TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/1985 ... and-killed" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Seems from what was presented, why stand your ground was created. Man walking his dog, confronted by angry neighbor who pulls a knife. Man takes two steps back, man with knife closes distance and is killed.

I don't see where this has anything to do with "stand your ground". The man attempted retreat but was charged by a man with a knife. Defended himself.

If the facts are as presented (a big "if"), this would be straightforward self defense even in states without a SYG statute.

Jumping Frog wrote:I don't see where this has anything to do with "stand your ground". The man attempted retreat but was charged by a man with a knife. Defended himself.

If the facts are as presented (a big "if"), this would be straightforward self defense even in states without a SYG statute.

It doesn't....it just the way the antis attempt to discredit the law, by characterizing any and every shooting that isn't related to gang bangers as a SYG shooting. Just because the article claims the "authorities" suggested the possibility doesn't mean it's true. 1. the "reporter" could be lying; or 2) the reporter found someone he could call an "authority" to express that particular opinion; or 3) the authority quoted is an anti; or 4) an editor rewrote it to read that way. There is a hoplophobe inserting a liberal meme somewhere in the process of publishing the article --bet on it.

Near as I can tell, stand your ground, gives you the right to use deadly force to defend yourself against someone attacking you without requirement of being cornered and with no other options. For example in your house you would have to be in a closet or a locked bathroom and the attacker attempting to break into your final refuge before you could use deadly force, if there was not a stand your ground law.

Prior to the advent of the so-called "Stand Your Ground" laws, there was a three part test that first evolved in common & case law and later became codified in many states as an affirmative defense.

To be valid self defense, traditionally there was a three-pronged test for the affirmative defense:

1. Defendant Is Not At Fault. In other words, didn't start the trouble. The defendant cannot be the first aggressor or initiator.
2. Reasonable and honest belief one was in danger of death or serious bodily injury.
3. Duty to Retreat or otherwise try to avoid the situation when you can do so safely.

The "Stand Your Ground" laws passed in many states simply removed the 3rd part of the three-pronged test. A person still has to show they didn't start the trouble and they had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury.

The other aspect of the law now in many states has been shifting the burden of proof.

A traditional affirmative defense starts with "Yes, I committed the homicide, but I was forced to do so for these reasons." Legally, this meant two things. First, a defendant had to start their case by admitting the crime ("Yes, I committed the homicide".) Then, the burden of proof was on the defendant to show that it was justified, which is like "guilty until proven innocent".

In many states now (including Texas), the burden of proof has been shifted to the prosecutor. The "stand your ground" law basically says a person is justified in shooting under certain conditions and the prosecutor now has to prove that an exception to that rule applies. That is why PC §9.32 now includes the language "The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if .... certain conditions apply." Now the prosecutor must prove the belief was not reasonable instead of the defendant having to prove the belief was reasonable.

Anyway, back to this Florida case. If the facts are as presented (a big "if" -- errors are common), this would be straightforward self defense even in states with the traditional self defense statutes. SYG has nothing to do with it.