Is "Stand your ground" helpful or dangerous?

Post Reply New Topic

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.

You don't need to ponder hypothetical situations, these laws are on the books in many states. You can look at how the law works and is used in real life if you want an answer to how the situation may of played out.

The alternative to "stand your ground" is the duty to retreat.

+1

Most laws that actually make society safer are often attacked for the few times something tragic happens.

I'd rather live with the risk of "stand your ground" laws than live in a society that mandates a duty to retreat from an aggressor.

My life experience and training says the latter only benefits the criminal element, not the law-abiding citizen.

No because the laws are flawless we just need to put blind faith in them. Or is the "stand your ground" law the only perfect law and the rest are flawed? All laws are up for scrutiny it's just a matter of how much more reason you want to give the opponents of the law to fight it.



Even the creator of the "Stand your ground" law agrees that this was meant if retreat is not an option and you have no choice but to defend yourself. We are not at war where we have to charge at enemies. If you choose not to retreat then you are not defending yourself. I am only playing devils advocate because I am supportive of the right to bear arms.



There IS no risk of "stand your ground" law if properly applied. However if we don't know when to stand our ground then it is a lawless law in itself and falls victim to scrutiny.

Do understand that I am not attacking the "stand your ground" law. I am a security major (network engineer) and my job is to poke holes in a supposed security information system. Reasons for which are to find flaws in the system to help improve. I am taking the same approach on the "stand you ground" law.

Here's the issue that stand your ground attempts to solve:

When you kill someone (justified or not), the state charges you with a crime and, at trial, the state has the burden of proof to prove that you:
a) actually took an action that killed the person (involuntary manslaughter & up)
b) did so intending for the person to die (voluntary manslaughter & up)
c) did so with reckless disregard for human life (2nd degree murder & up)
d) did so with premeditation/planning (1st degree murder)

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.

However, many states went beyond that simple change to include various forms of immunity from prosecution for people claiming self-defense. Most people confuse these measures with "stand your ground" because they were implemented in the same bill - but the two legal concepts have nothing to do with each other.

Being immune from prosecution because you invoke self-defense then places an additional burden of proof on the prosecution that they must prove (in addition to all the points above) that the defendant *was not* acting in self-defense. Being that it's very difficult to prove a negative "beyond a reasonable doubt", this skews the balance of a trial too far in favor of the defense, and should be repealed.

There's a third major portion of SYG laws that provides immunity from civil lawsuits upon being acquitted in a criminal court. I think that's probably the right thing to do.

My state is not a stand your ground or castle doctrine state,surprise,it's a Southern state.All I have ever heard is that if someone is breaking into your house,wait to shoot them so they will fall inside the house.No argument there.Or if they have a gas can then you can defend your property,that law is most likely a left over from the Civil war,Yankee in the yard with a torch.A friend's dad was a judge,he told her to be sure the intruder is in the residence before taking action.

My answer is that of course these laws are dangerous. Situations should be defused whenever possible, not escalated or allowed to simmer unti, someone ends up dead, regardless of who is in the right and who is in the wrong. Unless however that you think someone ending up dead is any way a positive outcome, and unfortunately it seems that there are people out there who think exactly that.

People for that reason should need to make a reasonable attempt to retreat. That doesn't mean turning around to get shot in the back, but if you're cornered or can't outrun the other person or can't safely retreat from the situation then that's one thing, otherwise you should try to get some distance between you and the other person. It's just common sense it seems to me.

On the other hand the gun lobby needs these laws. What's the point of owning a gun if you'll probably never get to use it for real? Of course for the self-defense minded they hope they'll never need to use it for real, but there's another group of people out there who want something to do with their toy and they at least think that these sorts of laws empower them to do exactly that. If the victims of such actions happen to fall into a category of person that these sorts of people can in their own good conscious classify as something less than quite human or otherwise undeserving of living, then in their minds there's little if any harm.

Using your scenario:
SYG usually always applies to being someplace you have business being and doing what you have business doing. This was a gated community and even though Martin was going to someone’s house to visit, SYG may or may not have applied. It’s important to remember that SYG has criteria to be met and if it is not met that person could end being charged, tried, and very possibly convicted. It is by no means a get out of jail free card.
That aside, Martin could have been acquitted in a defensive shooting trial even though he was, at best, a guest in a gated community.
Even being a guest in a gated community (this really does matter) you really need to be careful of how you are perceived by others who won’t recognize you. Practicing some discretion in this case could have avoided the whole thing. I do not live in a gated community but we do call the cops on suspicious people snooping around and will continue to.

One thing I’d like to point out is that Zimmerman’s pistol was supposedly holstered and concealed when they first made contact so Martin would not have known about the pistol at that time. I say supposedly because that’s what was revealed in the trial and the most likely scenario. It’s very rare that a person with a carry permit brandishes their firearm since that itself is a crime.

I've never met such a person, perhaps you can arrange an introduction? The people who want "something to do with their toy" take it to a range, or a shoot house, or hunt.

Yes, there are people in this world with a broken moral compass who will seek to take advantage of terms that let them get away with killing someone legally. Give them an inch and they'll take it and run when the chance arises. But they arent crazy enough to risk prison without some legal cover.

In Martin's case even assuming Zimmerman didnt grab or grapple him, pursuing him in the dark and reaching into his pocket (Z says for his phone) might have been enough under SYG. YOu get the right prosecutor or judge and you might never have to see a jury. Zimmerman's body would turn up with a gun, the 911 tape would show Zimmerman's deep frustration at "punks getting away", and Martin can add whatever fun final words he cares to add. Zimmerman's last words become, "I'll kill you you damned n*****". And even if you make it to a jury you've got reasonable doubt to fall back on.

There is a lot to be said for using your words and explaining yourself rather than just killing each other. You control situations with your voice. That's how monkeys do it too.

Last edited by simon_says on 23 Jul 2013, 12:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

b. Met force with like force.

By the story, gun pulled and fired from inches away, where a poke in the ribs would have ended the fight.

The right to defend yourself has to do with where you are. In your home, car, yes, but not standing on the Interstate shooting cars coming toward you.

As The Onion advised Black teens, live naked and fall to your knees and pray, making it hard for anyone to claim you are a threat. It also advised that they did not go out in public, staying home is best.

Now if the Banditos went into a Hells Angels bar, wearing colors, they could claim their lives were in danger, if would be a hard fact to refute. The Angels could make the same claim.

A lot of Black on Black crime is self defense. They never use the defense, they just vanish. That was a, him or me, situation.

The concept of anywhere anytime, and using deadly force against that unarmed girl who slapped you, is pushing reason, even if a martial arts master could kill with a slap.

All you did was tell her she had nice tits and to get in your car and do you a favor. That is not against the law.

The Police who do wander around, mostly wear uniforms, carry guns openly, wear hats, and identify themselves as The Police, for the benefit of blind people. Even in the worst of situations, they yell Police!

Now Zimmerman was not even wearing a hat. Neighborhood Watch is to watch, and call the Police. In Public Places the Police have an exclusive.

Second, I can recall no case where Neighborhood Watch killed an unarmed person for walking down their street. Not even an armed one.

Well, in Texas someone did shoot two burglers who were robbing the house next door. He was not Neighborhood Watch, just Texan. They did not live there and were carrying the TV out. He did call the police, then shot them. They were doing crime.

Zimmerman chased a teen around at night, by car, then on foot, and off the sidewalk, No doubt, this guy is after you, in the dark. That it turned out as it did, if it had been a real burgler, he would have been dead.

Stalking, menencing, are not mentioned in the Neighborhood Watch stuff, except to say, dont do it. When the Police do arrive, they do not park out front, two come from behind, and some guy standing in the backyard with a gun can wind up dead.

Martin had a reason to be there, Zimmerman did not. Martin was returning from the 7/11, and a hundred paces from his door.

I cannot see Martin turning and coming back to the man who has been following him. More likely, Zimmerman charged, closed the distance between them, and a surprised Martin punched him.

The story supports Martin withdrawing from conflict, and Zimmerman advancing.

Pictures from the night show Zimmerman with a gangbanger beard, casual clothes, and looking like someone defending his drug selling turf.

If stand your ground can be transferred out to the public space, and cover situations that you had more than a little to do with causing, it becomes legal murder.

Your home, your car, is your space, chasing a stranger down the side walk you lose the right to space.

I am old, it is hot, I go walking after dark. I take this personally.

My whole relationship with public space just changed, and my response to anyone who stalks me. Where ever I am, I will treat it like being in my home.

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.

I've also been looking for this guy, all the liberal types out there claim to know him, but I've yet to meet him.

So you didn't see the case just what the media said and now you think that things happened exactly the opposite of what was shown during the trial. Where Zimmerman called the cops chased a sneak thief 20 feet then was told to stop and did went back to his truck and was then sucker punched and jumped. Me ive been stalked in public places and its not guys like Zimmerman that are the problem its guys like martin that are a problem to deal with people like Zimmerman you act calm and courteous let them know why you are there what you are doing. If martin had done that he would be alive but he did the exact opposite of that he blindsided a person. Why because that is what criminals like him do they don't think just act on the most greedy an ignorant thoughts they have lucky for us and Zimmerman we still have a system that can sometimes see through biased agendas and give us real justice. Ive learned to deal with people like Zimmerman my whole life they are hot headed and decent people who don't like to leave everything to cops who rarely do anything about crime. So he was watching over his and his neighbors property saw a potential criminal and did what anybody who has a dick and balls would do. If this changes your whole relationship with public space and the people in it then it was a good thing not a bad thing. There is no use in being blind in this world there are lots of guys like Trayvon Martin down in Louisiana so keep that in the back of you head.

But I think thats what you cant compare. You call the cops: Trained people, that have routine in such situations, normally are able to keep calm in sterss situations and that are simply the cops. They dont need to follow you for minutes without an uniform, making you moer and more afraid of a criminal following you. Because of them being cops, they have a right to ask you, what you are doing here, and for your documents.

I dont mind anyone calling cops, if he thinks I am suspicious. They are professionals and trained to deal wth such situations in the best way. Thats what they do 9 hours a day, for years.

From my oppinion, that cant be compared with someone instead thinking to play "Wild West Sheriff" himself, following me as a stranger without any non-criminal cause, making me afraid and in the end, as it happened, causing without purpose an needless incident, that one of the involved costs his life. I dont blame him for being a murder, according to my countries laws. But we also have laws against causing someones death, without purpose, by simply acting really dumb and without thinking. Thats not seen as murder, and its absolutly not sentenced as hard as being a murder, its used for typical: "Idiot forget to use handbrake at the car and leaves car, and car starts to roll for itself and kills someone." So its not purpose but a deadly, needless accident, that could easily have been avoided.

And following someone like a criminal would do, causing the person I follow to be afraid, which in the end leaded to a needless confrontation, is for me such a thing. No planed murder, but a needless life gone, out of an dumb action. If it happened that way, sure it was dumb from the victim to hide and try to attack the "criminal" following him, himself, instead calling the police. But playing "Wild West Sheriff" and following a "suspicious" person instead of simply calling the police, as Raptor tells himself, was the first dumb, needless action, starting the series of dumb, needless actions.

For me as an outsider it is simply not to understand. A man was shot, it is proofen, who had the weapon in its hand and whenever it is about weapon laws its about "Its not the gun that kills people, but the human." So a human killed another one, and it is proofen. And 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.

It makes people afraid of your laws and country. In the end, if I understood that "Stand your ground" right, if I walk without purpose into the wrong house, I can be shot and noone will ever ask. Maybe for you knowing that, it is hardly to imagine to walk into a foreign house, because of that laws you will look four times, before going into one. But as a foreigner, you dont think of such laws existing, so if you think you are right, and if you are not you think people inside will simply laugh, and give you the right direction. To think of that someone simply will shoot out of fun on me, only because of me walking into a wrong house, and not even be sentenced for that, is really weird as an outsider and makes someone afraid.