Jacksonville Sheriff supports tweaks to 'stand your ground' that include 'duty to retreat'

Jacksonville Sherriff supports tweaks to 'stand your ground' that include 'duty to retreat':
(February 21, 2014)

JACKSONVILLE, Florida — Jacksonville Sherriff John Rutherford says changes to Florida's "stand your ground" law are needed. Rutherford told the Florida Times-Union (http://bit.ly/1gPKP5i ) that he supports a tweaking of the controversial law that allows the use of deadly force if someone is threatened with death or great bodily harm. Rutherford previously supported the legislation, but says there should be some "duty to retreat" provision if it can be done safely.

 I'm actually feeling a little indecisive about my reaction to this article.

The reason for the Sheriff's objection was the strange case of Michael Dunn, who (in the parking lot of a Florida convenience store) opened fire on a carload of teens whom he had originally approached to ask them to turn their car music down.

In his disposition, Dunn testified that he thought he saw a firearm pointed at him, so he drew his (legal, in his home state) concealed firearm and fired at the car.

As the car drove away, Dunne shot several times ("9 or 10") in the direction of the car. One passenger was killed.


Dunne is now charged with a murder charge, plus extra 'attempted murder" charges .. one for each of the four passengers in the car.

Dunne's defense is that he saw someone in the car pointing a gun at him,

LEOs found no firearms in the car; only one person was hit by Dunn's shots, and that person died of his wounds.


Those of us (under-informed, but politically and concerned people) who are following the consequences of this November 23, 2012 incident have some questions:

• Did Dunn actually believe he saw a firearm?  Was he in legitimate fear for his life, or did he just over-react?
• Even if Dunn DID 'over-react', does that mean that the "Stand Your Ground' defense is irredeemably flawed?
•  If he felt at the time of the shooting that he was justified, why did he drive 200 miles to his home in another state rather than stand his ground and answer to the responding officers?
• These questions obviously need to be answered, but yet the Jacksonville Sheriff has taken a public stance which puts the 'Stand Your Ground' law at primary blame for this incident, before a jury has been allowed to evaluate the situation within a Florida court.   Why is he making these statements?
• If  Dunn's "Stand Your Ground" defense is ultimately determined by the Florida Court System to be inadequate under these specific circumstances, does that mean that "Stand Your Ground" is fundamentally flawed?
• Is the Jacksonville Sheriff milking this incident for personal publicity, or does he truly believe the concept is flawed?
• Finally, if Dunn's defense under the "Stand Your Ground" rule is determined to be inapplicable in this specific incident, should the legal concept be abandoned?

Nobody knows the answers to all (any?) of these questions, yet.  That's because they are all directed at this particular case, and these specific circumstance.  Also, until the trial is over and the jury has returned a verdict (not so at this moment, according to my admittedly amateurish data search), we cannot get a handle on the specific situation, let alone an evaluation of the concept.

I would like to focus on the law, rather than the incident.

In my personal opinion, it is a boon to the population of Florida that they do not have a duty to retreat.  It may or may not have been applicable to this incident, but does that mean that the law is unacceptable?   Without the "Stand Your Ground" law, any citizen who defends himself without retreating is automatically "guilty".  The courts have little latitude.

However, with the "Stand Your Ground" law, the courts are obliged to carefully evaluate the circumstances, and the defendant is allowed a complete legal defense.

Yes, the defendant may be found to have over-reacted.  He may have actually NOT thought that he saw a gun .. he may have just got pissed off, fired up the car, and after the fact decided that the "Stand The Ground" law was his best defense.

How about the next time that the "Stand Your Ground" rule is brought into a courtroom?  What if a gun HAD been found in the car?  What if someone walking down the street was confronted with one or more gun-bearing hoodlums who openly stated their intention to kill him or her?  What if there was no place to which to 'retreat', and the incident was so obviously fraught with peril that the putative victum clearly had NO opportunity to "retreat"?

In that case, the innocent victim might have been found dead, by unknown assailants, because he was unsure of his legal ground to the right of self defense.

I'm not conflating the original situation with this hypothetical situation.  What I'm saying is that even if the defense in this situation turns out to be inapplicable, or even basely used to excuse behavior which might turn out to be inexcusable, it's quite easy to posit situations where the "Stand Your Ground" defense is entirely applicable ... so why would this LEO seek to abrogate the law?

I think the "Stand Your Ground" law should be allowed to stand, if only to provide a legitimate defense for those who find themselves in an untenable, where the only viable solution is to Fight Back .. NOW!

Anyone who thinks that this situation would not present himself .. especially the Sheriff of Jacksonville County (who is personally covered in any situation, because of the power of his position) should reconsider the position of the .,, literally .. Power of his Position.

O