Way to stand your ground Foridians!

[JeremiahMN]

http://www.news-press.com/article/20120 ... 120725029/

[Thunder71]

Wow... what a loose canon that guy seems to be.

They are the testing ground under a microscope, and so far it's not proving very positive.

[jgalt]

Oh for **** sake - this has nothing to do with "stand your ground"...

[xd ED]

Oh for **** sake - this has nothing to do with "stand your ground"...

No kidding; 'stand your ground' appears to be the new 'global warming' as the root of all evil.

[Thunder71]

He stood his ground, he was under attack by high pressure sales!

[JeremiahMN]

Well the shooter told police he was "scared", and the police chief their said it was too early to discuss how stand your ground would play into it....

http://www.examiner.com/article/florida ... for-effect

Anyway you look at it, this hasn't been a good couple weeks for people that don't want more gun control.

[goett047]

Florida needs to repeal that law. It doesn't work.

[jshuberg]

No, it works just fine, and it should have been adopted here in MN. The problem is that people on both sides are distorting the law to such an extent that it bears almost no resemblance to what it actually is.

Stand your ground only applies when all of the other conditions necessary for the use of deadly force are present. All it does is remove the requirement on the victim to first attempt to retreat before defending himself.

In Florida law there is another section of the Justifiable use of force statute that is commonly referred to to as stand your ground. Perhaps they were attached to the same bill when it was passed or something. Anyway, what it states is that if you lawfully utilize deadly force in defense of self or others you are immune from criminal prosecution and civil action. The effect of this is that before trial a hearing is held (I believe they actually call it a stand your ground hearing), and if the judge determines that the shooting was in self defense, then all criminal charges are dropped. Once again though, all criteria necessary for the use of lethal force must be present before this can happen. If you are the aggressor, this doesn't protect you - you go to prison.

[jgalt]

Anyway, what it states is that if you lawfully utilize deadly force in defense of self or others you are immune from criminal prosecution and civil action.

This ^

An analogy for clarification:

Most of those who don't have a permit to carry seem to believe that having one grants the permit holder the right to shoot &/or kill people, when in fact a carry permit grants only a single right - to 'carry' a handgun on or about one's person in a dramatically larger number of places than a person without a permit can.

That's it, no more, no less.

Same w/stand your ground. Enacting it makes zero changes to the existing laws regarding the justifiable taking of a life, use of force, etc. All stand your ground does is protect the victim of an attack where they successfully defended themselves - regardless where they happened to be at the time of the attack - from being victimized again by either an over-zealous prosecutor (in clear-cut cases of self-defense) or the attacker / attacker's family (civil suit).

Why this is so hard for some folks to understand is baffling to me...

[Daddyo]

I'll speak to the "stand your ground" law I'm most familiar with...
In Alabama, if it is determined that you shot someone in self-defense, there can be no further civil lawsuits against you regarding the incident.
In other words, if Zimmerman had shot Martin in Alabama the state could still bring charges against Zimmerman if they felt they had a case. However, if the trial exonerates Zimmerman, Martin's family cannot take any further action (a'la O.J. SImpson).

[Lunchbox]

I'll speak to the "stand your ground" law I'm most familiar with...
In Alabama, if it is determined that you shot someone in self-defense, there can be no further civil lawsuits against you regarding the incident.
In other words, if Zimmerman had shot Martin in Alabama the state could still bring charges against Zimmerman if they felt they had a case. However, if the trial exonerates Zimmerman, Martin's family cannot take any further action (a'la O.J. SImpson).

That's kind of a nice touch.

[jshuberg]

MN Statute 611A.08 states:

Subd. 2.Perpetrator's assumption of risk.

A perpetrator assumes the risk of loss, injury, or death resulting from or arising out of a course of criminal conduct involving a violent crime, as defined in this section, engaged in by the perpetrator or an accomplice, as defined in section 609.05, and the crime victim is immune from and not liable for any civil damages as a result of acts or omissions of the victim if the victim used reasonable force as authorized in section 609.06 or 609.065.

Subd. 3.Evidence.

Notwithstanding other evidence which the victim may adduce relating to the perpetrator's conviction of the violent crime involving the parties to the civil action, a certified copy of: a guilty plea; a court judgment of guilt; a court record of conviction as specified in section 599.24, 599.25, or 609.041; an adjudication as a delinquent child; or a disposition as an extended jurisdiction juvenile pursuant to section 260B.130 is conclusive proof of the perpetrator's assumption of the risk.

In MN you are immune from civil action if you are defending yourself against a violent crime. However, I've never been able to get an answer on what "other evidence" can be used to demonstrate that immunity applies if the assailant is killed, since he won't be prosecuted. Chances are, it's going to involve lawyers and a cost lot of money to prove you have immunity. FL law is much cleaner on this, as they have a stand your ground hearing that can make this determination without a full trial.

Also note that while it's legal to use deadly force in defense of dwelling, you are not immune from civil actions resulting from the use of force in a defense of dwelling situation unless the felony being committed in your home was a violent felony.