Florida legislature seeks compromise on reform of self-defense law

MIAMI Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:54pm EDT

Related Topics

MIAMI (Reuters) - A legislative committee took a major step toward clarifying Florida's hotly debated 'stand your ground' self-defense law on Monday, approving some restrictions on its use and clarifying that the statute does not permit 'vigilantism' by neighborhood watch activists.

The compromise deal between supporters of the original 2005 statute and critics who want the law repealed, provides that no-one who initiates a violent confrontation may claim protection under the law.

It also requires police to set forth rules for neighborhood watch groups, specifically providing that patrol volunteers may only notify police about suspicious persons and not pursue or confront them.

The proposal resulted from the acquittal last year of George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman in central Florida who shot an unarmed black teenager, Trayvon Martin, to death. Zimmerman did not claim pre-trial immunity from prosecution under the 'stand your ground' self-defense clause, but the law allowing use of deadly force in situations of reasonable fear of injury was read to the jury in final instructions, creating confusion in the minds of some jurors.

"This law is not about the convenience of the courts, it is not about the convenience of the prosecutors and it is not about the convenience of law enforcement," Marion Hammer, a former two-term president of the National Rifle Association, told the Senate Criminal Justice Committee.

"It is about protecting innocent people. The law is not intended to punish you for fighting back."

A House criminal justice panel has already rejected outright repeal of the law. The compromise was worked out between state Senator David Simmons, a Republican from Altamonte Springs who wrote the 2005 statute, and Senator Chris Smith, a Fort Lauderdale Democrat who wants the law repealed.

Simmons and Smith worked with prosecutors, public defenders and police agencies to tighten the law in response to the public furor over the Zimmerman verdict, which included a 31-day sit-in at the State Capitol last summer by a group called "Dream Defenders."

The new proposal also clarifies that a person shooting in self-defense will not be immune from civil suits by any innocent bystanders who are hurt. It also shifts the burden of proof from the defense to the prosecution in pre-trial hearings on use of the 'stand your ground' defense.

The bill spells out that guidelines issued by county sheriffs and city police must provide that crime-watch participants are barred "from confronting or attempting to apprehend a person suspected of improper or unlawful activity."

The volunteers could, however, intervene to rescue a person in danger or call out to warn off an assailant.

In the Trayvon Martin case, Zimmerman left his vehicle against the advice of a police dispatcher and pursued the youth, who was walking from a convenience store on a rainy night to the home where he staying in a gated community.

The Florida law more recently came under attack in the trial of Michael Dunn, who killed north Florida teenager Jordan Davis in a confrontation over loud rap music blasting from a car Davis and three other young black men were sitting in at a Jacksonville gas station.

Dunn, who said he thought he saw a shotgun or rifle barrel in the car, was convicted of three counts of attempted murder but his jury was unable to decide the murder count.

"Jordan Davis was minding his own business," said Senator Audrey Gibson, a Jacksonville Democrat who voted for the compromise but would prefer to repeal the law. "Trayvon Martin was minding his own business."

The Senate bill also provides a statement of "legislative intent," stating that the stand your ground law "is not intended to encourage vigilantism or acts of revenge, authorize the initiation of a confrontation as a pretext to respond with deadly force, or negate a duty to retreat for persons engaged in unlawful mutual combat."

The package now goes to the Senate Community Affairs Committee, then to the Rules Committee for scheduling of floor debate but the backing of the NRA gives it a strong chance of success.

(Editing by David Adams and James Dalgleish)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (2)
Evo1 wrote:
In other words, nothing really changes, since the SYG law never allowed these things in the first place. Even though opponents tried dishonestly to link the law to cases like Zimmerman and Dunn (neither of which had the slightest thing to do with SYG) and have falsely claimed that it allows those who are merely “afraid” to use lethal force (SYG has nothing to do with the justification for lethal force – that is the simple self-defense law – and Florida’s standard in that regard is identical to that of all other states, which all allow the use of lethal force when a person has a “reasonable belief” that they life is in immediate danger), none of this was ever true. So all the legislature is pushing for now is an official statement that what has always been true is still true.

Mar 18, 2014 8:37pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Evo1 wrote:
So, all they’re actually doing is dispelling the misinformation spread by SYG opponents, by adopting an official statement that the law does not (and never has) meant what SYG opponents have tried to claim it means. If the opponents hadn’t spent all this time trying to smear the law by lying about what it allows, the state wouldn’t have to waste all this time and money passing a bill to dispel their propaganda in the first place.

Mar 18, 2014 8:48pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.