Commissioners Lopez and Yaniz Co-Sponsor Resolution Urging Repeal of Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law

Commissioners Clayton Lopez and Tony Yaniz are co-sponsoring a resolution to strongly urge the Florida Legislature to repeal the state’s Stand Your Ground law.    The Stand Your Ground law was enacted by the Florida Legislature in 2005 and has been used as a basis for a defense of justifiable homicide in a number of murder trials since then, including the recent and highly controversial prosecution of George Zimmerman for the shooting death of 17-year old Trayvon Martin.

In the proposed resolution the City cites concern over the “adverse social impact of the Stand Your Ground law, and a perceived racial bias that has been promulgated through its applicatioin in the court system”.

A recent study suggests that Stand Your Ground laws may lead to more deaths. According to researchers at Texas A&M University, the rates of murder and non-negligent manslaughter increased by 8 percent in states with Stand Your Ground laws.

The authors, who analyzed nationwide FBI crime data from 2000-2009, say it could mean that more people are using lethal force in self-defense, or that situations are more likely to escalate to the point of violence in states with Stand Your Ground laws. “Regardless,” the study states, “the results indicate that a primary consequence of strengthening self-defense law is increased homicide.”

In a seperate study, released last month, John K. Roman, Phd.  [senior fellow at the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center] found that Stand Your Ground laws appear to track the existing racial disparities in homicide convictions across the country but with one very significant difference:  Whites who kill blacks in states with Stand Your Ground laws are far more likely to be found justified in their killing.

Roman’s July 2013 study, Race, Justifiable Homicide, and Stand Your Ground Laws Analysis of FBI Supplementary Homicide Report Data, analyzes data from the Federal Bureau of Investigations Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR) and the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data maintained by the University of Michigan.

The study concludes,

“This paper finds substantial evidence of racial disparities in justifiable homicide determinations. Regardless of how the data are analyzed, substantial racial disparities exist in the outcomes of crossrace homicides. These findings hold throughout the analysis, from differences in average rates, to bivariate tests of association, to regression analysis. In addition, the recent expansion of Stand Your Ground laws in two dozen states appears to worsen the disparity.”

The resolution if passed will be sent to municipalities in Monroe County, the Board of County Commissioners, State Senator Dwight Bullard, Representative Holly Raschein, Governor Scott,  Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, U.S. Congressman Joe Garcia, U.S. Senator Bill Nelson, and the President of the United States, Barack Obama.

In Commissioner Lopez’ words, the resolution is being sought

“for the sake of addressing the issue of race head-on as it should have been and to finally address those issues of race that we have for too long overlooked and have brought us to the point that laws could be passed that would grant lengthy sentences to those who kill dogs, but would allow those who kill young black males an excuse.”

The resolution will be voted upon during the Tuesday August 6, 2013 City Commission meeting at Old City Hall.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Stand Your Ground law reads:

The 2012 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI

CRIMES

Chapter 776

JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

(1) 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.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) 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.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.

Copyright © 1995-2013 The Florida Legislature