Self-defense: Duty to retreat or Stand your ground

[Are_grits_groceries]

Duty to retreat:
A duty found in some jurisdictions obligating a person to retreat from a dangerous situationrather than employ self-defense and injure another. However, one is not usually required to retreat when attacked in one’s own home. In tort law, the failure to exercise one’s duty to retreat may create liability in the party who could have retreated.
Prosser & Keeton on Torts 127–128 (5th ed. 1984). In criminal law, the failure to retreat except from one’s home or from a robber will foreclose the defense of self-defense in a minority of states. Perkins & Boyce, Criminal Law 1133 (3d ed. 1982).
http://www.answers.com/topic/retreat-duty-to#ixzz1pYWOcIML

Stand your ground:
The "Stand Your Ground" law, which enables people who perceive a threat to use deadly force without first trying to retreat from a confrontation, was a landmark when it passed in 2005. Since then, 16 more states have adopted similar laws, which are far more lenient than the widely adopted "Castle Doctrine," which allows people to defend themselves in their homes.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-17/news/os-qanda-trayvon-martin-shooting-20120317_1_law-enforcement-castle-doctrine-deadly-force

What if Trayvon was standing his ground?
<snip>
At the heart of this case is Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. Passed in 2005, the law allows people to use deadly force to protect themselves if they believe they're in imminent danger. When Zimmerman told police it was self-defense, that was good enough for them. But what if Martin were trying to stand his ground against a threatening stranger? Why did police automatically assume that Martin was the aggressor?
<snip>
http://www.theroot.com/views/trayvon-martin-stand-your-ground

In addition, there are now some arguments that you have the right to 'stand your ground' if approached by the police.

17 states have passed 'stand your ground' laws.

'Duty to Retreat' does not mean you can't defend yourself. It does require you to try to avoid confrontations if it is reasonably possible It also does not mean that you can't defend your home as some have claimed. You also don't have to stand and watch if somebody else is in danger.

All of these laws are defined by each state. What they mean can differ. The interpretations can also vary a great deal.

IMO if you can retreat, you should. I don't mean you have to take extraordinary measures to do so.

Whatever happens, a kid with some Skittles and an can of iced tea was shot to death. He was killed by someone who had no authority to approach him, and he was told not to so by the dispatcher. If Trayvon Martin did approach him, it was probably because he may have felt threatened. It should have and could have been avoided.

Several people complained to the Homeowners Association about Zimmerman's aggressiveness. They took no steps to find out what he did nor did they lay out some ground rules for him. They knew he was acting as a quasi-law enforcement person. IMO they are culpable in his shooting.

[DrDan]

3. it never fails to amaze me that, as you state, even on DU

"shooting first" is often the preferred method. I am worried that there may be repercussions from this incident. They will serve to only heighten the "shooting first" attitude.

"civil"? - not a priority in the NRA-RW-fearmongering value system.

[Doctor_J]

6. DU is just as susceptible to right wing propaganda as other sites/populations

The right wing crazies in the gungeon are just as deluded/brainwashed as those at fox nation. And you are spot on - letting Zimmerman off will lead to an epidemic of "Stand Your Ground" defenses. One more step in our march toward 3rd-world status.

[spin]

46. Many posters in the gungeon who support concealed carry and gun rights ...

are disturbed by the Trayvon Martin shooting.

I often post there and have a Florida Concealed Weapons permit. With the information that I have gleaned from the news, I feel that there are enough facts to justify the arrest and prosecution of the "neighborhood watch captain".

George Zimmerman called 911 to report a suspicious individual and was told that police were responding and not to interfere. He, for some reason, chose to leave his car and confront Trayvon Martin. Therefore in my opinion I feel that he initiated the situation and might have escalated it perhaps by drawing his weapon to gain leverage in the argument.

Had Zimmerman followed the instructions from the 911 operator the situation would have never happened. I suspect that Zimmerman was a wannabe cop.

I may have a carry license but I am not a cop or a vigilante. I have absolutely no desire to play "hero" or to run around combating crime. People with far better training than I have are paid to do such work. I carry a firearm for personal self defense and the only time I would ever use it is if I was absolutely certain that another individual was in the process of attacking me or a member of my family with the intention of inflicting serious injury or death. If I felt that lethal force was not required to stop the attack, I would use it. I have some skills in martial arts and often carry pepper spray.

The last thing that I ever want to do is to shoot another person and it may well be the last thing I ever do as there is no guarantee my actions will stop my attacker. If I was in such a situation and survived, I would expect a thorough investigation would follow and if there were any questions that my actions were appropriate, I would face prosecution.

As I read the Florida "Stand Your Ground" law, I find that it does not remove my requirement to only use lethal force when I have a legitimate reason to use such force only when I damn good reason to believe that I have no other choice. The fact that I no longer have to retreat when under attack doesn't change the standards.

Use of Deadly Force for Lawful Self-Defense

***snip***

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?

A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.

***snip***

Q. What if someone uses threatening language to me so that I am afraid for my life or safety?

A. Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary.
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

With I information that I have, I can see little or no reason why Zimmerman hasn't been arrested and charged.

[CAPHAVOC]

7. Deadly Force is not OK in defense of property.

It is OK in defense of your own safety.

[DrDan]

29. not to some here

I remember one poster not long ago who claimed deadly force was permitted in theft of his personal property - even something as insignificant as a ballpoint pen

[CAPHAVOC]

39. I am taking a legal class

According to the prof you can not use deadly force to defend property in Florida. Only if you are in fear of your own personal safety.

[DrDan]

40. a burglar entering your house in Florida gives you the right to use deadly force

[spin]

47. True. However ...

why would I believe that a person who had broken into my home while I was present had no intention of harming me or other members of my family? He could simply wait until the house was unoccupied and then break in and take whatever he wanted.

That doesn't mean that I would blow the intruder away just because he was in my home. If he followed my instructions he would simply have to wait until the police arrived to cuff and stuff him. If I confronted him and he turned and ran out a door, I would not chase or shoot him. If he turned his back and did not run, I would suspect he was trying to access a weapon. I would order him to not turn toward me and move left or right to a different location in the room. If he didn't obey my instructions I would shoot him before he shot me. (Hopefully.)

Why should I have to retreat in such a situation? If I did so, the intruder might run up the stairs to the second story of my home and threaten other members of my family.

[DrDan]

54. perhaps you would not "chase or shoot him" - that does not hold true for everyone else with a gun

there are already cases where someone was killed being shot in the back. One generated many many posts here.

[dmkinsey]

41. "In fear" is the key

That phrase makes the whole law subjective. A person could get away with murder.

[spin]

49. You forgot two very important words ...

"reasonable and "imminent."

The 2011 Florida Statutes

JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

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:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

[Union Scribe]

11. I couldn't find what you quoted here.

The only Google result was your post. Are you sure you're not, oh I dunno, grossly misrepresenting a whole bunch of your fellow DUers?

[Union Scribe]

36. It isn't my fault that what you put in quotes

complete with editorial "they" replacement, to make it look even more like you were citing a post, has not been written on this forum. It isn't innuendo, what you said has been said has not been.

[CAPHAVOC]

50. Only what they said in my class.

Was not a deep study. Just mentioned in passing in a summary on Torts. The Prof is a lawyer. Said the stand your ground law did not change much from the old law. From what I can tell Zimmerman is in deep kim chi. But not many of the actual details are out. Rent-a Cop gone wild. He appears to be trigger happy and delusional.

[appal_jack]

2. k&r, n/t

[alcibiades_mystery]

4. Great post

I've seen some other people here equate "Stand Your Ground" with self-defense tout court, as if the two are synonymous. When somebody critiques these "stand your ground" laws, they say, "What, is there ever any valid self-defense?!?" All sniffy-like, you know. It's amazing that we have to explain to people even on this board that self-defense is a firmly inscribed principle in criminal and civil law, and you don't need these insane NRA-sponsored "stand your ground" laws to establish it.

[Doctor_J]

5. Zimmerman wasn't "standing his ground" by any definition anyway

he chased Martin down against orders from the police, and despite the fact that Martin was trying to flee. This ridiculous law, and all the other right wing initiatives like it, is going to lead to any number of similar incidents, wherein right-wing kooks are going to pick fights, then shoot to kill when their victim fights back, and claim self defense.

NRA = mental illness.

[Romulox]

8. "standing one's ground" generally refers to someone in their home or other place they have a right

to be--in other words, the concept is being used w/r/t to Martin, not Zimmerman.

[Are_grits_groceries]

12. Unfortunately,

it isn't being interpreted this way. It has been used in many types of cases, and the defendants have been found not guilty.

[Romulox]

15. From your OP: "What if Trayvon was standing his ground?" nt

[Doctor_J]

17. Unfortunately I think the prefered solution to the NRA would

be for Trayvon to also be packing, and blast away when Zimmerman approached him. Their reasoning is that the country is better off with both men packing than neither.

[Are_grits_groceries]

19. He didn't have a gun.

In addition, Zimmerman had pegged him as a suspicious person and looked at him in a negative light. I'll bet any movement by Trayvon would be seen as malevolent. Zimmerman also seemed to feel he had the same powers as a policeman would have.

With those factors, Trayvon was in trouble. Standing his ground could have been viewed by Zimmerman as looking for a confrontation. IMO Trayvon had no good way out with someone who was armed that had Zimmerman's mindset.

[Romulox]

20. Having a gun isn't a required precondition for self defense. At any rate, *you* posted the article,

not me! I'm not going to defend the contents.

[Are_grits_groceries]

24. No, it isn't.

But if you think you are defending ourself and somebody else with a gun perceives you as a threat, you are in big trouble. The gun makes a huge difference. Zimmerman was going to use it if he thought he was in danger.

You can be in the right and end up dead right.

[Romulox]

28. Absolutely. Even more confusingly, it's possible for *both* parties to be

legally acting in "self defense", as a legal defense of "self defense" requires that one have a "reasonable apprehension of imminent death/grievous bodily harm"--a "reasonable apprehension" may nonetheless turn out to be incorrect.

This is strictly a discussion of the concept, btw--none of this is meant to be a statement of the facts of this particular case.

[DLevine]

9. Agree with you 100%.

Zimmerman was the aggressor here.

[zipplewrath]

10. Because he's dead

If both men were still alive, there would be much to sort out. But because one is dead, all there is to sort out is the testimony of the living guy. As soon as you try to "accuse" him, he gets the "benefit of the doubt" and the law is very accommodating to him. If the other guy was still alive, he could be accused, and the benefit of the doubt would tend to protect him. You've heard of "he said, she said". This is the even more frustrating situation of "he said, the others dead". Truth is, a story could be spun that would result in NEITHER guy being guilty of a crime. They each just have to establish that they had a reasonable fear and were defending themselves.

Everyone "knows" what happened here. But really, considering the paupacy of evidence that could be and would be presented at a trial, under a "presumption of innocence" and "reasonable doubt" standard, could you convict this guy if you were on the jury?

[DLevine]

13. Zimmerman chases down an unarmed man and kills him.

Zimmerman should have to show proof that his life was in danger. This is scary stuff, if you can just go around killing people on the street because they look suspicious.

[zipplewrath]

18. Prove it

Zimmerman doesn't have to do diddly squat. If charged, the prosecutor will have to prove that he "chased down an unarmed man" and not that the dead "confronted Zimmerman in a threatening manner". Zimmerman may not even have to testify, depending upon who else gets called to testify. His existing statements can be entered into evidence and that may be all that is ever presented.

[DLevine]

22. Maybe it's just me.

The way I see it, if I shoot and kill an unarmed person, I should have to show evidence that my life was in danger. For example, if a woman shoots her husband, using the battered woman defense, she still has to provide some evidence that her life was in danger. Nobody is going to just take her word for it.

[zipplewrath]

25. Depends upon the state

The stand your ground laws make it easier. But even in most states, if there are ZERO witnesses, and you have a decent lawyer, and you have some knowledge of what to claim when you report the shooting, the state will have a hard time charging you with anything.

The only "evidence" that has to be supplied is ones own statement. Now, if they find a motive (you stand to profit from the killing) you might want a REAL good story. A few defensive wounds can always help too. But the burden is on the state to prove their case, not the other way around. And in this particular case, Zimmerman just has to make a case that he was threatened, not even really "attacked".

Zimmerman has one problem. The audio has someone clearly hollering "help". If his statements don't align with that audio, he's going to have a small problem.

[yardwork]

31. The 911 call that Zimmerman himself made is evidence that he chased Martin. He admits it.

In the 911 call, the emergency dispatcher asks Zimmerman if he is chasing the subject. Zimmerman says yes. The dispatcher tells him not to, repeatedly. Zimmerman was told to stay in his car and wait for police to respond. He was told not to chase the person he saw. He admitted that he was chasing him, with a gun. Then we have seven other 911 call recordings, some of which document the cries of terror from a child in fear for his life.

It's very obvious to me what happened here. Zimmerman saw a black youth and decided that he was a bad guy. He decided to take matters into his own hands. He chased the child and shot him dead.

[zipplewrath]

34. Pretty obvious to me too

But the jurors will be chosen in essence for their "ignorance". They will prefer jurors who don't really know much about the incident. Then it becomes important what is entered into evidence. The MOST important thing will be what he told the police that day/night. IF he claimed he was "pursuing" him, and DIDN'T mention something signficant (like the guy was trying to break into cars, or homes) he's going to have trouble. BUT if he told them he was approached by the subject, or that the subject did something threatening, now the prosecutor has to poke holes in the story. The instruction to not pursue won't be significant anymore (especially in Florida). The prosecutor will have to establish what is being heard in those 911 calls, and his lawyer will get to introduce testimony bringing doubt to who is yelling what, and why. As long as it stays consistent with the larger story, those calls could actually SUPPORT the defendents claims.

It's why, over is the guns and ammo group around here, they love the expression "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6". The benefit of the doubt is on the side of the guy alive.

[Are_grits_groceries]

14. I don't know.

I would have to hear the evidence in court. I would also like to know if they can clean the audio up and figure out who was saying what. In addition, more may come to light with a thorough investigation.

[JoePhilly]

16. I hope the police can use cell phone positioning data to determine Zimmerman's

location throughout the event. You can't stand your ground and also follow some one.

[yardwork]

32. Zimmerman told the emergency dispatcher that he was chasing the "suspect."

We have a recording of the 911 call made by Zimmerman himself in which he states that he is chasing Martin.

[JoePhilly]

44. I hope that toasts him.

Every data point helps.

[Evasporque]

23. When conservative controlled governments put weapons in the hands of unstable violent morons....

And gives them a license and leeway...this is the shit that happens.

Big effing surprise.

[LuvNewcastle]

26. It seems to me that the reasoning behind

the stand your ground laws is to protect people who are attacked in their refuges. A person's home is his refuge, his last place of retreat. If he isn't safe there, he isn't safe anywhere. It's a very different situation if the person is on the street. If someone is accosted on the street and he has the ability to do so, he should get away and find some help. People know that they are assuming a certain amount of risk when they go out in public, but they rightly have an expectation to be safe in their homes. You can't go out in public and gun down everyone who appears to be menacing you. We would have no kind of society if such things were allowed.

[Are_grits_groceries]

30. It expands the doctrine of Castle Law.

Castle Law
Based on the English Common Law provision that one's home is one's "castle", the Castle Doctrine is a popular yet controversial law that allows for a person whose home is under attack to use force upon the attacker.

As each state has its own Castle laws (just like the 3 strike law), there are a number of limitations and exclusions to the law. Generally speaking, though, the occupant:

must believe that the intruder intends to do serious harm
must believe that the intruder intends to commit a felony
must not have provoked the intruder or threat of harm
may be protecting himself or any other within the residence
may need to announce his presence and intention to retaliate
In all cases, the occupant must legally be in the residence, and the intruder must be there illegally. Additionally, Castle laws may extend these rights to a workplace, car, or other residence where the occupant is legally.

In some states, the Castle Doctrine provides complete immunity, including from future civil suits brought forth by the intruder and/or the intruder's family.
<snip>
More info: http://www.totalcriminaldefense.com/overview/castle-doctrine.aspx

All of the states define Castle Law, Stand Your Ground,and Duty to Retreat differently.

In some cases, SYG has been interpreted very broadly. It as been used successfully in court for cases that do not involve a residence.

What happens to someone involved in a self-defense situation will depend on the state, the instructions from the judge, and how the law is interpreted.

[Doctor_J]

33. One of the gungeon denizens told me the other day this has "nothing to do

with the Castle Law". When I pointed out this is a direct, minor extension, I was told that that is a "blatant falsehood". Common sense is rare among the gun culture.

[Logical]

45. Common sense is also rare against among anti-gun people. I have seen both over react.

[spin]

51. I basically agree ...

First let me state that I have a Florida Concealed Weapons permit.

Obviously If I find myself in an argument with another individual who starts acting aggressive, I will attempt break off and walk away even if it makes me look like a coward.

But if I find myself under attack by someone with a knife or a gun, why should I have to attempt to retreat before I draw my weapon. Stumbling backward or turning my back and running may be a poor tactic. In all likelihood I would not have faced prosecution in such a situation before the "Stand Your Ground" law passed in Florida. Of course I should point out that I can't run and if I tried, my best hope of survival would be that the attacker would be laughing too hard to hurt me. I am an candidate for a hip replacement and also suffer from degenerative disk disease. I get to park in handicapped spaces with my handicapped tag hanging from my rear view mirror. Still, why should a younger much healthier individual have a duty to retreat while being attacked by a person who is much larger or armed with a knife or a gun.

Often I read news reports that state that the "Stand Your Ground" law in Florida allows an individual to simply blow someone away on the street. That is not what the law states. Before you stand your ground you have to have a reasonable belief that you are under imminent peril from an individual that intends to seriously injure to kill you. (Ref: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html)

Of course if there are no witnesses and one of the people involved is dead it might be possible that a person does get off free. This could also happen before the "Stand Your Ground" law. The survivor might just claim, "I tried to retreat but he pursued me." Dead men tell no tales.

[Cali_Democrat]

27. Why did police automatically assume Martin was the aggressor?

I think the answer to that question is quite obvious.

This is one of the most disturbing cases I've ever seen.

[zipplewrath]

35. What makes you think they did?

When they showed up, their guns were pointed at Zimmerman. They took him to the police station and questioned him for hours. They claim their problem is that his story was sufficient to force them to release him. I wonder about that part, but it isn't clear they many any assumptions other than the benefit of the doubt to the living guy.

[yardwork]

37. Except that the Sanford police have been caught in several lies about this so far.

Just off the top of my head -

The police chief told the press that Zimmerman was "squeaky clean." Turns out that Zimmerman was charged in 2005 with resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer.

Zimmerman has dialed 911 forty-six times in the past 14 months. None of those calls seem to have resulted in charges. That's a lot of false alarms.

The Sanford police chief was present at a recent homeowner's association meeting in which at least one resident complained that Zimmerman was harassing him because he was black. The resident was escorted from the meeting. Guess the HOA didn't want to hear it.

The police chief told the media that Zimmerman did not pursue the suspect. Yet the 911 call recording is very clear - Zimmerman says he's chasing him. The dispatcher keeps telling Zimmerman not to do that. Zimmerman says he's doing it anyway. So why did the police chief say that "at no time" did Zimmerman pursue? Didn't the police chief listen to this own department's 911 tapes? Not much of an investigation.

Next, several of the eyewitnesses state that the police "corrected" their version of events. The witnesses stated that they heard the victim screaming for his life. The police officers taking their statements corrected them - "You really heard Zimmerman screaming."

The police chief states that Zimmerman's story is the "best version."

I could go on. It's clear what's happening here.

[COLGATE4]

38. With any luck at all

the FBI will actively intervene in this case. At least there's a clear civil rights violation here.

[librechik]

42. becasue Zimmerman was standing his ground, not the black guy

Don't you get it? That law doesn't protect minorities, it protects victims of minorities.

There is something deeply wrong with an America where that is true.

[L0oniX]

43. "Stand Your Ground" does not apply when you start the confrontation.

You can't tell someone to go fuck off and then shoot them if they attack you. Question is ...did this cwp abusing, Florida asscarrot start the confrontation.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

48. While I think this POS's actions fail to even meet the meager Stand Your Ground requirements...

...if he is charged (and he better be charged), there's no doubt his lawyer will use Stand Your Ground as a defense.

And if a jury buys that lame excuse, then it would be a sad day for justice. Much sadder for justice than people thought the Casey Anthony verdict was. And proof positive that Stand Your Ground should be scrapped for good.

[Rhiannon12866]

52. Agree on both points.

The 911 operator told this guy not to follow the kid. He said "okay," then followed him anyway. This is such a horrible incident, am glad the media's focused on this to keep up the pressure on law enforcement to act...

[SomethingFishy]

53. Which one looks dangerous to you?

MArtin on the left Zimmerman on the right.



Yeah... I know if I saw this kid walking down the street with a can of ice tea and a bag of Skittles I'd be scared out of my wits.


This is bullshit. Between the 911 calls, the complaints against Zimmerman, Zimmerman's apparent delusions of law enforcement, and the fact that the kid was unarmed, Zimmerman should have been arrested already.