Is "Stand your ground" helpful or dangerous?
23 Jul 2013, 6:55 am
redriverronin wrote:
0bey1sh1n0b1 wrote:
I'm tired of the back and forward getting us no where on the Zimmerman and Martin case. I just got done watching the President's speech on the acquittal and I got to say that is a MUST for everyone arguing. However in his speech the president says one thing that stuck out as a very good debatable question. He says "If Trayvon Martin was of age and armed could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we think that he would have been justified shooting Zimmerman, who had followed him in a car, because he felt threatened? And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous then it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws."
Examine we shall and we shall use Zimmerman's case as a reference and NOT debate Zimmerman's or Martin's character.
Okay so let's say I am Martin and I am armed and this weirdo is following me. I happen to be in this gated community with my Father's fiancée and well I like the houses here and they interest me. I will narrate Martin's mind and actions (bare with me I am not an English major).
"Hmm these are some nice house's" he says to himself as he pears through the windows of the houses admiring the interior.
Suddenly Martin notices a suspicious man falling him in his truck. "Okay what is this guy's problem and why is he creeping on me?" he says to himself "Let me get further away from this person." Martin takes of running to get out of range of the individual. Martin then notices that the individual has left his truck to pursue him on foot. "Man what is up with this guy?" Martin then notices that this guy is armed and tries to avoid him and walk the other direction however what he didn't know was the individual was also walking back to his car. Martin bumps into the individual and knowing that he is armed and in fear for his life shoots the guy one time in the heart. The guy bleeds out and dies on the scene. Later on we determine that this individual was part of the neighborhood night watch and he was in contact with the police reporting what he believed to be a burglary in progress. Zimmerman had stepped out of his car to get the street information and to see where Martin ran to in order to give that information to the police. On his way back to the car Zimmerman and Martin both unknowingly cross paths and Martin shoots Zimmerman in the chest.
Now the question is with the similar circumstances to the case with and older armed Martin was he within his right to "stand his ground" against what he felt was a perceived threat? Please feel free to tweak the scenario to support your case.
Examine we shall and we shall use Zimmerman's case as a reference and NOT debate Zimmerman's or Martin's character.
Okay so let's say I am Martin and I am armed and this weirdo is following me. I happen to be in this gated community with my Father's fiancée and well I like the houses here and they interest me. I will narrate Martin's mind and actions (bare with me I am not an English major).
"Hmm these are some nice house's" he says to himself as he pears through the windows of the houses admiring the interior.
Suddenly Martin notices a suspicious man falling him in his truck. "Okay what is this guy's problem and why is he creeping on me?" he says to himself "Let me get further away from this person." Martin takes of running to get out of range of the individual. Martin then notices that the individual has left his truck to pursue him on foot. "Man what is up with this guy?" Martin then notices that this guy is armed and tries to avoid him and walk the other direction however what he didn't know was the individual was also walking back to his car. Martin bumps into the individual and knowing that he is armed and in fear for his life shoots the guy one time in the heart. The guy bleeds out and dies on the scene. Later on we determine that this individual was part of the neighborhood night watch and he was in contact with the police reporting what he believed to be a burglary in progress. Zimmerman had stepped out of his car to get the street information and to see where Martin ran to in order to give that information to the police. On his way back to the car Zimmerman and Martin both unknowingly cross paths and Martin shoots Zimmerman in the chest.
Now the question is with the similar circumstances to the case with and older armed Martin was he within his right to "stand his ground" against what he felt was a perceived threat? Please feel free to tweak the scenario to support your case.
Stand you ground laws are made to give normal people not in law enforcement the legal right to defend themselves for violence. They are not perfect nothing is just because the media has a opinion doesn't make their opinion right. Police make very bad choices with their guns thousands of times a year does that mean that police should be made to follow some new law so that they don't make those bad choices the answer is no. They should be allowed to make quick and decisive decisions just like stand your ground laws do for us. Places that don't have access to weapons and don't allow you to defend yourself have way more violent crime than places that do you can look up those stats on the FBI database. This countries political and media establishment seems to have problems with people being self reliant and that is a big problem. When the people in power don't want people to help themselves that means that they see themselves as the only people worthy of any type of real thought.
You kind of don't get my point of this thread. I don't think anyone on this thread gets my point. I am not arguing the necessity of the law. I think it is very much needed. I am arguing people's interpretation of the law. Me if I was armed but had the option to run I would run first. The first few comments on this thread were "Retreat? What do you mean retreat". That there alone is the scary mindset. Even soldiers in war know the significance of retreat. It sounds to me that when people get a gun they start to feel that power trip and well retreat is no longer an option and by the way I live in a SYG state so f**k you. I am for stand your ground and I am for gun ownership but we seriously need to curb this thinking into a healthy type.
23 Jul 2013, 7:19 am
it depends on the sitiuation.the stand your ground or castle laws are in general a good thing as long as people dont manipulate the grey areas.plus if someone will threaten you then who else would the warm.do we always want someone to run away and call the police.in that case the perp could rob,kidnap or rape someone else.
the question is not are stand your ground laws good for what there worth on face value but are most people scupulious enough to handle them
_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined
23 Jul 2013, 7:20 am
sliqua-jcooter wrote:
The problem is, in a self-defense shooting, the defendant admits to committing the crime and uses self-defense as an affirmative defense. This means that the burden of proof is now on the defense (because they essentially just made the prosecutions case) to prove that the defendant:
a) took the alleged criminal action to defend themselves or other people (note that defending property is not self defense)
b) met force with like force (did not use excessive force)
and, in places without stand your ground:
c) made every reasonable attempt to retreat
The problem with that is not the requirement that the defendant has a duty to retreat, the problem is that it's damned difficult to produce evidence to back that up in court. So, laws were drafted that eliminated that burden of proof from the defense - and I don't view that as a problem in-and-of-itself.
a) took the alleged criminal action to defend themselves or other people (note that defending property is not self defense)
b) met force with like force (did not use excessive force)
and, in places without stand your ground:
c) made every reasonable attempt to retreat
The problem with that is not the requirement that the defendant has a duty to retreat, the problem is that it's damned difficult to produce evidence to back that up in court. So, laws were drafted that eliminated that burden of proof from the defense - and I don't view that as a problem in-and-of-itself.
Actually, if we look at Florida, then the standard of proof (which is separate from the burden of proof) for an affirmative self-defense claim is very low. In fact, the defendant only has to prove with a reasonable doubt (in other words, the opposite of beyond reasonable doubt) that he or she acted in self defense. This is a very low standard of evidence, much lower than preponderance of evidence.
Source: Murray vs. State of Florida (2006) - Page 2
Last time I checked, there is no official numerical value of the certainty needed for "Beyond Reasonable Doubt", but a common rule of thumb is around 98-99 percent certainty. Conversely, one really does not need to cause much doubt in a jury to create reasonable doubt.
So in my opinion, this greatly diminishes any added value of dropping the "duty to retreat" part of a self-defense claim - In Florida, at least, as I didn't do a scan of the case law in all 50 US states.
However, SCOTUS also ruled on the constitutionality (14th amendment) of affirmative self-defense in Martin v.s Ohio in 1987, and they accepted even a preponderance of evidence (>50 percent - just marginally better than a coin toss) standard for an affirmative self defense.
Source: Martin vs. Ohio (1987)
Florida provides a much greater protection of the defendant claiming self-defense than this, even if there was no SYG.
neilson_wheels
Veteran
Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,404
Location: London, Capital of the Un-United Kingdom
23 Jul 2013, 7:49 am
To the OP, the fact that you are not clear on SYG shows that laws like these are hard to interpret. If It was a cut and dried case of when the SYG law is, or is not applicable then this debate would not be open in the first place. I don't think you will find an answer from making repeated varied scenarios as the possibilities are infinite. It's not exactly speeding now is it?
So in answer to your initial question, it's going to helpful to some and harmful to others, both at the same time.
23 Jul 2013, 7:49 am
vermontsavant wrote:
it depends on the sitiuation.the stand your ground or castle laws are in general a good thing as long as people dont manipulate the grey areas.plus if someone will threaten you then who else would the warm.do we always want someone to run away and call the police.in that case the perp could rob,kidnap or rape someone else.
the question is not are stand your ground laws good for what there worth on face value but are most people scupulious enough to handle them
the question is not are stand your ground laws good for what there worth on face value but are most people scupulious enough to handle them
So you see my point. I may get some heat for this but I think gun ownership needs a little more education than just gun handling and background checks. If people are so determined to use guns as a defense then I think it is only fair that they be tested on the understanding of self defense law, understand their limits and options before owning a gun.
neilson_wheels wrote:
To the OP, the fact that you are not clear on SYG shows that laws like these are hard to interpret. If It was a cut and dried case of when the SYG law is, or is not applicable then this debate would not be open in the first place. I don't think you will find an answer from making repeated varied scenarios as the possibilities are infinite. It's not exactly speeding now is it?
So in answer to your initial question, it's going to helpful to some and harmful to others, both at the same time.
So in answer to your initial question, it's going to helpful to some and harmful to others, both at the same time.
Just because I'm not clear on the law doesn't mean that the law is not clearly written. Do to my ignorance and most for that matter people draw their own conclusions as to what the law means to them. There in lies the problem.
sliqua-jcooter
Veteran
Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488
Location: Burke, Virginia, USA
23 Jul 2013, 8:37 am
GGPViper wrote:
Actually, if we look at Florida, then the standard of proof (which is separate from the burden of proof) for an affirmative self-defense claim is very low. In fact, the defendant only has to prove with a reasonable doubt (in other words, the opposite of beyond reasonable doubt) that he or she acted in self defense. This is a very low standard of evidence, much lower than preponderance of evidence.
That is because Florida provides immunity for anyone making the claim of self-defense, which is in the second part of my post.
Quote:
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(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, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(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, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
There are a few other states that provide both criminal and civil immunity and they all have the affect of shifting the burden to the prosecution to prove a negative beyond a reasonable doubt. It's insane.
_________________
Nothing posted here should be construed as the opinion or position of my company, or an official position of WrongPlanet in any way, unless specifically mentioned.
sliqua-jcooter
Veteran
Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488
Location: Burke, Virginia, USA
23 Jul 2013, 8:43 am
0bey1sh1n0b1 wrote:
So you see my point. I may get some heat for this but I think gun ownership needs a little more education than just gun handling and background checks. If people are so determined to use guns as a defense then I think it is only fair that they be tested on the understanding of self defense law, understand their limits and options before owning a gun.
The problem is each state's gun laws, including self-defense laws, are different. Sometimes dramatically so. The only people who truly understand the nuances of self-defense law are lawyers that specialize in self-defense cases.
Quote:
Just because I'm not clear on the law doesn't mean that the law is not clearly written. Do to my ignorance and most for that matter people draw their own conclusions as to what the law means to them. There in lies the problem.
Actually, the problem is a lot more complicated than that. In every state, there's the statute law (ie. what's written on the page) and then there's case law that stems from how the courts allow that statute to be used in various circumstances. Any self-defense shooting is going to be legally distinct from any other, even though factually they may be very similar. Self-defense is highly based on context and intent - so there's a lot of leeway with which to interpret any given case's facts to support any given position.
_________________
Nothing posted here should be construed as the opinion or position of my company, or an official position of WrongPlanet in any way, unless specifically mentioned.
neilson_wheels
Veteran
Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,404
Location: London, Capital of the Un-United Kingdom
23 Jul 2013, 9:01 am
0bey1sh1n0b1 wrote:
neilson_wheels wrote:
To the OP, the fact that you are not clear on SYG shows that laws like these are hard to interpret. If It was a cut and dried case of when the SYG law is, or is not applicable then this debate would not be open in the first place. I don't think you will find an answer from making repeated varied scenarios as the possibilities are infinite. It's not exactly speeding now is it?
So in answer to your initial question, it's going to helpful to some and harmful to others, both at the same time.
So in answer to your initial question, it's going to helpful to some and harmful to others, both at the same time.
Just because I'm not clear on the law doesn't mean that the law is not clearly written. Do to my ignorance and most for that matter people draw their own conclusions as to what the law means to them. There in lies the problem.
In my limited experience laws such as these are not easy to interpret. They may be clearly written in legalese but not to the average person on the street, where the level of understanding will vary massively between individuals. So to the lawmakers it is clear, to the man or women who will be subjected to the law it is not.
I agree with your point above but regarding your OP, I feel strongly that going through a mass of hypothetical situations will do nothing to make the situation clearer. The numerous variables will be interpreted differently by each person and with other details missing more confusion is created. That's why discussions on legalities use previous cases as references where the evidence, testimonies and cases are recorded and available for analysis.
PrncssAlay
Deinonychus
Joined: 17 Apr 2013
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 321
Location: Midwest, Southwest, Northwest, California
23 Jul 2013, 9:30 am
Schneekugel wrote:
I simply dont get it why there is absolutly no sentence for it, not even for that accidental killing by dumb action, as we have it. And I think, that causing someones death, because of the wish to play Sheriff himself as an not trained, unprofessional person, instead of simply calling the people that are professionally trained to do so, is a quiet dumb, really stupid action. Its hard to understand from outside, why there is absolute no jail, not even for "unpropper weapon use" or however it is called in your country.
This is not an isolated incident. Not too many years ago a 16-year-old Japanese exchange student was going to a Halloween party with an American friend and they rang the wrong doorbell (similar address number). He was wearing a John Travolta costume. The homeowner felt frightened, got a gun, and shot the foreign exchange student straight into the chest from 5' distance. And afterward at the trial the homeowner was totally acquitted "because he had been frightened" by the guy ringing the wrong doorbell. Here is a link to all the details of the story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori
23 Jul 2013, 9:51 am
neilson_wheels wrote:
0bey1sh1n0b1 wrote:
neilson_wheels wrote:
To the OP, the fact that you are not clear on SYG shows that laws like these are hard to interpret. If It was a cut and dried case of when the SYG law is, or is not applicable then this debate would not be open in the first place. I don't think you will find an answer from making repeated varied scenarios as the possibilities are infinite. It's not exactly speeding now is it?
So in answer to your initial question, it's going to helpful to some and harmful to others, both at the same time.
So in answer to your initial question, it's going to helpful to some and harmful to others, both at the same time.
Just because I'm not clear on the law doesn't mean that the law is not clearly written. Do to my ignorance and most for that matter people draw their own conclusions as to what the law means to them. There in lies the problem.
In my limited experience laws such as these are not easy to interpret. They may be clearly written in legalese but not to the average person on the street, where the level of understanding will vary massively between individuals. So to the lawmakers it is clear, to the man or women who will be subjected to the law it is not.
I agree with your point above but regarding your OP, I feel strongly that going through a mass of hypothetical situations will do nothing to make the situation clearer. The numerous variables will be interpreted differently by each person and with other details missing more confusion is created. That's why discussions on legalities use previous cases as references where the evidence, testimonies and cases are recorded and available for analysis.
I am the OP and I disagree that analyzing hypotheticals does nothing. My back ground as a security engineer requires me to poke holes in a "secured" system. Nothing is full proof but you wouldn't want to wait till an incident happens to respond. It's better to take a proactive stance analyze various hypotheticals objectively and if not reform laws at least create best practices and enforce them. Why do we have to wait for a few more deaths to realize a solution? I seem to be treading that thin line between the right to bear arms and the privilege to bear arms. Hell if anything the fact that you have to meet certain criteria to even conceal is a privilege in itself.
neilson_wheels
Veteran
Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,404
Location: London, Capital of the Un-United Kingdom
23 Jul 2013, 10:06 am
neilson_wheels wrote:
AceOfSpades -I think that you should be able to defend yourself in any place, a number of times I have had to confront people where retreating would have left me wide open. Obviously this situation can rapidly become much more severe with firearms involved.
If you are running away in the open you are a big target. Granted the further you are the harder a target you are to hit especially for untrained gunmen. But if you can retreat behind barriers or if it is at all possible avoid a gun fight then that sounds like a better option. Also should you have to shoot maybe at least have the understanding of where deadly shots are and non-deadly shots. The element of fear needs to be taken out of the gunman who is defending himself and that takes education. Analyzing scenarios helps develops best practices to teach proper self defense and makes the gunman more efficient. This in turns helps lower the death rate to casualty rates and makes it easier to prove self defense.
23 Jul 2013, 10:09 am
sliqua-jcooter wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
Actually, if we look at Florida, then the standard of proof (which is separate from the burden of proof) for an affirmative self-defense claim is very low. In fact, the defendant only has to prove with a reasonable doubt (in other words, the opposite of beyond reasonable doubt) that he or she acted in self defense. This is a very low standard of evidence, much lower than preponderance of evidence.
That is because Florida provides immunity for anyone making the claim of self-defense, which is in the second part of my post.
Quote:
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(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, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(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, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
There are a few other states that provide both criminal and civil immunity and they all have the affect of shifting the burden to the prosecution to prove a negative beyond a reasonable doubt. It's insane.
Actually, those are two different entities. The Murray case deals with the standard/burden of proof at a trial (the jurors in the case had been given erroneous instructions on the standard which should be applied).
Immunity from prosecution is a much more extreme measure which prevents a trial from even taking place, let alone any prosecution (and even - to some extent - investigation, as detaining or arresting a suspect is not allowed).
neilson_wheels
Veteran
Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,404
Location: London, Capital of the Un-United Kingdom
23 Jul 2013, 10:10 am
0bey1sh1n0b1 wrote:
I am the OP and I disagree that analyzing hypotheticals does nothing. My back ground as a security engineer requires me to poke holes in a "secured" system. Nothing is full proof but you wouldn't want to wait till an incident happens to respond. It's better to take a proactive stance analyze various hypotheticals objectively and if not reform laws at least create best practices and enforce them. Why do we have to wait for a few more deaths to realize a solution? I seem to be treading that thin line between the right to bear arms and the privilege to bear arms. Hell if anything the fact that you have to meet certain criteria to even conceal is a privilege in itself.
I know you're the Original Poster, I was referring to your Original Post, your proposed situation and the fact that no one was taking up on your offer to put forward their own scenarios.
You can analize hypotheticals, it will not make the situation clearer. All you will be left with is an infinitely long list of possibilities. Changing one variable may alter the outcome from green light to red.
When analyzing a secured system the parameters are defined and attacks can range in a predicted fashion. With a hypothetical situation the variables are too numerous to give this method any validity, as described above. Try getting a gang of respected lawyers to consolidate laws like this into effective binding common-law ready guidelines, I'm afraid the arguments would be eternal. Life is just too complicated, people are not systems and laws like this can only be a best fit for any given situation.
I'm not commenting on guns laws/controls. I'm in the UK where guns are not commonly available. I'm not american and have never visited either.
I still feel that a right to self defence is crucial, some will be helped and some will be harmed. That's life with people.
23 Jul 2013, 10:40 am
[quote="
So you see my point. I may get some heat for this but I think gun ownership needs a little more education than just gun handling and background checks. If people are so determined to use guns as a defense then I think it is only fair that they be tested on the understanding of self defense law, understand their limits and options before owning a gun[/quote]
all states require a gun safety course to buy a hand gun and most people who buy rifles are hunters which requires a hunters safety course.
i scored 100% on the hunters education coarse.whether or not that is sufficiant i am not sure.however as someone knows many gun owners, gun nuts and fanatics rarely or never hurt people with guns and most people who do hurt people with guns usualy dont like guns at all.they just use guns when it suites there purposes.people who use guns in crime buy guns on the street before they need them and when done destroy them.the search of the person or residence of a gun criminal usualy fails to turn up a gun
_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined
