"Stand Your Ground" Laws Create More Problems Than They Solve & Encourage Vigilantism

Refuting my Opponent's ROUND 2 ArgumentsHowever, he mistakenly argues that the 3 requisites for the justifiable use of deadly force he layed out in ROUND 1 are true, and he provides a link to the 2013 Florida Statutes and Constitution webpage, which goes over the justifiable use of force & deadly force a person is permitted to use inside one's home to protect himself and his property--but this is the state's Castle Doctrine (titled Chapter 776: statute 776.013)--not all of the state's "Stand Your Ground" Law [1].But here it explains that deadly force is justified so long as the homeowner or resident has "reasonable fear" of being killed or of sustaining great bodily harm by an unlawful (forceful, unwelcomed) intruder [1]. There is no stipulation that the homeowner/resident can't chase after the intruder even outside his home; there is no stipulation that the homeowner/resident can't use excessive force (including deadly force) when he's gripped by the fear that he might sustain injury or be killed by the intruder[1].In fact, the only condition that has to be met for the justifiable use of deadly force in this statue is that the homeowner/resident has to be gripped by "reasonable fear" that he may be injured or killed by the intruder [1]. This is Castle Doctrine.Advantageously this website also has the complete statute on Florida's SYG Law. I'm posting an expanded viewing of Florida's Chapter 776 so that you can browse through it:(http://www.leg.state.fl.us...)Browsing through this Law, we find that there is a condition that generally upholds the first part of of my opponent's first requirement: "1. Defendant must not begin the engagement."776.041: The use of force and deadly force is not justified by a person who "(1) is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; (2) initially provokes the use of force against himself, unless..." [2]. The Florida Law then list exceptions.So from these conditions it becomes clear that the first part of my opponent's requirement seems true: a person who provokes the use of force against himself is not justified in returning force, including deadly force; neither are those that have commited or are in the act of committing a felony [2]. Well, it makes sense that a person commiting a felony shouldn't have the legal authority to use force and deadly force. But the Florida Law on provocation gets really complex by providing exceptions:776.041: The use of force and deadly force is not justified by a person who "(2) initially provokes the use of force against himself, unless (a) such force [inflicted by the other person] is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force...; (b) in good faith, the [provoker] withdrawals from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force" [2].Did you just read what I read?! In other words, the person who provokes the conflict can use force, including deadly force, if he feels he will sustain bodily injury or be killed by the other person (the person he provoked) during the fight [2]. So as you can see, the person who provoked the conflict can use deadly force under Florida Law, so long as he believes he will sustain bodily injury or be killed during the fight [2].So who's in the legal right in these types of cases? Well this is precisely why judges and lawyers say that it's difficult to distinguish the victim from the criminal in "Stand Your Ground" cases. Statute 776.012 in the Law clearly states: "a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if 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" [2].Well, as you can plainly see, SYG Laws, like the one in Florida, legally justify dueling it out on the street to the point of death so long as someone feels their life is in danger or that they'll sustain bodily harm by the other person [2]. THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT A BAD LAW LOOKS LIKE. There's very little clarity, the level of civil liability is reduced with these laws, they fail to protect people's individual rights, and they condone violent killing on the streets. Life-affirming legal order goes out the window.As for the second part of my opponent's first point--"1. ...the shooter [or victim] . . . must not [go] searching for the [person he injures/kills]"--Florida Law has this to say in statute 776.031: a "person is justified in the use of deadly force...if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be" [2]. In other words a person has the right to use deadly force to prevent the successful execution of a forcible felony, and what is a forcible felony?Statute 776.08: "'Forcible felony' means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual" [2]. In other words, a person has the right to chase after a person and use deadly force when the person has commited a crime that will usually result in at least a one-year prison sentence and that is carried out forcibly [3].Here we find that, beside the "reasonable fear" of bodily harm and death, there are other reasons why deadly force can be used. Many of these reasons make sense, such as firing upon someone that's commiting murder, sexual battery, home-invasion, robbery, arson, kidnapping, but we find that many states without SYG Laws already permit the use of deadly force during the commission of these crimes, so SYG Laws clearly aren't needed [4]. For example, in the states of New York and California, which don't have SYG Laws and require a person to retreat in public when his life's in danger--if at all possible--don't require a person to retreat inside his home and permit him to use deadly force against an unlawful intruder; these states also permit people to use deadly force against persons who are commiting a kidnapping, rape, robbery, burglary, or arson (an exception exist for California, that does not allow deadly force for simple burglary) [4][5].So SYG Laws simply aren't needed for someone to stop these crimes while they're happening.In ROUND 2, I pointed out that my opponent's 2nd requirement--2. Defendant's life must be facing an immediate threat--is generally true, but known exceptions do exist. Furthermore, the "immediate threat" only has to exist in the aggressor's/defendant's head, such as in the example of 53-year-old Oscar Delbono, who shot and killed Shane Huse while his back was turned and while his children were waiting in a car a few yards away [6]. Shane Huse hadn't trespassed, but Delbono believed he was going to his home to retrieve a gun after they got in a vocal argument outside of Delbono's yard [6].Because Delbono claimed reasonable fear and invoked stand-your-ground immunity, FL state attorney Pete Magrino was forced to abandon charges [6]; the FL Law places the burden on the prosecution to first disprove a claim of reasonable self-defense before they can file charges and before the trial even begins, unlike in other states that don't have "Stand Your Ground" immunity [7].This law creates a significant headache and an additional, often-insurmountable burden for prosecutors like Magrino and others that are trying to successfully bring criminals, gang-bangers, & drug dealers to justice [8].My opponent's 3rd requirement--3. Excessive Force Cannot Be Administered--is absolute nonsense, as I demonstrated in ROUND 2. As I have also shown in this ROUND, excessive force, as in deadly force, is permitted and written into SYG Law, so long as as the aggressor/defendant is gripped by a subjective "reasonable fear" that he will be killed or injured [2].We don't need SYG Laws so that people can reasonably defend themselves.SYG Laws Effect on Homicide Rates & CrimeSYG Laws remove civil liability and increase acts of citizen vigilantism; this is driving homicide rates up in state's that have passed SYG Laws. A 2012 study conducted by Texas A&M University showed that SYG Laws have actually increased the nation's homicide rate and that they do nothing to deter crime. The study found that states that have implemented SYG Laws have seen a 7 to 9 percent increase in the homicide rate (on average, an additional 600 homicides per year across these states) [9]."Our study finds that homicides go up by 7 to 9 percent in states that pass the laws, relative to states that didn't pass the laws over the same time period," says researcher Mark Hoestra, one of the study coordinators [10]."The researchers concluded that, even though these laws were passed with the intention of stopping a violent act, they actually increase them, because they remove civil liability and reduce the legal consequences of using lethal force [10]. "The imperfect but growing evidence...suggest that the consequences of adopting stand your ground laws are pernicious, in that they may lead to a greater number of homicides--thus going against the notion that they are serving some sort of protective function for society," Hoekstra said [10].The study also found that SYG Laws provide no deterrence against crime [9][10].(SYG = "Stand Your Ground")