Why we need Stand Your Ground – And Why the “Retreat Rule” is Unworkable.
by Jon H. Gutmacher, Esq.
On August 29, 2018, around 2:20 in the morning, Jason Boek, in a Ford 150 truck pulled up close behind, then beside Uber driver Robert Westlake’s vehicle, and then quickly accelerated past him, cut directly in front, and came to a quick stop forcing Westlake to a stop. Boek then immediately exited his truck, and quickly approached Westlake’s Uber threatening that he has a gun and is going to shoot Westlake. Instead, Westlake who has a Florida CWL, and is also a recent graduate of the police academy shoots Boek once in the chest, killing him. It turns out the “gun” in Boek’s hand was a cell phone, and it is later uncovered that Boek had told individuals at a bar he was going to “f up” the Uber driver who he thought was transporting Boek’s girlfriend home from the bar. In a rather incredibly concise and well thought out press conference, Sheriff Grady Judd, who has jurisdiction of the shooting, laid out why the shooting was perfectly legal, and that Boek got exactly what was coming to him. In a minute by minute summary of the facts, he closed by playing the video of the shooting caught on the Uber driver’s dash camera. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXAv9BO2VQQ . The press conference and video are completely instructive WHY the Stand Your Ground law is so important – and why the “retreat rule” is unworkable.
Of course, in Florida pursuant to the Stand Your Ground law (Florida Statute 776.012), you have a right to use deadly force if you have a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm to yourself or another, and you are “in a place you have a right to be”, and are not engaged in “criminal activity”. I submit to you, that if an individual you do not know cuts you off, forces you off the road, and then quickly gets out of their vehicle approaching you in an aggressive or menacing fashion – you have an absolute right to assume you are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. Add to that the fact that the individual is threatening to shoot you – and you’d better get the first shot off before he does, otherwise you’re probably gonna be the dead, bleeding piece of meat lying in the street. In these cases – the time to make a decision whether to shoot or not to shoot is usually a matter of seconds. In this particular case – it was longer than usual. According to how I timed it – five seconds.
Now, as practical matter – in almost every case we hear of – whether it is a good shoot or a bad one – there is no practical way to escape or retreat. Things happen far too quickly. Add to that the fact a situation where the assailant appears to be armed with a deadly weapon – especially a firearm – there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to safely escape or retreat without putting yourself at risk of being shot or stabbed, or whatevered . . . while you take a chance of trying to avoid being killed or beaten. That’s why the “retreat rule” is unfair, unworkable, and should not be part of Florida law. Take this case, for example – and let’s remove the video from the equation just for argument’s sake – as not everyone has a dash cam to capture what really happened.
Had this case gone to trial without a dash cam – the prosecutor would have argued that Westlake could have tried to escape. He could have backed up. He could have fled the scene – in his car. But . . . in reality – could he???
Of course not.
If he tried backing up and Boek really had a gun – he still would have made a great target. A bullet can travel over a mile. Yet, without a video – a jury could easily side with the prosecutor. This is the problem with the “retreat rule” – it adds an additional element to a trial that has no business being there. Either the decision to use deadly force is “reasonable and necessary” – or it isn’t. Sure, if Westlake knew Boek was unarmed – or if all Boek had was a knife – Westlake should know the use of deadly force isn’t “necessary”. But, you don’t need a “retreat rule” to figure that out. It’s just common sense.
So, next time someone tells you that Stand Your Ground is unfair, or racial, or some other b.s. argument – ask them how they would retreat from a bullet. Or someone faster than them. Or a knife, or a club, or whatever. Because – you can’t. Not without continuing to expose yourself to serious danger. In most instances where the threat of your being killed or beaten to a pulp reasonably exists – you either stand your ground – or you die. The retreat rule be damned.
Great article. I’m a little confused though about the part that says “…or if all Boek had was a knife – Westlake should know deadly force isn’t ‘necessary’.”
Why would a knife not demonstrate that deadly force is not needed?
If all Boek had was a knife – then escape was easy, and likewise there would be a real issue of whether the vehicle could have prevented any penetration by a knife. This would go to necessity.
A well thought out and finely articulated analysis of situation at hand. I agree with you wholeheartedly. It’s unfortunate, though, that people act and react emotionally to these situations. Rarely does logic or level-headedness have a seat at the table when “solutions” to these challenges are crafted. It is up to us – the responsible 2nd Amendment advocates – to raise our beliefs and suggestions to the decision-makers so there is no question as to our expectations, and the price they will pay for ignoring us when we go to the polls.
I personally find that the responses that support the shooting lack understanding of the law. To me, on the facts presented – this was a total bad shoot.