'Stand Your Ground' law sparks debate

Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law was touted as giving residents more protection when it came to self-defense.

They no longer had to walk away from aggressors or do everything possible to avoid deadly confrontations.

But with judges rendering conflicting rulings across the state, experts wonder whether the law has turned into a bit of legal fool's gold.

"Citizens think they have greater rights than the statute actually gives them and that's dangerous," said Robert Batey, a criminal law professor at Stetson University College of Law.

"They misconstrue it with tragic results," he said. "You now have people using deadly force in circumstances that they would have thought twice (about) before."

Assistant State Attorney Mike Sinacore, head of Hillsborough County's felony division, also sees the peril.

"One big concern is seeing the 'Stand Your Ground' law being used to escalate a violent situation into a lethal one," Sinacore said. "People think they can take the law in their own hands and settle their own grievances with deadly force.

"We've seen people invoking the 'Stand Your Ground' law to explain their actions and they aren't always correct," he said.

Attorney Stephen Romine successfully used the law to clear Charles Podany of a manslaughter charge in September. Podany shot a man who attacked him after a confrontation about speeding through his Thonotosassa neighborhood.

Romine thinks Batey and Sinacore are exaggerating the potential risks.

"The statute isn't going to change what people normally do under the same circumstances," he said.

People don't have time for an inner legal debate when their life is threatened, Romine said: "In most cases, it is right in the middle of battle. There isn't any extended time to weigh legal options."

The law is relatively new, adopted by the state Legislature in 2005.

"We have some inkling at this point, but no definitive impressions yet," Batey said. "I have as many questions now about what it means as the day it was passed."

Taking different approaches

Batey said legislators didn't include language on how the law should be applied. Various courts are taking different approaches.

In August, the 1st District Court of Appeal ruled that the law allows a person to use deadly force even when an attacker or intruder is retreating. But that ruling only applies to counties in the northern part of the state.

The decision contradicted a 2007 ruling by the 2nd District Court of Appeal, which hears cases from Hillsborough, Pasco and Pinellas, among other counties. The court found that the law specifically didn't apply because the victim in the case was retreating.

Hillsborough judges have struggled in implementing the law, finding it applies to some defendants but declining to extend its protections to others.

Courts also are divided on how to determine whether a person is immune from prosecution under "Stand Your Ground."

Some say it is similar to a motion for summary judgment and can only be used when there is not a material dispute over the facts.

Others contend that a judge must hold a pretrial hearing to determine those facts and find whether it was more likely that the defendant acted in self-defense.

Muddied waters

In Hillsborough, judges have ruled that defendants have a right to a judicial hearing to determine whether they are immune from prosecution before a trial.

Sinacore said the law has muddied the waters.

"It makes it more difficult to draw clear lines and to decide what a justifiable use of force is," he said.

"It narrows the focus down to the moment when deadly force is used and disregards what leads up to the use of deadly force," he said.

That uncertainty may benefit defendants, Batey said.

"Prosecutors may now be more willing to deal or make a deal more advantageous to the defendant," he said. "Some might say it is not worth the effort to prosecute a case."

Romine thinks the law helps defendants, prosecutors and judges.

"It can take away a lot of the time and cost to the client and the system," he said.

"It filters out those cases where the people shouldn't have been charged in the first place," he said.

Romine said it's difficult for investigators and prosecutors to throw out iffy cases when grieving families are lobbying them and the media. He said there is a tendency to push these cases along to let someone else make a decision.

"It permits judges to step in much earlier and evaluate the case," he said. "It helps stop the dragging of cases out."

Sinacore said investigators and prosecutors don't pass the buck.

"We only file a case if we believe self-defense doesn't apply and we reasonably believe we can get a conviction," he said.

As trial judges and appellate courts continue to ponder the meaning of the statute, Sinacore said his office is taking a case-by-case approach.

"There are no clear rules set out how to do it," he said. "We have to learn by trial and error."

Batey said it takes time for statutes to be refined.

"It may take eight to 10 years for the meaning of the 'Stand Your Ground' law to be fleshed out," he said.