"Legally allowing women to shoot their rapists only encourages murders."

[Nuclear Unicorn]

We never hear this one. I wonder why? After all, if the argument says people can abuse SYG statutes to commit murder than why wouldn't a woman falsely claim she was stopping a sexual assault to be legally sanctioned in killing a man? If the potential for abuse is enough to abolish SYG than why not deny women the legal defense to kill would-be rapists?

[dkf]

1. Better to be raped or murdered first and then let the legal system handle it.

Yeah right.

[Gman]

2. You never hear about it because

that makes absolutely no sense. That's a very false comparison. You have never needed SYG to defend yourself.

[ellisonz]

31. +1

[HockeyMom]

3. Doesn't she have that right without SYG?

Self-Defense. You can kill someone without a gun, you know.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. SYG adds nothing new except the would-be victim is not required to retreat

A woman has no legal or moral obligation to retreat before using deadly force to ward off an attacker; in other words: she can stand her ground. SYG just universally codifies this concept.

[caseymoz]

9. Again, if homicide is not the last resort

Which resort is it? How easy is it to determine if the homicide was justifiable if, it's say, the first thing you try? A drunk neighbor wanders onto your porch by accident and is fumbling with his keys, a homeowner is allowed to shoot him before trying anything else? Just an example. Is that self-defense, or is that annoyance?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. Conversely, what is the first obligation?

What line does the law draw where it says, "You must first do this (and/or that and/or the other thing) before you are legally permitted to use deadly force in defense of self or others."

[caseymoz]

19. I believe that was treated sufficiently with the law before

I haven't looked, but I don't think our jails were being overrun with people whose self-defense plea had failed. Nor do I think it could be shown that a terrible number of people were dying because they were reluctant to defend themselves thinking about the penalties later on.

I get suspicious that the real reason for Stand Your Ground was to appease paranoia among conservatives and silence any calls that they may make for general reform of our police, judiciary and prison systems. Otherwise they might fear that the tougher sentences, sloppy prosecuting, underfunded defense, and unfettered police and for-profit prison industries might be turned on them. This law is a PR coup, making them feel like they've been recruited into the War on Crime. No, police won't ask too many questions if you kill somebody defending yourself. I have to admit, otherwise just any encounter with the police and the rest of our justice might be considered a punishment.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

21. If more people are killed under SYG and no one is convicted

doesn't that cut into the labor pool for your for-profit prisons?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

23. a thread-killer :)

I can't think of much that's more intellectually offensive than considering the term "for-profit prisons".

[BiggJawn]

28. Then why does Corrections Corporation of America exist?

BIG business, having people locked up and warehousing them. CCA lobbies to have more and more stuff made illegal every year so they can increase their Receivables. They won't be satisfied until we're ALL in their grip. Typical corporate thinking.

Sweet deal, the taxpayers build the prison and maintain it, and CCA hires the $12 an hour guards and feeds their "guests" beans and weenies and charge the taxpayer $50,000 a year/head for it.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

33. It just bothers me.

I like to keep an eye on companies like them and others, Reflex Responses for one. As bad as I am at figuring out complex questions of ethics in business, I have a feeling that those boys and others will generally manage to set a bad example.

Another that we all know is Academi under its various former names and also Triple Canopy.

[BiggJawn]

38. Bothers me, too.

Just seems wrong to conduct the detention of criminals as a for-profit enterprise.

What most people don't understand is that when you "privatize" a former government fucntion, a profit motive becomes involved. When I was in Municipal work, the city I worked for farmed its IT functions out to some outfit named SCT, which made a ridiculous low-ball bid, then every 6 months afterwards came before the city council like Oliver Twist with his friggin' bowl going "Please sir, may we have $2 Million MORE? Cost over-runs on these Y2K preparations, y'know..."

The taxpayer gets stuck with maintenance and upkeep, and the "Privateer" pockets all the profit. Socialize the Risks, Privatize the Profit...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

39. I know what you mean. Not cool!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

42. I wasn't commenting on the rightness or wrongness of privately owned prisons

I was commenting on the self-contradicting assertion that SYG laws are part of the same system that promotes privately-owned prisons. His entire 2nd paragraph states SYG is used to avoid addressing what he claims are needed reforms and those reforms aren't being addressed because SYG.

I get suspicious that the real reason for Stand Your Ground was to appease paranoia among conservatives and silence any calls that they may make for general reform of our police, judiciary and prison systems. Otherwise they might fear that the tougher sentences, sloppy prosecuting, underfunded defense, and unfettered police and for-profit prison industries might be turned on them. This law is a PR coup, making them feel like they've been recruited into the War on Crime.

A rather muddled scheme, I must say. Assuming criminals are being killed when good people stand their ground then the PIC loses career criminals to warehouse for profit and cheap labor. Even if bad people exploit SYG laws (or good people use it for self-defense) the poster's assertion says no one is being held to account for the killing so the PIC again loses out on warehousing fees and cheap labor.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. Except that it is true.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

34. True? For sure it is.

Wise? Probably not.

[Starboard Tack]

40. Your first obligation is to think.

You seem very confused about SYG and SD. Anyone has the right to self defense. It is a universal right. SYG is a legal right to kill someone who you "reasonably believe is threatening your life", if you say so. SD includes a burden of proof, which is only logical. SYG is a free pass.
Example: Woman is being followed in parking lot by suspected would-be rapist/mugger. She has choices.
Choice 1. (DTR) She changes course, runs, avoids confrontation if at all possible. She doesn't get raped and nobody gets shot.
Choice 2. (SYG) She feels afraid, stops, turns, pulls out a gun, adopts a stance, he keeps approaching, she aims and fires. Kills some guy who was just walking to his car. The judge/DA has to take her word for it, unless there are witnesses to the contrary.

[gejohnston]

41. You are confused about SYG.

No it is not a free pass. You are using a reasonable man standard. Justifiable homicide is not a crime, so you are expecting the accused to prove their innocence. While self defense is a universal right, why did anti gun propaganda during the 1970s include things like it was better not to resist?

Those are two absurd false choices. It operates on the "reasonable man" standard, has nothing to do with her "feeling afraid". How about actually reading the laws and the precedents connected to them

[ProgressiveProfessor]

67. You are the one who is not thinking and is seriously confused about SD and SYG

However your ignorance and misstatements are intentional and therefore inexcusable

[gejohnston]

27. No,

It is called the "reasonable man" standard. What would the "reasonable person" see it as. In this case, SYG or not, your ass is going to jail. No, that is not self defense.

[caseymoz]

57. "Reasonable man" will not even be applied.

. . . because the statutes affected by SYG do not allow the police to question or arrest once SYG is invoked, and it compromises the investigation.

What if the guy says at the scene, "He was banging on my door cussing at me."
Then he invokes SYG, so interrogating him further becomes impossible.

Don't say it can't happen. I have cited SYG cases on this thread which were even more egregious. If you want, I can cut & paste them for you.

[gejohnston]

58. not even remotely true

None of that is actually true. There was a lady in Tampa why thought that, and tried to claim SYG for a murder. Problem was, she didn't do it. She was not even in the county when it happened. The police investigated, learned she was not there and not in the county. The question then became "who are you covering for?"

[GreenStormCloud]

50. Your example fails.

On your porch, fumbling with his keys is not a threat you you. Call 911 that there is a stranger on your porch.

On your porch, kicking in your door is a threat to you. Call 911 first but as soon as he kicks the door in, shoot.

I hope you can see the difference between the two situations.

[caseymoz]

52. Um, I didn't say the two situations were alike

So, you've presented a straw man.

In fact, my point was they're not alike, but the same defense will be invoked with both, and in fact, police probably won't even try to determine of the key rattling was neighbor case was self-defense. If you think the irritable home owner can't get off the hook with the SYG law, that's why we disagree. I encourage you to look up some of the egregious cases where it has been used as a defense before you state I'm wrong. On some of them, the SYG defender, was, in fact, the aggressor. Definitely that's how some citizens are reading the law.

[spin]

5. Yes that is true ...

But realistically a woman often finds herself at a significant disadvantage against a male attacker because of size, physical strength and sometimes age.

Most women do not have a martial arts background and even those who do find it difficult to stop an attacker who outweighs them by 100 pounds of muscle.

However if a well trained woman did manage to kill her rapist, there would be no reason for her to be first required to retreat. "Stand your ground" law does not only deal with the use of a firearm. It applies to self defense using any weapon or even a lethal blow from a hand or foot.

Of course there are nonlethal methods of self defense such as pepper spray or even a tightly rolled magazine used as a club. Still for a person with the necessary training and mindset, a handgun may well be the most effective self defense tool. Since handguns are not as deadly as shown in the movies or on TV a victim can often stop an attack by shooting the attacker and the wound will not result in death. Often by the victim merely shows that he/she is armed the attacker will be discouraged and the incident will end without any violence.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

12. Good points...

In high school we had a state champion wrestler on our team - 125/135lb weight class. He was an excellent athlete, fast, and really knew how to wrestle. We also played on the football together. I was a very average wrestler (possibly even below average) but the real difference was that I was a 225lb (lean) defensive end. Despite not being nearly as fast or remotely as skilled of a wrestler... he had no chance at pinning me in the ring. He might evade and outscore me through a wrestling match... but he was not going to win the physical confromtation.

Point being - even with substantial skill and training advantage, the typical physical difference between the victim and her rapist is deciding factor.

[DanTex]

10. Of course she does.

What SYG does is allow people to use lethal force even when it is not necessary. It's designed by, and for, people for whom killing in "self-defense" is not a last resort, but an act of valor.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. Should people be convicted if they resort to deadly force

instead of retreating if they are confronted with threat of death or great bodily harm?

[TPaine7]

25. Wrong.

Last edited Fri Jun 15, 2012, 08:14 PM - Edit history (1)

It's designed by, and for, people for whom killing in "self-defense" is not a last resort, but an act of valor.

That's wrong on multiple levels.

Killing in self-defense is not a resort--first, medium or last. The only legitimate purpose of self-defense is to stop the threat. If the assailant is living after being stopped, so be it. If the assailant is dead, so be it. But it is not legitimate to "resort" to killing, per se, only to resort to potentially deadly self-defense.

Beyond that misunderstanding of the basic law of self-defense, has it ever occurred to you that some people might not want to be required, by law, to turn their backs on people offering them credible threats of death, rape or kidnapping? (Or to flee backwards and accept all of the associated risks?)

Could it be that some people think it's unfair that after John is shot trying to kill/rape/kidnap, his intended victim should have to face second guessing by a civil jury, even after being acquitted of any crime? Especially if that jury is composed of people who think that self defense that results in the death of the perpetrator is "valor"? (And, of course, that valor in self-defense is only acceptable in police officers but never in those they exist to serve?)

The macho little picture you paint surely applies to some portion of SYG's supporters, but for many support for SYG doesn't turn on "valor" but on rights and a sense of basic decency.

[PavePusher]

53. You're channeling Hoyt.

COme on, you can do better than that...

[hack89]

55. The standard for self defense has not changed

you still have to convince the police, the prosecutor, and possibly a jury that your actions were justified.

SYG did not change the legal standards for self defense - it just extended them to public spaces.

[caseymoz]

6. Here's the difference:

SYG stops investigations. That somebody has a right to kill in self-defense was never in question before SYG. Never. It's never been in question for stopping rape, either. Since a person already had the right to use deadly force defending themselves prior to SYG, taking it away would not be the logical equivalent of taking away a woman's right to defend against rape, which she has the right to do as long as it can be determined that was in self-defense.

Since women have that right already, logic would demand that you think of what the equivalent of SYG would give them in addition to that. Giving women the equivalent of SYG would be giving them a right to shoot a guy, in public or private, for making them feel threatened. For giving them a certain look. For being a certain race or above a certain height and asking them out for a date.

I say, if SYG is so great, why don't we apply to other things? Not just to rape. If I hit a kid with my car, hey, I had no criminal intent. I was just in a hurry and he was jaywalking. Hey, officer, stop hassling me. Why should a driver be required to brake and swerve to avoid? The kid didn't have a right to be crossing there.

SYG stops investigations. It interferes with arrests and prosecutions, because police have to give a special deferment to the excuse, at the scene of self-defense. It's not like this was necessary. I mean, we don't massive numbers of people serving in prison because they even arguably killed in self-defense. Yet, we are seeing more homicides where self-defense is the excuse with SYG having been passed.

Another problem is, if homicide is not the last resort, which resort is it? You can't take a more extreme measure than killing somebody. How in the world does anyone determine if its justifiable if it's not the last resort?

There's an inherent problem with the SYG approach. It proceeds from the assumption that normal police and judicial procedures, that is, investigation, interrogation, arrest and trial, are the punishment. Lawmakers must never make a law with that approach. Even if it might be literally true, it's not true according to the assumptions behind our laws. If you want to reform the hardship of investigation and inquiry, which are considerable, it has to be done as a general reform, not by special dispensation-- for homicide, of all extreme things.

Another problem is, SYG implies that some homicides are no big thing. This is morally wrong. Killing somebody, whether in self-defense or not, should be a big thing. It should attract investigation. Questions have got to be asked.

We are becoming barbaric if we think shooting somebody with a gun or stabbing them with a knife when self-defense was possible should receive less investigation than traffic deaths, where there is usually no criminal intent entering the scene.

This is actually a piecemeal solution to our get-tough-on-crime imprisonment society. The problem is, we've made sentences more and more extreme, we've made constitutional protections against police and prosecutor abuse weaker, we've taken away judicial discretion in sentencing, and we have a commercialized jail and prison system that's high on abuse. So, now, guess what, wing nuts have a justified terror of our judicial system.

So, instead of making it any better with reform or by re-asserting constitutional protections, lawmakers give people SYG. It doesn't fix the problem, because they same people who feel better can still be pulled over, get falsely arrested for drugs, have their car seized, and be strip searched in jail. This is at a time where violent crime is generally going down.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. "SYG stops investigations"

Demonstrably false, i.e. the man who used the exact same nonsensical reasoning in Texas and was just convicted of murder.

[caseymoz]

8. True in many other cases.

Demonstrably false in one. One counter-example does not show it has generally been false, there are many other cases where investigation has been stopped cold. Maybe you should read the rest of my message? Pretty lazy of you to stop on your first quibble and answer only that.

Do you disagree that people had a right to self-defense before SYG? How many people were rotting in prison because their self-defense excuse didn't work?

I'd rather not hunt down the other cases I've read where it has clearly gone awry. However, prosecutors and police chiefs warned of that very problem with SYG that I'm citing, before it was passed in Florida. So, I believe what I'm saying is supported by the experts.

People's emotional attachment to this law is-- disconcerting.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. I provided an example; you provided wild, unfounded conjecture

and then you insult me by calling me lazy and emotional.

I'm asserting that no one has an obligation to retreat if they are threatened with death or serious bodily harm. Anyone claiming this results in capricous murderers getting away uninvestigated should probably demonstrate their claim.

[caseymoz]

17. I found your response to be insulting.

Insultingly pat and lazy, taking the case nearest at hand and declaring, with no support, that it must be true of every other case there is, and then dismissing the entire rest of my post out of hand. That's careless. That's lazy, and in matters of life and death, I don't find it respectable. If you feel insulted, well, you know how I felt.

All you've shown is that Texas prosecutors and juries have their limits. But arguably, cases even more flagrant have been allowed to slide. They didn't have a choice but convict this guy, IMO, because he telegraphed his intent to the public, in front of witnesses at the scene. And it looks like he did it on his neighbor's property. So, they could demonstrate he went in with criminal intent. SYG couldn't apply.

Here is proof that one exception, newsworthy because it's an exception, is not representative of what's happening.

http://www.propublica.org/article/five-stand-your-ground-cases-you-should-know-about

Now that I've done a little of your work for you, is that demonstrated enough? Is my word so antagonistic and untrustworthy due to my opinion to you that you couldn't even get curious and search for links to cases on the DU itself, which is where I've read about them?

I've shown you the cases are out there if you want to look for three minutes. I'm not doing any more to spark your curiosity, or shock your conscience, about them.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. Saying something is demonstrably false and then providing an example is insulting?

And my refutation of your statement remains true. You said, "SYG stops investigations." That statement remains demonstrably false as each of the cases cited in the article were investigated. From what has been presented in the article -- assuming its facticity -- some crappy decisions were made.

But crappy decisions are crappy decisions and they have no reflection on standards that say a person must be in reasonable fear or death or great bodily harm for themselves or another and they must be lawfully present and not committing a crime. I think those standards are reasonable and none of them precludes an investigation as the government must determine if those standards were met.

Which of those considerations do you demand be struck down and why and what would you demand a person be required to do before they seek to use force to defend themselves?

[MicaelS]

18. "People's emotional attachment" to SYG exists because ...

People don't want to have worry about being financially and emotionally bankrupted when they shoot some criminal. They don't want to have to endure the label of "murderer" that gets slapped on them by police, prosecution, the media and the public, and then get found "Not Guilty" at trial that costs them their life savings, and mental health.

Some don't even like Castle Doctrine. I fully support Castle Doctrine. There should be NO Duty to Retreat from your own home, absolutely none. The idea that someone should have to run away from their own home to avoid shooting someone who violently enters their home is most assuredly injustice. If someone violently enters your home, you should be free to use deadly force.

And I don't always listen to what prosecutors and police chiefs often want, because they can't always be trusted. They is plenty of evidence of prosecutorial, and police misconduct out there.

Police chiefs are often political appointees that exist only at the whim of local officials. Plenty of police chiefs have come out in favor of gun bans, even if the rank and file officers support the RKBA.

After Texas passed the CCW law, some county prosecutors (Harris County D.A.) still refused to follow the spirit of the law, and told their local law enforcement to keep arresting people who had a gun in their car. The Texas Legislature had to make sure these prosecutors understood their jobs was to enforce the law as the legislature wanted, not as they, the prosecutors, themselves wanted.

I have always felt the American legal system was form of religion, where the judges and lawyers were the clergy and they manipulated things for their own benefit, and made things as difficult as possible, at the expense of us lay folks. Let's face it, if the law were simple enough that the ordinary person could understand it, there would no need for the legal priesthood to interpret THE LAW, and they would all have to find other work.

[caseymoz]

47. Then I think they need general reform

Not a patch of one aspect of the problem, and a manipulative one aimed at appeasing Conservatives, who might otherwise fear the monster they've created with today's criminal justice system. This law wasn't written by citizens, or legislators. No, ALEC created it. Otherwise, Conservatives might actually join liberals in calling for reform of our abusive, oppressive, privatized criminal justice system. SYG makes them feel recruited.

You misunderstand my reference to "emotional attachment." I'm talking about the OP, who supports SYG with the false equivalency of depriving women of the right to defend against rape, which was emotionally loaded, while claiming the Texas case proves SYG works, without informing himself of the cases where cold blooded killers have got off evoking SYG. If he's making false, emotionally laden equivalencies, and if he's not informing himself of the facts before supporting the law, it's because he has an emotional commitment to the law's success. That's my conclusion.

About the Castle Doctrine: yes, it sounds great. You don't have to retreat. Your house is your castle until you don't pay property taxes or until it's taken by eminent domain. It doesn't sound much like castle when I put it like that, but "Castle Doctrine" certainly allows you a lordship fantasy while you blow somebody's brains out like any English Lord would do to a couple poachers.

That aside, which is more disturbing: retreating from your home for a half-hour or hour, or having a very messy dead body in it? Perhaps the latter would create permanent anti-feng shui. Blood splatters tend to lower the value of your art collections and first Editions of Henry James, not to mention your shooting trophies.

Also, in any other case but your home, if you thought that being somewhere else temporarily might prevent somebody from being killed, would you even have a question of doing it?

That's just food for thought. In a fight or flight situation, shit happens, and whether you call it the Castle Doctrine or, as I prefer, The God-Given Right To Blast A Lowlife Burglar's Brains Out, you have some reasonable right to defend yourself and what you own.

As for the police chief and prosecutors being incompetent political appointees, (as though you must assume that's always the case if they oppose SYG), that actually bodes very badly for the law. Because what they're saying when they opposed SYG is: they can't figure out how to apply it competently. Given the way the law has been applied so far, I'd say they proved their point.

You are never going to have law so simple that you won't need lawyers or courts. And this isn't something new to our nation and our times. Medieval Europe, for example, was a lawyers heaven. There were so many entangled obligations to figure out, that lawyers and bureaucrats had plenty of job security. The world you dream of cannot exist. Human beings are complex. Millions and billions of them much more so.

If you want to know, the complexity of the law is mostly a correlation of having a higher population and to a lesser degree, a function of having Separation of Powers, not to mention "artificial persons" like corporations.

I wouldn't say the Justice system is a religion. Too many of its members have other creeds, so it doesn't fit because of that if for no other reason. Unlike a priesthood, they're expertise isn't derived from rituals or faith. They perform a function as a necessary part of their jobs.

The Bar is not a priesthood, however, it is an insular club of people with common interest, and they do band together to protect those interests. That's plain.

[PavePusher]

22. "SYG stops investigations."

No, it doesn't.

It merely makes the police and prosecuter have to meet a standard of evidence to take a case to trial. i.e., they have to have evidence that a crime was commited before filing charges.

And I'm not sure how that's a bad thing.

[caseymoz]

44. You are misinformed.

Because that has always been the criteria for filing charges-- for anything.

You think they have the right to file charges without evidence?

You probably haven't seen this part of SYG because it's actually in a different statute Florida statute, but one altered by the same SYG bill to accommodate the main law:

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force... (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

It makes people immune from arrest or prosecution if it's determined that it was self-defense. Or that's apparently the way some police departments have been interpreting it.

[PavePusher]

54. No, I'm not "misinformed".

You said "SYG stops investigations.". Yet, by the evidence you posted yourself, that is demonstratably untrue.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1)

[PavePusher]

24. Arrest and trial ARE punishment, if one hasn't actually done something wrong.

It's the duty of the state to prove wrong-doing, not the duty of the Citizen to prove innocence. And that is the whole point of the SYG laws.

[caseymoz]

45. I agree, but that's not the assumption behind our laws.

The purpose of arrest and trial are to determine whether to punish. That's a bedrock, cornerstone of our criminal justice system. Lawmakers can't write laws without that assumption.

But I agree with you this is not literally true; it's far from the truth. Yet, the criminal justice system has no other procedures it can use to investigate. If it isn't literally true, lawmakers have to do their best to make it so, by protecting people's constitutional rights against arrest: like the 4th Amendment.

So, rather than strengthening general protections against arrest and trial, our courts and lawmakers have weakened or knocked them. So, now that our criminal justice system has become a weapon terror, they've begun to write exceptions, so the Conservative base thinks the law is on their side. It makes them feel recruited into the War on Crime. That way, Conservatives don't feel frightened of the system they've created, and they aren't motivated to call for general reform, that would threaten our privatized and remarkably profitable prison industry. The gun industry loves it, too.

SYG is a contemptible manipulation, IMHO. It's why ALEC wrote it. What's an industrial think tank doing creating this law? Ever ask that question?

[PavePusher]

56. I think I see the problem here.

You appear to be continually conflating "investigate" with "arrest and trial". They are manifestly not the same, nor is eithe a subset of the other, and you do not do "arrest and trial" prior to "investigation".

[caseymoz]

59. If you insist on legally accurate terms

But trial is how a judge and jury "investigate" the investigation. The police have their investigation, then if the prosecutor determines that there was a crime and who was likely responsible, they indict and gather evidence with further investigation.

Then the judge and jury "investigate" the investigation, partially by having the defense poke holes in the People's scenario. Normally, rather than confuse people by using the same term, we call this a trial. But it's still an investigation, the way the courts, as opposed to The People, scrutinize a case and come to a conclusion.

So, besides the fact that you're calling me an idiot because I'm literally right but deliberately didn't use the correct term, just how do you think this undercuts my argument? Trial is how the court investigates anything. If it's homicide it must be investigated at least to the prosecuting level. And if it's so clearly self-defense, sometimes they won't prosecute it. There's no sense in trying a case if the jury returns self-defense.

I don't mind that discretion. But it has to reach at least that level.

[PavePusher]

60. "Idiot"? Not at all. "Confused", maybe. Or possibly, by your own admission, "misleading".

And the law, as you cited in post 44, specifically speaks to a law enforcement agency investigation.

[TPaine7]

26. As far as I know, there is no "right to kill" in self-defense. If you were to claim such a right

in open court, you would need a very good lawyer to mop up that mess, if it were even possible

You have a right to use potentially deadly force to stop a serious threat, not a right to kill.

[caseymoz]

46. As far as you know?

Last edited Tue Jun 26, 2012, 06:52 AM - Edit history (1)

First of all, that's self-contradictory. "Potentially deadly force" implies that some people are going to die from it. There's no way that can the law allow potentially deadly force and then presume that nobody will get killed. So, there's something wrong with your information there.

Perhaps you should do more research before you make an assertion? Self-defense has been an accepted basis for acquittal of homicide in Britain since at least the 16th century, and Britain is where lifted our criminal justice system, with almost no reform. Our courts still refer to prior British case law. Since Independence, our system has been even more lenient about self-defense than Britain.

The one thing the law is clear about is that you can't premeditate killing somebody even in self-defense.

Maybe you should get a firmer grounding of what the law was before you presume SYG fixes it?

[TPaine7]

49. Yes, and as far as you know, and as far as anyone knows in US law.

The one thing the law is clear about is that you can't premeditate killing somebody even in self-defense.

There is no right to kill, just as I said. Otherwise, there would be no problem with premeditatedly killing. You can legally premeditate speech, worship, petition, and anything else you have a right to do.

My words were clear; you are picking nonexistent nits.

[caseymoz]

51. Oh, so you're nitpicking on my wording.

Since you've demanded a high standard for the word right, that it can only be referred to as such if it's explicitly described in the Constitution then no, I'm sorry I confused you so much with the word "right."

Notwithstanding my misnomer, everybody has a Constitutional right to life. Implied in that is the right to self-preservation and self-defense. It's a very narrowly defined "right to kill" and that's the way the courts have always seen it. Prosecutors won't even present the case to the court if they're satisfied that it was self-defense.

However, since this right to kill is so narrow, cases with that defense have always centered on "was the defendant's life threatened?" It's innocence till proven guilty, but a court first determines if a homicide took place (defined as a person killing another person for any reason or by accident). Once that has been established, they then determine if the suspect did it. After that, they'll determine if it was justifiable or if there were extenuating circumstances, and that can be the sticky part, because by that time, the defendant has already been determined to be responsible, if not necessarily guilty, so presumption of innocence no longer follows. Now, I would be all for a change in the presumption here. But not SYG, which is the wrong fix.

There has never been any doubt that the person has a right to life and therefore a right to self-preservation and self-defense. What it always comes down to is proving it to court after the prosecution has proved it was a homicide and who was responsible.

If you're not convinced, look it up yourself. I've given you my case. I rest. I'm not going to argue it with you anymore. If you come out of the dark, you'll find that everything I've said is true.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. Errors.

In many states, SYG offers civil immunity in any case where the victim was not criminally charged for killing his or her attacker. That was most definitely in question prior to many SYG laws, in many states.

Several states also had a 'duty to retreat'. A silly requirement.


'last resort' is sort of begging the question. It's like the saying, 'your keys are always in the last place you look', because well, duh, you'd be an idiot if you kept looking after you found them.

"Yet, we are seeing more homicides where self-defense is the excuse with SYG having been passed."
Florida has had a small increase in justifiable homicides. Not quite a doubling, to about 200 per year. They also have a declining murder rate. Care to establish whether or not some of those justifiable homicides are not simply un-just murder charges that were re-classified? In the presentation of racial bias in the application of SYG laws, there have been several instances of people who appeared perfectly justifiable going to jail anyway.

[caseymoz]

48. Um, no. Because your car keys aren't going to kill you.

You're reading an idiomatic phrase literally, and unless English isn't your first language, you have no excuse. "Last resort" is not the logical equivalent to the last place you looked for your keys. It's understood as a Hobson's Choice, or a choice of a smaller catastrophe or a larger one. That is, it's understood by most English speakers who aren't trying to bend the language to win an argument.

"Duty to retreat" is not silly or frivolous when you're talking about avoiding loss of life. You're lighthearted dismissal of it is disturbing. It's the standard we apply in every other case where life could be lost. But it's silly here, why? And how?

Even if the guy is a lowlife burglar, he has friends and relatives who value him, or at least have hopes for him that will be dashed when he's shot to death. And though you have no reason to respect him, you should have nothing against them. You're an atheist like me. His life will be over, but they will suffer. I presume you see that point.

Homicide cannot be treated as something minor. No, if someone breaks into a house and the owner shoots him, it has to be investigated. In a civil society, as opposed to a war zone, his life can't be treated as worthless. To do so invites a war zone.

I'll point out also, a doubling of "justifiable" homicides is not a "small" increase. Close to doubling is, in my mind, an 80-100 percent increase. That's significant any way you do the math. Though you may bring up the point that the numbers are not overwhelming. No, but they also weren't happening before.

A declining murder rate in Florida would mean something if the nationwide murder rate weren't falling as well, SYG notwithstanding. Now, if you could show it's falling at a statistically significant faster rate due in states that have SYG then that would mean something.

". . . . Care to establish whether or not some of those justifiable homicides are not simply un-just murder charges that were re-classified? In the presentation of racial bias in the application of SYG laws, there have been several instances of people who appeared perfectly justifiable going to jail anyway."

I can't answer these because I don't know what you're asking. The "whether or not. . . not . . . un-" triple-and-a-half-negative-hypothetical construction has me confused. I don't know why.

In the second, what's a presentation of racial bias? One might commit racial bias, but what does presenting it mean? ". . . in the application of SYG law": So, you have a presentation in an application. I don't know what the first is, and I don't know if you mean application as in a criminal defense, or the practical application of shooting an assailant.

Then lastly, ". . . there have been several instances of people who appeared perfectly justifiable going to jail anyway." Apparently you don't mean "people" are justifiable. But it gets worse. Was their going to jail justifiable anyway, or were they justifiable but went to jail anyway?

Of course I could guess. Any one of these conundrums are solvable, but I'd rather not take the trouble answering the wrong question.

[AtheistCrusader]

61. 'presentation'

I apologize, I normally proofread my posts, and it appears that night I did not. I don't recall what word I was going for there, appearance, perhaps? Whatever it was, looks like autocomplete or autocorrect mangled it, or maybe it was just late and I went goofy for a bit. Apologies.

""Duty to retreat" is not silly or frivolous when you're talking about avoiding loss of life."

Absolutely it is, because it puts an undue burden upon the victim. In order to flee (classic flight option), you must turn your back on a deadly threat. Those words have meaning. In florida, we just saw a woman sentenced to 20 years for firing a warning shot, rather than shooting her ex husband, because a warning shot is prima facie evidence that you are not in fear for your life. You see, in order to do it, you have to be willing to turn your weapon away from your attacker to do it. (They also try to actively discourage that because it is extremely hazardous to bystanders) In order to flee, you must abandon all pretense of a defensive posture, and likely, turn your back on a deadly threat. Unacceptable requirement of a victim. If the victim has a legal right to be in the location they are in, and they are in no way the aggressor, requiring them to flee 'if possible' is a horrible burden.

"Even if the guy is a lowlife burglar, he has friends and relatives who value him, or at least have hopes for him that will be dashed when he's shot to death."

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. The burden is upon the burglar not to do whatever unlawful act led to another person being honestly justifiably in fear for their life.

HOWEVER, I will grant that some state's implementation of Castle Doctrine goes too far in relaxing investigations. It seems to me that at least in theory, it might be easy for someone to lure someone into their house intentionally, for the purposes of 'defensively' shooting that person, OR for illegal activities like a drug deal 'gone wrong'. There really SHOULD be some sort of investigation, with a very low threshold of evidence to kick over to a grand jury for more in-depth analysis, and possible recommendation of charges. In this, I feel some state's SYG/CD laws go too far in creating conditions in which 'dead men tell no tales', etc. "And though you have no reason to respect him, you should have nothing against them." I disagree. I have quite a lot against people who would recklessly create conditions in which another person might be justified in responding with deadly force. Burglary, assault, rape, attempted murder, all of these situations are extremely deplorable, because all too often, the victim IS injured in some way, physically or mentally, and in some cases, killed. The aggressor has the burden of not entering into this situation to start with. I will not in any way fault victims who fight back, as long as a credible threat was presented.

"No, if someone breaks into a house and the owner shoots him, it has to be investigated." Again, I do agree with you here. With one party dead, the burden upon the investigators to establish it was truly a lawful exercise of lethal force in self defense is extremely high. Is it always worthwhile or proper to haul the purported victim in front of a grand jury? I would think not, at least not if the facts are plainly obvious, good witnesses, maybe security video, etc, but I agree, some investigation must happen. (And Florida might actually be a good example, as the investigating officer at Trayvon Martin's death DID indeed recommend manslaughter charges the night of, and the DA overruled. Perhaps remove the DA from the picture, and automatically remand such a case to a grand jury, and if the grand jury recommends indictment, the DA should not be free to refuse, etc, there are a few possible fixes to that problem)

"I'll point out also, a doubling of "justifiable" homicides is not a "small" increase."
It is incredibly small compared to the overall homicde rate with firearms. (Though we should also include non-firearm deaths, as it is not necessary to have a gun to kill either offensively, or in self defense) As a percentage, it's not even a whole number.

"Now, if you could show it's falling at a statistically significant faster rate due in states that have SYG then that would mean something."

I see your point. One critical of SYG laws could also attempt to show that the murder rate is falling in Florida slower than a non-SYG state, but of course, there are always additional factors. Very difficult to get an apples to apples comparison, from the pro or anti side of this issue. In absolute good faith, I would support tightening up some state's SYG investigation practices, to ensure we aren't seeing unjustified 'justifiable homicides'. My state has no SYG law, nor do we have a duty to retreat, investigations are always performed, and grand juries are used in any case where the police investigators 'don't buy it'. I like that balance. I think SYG in other states represents a strong reaction to laws that placed far too great of a criminal or civil burden upon victims, for far too long. When these things go unaddressed for a long period of time, people react, and can over-react. I would absolutely NOT support altering my state's self-defense related laws to mimic Florida, for instance. So I hope you can see that I appreciate at least some of your concern.

"there have been several instances of people who appeared perfectly justifiable going to jail anyway"

Good grief, how did that happen. I swear, I don't even drink. What I meant was, I can see some cases where people who appeared completely justified in using lethal force in self defense, have been prosecuted in either civil or criminal court, and it has, at the very least, the appearance of racial bias. For instance, there was recently a case in Texas, where all signs pointed to 'justifiable', and the DA initially declined to indict, but a year later, filed charges, and won a conviction. It seemed entirely racially motivated. That is a huge concern to me, because at the end of the day, my interest is in Justice, and nothing else. As is so often the case, I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle, neither in a SYG law, nor in a Duty To Retreat law, but more like Washington State's model, where we have neither, but grand juries are only convened if the investigating officers feel some foul play was afoot.

What I would like to see our state gain, is some sort of civil immunity in any case where the person who justifiably used lethal force in self defense is not convicted of a crime associated to the shooting.

[caseymoz]

62. Short for now.

""Duty to retreat" is not silly or frivolous when you're talking about avoiding loss of life."

Absolutely it is, because it puts an undue burden upon the victim. In order to flee (classic flight option), you must turn your back on a deadly threat. Those words have meaning. In florida, we just saw a woman sentenced to 20 years for firing a warning shot, rather than shooting her ex husband, because a warning shot is prima facie evidence that you are not in fear for your life. You see, in order to do it, you have to be willing to turn your weapon away from your attacker to do it. (They also try to actively discourage that because it is extremely hazardous to bystanders) In order to flee, you must abandon all pretense of a defensive posture, and likely, turn your back on a deadly threat. Unacceptable requirement of a victim. If the victim has a legal right to be in the location they are in, and they are in no way the aggressor, requiring them to flee 'if possible' is a horrible burden.

I'll bend this far with it: if you determine you can't flee safely, such as, you're already in direct confrontation (not the only condition) then you shouldn't be required to flee. If you're surprised, or if you're already in a pitched fight, it goes without saying choosing the flee could be the worst thing you can do. If, however, you come home, and determine somebody is in the back of your house, but you haven't confronted them, that's where fleeing would be required. Picking up a gun and going back would be the worst option.

You must consider two things: first, how dysfunctional are judicial system has been allowed to get; second, is more for the courts, how trying to reason this out beforehand and apply laws to it is a different mental condition than actually being in a confrontation fearing for your life. I know victims who weren't prepared for a confrontation can't be expected to come up with the optimum choice. So what I come up with being able to take my time and think about it is something that has to be considered a general principle, not an ironclad rule. Worse, it's hard to get to the mental state involving a fight-or-flight situation when you're sitting at your computer contemplating and writing.

I wish legislatures would give judges and juries more latitude. What's really wrong here is, that has been taken away. There are many other things that have gone wrong, too. Like the woman you describe, I bet she did not have a good defense attorney. Was it a public defender? States like Florida have cut funding to them.

I'm afraid to say, SYG is the wrong solution. The problem is broader than that. In fact, I think ALEC brought it in just so conservatives would not feel paranoid about our criminal justice system and demand reform along with progressives. I can't think of any other reason why.

I'll answer the rest later. Unfortunately, that's all I have time for.

[gejohnston]

63. I don't know about the lady's defense lawyer

but the DA was the same as the one going after Zimmerman. Then there is Florida's 5-10-20 law. One thing:

I'm afraid to say, SYG is the wrong solution. The problem is broader than that. In fact, I think ALEC brought it in just so conservatives would not feel paranoid about our criminal justice system and demand reform along with progressives. I can't think of any other reason why.

Just look at the history of the labor movement in the US, Oligarchs don't like the rest of us with guns. ALEC only does what member groups wants it too. That is what member groups pay for. The NRA figured "if the Kochs can do it, we can too." So the NRA joined ALEC. SYG is older than ALEC. Illinois has been SYG since 1961. Other states, by judicial precedent, even older. California and Utah for example. On the federal level, SYG has been precedent since 1895.
Beard v. U.S. (158 U.S. 550 (1895))
Brown v. United States (256 U.S. 335, 343 (16 May 1921))

[caseymoz]

65. lol. Don't like the rest of us with guns?

They can hire whole armies, with body armor. In theory, at least, they can get nuclear weapons. Are you telling me that big corporations like Smith & Wesson and their oligarch executives don't like people with guns but sell them to us anyway? Somehow, I can't reconcile this. Please explain it. As for the NRA, it has it's fingers in a lot of big business pies.

Don't trick yourself. Guns are openly available now now because the oligarchs have everyone else beaten by a couple laps in the arms race, and also, they know how to manipulate an armed populace to work for them, or at least they believe so. For good reason, for even the most intelligent people can get tripped up in their propaganda.

Besides, what does SYG have to do with armed rebellion against the oligarchy anyway? Nothing, except guns. The fact that the discussion one brings automatically chime in with the other tells me that you're more informed by dubious social theories and hypotheticals than any facts. If you're so numb to relevance, I don't think you can read a case or a law right even if you can cite it correctly.

Unless you can tell me why the oligarchs sell us so many guns when they don't want us to have them, and how SYG has anything to do with the class struggle against them, you're same level of credibility with me as Big Foot witnesses, Birthers, 9/11 revisionists and Scientologists. And I bet you think I'm a jerk because you're likely one of those, too.

[gejohnston]

66. Smith and Wesson is not a big corporation.

In fact, I doubt the all of the gun companies in US and Europe combined are "big corporations" on the level of BP or Koch.

Don't trick yourself. Guns are openly available now now because the oligarchs have everyone else beaten by a couple laps in the arms race, and also, they know how to manipulate an armed populace to work for them, or at least they believe so. For good reason, for even the most intelligent people can get tripped up in their propaganda.

Umm, no. Actually, look at the membership or donors of Brady and VPC. One foundation and a couple of million and billionaires. Even some right wing celebs like Sly Stallone. Some left leaning ones like Rosie O' Donnell too. What you don't see is a grassroots movement of any kind. Your problem is not the NRA, ALEC or any other boogeyman. Your problem is stringing together various logical fallacies and distortions and trying to make arguments out of it.

Besides, what does SYG have to do with armed rebellion against the oligarchy anyway? Nothing, except guns. The fact that the discussion one brings automatically chime in with the other tells me that you're more informed by dubious social theories and hypotheticals than any facts. If you're so numb to relevance, I don't think you can read a case or a law right even if you can cite it correctly.

How do you think most gun control laws were passed in the day? Europe, Canada, and Australia it was mostly the red scare in the 1920s. Before the 1960s, the south had the strictest gun laws other than New York. None of them were for what we would agree would be the right reasons.

Unless you can tell me why the oligarchs sell us so many guns when they don't want us to have them, and how SYG has anything to do with the class struggle against them, you're same level of credibility with me as Big Foot witnesses, Birthers, 9/11 revisionists and Scientologists. And I bet you think I'm a jerk because you're likely one of those, too.

Oligarchs might make them, but they are not selling them. None of them are bankers or oil companies. Read up on Blair Mountain and Haymarket riots and think about it.
No I'm not. What bigfoot witnesses have to do with it, I have no idea. New species are discovered all the time. I am not saying they do or do not exist. I am simply agnostic. As for your birther smear, that may be against the TOS. I'm not a Scientologist. My father was a Mormon (and went through the motions when I was a kid) and my daughter is a Wiccan, so I detest religious bigots on the left as much as I do the ones on the right.

Oh yeah, You can read them for yourself here.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/256/335/case.html
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/158/550/

[AtheistCrusader]

64. Most of the SYG laws in play are older than ALEC.

"If, however, you come home, and determine somebody is in the back of your house, but you haven't confronted them, that's where fleeing would be required. Picking up a gun and going back would be the worst option."

I disagree, but the circumstances might make this highly variable. I would immediately begin by contacting the police, and then attempting to find my wife and son. Not everyone has family, if I were alone, I would probably seek to contact the police, and then remain exactly where I am. Maybe fortify my position. If there is one person inside my home, there may be more. Might have a buddy out front that saw me come in, etc. I would not prefer to hunt down the person in my home, nor would I prefer to flee, because flight entails significant risk.

Sheltering in place with a firearm is actually a pretty good option.

The woman in florida actually made the mistake of speaking to the police when they arrived. Sad business, that. Never speak to the police, even if you are purely innocent. She admitted to firing a warning shot, believing it to be the honorable, acceptable thing to do. It got her 20 years in jail. Very sad. No good deed goes unpunished. If she had shot her ex, she would be free today.

[rrneck]

13. How fast can you run?

Unless you can outrun your attacker, the concept of retreat is moot.

"I was in fear of death or serious bodily harm."
"I didn't think I could escape".

Both statements are functionally equal and almost impossible to disprove.

[WingDinger]

16. Plant throwdown skittles and tea on them.

[sarisataka]

32. We have been told here

It's easy to point to others and say they are criminals, but as far as I am concerned, if you carry a gun and use it to harm someone who is not carrying a gun, you are a criminal.

[spin]

35. I wonder if the poster would feel that a 100 pound woman ...

who was attacked by a 200 pound unarmed man in top physical condition, who had the intention of raping her, should be considered a criminal because she used her legally carried handgun to defend herself.

To be fair, I often read foolish comments here in the Gungeon by those on both sides of the gun control debate.

[sarisataka]

36. It is good to be aware

Of what you write and how it can be interpreted.

That is why I never ever make absolute statements

[spin]

37. Good point. (n/t)

[Glassunion]

43. "Only the Sith deal in absolutes" - Obi Wan