"Stand Your Ground" laws, are they a good, or bad idea?

I'll bite. While I'm for them in theory and principle i.e. we should be able to protect ourselves with any means necessary the law must be clear. The problem I have with them especially Florida's is when they contain wording like this.

(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

What does this mean? What is reasonable? who decides? imminent commission sounds too close to "future crime" to me. It's simply poorly written imo.

Originally Posted by ginwilly

I'll bite. While I'm for them in theory and principle i.e. we should be able to protect ourselves with any means necessary the law must be clear. The problem I have with them especially Florida's is when they contain wording like this.

(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

What does this mean? What is reasonable? who decides? imminent commission sounds too close to "future crime" to me. It's simply poorly written imo.

The "reasonable belief" thing is a pretty standard test used in the law. What it means is: would a reasonable person look at the facts and conclude that the actions are reasonable, i.e. would a jury of peers conclude that a person acted reasonably under those circumstances?

For example, neighbor A is annoyed that neighbor B is playing hip hop music at ear shattering sound levels. Neighbor A pounds on neighbors B's door, demand that he turn the fucking music down. Upon refusal by neighbor B, neighbor A shoots neighbor B dead, then steps over his lifeless body and turns off the music and says, "there, fixed that for ya" as he exits neighbor B's domicile. Is that shooting "reasonable"? I think the answer is clearly no, and I fucking hate hip hop "music".

LOL ditto the loud hip hop.

I like your explanation of reasonable belief and would hope you are right. The way it's written though, a jury wouldn't have to come to the conclusion that the person acted reasonably, they would have to agree the person "felt" they were being reasonable. Whether or not you think their actions are reasonable is irrelevant. When is it clear there is an imminent commission of a forcible felony? when they take two steps toward my home with "that look" in their eyes? or when they have one leg in my window? or somewhere in between?Am I making sense? Legaleze pisses me off, I'm sure that's part of my problem.

The supreme court said it better than me:

""Stand your ground" governs U.S. federal case law in which right of self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Beard v. U.S. (158 U.S. 550 (1895)) that a man who was "on his premises" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."^[2]["

Extend that concept to "a man who was "on his premises", or any other place where had a legal right to be, when he came under attack"... and you have the SYG laws.

Originally Posted by ginwilly

LOL ditto the loud hip hop.

I like your explanation of reasonable belief and would hope you are right. The way it's written though, a jury wouldn't have to come to the conclusion that the person acted reasonably, they would have to agree the person "felt" they were being reasonable. Whether or not you think their actions are reasonable is irrelevant. When is it clear there is an imminent commission of a forcible felony? when they take two steps toward my home with "that look" in their eyes? or when they have one leg in my window? or somewhere in between?Am I making sense? Legaleze pisses me off, I'm sure that's part of my problem.

I feel your pain with legaleze.

What it boils down to from a juror's perspective is, "yeah, I think I would have done the same thing under the circumstances". If a juror can not come to that conclusion, then there was no "reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death" and the big iron door slams on the shooter. The law is literally filled with "reasonable belief", it is the essence of the jury system.

Originally Posted by desert dude

Extend that concept to "a man who was "on his premises", or any other place where had a legal right to be, when he came under attack"... and you have the SYG laws.

I don't think we can. Please excuse the obvious over the top example I'm giving but it's to prove a point.
Blood is vacationing with his wife in the keys and wanders into a local bar and gets shot. Turns out a crip was there with his wife and saw him first. His fear of imminent danger is justified in his mind. The law clearly states the He or She feels, not whether I would or you would but He would. He's not guilty if I'm on that jury interpreting that law. Guilty without that poorly written paragraph.

Originally Posted by desert dude

I fucking hate hip hop "music".

Amen, brother.
I think it's a shame that we need to pile law on top of law to clarify a simple concept. The same with "concealed carry".
But yet, when it comes to "noise" ordinances in general, the law, in most cases, is almost non existent. They may cover the usual noisy neighbor, especially between 11PM and 7AM but if there is a "pimp mobile" driving around and rattling the windows and doors loose, nothing, or the all day long barking dog, when the neighbor who works the night shift, is trying to sleep, sorry, you have no right to not be disturbed.

Originally Posted by ginwilly

He's not guilty if I'm on that jury interpreting that law.

I'd say "guilty" and it's too bad they didn't do us all a favor and kill each other.