Check these out.
/b/"The number of cases is increasing, largely because defense attorneys are using "stand your ground" in ways state legislators never envisioned. The defense has been invoked in dozens of cases with minor or no injuries.
It has also been used by a self-described "vampire" in Pinellas County, a Miami man arrested with a single marijuana cigarette, a Fort Myers homeowner who shot a bear and a West Palm Beach jogger who beat a Jack Russell terrier.
I had to look at that since I don't recall if the Florida law requires force to be used against a human or not.
Bear case:
The outcome: Doerr's attorney filed a "stand your ground" immunity motion, which a judged denied. Doerr then accepted a plea deal that gave him two years probation and required him to donate $500 to a wildlife fund. Adjudication was withheld, meaning the charge will not appear on his record.
Jack Russell case:
The outcome: Schecter's public defender filed a motion for immunity based on "stand your ground." A judge denied the motion, saying "stand your ground" only provides immunity to those who use force "against a person rather than chattel or property." Schecter was found guilty by a jury in Oct. 2011.
I'm not seeing the SYG as being a problem here. A lawyer filed a motion based on whatever flimsy excuse they could find and the judge squashed it.
It's like saying it shouldn't be legal to fight back against an attacker (self-defense) because some people claim self-defense when they started a fight.
Marijuana cigarette case:
The marijuana cigarette case is a guy who was arrested after (he claims) someone brandished a knife at him, so he punched the guy, took the knife, and ran away. He's trying to claim that since what he did was legal under SYG, the arrest and search was illegal. The case is still pending, but I'd bet that the court is going to find against him. I doubt it's wrong for the police to arrest someone while they are still determining the facts of the case, nor do I suspect it is wrong for the police to search someone that they have arrested.
The "vampire" case:
Let's give the details:
What happened: Milton Bennett Ellis Jr. said he was sleeping on the patio outside a vacant Hooter's restaurant when he woke to find a woman on top of him screaming that she was a vampire. Ellis, who uses a wheelchair, said he tried to fend the woman off as she bit off chunks of his face and part of his lip. Witnesses who called 911 said they heard a woman screaming and a man shaking her and trying to hush her up. Police arrested Josephine Smith, who was found partly clothed with numerous bruises. Smith, who was intoxicated, said she did not remember what happened. Ellis was 69 at the time, Smith was 22. Smith was charged with aggravated battery on an elderly person.
The outcome: Smith's public defender filed a motion for immunity based on the "stand your ground" statute. The defense alleged that police arrested the wrong suspect and that Ellis had been bitten while sexually assaulting Smith and holding her on the ground. The judge denied the motion. Smith later pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of battery and was sentenced to 12 months in jail.
Not only did the judge deny the statute, but according to her claims, she wasn't engaged in SYG, just in self-defense. I think the reporter made a mistake. (Especially since in Florida, the SYG is not a separate statute, but part of a broader self-defense statute. There's actually two statutes, one of which references the other.)
This woman tried to claim she was being sexually assaulted and fought back. I'm not sure about you, but I think it's perfectly fine if it's legal for an individual to fight back while being sexually assaulted, even if it leads to some people (like this one) trying to use self-defense to justify what appears to be an attack on an older man.
If this is the worst cases that they can cite, I don't think SYG is a problem. In three of the cases, the lawyer for the defendant made a motion based on flimsy evidence, and in each of those the motion was denied. The fourth case is still pending at the time the article was written, but I suspect the SYG defense will be thrown out.
Some of the other cases don't even seem to be SYG either. Like the "two unarmed people" being killed. Here's the case:
What happened: Michael Monahan, a disabled veteran, shot and killed two men who cornered him in the cabin of his sailboat during an argument. Monahan told police the men had tried to remove him from the sailboat, which he said he had previously bought from one of the men, Raymond "Ramie" Mohlman. Mohlman was angry because Monahan had allowed the boat to be ticketed while still registered in Mohlman's name. Mohlman and the other victim, Matthew Vittum, had both been drinking. Prosecutors argued that neither victim was armed when boarding the boat and that neither had touched the shooter during the argument. Legally, Mohlman still owned the boat at the time.
Now which part of this is SYG? Here is the SYG part of the Florida law:
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.
But according to the victim, he was cornered. That doesn't sound like he had a choice to retreat.
Part of the same statute, but a different section, states:
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.
I think the reporter screwed that up.
