant opposition. I didn't look up "law enforcement organizations" since that is too vague a term.
 
ecofarm said:
Forcible felony = *bang*
No excuses.
Click to expand...

You really believe being punched justifes a death sentence?
What if someone elbows you on accident, do you just claim they did it on purpose and shoot them? Who would be able to tell the difference when you just shot the other party?

This is absurd. You shoot someone, you get investigated and it's either deemed appropriate or not. Simply being "punched" != appropriate. Good grief.
 
Mach said:
You really believe being punched justifes a death sentence?
What if someone elbows you on accident, do you just claim they did it on purpose and shoot them? Who would be able to tell the difference when you just shot the other party?

This is absurd. You shoot someone, you get investigated and it's either deemed appropriate or not. Simply being "punched" != appropriate. Good grief.
Click to expand...
maybe you should learn what a forcible FELONY is before you make such asinine recriminations !
 
My question is this. Say one night, I don't live in Florida but pretend I do, I'm walking home in say a urban city. As I pass an alley I see a man raping a woman and it is obvious that the woman is crying for help. Lucky for me this night I am packing heat so I turn, aim, fire.

Two questions:

1) If I miss and shoot and kill the woman, am I then responsible for murder?

2) Since (sic) when was it a justifiable act to shoot a rapist?

(I would also like to point out that in BOTH scenarios a cop wouldn't of taken a shot unless they assailant had a weapon drawn)
 
Last edited:
Mach said:
You really believe being punched justifes a death sentence?
What if someone elbows you on accident, do you just claim they did it on purpose and shoot them? Who would be able to tell the difference when you just shot the other party?

This is absurd. You shoot someone, you get investigated and it's either deemed appropriate or not. Simply being "punched" != appropriate. Good grief.
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with Zimmerman-Martin? "just being punched" doesn't apply.
 
Jryan said:
My question is this. Say one night, I don't live in Florida but pretend I do, I'm walking home in say a urban city. As I pass an alley I see a man raping a woman and it is obvious that the woman is crying for help. Lucky for me this night I am packing heat so I turn, aim, fire.

Two questions:

1) If I miss and shoot and kill the woman, am I then responsible for murder?

2) Since (sic) when was it a justifiable act to shoot a rapist?

(I would also like to point out that in BOTH scenarios a cop wouldn't of taken a shot unless they assailant had a weapon drawn)
Click to expand...

1. No, but you would be civilly liable.
2. A person can use force, including deadly force if reasonable, to stop a sexual asault continuing.

Those are easy questions.
 
Jryan said:
My question is this. Say one night, I don't live in Florida but pretend I do, I'm walking home in say a urban city. As I pass an alley I see a man raping a woman and it is obvious that the woman is crying for help. Lucky for me this night I am packing heat so I turn, aim, fire.

Two questions:

1) If I miss and shoot and kill the woman, am I then responsible for murder?

No: you did not have the requisite mens rea

2) Since (sic) when was it a justifiable act to shoot a rapist?

If you have a reasonable belief he is going to inflict severe bodily harm on the victim imminently

(I would also like to point out that in BOTH scenarios a cop wouldn't of taken a shot unless they assailant had a weapon drawn)
Click to expand...

Not relevant-most cops are lousy shots anyway. I trust my kid to shoot someone holding a knife to my throat (Think Mel Gibson and his tomahawk whacking the guy about to cut Heath Ledger's throat) than most big city cops
 
joko104 said:
1. No, but you would be civilly liable.
2. A person can use force, including deadly force if reasonable, to stop a sexual asault continuing.

Those are easy questions.
Click to expand...

The law dictates that you can use deadly force if you merely see someone being raped. Again, when has it become custom to shoot a rapist? If these are easy questions their must be easy answers that aren't strawmans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom