In Florida, at least.
I mean, that's always been kind of been a de facto thing, which is why police shootings almost never end up in a jury trial of any sort. "He had a gun." "He made a threatening move." "He didn't instantly obey my shouted order." "He was a scary color." District Attorneys rarely press charges in such cases.
But now Florida's supreme court has gone a step further, expanding the state's "Stand Your Ground" law to formally encompass law enforcement, giving yet one more at-bat to avoid criminal punishment for killing someone unjustly.
Thus, in those already-exceedingly rare cases where a cop's egregious use of force leads an indictment from the usually-friendly DA's office, and passes the sniff test of a usually police-supportive grand jury, all that cop has to do is convince a single judge in a pre-trial hearing that they were afraid for their life, and they get off the hook, no trial or trial jury needed to make the decision.
Are we all feeling safer now?
Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law Just Got Even Worse
The latest in a steadily creeping distortion of justice that intensifies the “shoot first, ask questions later” logic of weaponized self-defense.
We are already the ok corral
Wasn't this a movie with Stalone?
That is pretty much the entire country, there is an entire cottage industry training cops how to literally get away with murder, all they need to say they were afraid for their lives.
Some contrast to other countries. At least here, if a police officer as much as fire a shot they're automatically taken off duty until it's been investigated. Police officers are professionals trained to disarm situations, not escalate them. I remember a case when a police officer shot a man that was charging him with a knife in the leg. That was found an offence; as a professional he was expected to handle such situation without having to resort to using his gun.
The mindset in Florida seems to be more of "shoot first, ask questions later". Perhaps police academy is not providing adequate training?
Having untrained civilians exercising their "stand your ground" rights sounds even more dangerous to me, to them and innocent bystanders alike.
This is a given. Nothing to indicate cops shouldn't be under the umbrella of stand your ground. All "stand your ground" means is, if you are in a place you legally have the right to be, you do not have to retreat from a threat of death or great bodily injury before using deadly force, IF necessary.
+A Wolf No, it's not a given. Police already have special privileges — and liabilities, in theory — around the use of force and availability to it.
The "IF necessary" part is the real caveat here. Retreating before a threat of death or great bodily injury seems like it should be the presumptive behavior unless there is no choice or if others are threatened, so as to avoid additional violence that may be mistaken in interpretation.
As it stands, this ruling by the Florida supreme court appears to simply give Florida cops an excuse to shoot first and make up a story later. It creates a presumption that escalation and violence should occur, and therefore will cause it to do so.
+Dave Hill Your opinion, not the court's, and not one based on logic.
"Retreating before a threat of death or great bodily injury seems like it should be the presumptive behavior . . ." Again, in your opinion, only. MY opinion is that I do not and should not HAVE TO back down from your unlawful advances, if I am lawfully entitled to be where I am. Push me at your peril. YOUR choice if violence occurs.
+A Wolf That assumes that we are both rational actors with sufficient comprehension of the situation to avoid a tragedy. Given that there are few take-backs on the use of deadly force, a presumption of escalation seems like a bad idea unless there's no other choice.
That's my opinion, yes, which doesn't make it per se any less "logical" than your opinion. It's not the opinion of the Florida supreme court (though without reading the ruling I can't say if they agree with your opinion, or if they are simply saying that's what the law provides).
+Dave Hill The other element left out is the necessity of the action taken. The person who claims the right to stand his/her ground must 'reasonably' believe the action he/she takes is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury.
If an 8 yr old child approaches an adult and says, " I'm going to beat you to death," and has a stick in his hand, you [member of the public or a cop] cannot shoot him and claim the defense. It gets interesting if the child has what appears to be a real gun and it's pointing at you.
+A Wolf 'If an 8 yr old child approaches an adult and says, " I'm going to beat you to death," and has a stick in his hand, you [member of the public or a cop] cannot shoot him and claim the defense.'
You can, you just have to convince a judge in pre-trial that you were, in fact, in fear of your life — that you couldn't tell if it was a stick or a gun, that it was dark, that the stick looked like it was smeared with poison, that you thought the 8-year-old looked like a 25-year-old felon you had an APB about, that the 8-year-old didn't comply to lie flat on the ground, whatever.
Or, as in this case, as quoted in the article.
'The case in question concerns the July 2013 shooting death of 33-year-old Jermaine McBean by Broward County Sheriff’s Deputy Peter Peraza and a subsequent police cover-up to make the victim appear retroactively to have been an urgent threat. McBean, a black computer engineer with no criminal record, had purchased an unloaded air rifle at a pawn shop four blocks from his home in Oakland Park and was carrying it home while listening to music through his earbuds. When McBean did not immediately respond after three deputies approached from behind and commanded him to stop, Peraza shot and killed him, later claiming to have acted in self-defense.
The cover-up included the victim's ear buds — observed being worn by the victim at the time — magically showing up in the victim's pockets instead when the police gave their official, sworn report.
[…] After killing McBean, Peraza was indicted for manslaughter by a grand jury, amid significant protest from the police union. Such indictments are extremely rare in Broward County: Over a 35-year period in which police killed 167 civilians, Peraza was the only one indicted. In spite of the grand jury’s decision and plentiful evidence of perjury and doctored evidence, Judge Michael Usan, recently re-elected thanks to heavy support from the police union, dismissed the charges.'
Since Peraza asserted he was scared for his life, the judge let him off without even a trial.
+Dave Hill Yes, if a judge finds the one asserting the privilege is reasonably, under all facts known to him/her at the time, in genuine fear of his life, it is a complete legal defense, as it should be.
There are going to be cases that are wrongly decided – both ways.
Seattle times ran a story on a bounty hunter Scott gribble who runs a training camp for bounty hunters. Scott shot a woman point blank at her car window glass imbeded in her face,claimed she was trying to run him over(his body can showed other wise. Many criminals involved in bounty but they are usually given license willy/nilly. Scott brags he got away with it and it ramps up hiss.
Ramps up his buisness,. Hope he ends up shot himself,such a shit.
+Rick Vandermay Please post the story
In my experience, folks who talk like that are usually all mouth.
+A Wolf I am not seeing a lot of cases that are being "wrongly decided" where a cop is unjustly convicted using deadly force. I am seeing at least one case where a killing and cover-up were egregious enough to get a grand jury to indict that got thrown out because a cop-friendly judge accepted a plea of being scared.
+A Wolf I'll give it a try,not real good at tech posting. It is a front page story under times watchdog logo. Story title "lax laws on bounty hunters set stage for mayhem,tragedy. Shows picture of scott aiming gun and pic of woman with damaged face.
+Dave Hill Generally, I agree. But that is not the fault of the law, it's how it's being decided and/or by whom. Additionally, we very seldom get all the facts in the press reports – pro or con.
+A Wolf As LBJ once said, "You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered." Laws that are subject to easy abuse need to be amended to prevent it, esp. when such abuse has lethal consequences.
+Dave Hill No argument. But still a good law, in my opinion. I guess much has to do with one's view of the right of self-defense. Btw, I'm not one of the 2nd Amd boys with unfettered rights to firearms.
This same cocky and crooked Bounty Hunter and his unlicensed in Washington wife walked up on me in my back yard in Spokane Washington, brandishing a pistol and geared up in bullet proof vests and bounty Hunter badge last week. His license in Washington is suspended and she doesn’t have one but he claims that because they were with someone who is licensed in Washington, they have every right to act as a bail enforcement agents on private property in Washington.
Scott and his team are tainted as all get out and because they are allies with many on the police force in Idaho, they get away with using excessive force on fugitives to the point of knocking them unconscious and scrambling to get their victim to regain consciousness before calling law enforcement and Scott likes to attack victims AFTER they have been knocked unconscious and handcuffed. They even go a step further to plant drugs on their fugitive while unconscious.
This guy and his cohorts are out of control and no one is doing anything about it but turning their heads. I wouldn’t doubt if the police work together with them on planting evidence and illegally apprehending suspects since Scott isn’t held accountable to protect anyone’s amendments rights as he is not a government official.