Stand Your Ground Law

[Michchamp]

Last year right after the mass murder at the Aurora, CO theater so many people asserted that lives would have been saved if someone with a carry/conceal had simply shot the gunman.

No consideration for conditions ...panic, dark theater, heavily armored gunman, nerves, adrenaline, bad aim, misfiring/malfunction or ....the very likely outcome of simply adding to the carnage by shooting an innocent moviegoer.

a couple weeks later, or maybe months, some moron packing a gun in a movie theatre shot himself in the ass. it even made the news.

Lost Leader, glad to hear you say that.

I generally agree with the 6/12 sentiment, though as Red pointed out, all states have allow self-defense as affirmative defense to murder, without Stand Your Ground, and even without concealed carry.

 

[Monster]

I get the difference. What was wrong with the old ways? What's wrong with requiring people to not kill if they can?

Absolutely nothing.

you can't excuse the law, just because it's unbiased on its face when the practical result is that it's justified far more murders in general, and of African Americans in particular.

whites are ~68% of the population in general, and so they're going to make up the majority on most juries. this makes it clear you're going to have persistent problems with racial bias, and those are only going to be exaggerated in Stand Your Ground shootings, where almost by definition, half the story is missing because the person who knows have the story is DEAD. there have been overwhelmingly clear studies that show the majority of people are more likely to believe members of their own race.

and on a slightly related note... have you read the comments from one of those jurors in the Zimmerman trial? the more I read about this, the more I'm convinced the state sandbagged their own case. the jury instructions included a clause taken right from the Stand Your Ground statute, even though Zimmerman didn't use it as a defense. and the juror (the clod who announced she'd write a book, then backtracked) sounds about as intelligent as a lump of coal.

the more you leave laws up to subjective testimony - as Stand Your Ground laws do - the more shocking and insane results you will have.

the old Duty to Retreat standard wasn't perfect (no law is), but at least it created more objective and reasonable standards to weigh during trial.

Well, you can't really fault a law when it's written to be fair to all races.

From what I understand, the jury instructions are agreed upon by the defense and prosecution. I'm not sure if it's a case of ineptitude or just not giving a shit.

The whole trial was a joke. I can't tell you how hard I was laughing when I saw that skype conversation where they revealed their own skype name as well as the guy they were speaking with. The first few calls were funny, but when dozens of them came up, I couldn't believe what was happening. How could they possibly be so fucking stupid?

 

[KAWDUP]

it still is. exceedingly rare. so rare, in fact, that even in the instances where it might have occurred, the harm caused by changing the laws to allow it is not justified by the statistics.

"may issue" should never have become "shall issue." you really don't need to carry a gun unless you're a licensed body guard, security guard, or you carry large amounts of cash on a regular basis as part of a (legal) job, or a handful of other instances. not every personal injury justifies killing someone over. that's just what "society" is all about. cooler heads need to prevail! this is like... the very definition of being civilized.. it comes down to things like this!

you can still own guns... to hunt... for sport... to join a well-regulated militia if you want. you just can't carry wherever you want, and blast away the split second you "feel threatened."

I know, I know "it's not fair," but hundreds of years of human experience and common sense tells us otherwise... Monster & KAWDUP.

You were having a such a great discussion, and then you drop my name when I don't have a single post in this thread. You must be looking for a fight - it is the only conclusion I can come to.

So . . . umm . . . I think you are leaving something out. I never in all my posting said that "it" was not "fair". Although I could ask what "it" is in this case. Everything or just a gun law? I actually don't give a rat's ass.

You know what's not fair?
Zimmerman isn't in jail.
Elitists are constantly foisting their values on the rest of us.
Laws are bastardized every day to twist them into some racial issue.
The poor are getting poorer, and no one is considering real solutions.
Detroit is going bankrupt because of corruption and mismanagement and there is nothing we can do about it.

Well guess what - the world is not fucking fair. Whoever told you that it would be?

Personally I, as I am sure you will probably disagree or have some issue with, attempt to do what I can to makes things that I can control fair. I then work for, to the best of my ability, helping right some of the wrongs that I perceive in society. Will your perceptions of what is wrong be the same as mine. Nope. Will your priorities be the same as mine. Probably not.

. . . but on a political forum in a message board, if I think some part of your argument stinks, I will bring it up. That is how I roll - if you don't like it, quit including me in your "words into mouth shoving". Just because I argue with something does NOT mean I believe and endorse the entire exact opposite of the argument. But, hey, if you like my responses to your posts, by all means keep it up - I will be glad to keep at it, because I, like you, do like the occasional argument.

::steps off soapbox, and goes back to just reading this shit::

 

[redandguilty]

Well, you can't really fault a law when it's written to be fair to all races.

I think you can. I think you can look at what happens statistically, or look at specific cases where a law is applied and see if it has more or less of an uneven impact racially...or any other unintended consequences.

 

[Michchamp]

it's easy to write a discriminatory law that is non-discriminatory on its face.

just do a little market research, and find something that is prevalent among a group you want to discriminate against. then ban it. then think of a cover story for why you had to ban it.

I don't actually think this was what they did when they wrote the SYG laws; I think they were pushed to increase firearm ownership (and usage, sadly). But in a country as racially diverse & prejudiced as ours, it will lead to more racial shootings, which is what Al Sharpton is talking about I think.

 

[Monster]

I think you can. I think you can look at what happens statistically, or look at specific cases where a law is applied and see if it has more or less of an uneven impact racially...or any other unintended consequences.

So you cut a law just because there's a higher percentage of blacks that are convicted than other races? How is that fair? That's like getting rid of laws against crack because black people are arrested at a much higher rate than whites. It just doesn't work that way. I have my own opinion on the drug war, but i'll save that for another thread.

 

[Monster]

it's easy to write a discriminatory law that is non-discriminatory on its face.

just do a little market research, and find something that is prevalent among a group you want to discriminate against. then ban it. then think of a cover story for why you had to ban it.

I don't actually think this was what they did when they wrote the SYG laws; I think they were pushed to increase firearm ownership (and usage, sadly). But in a country as racially diverse & prejudiced as ours, it will lead to more racial shootings, which is what Al Sharpton is talking about I think.

not sure if it was CNN or MSNBC, but they had a stat saying the like 85% of white murders were carried out by other white people and like 91% of black murders were carried out by other blacks. i'll look for the stat later when i have more time. It was actually a little surprising.

 

[redandguilty]

So you cut a law just because there's a higher percentage of blacks that are convicted than other races? How is that fair? That's like getting rid of laws against crack because black people are arrested at a much higher rate than whites. It just doesn't work that way. I have my own opinion on the drug war, but i'll save that for another thread.

Nope. There's more to it than that. Different races are treated differently under different laws. Not just convicted at different rates, actually treated differently, convicted at different rates given similar situations. How much varies from law to law. Doesn't it makes sense to find the laws with the highest discrepancy in application and try to figure out why and fix it?

 

[redandguilty]

not sure if it was CNN or MSNBC, but they had a stat saying the like 85% of white murders were carried out by other white people and like 91% of black murders were carried out by other blacks. i'll look for the stat later when i have more time. It was actually a little surprising.

No surprise to me. Opportunity and motivation. We are fairly segregated in most places. It may be self-segregation, but it still leads to the people you run into or know well enough to have opportunity or motivation to to want to hurt them being the same race as you. Seems like a safe bet that >90% of Michigander murders are committed by Michiganders while >90% of Floridian murders are committed by Floridians.

 

[tigersofjustice]

Yeah, the people who think more lives would be saved if more guns were on the street and on peoples bodies really are showing a serious lack of intelligence.

I hate those arguments. They just assume everyone carrying a gun is infallible. People make mistakes....a lot of mistakes. A person making a mistake with a gun, which will certainly happen, will just make a more serious mistake than a person without one.

 

[Monster]

I hate those arguments. They just assume everyone carrying a gun is infallible. People make mistakes....a lot of mistakes. A person making a mistake with a gun, which will certainly happen, will just make a more serious mistake than a person without one.

Lol yes " put guns in each classroom!"

 

[Monster]

Nope. There's more to it than that. Different races are treated differently under different laws. Not just convicted at different rates, actually treated differently, convicted at different rates given similar situations. How much varies from law to law. Doesn't it makes sense to find the laws with the highest discrepancy in application and try to figure out why and fix it?

You made my point for me. Laws are not the problem, it's how they are applied to each race. You can't just do away with them. You have to make sure its being carried out how it was intended.

 

[redandguilty]

You made my point for me. Laws are not the problem, it's how they are applied to each race. You can't just do away with them. You have to make sure its being carried out how it was intended.

What if you consistently fail to make sure it's being carried out "as intended"? (Provided of course, the laws weren't written by racists in the first place, which isn't always the case.)

 

[jswain]

Zimmerman didn't invoke the SYG

 

[redandguilty]

Zimmerman didn't invoke the SYG

Review the 1st line of the 1st post of this thread.

 

[Monster]

Zimmerman didn't invoke the SYG

Doesn't matter. He still has the right. Plus jury instructions included SYG material.

 

[tigersofjustice]

Zimmerman didn't invoke the SYG

You can use it at a hearing or at trial to a jury. The jury was given instruction on it and they clearly applied it to the case.

Also this thread isn't about Zimmerman.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

First of all, this thread is not about George Zimmerman. It's about the law that seems to be causing so much controversy. As I understand it, it's pretty basic. If you feel your life is threatened, you do not have to flee. You are allowed to use any level of force to save your own life.

I keep seeing all of these protests and people like AL Sharpton talking about it being a violation of civil rights. What? Why do we keep playing the race card? The law does not say that you can kill black people for fun. It says that if your life is in danger, you are authorized to kill. Sure, it's a stupid law because just about any murder could realistically use this escape based on the fact that they were scared.

I was just watching CNN and they were saying that out of the 200 or so cases in which stand your ground was evoked, it seemed that most of the black or minorities who used this defense were still convicted, while the whites mostly were freed.

Of course, this is bullshit. It could also be a case of being used by actual bad guys who tried to use it as a get of jail free card. Who knows? It seems there is a rush to demonize this law as a civil rights violator. I say it's fairly easy to correct this law by adding a clause that says you can't intentionally put yourself in danger and then claim "stand your ground". This is exactly what Zimmerman did (sorry, had to drop the name as an example) and with that clause, he would have been found guilty.

I'm sick of watching the news and all of these idiots that are paraded around. There is no reason that this law can't be implemented effectively and people should make a push to have it changed, not killed.

I'm a proud democrat, but when I see 90% of my party screaming about civil rights violations regarding this law, it makes me want to drop them completely. Only problem is the lack of options.

There's a lot of gray area in the law. But in essence, the laws are very simple:

Stand your ground: No duty to retreat, regardless of where attack takes place.

Castle Doctrine: No duty to retreat if in the home.


In the case of states without a SYG law, it's very hard to claim self defense anywhere outside of the home. If you're outside of the home, in one of the non-SYG states, you have to prove that you had no other option other than to use deadly force (meaning, if you could have fled and you didn't you're guilty of a crime by using deadly force).

I agree, this has little to do with civil rights and shouldn't be made into a civil rights fight.

The question about provoking an attack is an interesting one. If I push you on the street because I'm annoyed that you accidentally bumped into me and then you start taking a crowbar to my head, I think that's a justifiable reason to use deadly force to save your own life. That distinction is hard to make though without leading to what happened with Zimmerman (people feeling empowered to chase "criminals" down on their own).

I think you should have the right to defend your life anywhere you are at with deadly force without having a duty to retreat. And I do think you should be able to defend your life should a simple argument, that you started, turn into a life threatening situation. But how you write that out into law without leading to cases like this is extremely hard.

 

[Michchamp]

...

In the case of states without a SYG law, it's very hard to claim self defense anywhere outside of the home. ...

this is not wholly true; it's certainly more difficult than without SYG (which basically legalizes lower degrees of murder as long as there are no witnesses, and the other guy is dead), but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's "very hard." you read any murder statute... as I mentioned in another thread, the prosecution has to prove every element of murder "beyond a reasonable doubt." The defense just has to prove self-defense at a much lower burden, which means for all practical purposes that if you can introduce any evidence of self-defense, you'll probably get acquitted.

EDIT: but then again... if you get say a jury of the same race as the victim... all bets are off, regardless of whether there's SYG or not

sure there would be cases where lethal force in self-defense was justified but there's no way to prove it in court... it's a bit ridiculous though, since situations in everyday life where your life is threatened with no recourse are exceedingly rare. so rare in fact that there is no justification to pass SYG laws. the existing laws worked fine.

they certainly didn't help encourage everyone and their brother to carry guns everywhere they went, and therefore they didn't help gun sales though... thanks NRA.

 

[redandguilty]

It's fine to highlight a point with an example with a hypothetical like, "I push you, you hit me with a crowbar", but it's not enough to validate the practical application of the law. Either stand your ground or self-defense laws without stand your ground would work fine if juries had perfect and complete information. The problems is that we need laws for cases where the information is very flawed. When you have only one side of the story, bias, lying, and even biased jurors. With all those potential problems, stand your ground is one heck of a wide open door for people to get away with murder.