Why are we talking about "Stand Your Ground"?

The Tampa Times (formerly the St. Petersburg Times) has had a thing for SYG for a while now.

What one has to ask is why the Zimmerman case, which had nothing to do with “Stand Your Ground”, has brought that law back into their headlines?   First, Zimmerman, through his attorneys, declined to even present a case based on that law.  Why?  The reason was obvious; Zimmerman's report and the available evidence presented in that case showed that retreat was not an option for Zimmerman, being pummeled by Martin from a full mount position. Anyone who has watched mixed martial arts (MMA) knows how difficult it is to escape such a position; in fact, once one fighter assumes that dominant position, it usually spells the end of the fight in their favor.  And the fact that Zimmerman was supposedly training in "martial arts"?  Well, most who are trained in combatives or MMA will tell you that traditional martial arts training may do little to prepare one for real, street-level violence. (Sorry - that's just the way it is - even MMA training may not be adequate preparation for the street).

 

So, why is SYG now in the Times headlines?  It is clear that the Times has had a thing for “Stand Your Ground” (as do many others) that seems to have been exacerbated by this tragedy when it happened 18 months ago.  They have, in the absence of data to show that it has increased crime in Florida, chosen to focus on the most egregious cases where it was applied.  Has it been misapplied?  Probably, as are many other laws.  But that is a matter of case law, judicial interpretation or a need to clarify the law.  For instance, some of the examples seem to include drug deals gone bad, yet Florida Statues, when discussing justifiable use of force (of which SYG is a part) note that the presumptions of reasonable fear do not apply if the "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."

Note that self-defense and the absence of a duty to retreat are defined in Fl 776.012: 

"776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(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

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013."

 

Note this refers to the circumstances permitted under 776.013 - one of which asserts as above: 

 

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

.

.

.

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"

One cannot stand their ground in an act that is not justifiable self-defense.

It appears that, as with so many other outlets, the Times has chosen to go with via guilt by association, to link SYG to this tragic case even though it was judged a case of justifiable self-defense and is not relevant; to damn it by association with this tragic affair.  What is puzzling is why other, less biased or partisan outlets do not seem to suffer this ignorance.  If an outlet like the Times is going to purport to cover “news” and cloak itself in the guise of being a “newspaper”, then perhaps some knowledge of the law, the data, and how the law applies to the data would be in order.  A headline that says it is not an issue (July 16) which is followed by a long treatise on how it is to blame is disingenuous at best.