Self defense
From my understanding, the text of the Florida law in question is:
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.
Here's the definition of forcible felony:
.-“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
IMO the problem with this law is not the removal of the duty to reatreat; it's the second clause, the one that vastly expands the definition of self-defense itself. I know that in some states even the Castle doctrine encompasses the idea that you can kill someone who is trying to burglarize your home. But that's not okay either- it's just a problem that's thrown into more stark relief when you take the scenario out of the house and put it in the street.
Here's another thing "stand your ground" doesn't take into account- when someone breaks into your home, you are starting off with the assumption that they are there to harm you or your property. They have already committed a crime, which sort of indicates that they pose a threat to you. The only question becomes, how much of a threat. There's also the fact that since you're in your own house, there is nowhere to retreat to. When you're out in public, neither of these things apply. You can't see a stranger on the street and KNOW he (or she) means you harm.
People say, "Oh, but we should be able to fight back if someone attacks us!" Dude, YOU CAN. The basic principle of self-defense is that you are entitled to fight back to defend yourself. But (and this is important), your use of force must be proportional. If someone punches you, you can't shoot them in the face. This is what stops things from degenerating to the wild wild west. You're only ever justified in using deadly force (such as a gun) in self-defense when you yourself are being threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm. This is true at home, in public, wherever.
If you are arrested and charged with a crime the grand jury, and if it gets that far the petit jury, will consider all the facts and circumstances, and make a determination as to whether you had a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily harm. Reasonableness is an objective standard- what a reasonable person in your position would have believed based on the situation. You can't just say, "Well, I was afraid" if that fear was unreasonable. If you had that reasonable belief/fear, your actions are justified and you are not guilty.
Florida (and states like it) turn the entire principle of self-defense on its head by saying even if someone isn't trying to hurt or kill you, it's okay to kill them. Rape, kidnapping, robbery and the like are crimes that involve direct harm or threats of harm on your person and I agree you should have the right to fight back, with deadly force if necessary. But you already have that under the common law. Yes, it's possible you might get a prosecutor who charges you because she doesn't think your self defense claim is justified, and you will have to rely on the jury to see that you were right to shoot your attempted rapist. But if you have a problem with that, I have bad news for you: that's the foundation of our justice system. The facts go before the jury, the jury decides.
Under Florida's law, if you walk into the living room and see someone stealing your tv, you can shoot him six times in the back and call it self-defense. You're stopping him from committing a burglary, so the law says it's okay. That is not how self-defense should work. It's not how it does work, except in states like Florida that have replaced the common law on self-defense. People let that sort of shit slide and don't think about it, because no one really cares if a burglar gets shot- again, people figure he's already broken into your house, so he kind of asked for it, right? Then suddenly the law says this is the rule not just in your house, but on the street. You see a guy that you think is engaged in a crime, which may or may not be impacting you in some way, and you decide to intervene. You kill the guy, and you get to say, "Well, he was about to commit a felony. It was self defense." This is what I mean about taking this situation out of the home throwing the problem into stark relief.
This is a very problematic law. But it does not excuse police and prosecutors doing their jobs. If you were sending defendants like Zimmerman to the jury and they were coming back not guilty based on this law, you could point at the law and blame it for letting murderers off the hook. But don't you DARE fail to investigate a crime, fail to arrest a murderer, fail to give a jury a chance to decide the case based on the individual facts, and then cry crocodile tears about how the law stops you from doing your job.
You are innocent until proven guilty, but that does not mean that simply claiming that you acted in self defense should excuse you from investigation and charging. The police have a duty to protect the public, and to investigate crimes so that prosecutors can determine whether to charge a case, and prove it if they do. The prosecutor has an ethical duty to "refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause." But under her oath of office, she has a corresponding duty to bring charges which are supported by probable cause, not beg off because the defendant might have an argument to make in his defense.
Last month a defendant approached me after the case against him was dismissed because the alleged victim unexpectedly failed to appear for trial. He was angry with the victim, who he accused of committing perjury in filing the charges, and he was angry with me for prosecuting him. He accused me of knowingly engaging in malicious prosecution, because I knew that he claimed the incident didn't happen and was calling various witnesses to testify for him.
"Sir," I told him. "I had evidence that you committed a crime; that you have a defense to present is not proof of your innocence. That's why we have trials."
That is what the police should have said to Zimmerman, and what the prosecutor should say when she files an indictment against him.
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.
Here's the definition of forcible felony:
.-“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
IMO the problem with this law is not the removal of the duty to reatreat; it's the second clause, the one that vastly expands the definition of self-defense itself. I know that in some states even the Castle doctrine encompasses the idea that you can kill someone who is trying to burglarize your home. But that's not okay either- it's just a problem that's thrown into more stark relief when you take the scenario out of the house and put it in the street.
Here's another thing "stand your ground" doesn't take into account- when someone breaks into your home, you are starting off with the assumption that they are there to harm you or your property. They have already committed a crime, which sort of indicates that they pose a threat to you. The only question becomes, how much of a threat. There's also the fact that since you're in your own house, there is nowhere to retreat to. When you're out in public, neither of these things apply. You can't see a stranger on the street and KNOW he (or she) means you harm.
People say, "Oh, but we should be able to fight back if someone attacks us!" Dude, YOU CAN. The basic principle of self-defense is that you are entitled to fight back to defend yourself. But (and this is important), your use of force must be proportional. If someone punches you, you can't shoot them in the face. This is what stops things from degenerating to the wild wild west. You're only ever justified in using deadly force (such as a gun) in self-defense when you yourself are being threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm. This is true at home, in public, wherever.
If you are arrested and charged with a crime the grand jury, and if it gets that far the petit jury, will consider all the facts and circumstances, and make a determination as to whether you had a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily harm. Reasonableness is an objective standard- what a reasonable person in your position would have believed based on the situation. You can't just say, "Well, I was afraid" if that fear was unreasonable. If you had that reasonable belief/fear, your actions are justified and you are not guilty.
Florida (and states like it) turn the entire principle of self-defense on its head by saying even if someone isn't trying to hurt or kill you, it's okay to kill them. Rape, kidnapping, robbery and the like are crimes that involve direct harm or threats of harm on your person and I agree you should have the right to fight back, with deadly force if necessary. But you already have that under the common law. Yes, it's possible you might get a prosecutor who charges you because she doesn't think your self defense claim is justified, and you will have to rely on the jury to see that you were right to shoot your attempted rapist. But if you have a problem with that, I have bad news for you: that's the foundation of our justice system. The facts go before the jury, the jury decides.
Under Florida's law, if you walk into the living room and see someone stealing your tv, you can shoot him six times in the back and call it self-defense. You're stopping him from committing a burglary, so the law says it's okay. That is not how self-defense should work. It's not how it does work, except in states like Florida that have replaced the common law on self-defense. People let that sort of shit slide and don't think about it, because no one really cares if a burglar gets shot- again, people figure he's already broken into your house, so he kind of asked for it, right? Then suddenly the law says this is the rule not just in your house, but on the street. You see a guy that you think is engaged in a crime, which may or may not be impacting you in some way, and you decide to intervene. You kill the guy, and you get to say, "Well, he was about to commit a felony. It was self defense." This is what I mean about taking this situation out of the home throwing the problem into stark relief.
This is a very problematic law. But it does not excuse police and prosecutors doing their jobs. If you were sending defendants like Zimmerman to the jury and they were coming back not guilty based on this law, you could point at the law and blame it for letting murderers off the hook. But don't you DARE fail to investigate a crime, fail to arrest a murderer, fail to give a jury a chance to decide the case based on the individual facts, and then cry crocodile tears about how the law stops you from doing your job.
You are innocent until proven guilty, but that does not mean that simply claiming that you acted in self defense should excuse you from investigation and charging. The police have a duty to protect the public, and to investigate crimes so that prosecutors can determine whether to charge a case, and prove it if they do. The prosecutor has an ethical duty to "refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause." But under her oath of office, she has a corresponding duty to bring charges which are supported by probable cause, not beg off because the defendant might have an argument to make in his defense.
Last month a defendant approached me after the case against him was dismissed because the alleged victim unexpectedly failed to appear for trial. He was angry with the victim, who he accused of committing perjury in filing the charges, and he was angry with me for prosecuting him. He accused me of knowingly engaging in malicious prosecution, because I knew that he claimed the incident didn't happen and was calling various witnesses to testify for him.
"Sir," I told him. "I had evidence that you committed a crime; that you have a defense to present is not proof of your innocence. That's why we have trials."
That is what the police should have said to Zimmerman, and what the prosecutor should say when she files an indictment against him.