Friday, the Florida Sheriff's Association came out in support of Florida's Stand Your Ground Law.
“The right to self-defense is well-established in law. The Florida Sheriffs confirmed this position by voting unanimously, at the 2013 Florida Sheriffs Association Summer Conference, to support the Stand Your Ground law as it is currently written," said FSA President, Sheriff Grady Judd.
And, no, Huffington Post - we are not "stuck" with Stand Your Ground; while you and others might not like it, we are fortunate to have it and to have legislators and sheriffs who will defend it from those who would like to see us defenseless. If you and others would stop making things up about it we would appreciate it.
UPDATED: This decision while unanimous among those in attendance, was not a consensus view of the full FCS membership.
As reported by the Huffington Post, Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel noted that if he had been in attendance, he would have voted against it. He was quoted as saying "I support an individual's right to use armed self-defense when faced with the immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury, and without requiring any duty to retreat in one's own home. However, if there is a safe opportunity in other settings to retreat and de-escalate potentially deadly violence, it should be done. For this reason, I support legislative changes to more narrowly restrict the use of the Stand Your Ground defense."
Again it is a case of someone who should be knowledgeable in the law and the practicalities of real world self-defense expressing an erroneous interpretation. "Into one's home"? What has that got to do with duty to retreat? Castle doctrine is well established. But now, with a gun in my face on the street, you do not expect me to retreat to my home? Gee, thanks!
I guess it makes sense that a sheriff, who would never have a duty to retreat from the threat of lethal violence and who is duty bound to approach danger, would think that making such decisions more difficult is a good idea. I am sure he and his mean never need think that far ahead if someone pulls weapon on them.
Sheriff Israel: You are suggesting that a person, assaulted, battered, threatened with deadly force should be required to actually call a time-out and think through the potential for a safe retreat. Perhaps you should require the same of your officers.
UPDATED SOME MORE: Huffington further noted, in reference to the Volusia County Sheriff, that "The Sheriff supports the right of citizens to employ deadly force with no duty to retreat in order to defend themselves while in their homes or vehicles," a spokesman for Volusia County Sheriff Ben Johnson told the Daytona Beach News Journal. "However, when out in the open and facing a threat, the Sheriff believes citizens should attempt to retreat if possible before using lethal force."
Once again, one has to wonder why a policeman's life is more important than a civilian's - I doubt Sheriff Johnson will be asking his deputies to do likewise and retreat. I can only say again - what type of mental calculation is the law-abiding citizen being asked to make here - Is this a threat? Is this a lethal threat? Can I turn and run without suffering lethal assault? All of this in the split second when a threat, a weapon, are shoved in your face? Again I ask - do you want your deputies to do this is they approach a vehicle and the driver shoves a gun out the window at them? [We have all seen enough dash cam and other footage to know that if does not go down that way].
Flagler County Sheriff Jim Manfre agreed that the law should revert back to the more-limited castle doctrine suggesting that "When legislation confuses people, that begs for repeal," Manfre told the News Journal. Sheriff Manfre: Do you not think a law that establishes a duty to retreat if it can be done safely is also a bit confusing? Doesn't it seem that one only knows the definitive answer to that after the fact? And wasn't it just that detail that lead to so many conviction for failure to retreat?
In the end, for most of these sheriffs in disagreement, this seems an "okay for me and not for thee" approach. And because of that, they seem to have little appreciation for what they are asking the armed civilian to do and why a law that lifted that unrealistic requirement was passed.
No comments:
Post a Comment