I hope this family sues his sorry ass for $100,000,000, and makes him eat crow in court. I'd love to see some lawyer tearing Spike Lee three or four brand new assholes on the witness stand.

Last edited Thu Mar 29, 2012, 02:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Which leads the anti-vaxxers to proclaim an epidemic.

Good analogy.

...of his movies but this crap is just like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

If anyone is hurt, I would hope criminal charges are filed.

My position on guns for self defense: It's OK to use a gun to fend off someone robbing your home or other establishment. Also to save someone in the progress of being mugged, raped, or assaulted. But for Wild West social attitudes? No thank you.

But the law does not protect "social attitudes". With Zimmerman, the law does not apply if the media accounts are correct because he was the aggressor. As the NAACP CEO and the guy who wrote the law pointed out, the law isn't the problem. The problem is Sanford PD. It seems to be not about race, but political connections.

I live in far West Texas, don't see too much wild out here. Is that a NY City yankee kind of thing? Care to define what it is?

But if I (from near San Francisco, the only place in Texas I've been is the Bush Houston Intl. Airport) was being too broad-brushy with "Wild West", my apologies. How about "trigger happy"?

and B westerns were not documentaries. When I was at Travis about 18 years ago, my boss told me he was pulled over for DWB there more than in Alabama. IIRC, SFPD had some of the same race issues Sanford does.
Does Jerry Brown still have his radio show on KPFA? I used to love it.

Speaking of Florida, one of the legitimate self defense cases was at a family owned deli. The clerk gave him the money. According the the account I read, if the knife wielding robber would have just taken money in the register, he would have been OK until the cops caught him. Instead, he decided to take the clerk/part owner's pre school child as hostage. That is why he got shot. Mom even shot him in the leg, but the bullet hit the femoral artery.

in the 2000s he returned to state politics first as mayor of Oakland then state attorney general now as governor again.

doesn't mean he still could not do the show. It was in the mid 1990s. I was there 1995-1997.

by an individual who you have good reason to believe intends to seriously injure or kill you.

It doesn't allow you to walk up Main Street at high noon and engage in a showdown with another person despite what you read in the media.

For the law to work as designed, law enforcement needs to thoroughly investigate any incidents where "Stand Your Ground" is claimed and prosecute if there are serious questions.

In the Trayvon Martin shooting, some legal experts and also the author of the law in Florida have expressed the opinion that the Stand Your Ground law is not applicable.

I should have researched further.

Stay out of your dang mothers basement?

rather than own a firearm...

Why do you cite wingnut propaganda? Nobody has ever recommended "be a victim rather than own a firearm". They are not mutually inclusive. Try coming up with some honest original thinking. It might improve your credibility.

about the DC official who said basically just that? You forgot the thread about the Temple University student who was shot for simply saying "no", and was trashed for for that?

He says nothing about owning a firearm, just not using one in the street to protect against criminals. As the kid said, nobody was hurt. They just lost some junk. Big deal. Lots of histrionic stuttering along the lines of what if....

Imagine the case he exampled. The bad guys had 3 guns. Whatcha gonna do? Try to shoot it out? I don't think so, but if they spot or find that gun you're carrying, then they'll have four. Probably how they got the first three.

what everyone else heard was

Maybe you'd like to provide a link to that quote. Why on earth would he say such a thing?

I said that is what at least of the room heard. Two different concepts.

That is what they perceived. It is called reading between the lines. I did not say I thought he meant that. I do think he is more concerned with evidence free ideology than any individual's safety.

I'm not a mind reader. How could I know how half his audience perceived anything. Why would you say he is more concerned with evidence free ideology than any individual's safety? I had the impression that he is more concerned with public safety, than any individual's anything, which fits his job description perfectly. Why should an individual's fears and insecurities trump public safety? I get the feeling you haven't spent too much time in an urban environment.

the Census Bureau's NCVS statistics show that you are less likely to be harmed if you resist with a weapon than if you don't resist at all. Not resisting is less harmful that resisting without a weapon.
That makes his claim of "you would be better off" conventional wisdom has no scientific basis. Post 101 has the link.

There is no evidence of negative impact on public safety in urban areas. Notice any urban area in Texas for example. Look at cities with the same population or larger than DC. I have been to DC. It is not the most crowded city I have been to. It is about the same population as El Paso. El Paso also has one of the lowest, if not the lowest, murder rate in North America.

I have spent a fair amount of time in urban environments. Many of them not in the US. If you want to see crowed urban areas, go to Taipei, Manila or Seoul.

"Stand Your Ground" is one way to describe this mentality. Another is: "Bring It On."

Aaaaaaaaaand bring on the false equivalence

"The law changes the definition of self-defense to say that those away from home don't have the obligation to retreat when faced with potential harm. They only have to "reasonably believe" they need to use deadly force to protect themselves or someone else -- whatever that means."

No, it doesn't it creates a rebuttable presumption of that reasonable belief in certain circumstances.

I could go on, but, why?

means, if not changing the burden of proof in a self-defense claim from the individual having to prove his/her actions were reasonable to the State having to prove that his/her actions were not reasonable?

"narrowly applicable"??? It is so broadly applicable that any claim of self-defense, in your home or out of it, and anywhere you find yourself is subject to it , and creates a huge burden to the State to have to try and prove that your claim of self defense was not reasonable. I don't know how it could be drawn more broadly if they had wanted to.

our legal system for well over two hundred years now, in probably hundreds of thousands of applications has determined a plea entitled "affirmative defense". This actually redounds to the Defendant's benefit, because it specifically allows him/her to plead justification for the otherwise criminal act they have committed. The best known use of this is the insanity defense in Murder cases. The defendant accepts the fact that he/she committed the crime, but pleads justification because s/he was insane. It's the same thing with self defense. If the shooter doesn't need to try and deny the actual act (s/he shot him) then under the old system he is allowed to explain the reasons why s/he should not be punished. But, obviously the burden is always on the person alleging that something happened. So with the affirmative defense, the burden is on the Defendant to prove why s/he should be legally excused.

In MN where I live, we have to prove 4 separate things, in a self defense case, if it gets prosecuted.
1. Eminent fear of death or GBH, as defined through the reasonable standard, by a jury.
2. Disparity of force, again defined on a case by case basis, by the jury.
3. Duty to retreat. Decided by how a jury feels that day about how safe it is to retreat from a situation that they were not
in, but hear about at trial.
4. Entering the conflict reluctantly (aggressor) which remains intact in
most all stand your ground statutes. However the burden still moves to the state.
That is an aweful lot of things that a jury gets to decide for someone in that situation.
I would rather see those things codified in statute than guessed at, after the fact,by a jury.
The fact that these laws were in place ,for a very long time ,does not make them right, or good, IMO.
How long was slavery legal, in the USA?

"I would rather see those things codified in statute than guessed at, after the fact,by a jury".

I assume that those four elements of proof are set forth in a statute right now, which is where you found them. I for one am quite satisfied with the way it has worked until now. I don't believe there was any pressing problem that made States look to change it. Rather, SYG was a solution in search of a problem that really didn't exist - a NRA wet dream made reality by opportunistic legislators who didn't think the thing through.

The fact that the law has been in place for a long time doesn't by definition make it bad or good, just the law. The concept of 12 of our peers judging what actions are 'reasonable' has been arrived at through a couple of hundred years of case law, refined case by case and circumstance by circumstance until it arrives at the point it is now. That's a whole lot different from a pre-packaged ALEC-initiated bill being voted on by some yahoo legislators who in all truth probably never even read it.

Instead, what you seem to want to have happen is:

1- The State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were NOT in imminent fear of death or GBH
2- The State has to prove BARD that there was a disparity of force
3- The State has to prove BARD that there was not a safe way for you to retreat
4- The State has to prove BARD that you did not enter the conflct reluctanly.

Pretty hard seeing as the opposing witness is generally dead. Makes it a 'Get out of Jail Free" card in my estimation, which is why I oppose the SYG law, particularly Florida's version.

1- The State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were NOT in imminent fear of death or GBH
2- The State has to prove BARD that there was a disparity of force
3- The State has to prove BARD that there was not a safe way for you to retreat
4- The State has to prove BARD that you did not enter the conflct reluctanly.

stands for) then your chances of convicting a person who has used lethal force unnecessarily essentially goes out the window. You're really giving an idiot a "get out of jail free card". Makes no sense to me at all.

someone who uses lethal force unnecessarily, can still be investigated, and prosecuted by the state. It should be easier than proving a normal "murder" case where no self defense was asserted, since the assertion, that the actor, used lethal force to defend him/her self has already been made. The individual who used force is usually still on scene when police arrive, and usually cooperates with the investigation.

What SYG laws accomplish, is making defending yourself with lethal force, under certain circumstances, not a crime, if those circumstances are not met, then there is a crime, and probable cause exists to arrest the individual. That's not a get out of jail free card. That's a victims rights being protected, by the law.

(whatever that might be) of course there's no self defense asserted. But when there's a homicide the question always is twofold: 1) who committed the killing and 2) under what circumstances was the killing committed. Even when the "who" part is straightforward the second prong never is. It could be murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide or other degree of homicide. That's where the rub is. And I sincerely doubt your assertion that "The individual who used force... usually cooperates with the investigation" (unless by 'cooperation' you mean to say that s/he explains just why it is that no crime was committed').

SYG laws don't make defending yoursef with lethal force under certain circumstances not a crime any more than the previous law of self defense did. In either case if the shooting was justified no person is found guilty of anything. But by shifting the burden of proof to the State in making an initial case and arrest does nothing more than give a person who commits a homicide a much better chance of escaping prosecution and conviction. And that's not a good thing.

to the state in making the initial case, has not changed. The state has always had to "make the case" this law has not made that more difficult. The fact that the individual who asserts "self defense" can not be arrested, without probable cause, has exactly zero bearing on the chances of a conviction.


?

can not be arrested, without probable cause has exactly zero bearing on the chances of a conviction."

Zero bearing? Without the initial arrest there can't be a conviction.

And why on earth, would there be an arrest
With no probable cause, yet that is exactly what happens in states with weak/no SYG law.

The 2011 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES

Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

Your first two bolded paragraphs refer to the Castle Doctrine, the stepfather of SYG. They do not refer to SYG.
Note the catchy title: "Home protection; use of deadly force"

The second bolded paragraph does establish the new SYG doctrine. It expands the concept laid out in the Castle Doctrine to now cover any place a person happens to be. Quote: "in any other place where he or she has a right to be". What language "limits" this newly created right? And no, it's not the same as the old law of self defense.

Third bolded paragraph. Has nothing to do with SYG. It's Castle Doctrine again. And it's essentially a tautology. "A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter... is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit... involving force...

Explain to me again how the SYG part of this mess is so 'narrowly drawn'???

And see which gets filled first...

Under the alternative you had to have had a resonable fear for your life sufficient to justify the use of deadly force. The amount of force you were permitted to use had to be commensurate with the degree of threat you faced. Now, you just have to claim that you 'reasonably believed' you feared for your life and you have your 'get out of jail' ticket.

What you advocate is that an individual should have to prove some arbitrary degree of "reasonable". How does one achieve that when say they are attacked by someone who is unarmed yet is still very capable of seriously injuring if not quite killing the person they attacked? That individual could have had very sufficient reason to fear for their life at that instant but how do you prove that when some overzealous DA only sees they shot an unarmed person? Parity of force is one of those nice little concepts for those wanting to speak from some moral high ground and not deal with the dynamics of a defensive situation.

before SYG. And there is no 'arbitrary degree' of reasonablness; the standard is (and always has been) what a jury of peers finds a reasonable person in the accused's position would have (or should have) believed (not what that person believed). It's not any kind of 'moral high ground' - it's the law we have had for a couple of hundred years in this country and which has served us very well.

...and it doesn't serve well those who have been financially burdened if not ruined by civil lawsuits brought by those or their family members when a jury did find the accused acted in proper defense. Sorry, one only has to look across the pond to the UK to see where duty-to-retreat is a failure of policy.

So yes, I do "advocate" for following the law. And the problem here isn't the secondary question as to whether a person can be justified in a criminal case and then be found liable in a civil case. Those are 2 different questions and obey two different bodies of law. If you're concerned about civil judgments, raise the issue with your State Legislature. Some states (like Florida) exempt the shooter from civil liability IF he acted within the confines of the law.

...so I don't need to raise that issue with my legislature. Some states exempt the shooter when all states should have an exemption from civil liability is he/she acted within the law.

None. Furthermore, a person SHOULD be immune from prosecution and civil lawsuits while defending themselves or others while in their own home.

Others do not. Depends on your State. Immunity from civil lawsuits for guessing wrong is not available in too many States, at least that I'm aware of.

when choosing correctly is in too many if it is in any state, territory, or federal district.

all I can do is point out what the law is. The rest is up to you. And, if you're being beaten up, the question for a jury would be if a reasonable person is your position would have used lethal force in those circumstances. Many people seem to believe that killing a person is justified in almost all circumstances - defense of property being a big one. But the law has never seen it that way.

about as convincing as "Kill them all and let God sort them out". Makes the sayer feel good but communicates nothing of value.

someone getting injured, much less killed. That line of thinking only gets us farther along with the "Make my Day" mentality.

Unless you can tell me honestly that you have some, I think you're deluding yourself. Being safe by having a gun in a confrontation with an unknown subject can just as easily result in your having your own weapon turned on yourself. Most people I know don't have the training or instinct to pull the trigger on another person.

I was attempting to point out that being armed often creates a false sense of security and gets people into more trouble than they would have been had they disengaged. It's obviously their choice, to be sure. But giving people a false sense of bravado doesn't do anything for anybody and can easily wind up with the wrong person being hurt. But go ahead believing that, if it hits the fan that you'll respond like on T.V. I wish you luck.

often creates a heightened sense of awareness of ones surroundings, and keeps people one step ahead of trouble, more often than they would have been, if they were unarmed. It is of course their choice, without a doubt. But having a heightened sense of your surroundings, is a good thing and can help a person avoid getting into situations where a lack of awareness, can get you hurt. Believe in a gun, causing a false sense of bravado if you must, but being armed when the STHF, i will most likely, have removed myself from the situation, rather then be forced to react to violence, up close.

And that is what being armed is all about. More choices.

Robbery does not include pick pocketing, snatch and grabs, shoplifting or other non-violent theft. Robbery is similar to theft, but with the added element of force or use of a weapon.

Robbery in a legal sense is theft through the threat or use of violence to separate a person from their possessions.

You are correct, that not every robbery results in death or injury, however do not negate it as a peaceful transaction between two people either.

2 people. What I believe experience (and statistics) demonstrates is that the better course of action is to comply with whatever is being asked of you, short of bodily harm and take the loss of the wallet, or car, or whatever. Even if you're armed the odds are way against your using it appropriately in such a highly stressful and (to you) unfamiliar situation, and you can wind up getting yourself hurt or killed over a few material things when it can generally be avoided. Which is why convenience stores have the policy for clerks never to resist a robbery, even if they have a gun, but comply with the request for the cash. Saves lives.

Is resisting with a gun or other weapon, followed by not resisting, followed by resisting without weapons (in that order).

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245

Kleck did an analysis of the gov survey some time back:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6700/is_n1_86/ai_n28663294/

[div class='excerpt']Consistently, research also has indicated that victims who resist by using guns or other weapons are less likely to be injured compared to victims who do not resist or to those who resist without weapons. This is true whether the research relied on victim surveys or on police records, and whether the data analysis consisted of simple cross-tabulations or more complex multivariate analyses. These findings have been obtained with respect to robberies(5) and to assaults.(6)

Sometimes it is not a good option. Which option to use is dependent on the situation and cannot be correctly dictated by any policy or law from a tactical point of view. Sometimes these policies work out and no victim is harmed, sometimes they result in the victim getting harmed or killed. Placing faith in the criminal to "just want the money" is naive at best.

In defense of property. Texas Penal Code Chapter 9 Subchapter D Sections 9.41, 9.42 and 9.43.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm

Very far-reaching (and in my opinion ill conceived) departure from the jurisprudence of most of the country. A person's life is really not very valuable in Texas.

...is in the eye of the beholder. In this case, a thief who doesn't value their own life very much should probably stay out of Texas.

the beholder. But it's hard for me to see how a human's life is worth less than a T.V. set.

a TV does so with the idea that he's risking his life?

>Do you really think that the guy who goes out to steal a TV does so with the idea that he's risking his life?

THEY SHOULD, and that's the whole point.

And the more people who are armed and willing to defend their property, the more people will come to think about the relative value of their lives and the property they wish to steal.

But in any case, if would-be thieves don't care enough to think about the value of their lives, why should anyone else care?

in general) never believe they're going to get caught. (I never said they were smart!). Likewise, they never believe they are going to be blown away for 'things'. But the one thing you can be sure of is this - if criminals think there's a good possibility that they're going to be confronted with a gun, many of them will be sure to have a gun as well. And I seriously doubt the homeowner's ability to out-confront a determined, armed criminal. It looks good on TV, but doing it in the flesh is an entirely different thing. We're not programmed to shoot to kill - there are lots of criminals who are.

Last edited Fri Mar 30, 2012, 06:25 PM - Edit history (2)

most criminals will skip a place where they think a homeowner is armed, or even home for that matter.

Oh yeah, I have seen your scenario on TV more often.

invading had a gun (so they would then look for an easier target)? Some criminals look for easier targets, especially burglars. But there's a whole other subclass of people who regularly commit crime armed and with very little compunction about using it. And the "a chance" you get while trying to out-gun or out-macho a hardened criminal is often a hell of a lot worse than the chance you'd get if you got the hell out of the way.

with you until we got to the false heroics: 'Please don't poo-poo the heroes among us who choose to fight bad people instead of run" and "respect for those who go beyond". Sounds like a bad line from a John Wayne WWII movie. That's the type of rah-rah that gets people killed.

They absolutely know the risks of what they do if they are caught. They may consider it a small risk or dismiss it entirely but that's a consequence of actions they initiated.

If you think it's only worth a television, that's your prerogative.

I found this definition online as I am not an attorney...

what you copied under the "In the Law of Negligence".

Last edited Thu Mar 29, 2012, 02:21 PM - Edit history (1)

but to require a person to retreat before he can use legitimate self defense is like telling a driver that if he anticipates being involved in a traffic accident he has to use his brakes. Sometimes a driver can avoid an accident by hitting the gas pedal. I have done this several times, although usually brakes are the better choice.

If you are familiar with firearms you probably realize that it is far easier to shoot accurately by standing still or advancing than when stumbling backward.

Much depends on the situation. One thing is for sure, if you are having a disagreement with an individual and you realize that it might turn into a violent altercation, the wisest move if you carry concealed is to break off the argument even if it makes you look like a coward. It's much harder to claim legitimate self defense if you don't. Also, in my opinion, it's a bad idea to confront others especially in an aggressive manner and never ever do so if a police dispatcher has told you not to.

Even if you do not legally carry a firearm, it is never a good idea to be aggressive and get in a violent confrontation with others. My marital arts instructed his class to never use the skills he taught unless absolutely necessary. He was very selective in who he taught and if he suspected you were the type of individual who loved in get in fights, he would eliminate you from his classes. He won the yearly award from the Black Belt Hall of Fame twice, once in 1980 as the Judo Instructor of the Year and in 2007 for Best Traditional Martial Arts School. He is one of the wisest men that I have ever met.

edited to add comment as suggested by Callisto32

I would remove the "if you carry concealed" from the last paragraph.

I edited my post per your suggestion by adding a comment.

the Second Amendment be removed or touched. Merely that the NRA wet dream that is SYG is a bad idea all around.

You obviously don't read posts here by your anti-gun brethren who suggest exactly that.

and pistols since age 16 and hunted regularly when I was younger. I am not anti-gun - I'm anti idiots with a gun.

If I ever find myself in a situation where I am facing an armed attacker or one that is much larger and physically fit than I, I have several options.

First if I am ever faced by a man who is armed or much larger than I am and he demands my money but I feel he has no real intention of harming me, I will just calmly hand over my wallet. I can always replace my money, my credit cards and my ID. My health is much harder to replace and I can't come back from the dead.

As an alternative to handing over my wallet, I can chose to run. This is often a good tactic especially if you can run fast. It can be used for both an attacker who merely wants money and also someone who intends to harm. Unfortunately as a candidate for a hip replacement, the best I can do is to limp away fast.

If I seriously believe that the person I face will kill or injure me even if I comply, I have little to lose by attempting to defend myself especially since running away is not a viable option.

Why should I as the innocent victim have a duty to retreat before using lethal force in such a situation. I've found that I can shoot far more accurately with my handgun if I am standing still or advancing as opposed to stumbling backward.

But it is also possible that I might decide the best option when faced by an violent attacker who is armed with a gun or a knife is not to try to draw my weapon but to attempt to disarm him. Many years ago I attended a jujitsu course which taught how to defend yourself from attack on the street. The techniques for disarming a person with a weapon all involved lateral movement to get out of the way of the muzzle of a firearm or the blade of the knife and often required moving toward your opponent.

Even if I chose other methods of self defense such as pepper spray, I might have to move closer to my opponent for the spray to be effective.

It's my opinion that the Stand Your Ground law was written for situations such as I have described. The attack is imminent or is actually being carried out. The attacker is armed or there is a significant physical disparity between the attacker and the victim. If if the victim does not defend himself the results will be serious injury or death. A reasonable person standing in the shoes of the victim would agree that self defense including lethal force was appropriate in the situation.

It is my understanding that the Stand Your Ground law should not apply to situations in which the victim starts the confrontation, escalates the situation or refuses to merely walk away before an encounter turns violent.

It could be argued that if there are no witnesses but only one person survives and the other is dead that the survivor might have actually murdered the other person. Even before the Stand Your Ground law this also was possible. The survivor could easily claim that he attempted to retreat and if there was no evidence that he was lying, a conviction for murder or manslaughter would be extremely difficult.

I would like to see the wording of the law reconsidered. It might also be a good idea that in any case involving self defense the State Attorney's Office should be required to review the evidence and could require a prosecution if there are serious questions.