Florida Stand Your Ground Allows Another Murder to Go Unprosecuted

[Sabine Grant]

SYG defense did not mean to apply to a situation where the shot or killed party had already disengaged from the confrontation/dispute. There must be evidence that at the time the other party was shot and killed (use of lethal force), such party presented a threat of imminent death or severe bodily harm.

The SA argumentation is not taking the above into account. A broadening of the application of the SYG language to include previous threats of death/bodily harm while the threatening party has already disengaged is justifiably questionable.

Not necessarily. The Stand Your Ground defense relies on the shooter's perception of events, not the reality of them. The original intent(as stated by legislators, at the time) of the law was to remove any reason for a citizen to refrain from responding with deadly force, for fear of repercussions. It specifically removed the obligation to retreat to safety, in order to save lives.

Let's look at the text law :

http://www.husseinandwebber.com/case-work/criminal-defense-articles/floridas-stand-ground-statute/

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

I am opened to change my previous interpretation however you will need to demonstrate the compatibility between "imminent" and "reasonably" and the fact that Thriemer kept shooting at Brown after the first shot. Keep in mind what this witness reported :

A third person who was at the location, Casaundra Reckner, said she was about 20 feet away standing and talking with friends when she heard the first gunshot. Reckner said she turned around and "I watched him fall to the ground."

Once Brown was on the ground, Reckner said she saw Thriemer "fire more shots at TJ."

"He was on his side almost like in a fetal position," Reckner said.

She said Thriemer was roughly three to four feet away from Brown.

Thriemer then got in the passenger's side of his vehicle that fled the scene, Reckner said.

What I am expecting here is you "justifying" Thriemer's use of deadly force AFTER the first gunshot. At that point, Brown had fallen to the ground. How "imminent" at that point would anyone REASONABLY believe that there is any threat of death or great bodily harm on their person?

 

[Bronzeage]

Not necessarily. The Stand Your Ground defense relies on the shooter's perception of events, not the reality of them. The original intent(as stated by legislators, at the time) of the law was to remove any reason for a citizen to refrain from responding with deadly force, for fear of repercussions. It specifically removed the obligation to retreat to safety, in order to save lives.

Let's look at the text law :

http://www.husseinandwebber.com/case-work/criminal-defense-articles/floridas-stand-ground-statute/

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

I am opened to change my previous interpretation however you will need to demonstrate the compatibility between "imminent" and "reasonably" and the fact that Thriemer kept shooting at Brown after the first shot. Keep in mind what this witness reported :

A third person who was at the location, Casaundra Reckner, said she was about 20 feet away standing and talking with friends when she heard the first gunshot. Reckner said she turned around and "I watched him fall to the ground."

Once Brown was on the ground, Reckner said she saw Thriemer "fire more shots at TJ."

"He was on his side almost like in a fetal position," Reckner said.

She said Thriemer was roughly three to four feet away from Brown.

Thriemer then got in the passenger's side of his vehicle that fled the scene, Reckner said.

What I am expecting here is you "justifying" Thriemer's use of deadly force AFTER the first gunshot. At that point, Brown had fallen to the ground. How "imminent" at that point would anyone REASONABLY believe that there is any threat of death or great bodily harm on their person?

I'm not justifying anything. I think STG is bad law, no matter how it's written.

It all comes down to "He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death." The facts which are revealed later can be irrelevant. The court will have to put itself in the shooter's mind. "Being scared" is now grounds for justifiable homicide.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It all comes down to "He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death." The facts which are revealed later can be irrelevant. The court will have to put itself in the shooter's mind. "Being scared" is now grounds for justifiable homicide.

Being reasonably afraid.

If you shoot someone because you're paranoid SYG won't protect you.


The only legal effect I can see of SYG is that you can shoot rather than run when someone is trying to drive you away.

 

[Bronzeage]

It all comes down to "He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death." The facts which are revealed later can be irrelevant. The court will have to put itself in the shooter's mind. "Being scared" is now grounds for justifiable homicide.

Being reasonably afraid.

If you shoot someone because you're paranoid SYG won't protect you.


The only legal effect I can see of SYG is that you can shoot rather than run when someone is trying to drive you away.

If a person is delusional and believes the police are listening to his conversations through the light sockets in his house, the law already has provisions for them.

Here is a true story: This was sometime about 1980. My brother and sister in law lived in a duplex apartment with their one month old baby. One Saturday morning, a few minutes after he left for work, there was a knock at the door. Sister in law was tired and ignored it. She then heard someone pulling at the window screens. She peeked through the window and saw two brown skinned men who had red bandannas over their faces. She called her husband to tell him what was happening, then locked herself in the nursery with the baby. My brother was only a few minutes away. When he arrived, it was just as she. Two men in masks had just started their pressure washer and were busy spraying bleach solution on the mildewed walls.

Had my sister in law fired a gun through the window at the masked men, it would have been justifiable homicide in this state. I have mentioned the death of Yoshi Hattori before, as an example of unfounded fear which led to a shooting death. Fear, by it's very nature is seldom reasonable. It is based on perceptions which maybe very wrong.

The only way to disprove the "fear of life" defense is to show prior planning, before the supposed danger occurred. Any spur of the moment decision, however rash, is a point in the shooter's favor.

 

[Sabine Grant]

It all comes down to "He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death." The facts which are revealed later can be irrelevant. The court will have to put itself in the shooter's mind. "Being scared" is now grounds for justifiable homicide.

Being reasonably afraid.

My point of contention being that SPECIFICS such as "reasonably" and "imminent" do not seem to get the attention they deserve from a variety of our State Attorneys in Florida, let alone a variety of Judges holding Stand Your Ground Hearings.

If you shoot someone because you're paranoid SYG won't protect you.

I do not think it takes that extreme to establish that the user of lethal force was processing all information unreasonably.

The only legal effect I can see of SYG is that you can shoot rather than run when someone is trying to drive you away.

SYG is an addition to the previous Florida Statutes regarding Self Defense claims. Prior to its passing Florida legislation in 2005, the attacked or threatened party still had the obligation to retreat. SYG eliminated that obligation. However, the application of SYG has been inconsistent and has resulted in some of the Judges in the course of SYG hearings granting immunity from charges on cases where it was not a situation of "imminent" rather a case of the party who used deadly force engaging in a pursuit when the initial threat had been removed. Similarly, SA Wolfinger from Seminole County Fl. had made the choice to not file charges against Zimmerman based on a SYG self defense claim. As you know , his decision was challenged based on the fact that Zimmerman pursued Martin. Such challenged was duly communicated and publicly by the 2 authors and sponsors of the Fl. SYG Law.(all of that I documented SEVERAL times in threads under the ex FRDB temp Sub Forum dedicated to the Zimmerman/Martin case).

 

[whichphilosophy]

As I understand this case is still under investigation so the assumption that it is unprosecuted is wrong.

 

[Sabine Grant]

As I understand this case is still under investigation so the assumption that it is unprosecuted is wrong.

IMO what led to the title are 2 facts :

-shooter was released.

-no charges were filed at this point (shooting occurred over a month ago).

The Op (Fl. resident as I am) is very familiar with the incidence of cases when the police depart. will release the shooter while the case will sit in the SA office and end up with a "no charges". If the case lacks the quality to be won by the prosecutor, they will drop the ball. We have no assurance in Fl. that the decision to not bring up charges or not prosecute it is based on the State Attorney's assessment that it is a justified SYG based self defense case. Floridian SAs are notorious for shying away from a SYG based self defense claim. It can never look good for the career of a Fl. SA to see their charges being dismissed by a Judge conducting a SYG Hearing. No guarantee here that the assigned SA for Marion County will not drop that ball.