|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 11, 2012, 08:00 AM | #1 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
How Stand Your Ground Laws Protect the Innocent
A good article from the CATO Institute explaining how "Stand Your Ground" laws help protect the innocent as well as explaining why they aren't at all relevant to the Trayvon Martin shooting (despite claims by some to the contrary).
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/stand...nd-laws-contd/ I know I have had this discussion with a lot of people lately who aren't all that well informed on self-defense law. I thought it likely others were having the same discussion and could appreciate a good article on those points. |
April 11, 2012, 09:00 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
Many thanks for this one, Sir.
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......” President John F. Kennedy |
April 11, 2012, 09:50 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,863
|
A big thank you, Sir. Shared that one on the Fraternity's message boards as well.
__________________
NRA Life Member Read my blog! "The answer to any caliber debate is going to be .38 Super, 10mm, .357 Sig or .41 Magnum!" |
April 12, 2012, 09:32 AM | #4 | ||
Member
Join Date: March 4, 2009
Location: Albion, PA
Posts: 93
|
Many thanks for the article link. But it does raise more questions for me (a non-lawyer). If you'll school me on some of the finer points, please.
But I fail to see Quote:
Quote:
1) ...disregard the police dispatcher's statement...not to follow 2) ...Zimmerman's provocation 3) ...non-deadly force (fisticuffs) Which leads me to my questions: Is criminal activity AND attack both necessary to invoke applicability? When does "following" become "provocation?" Since the "initial" encounter wasn't an attack does that preclude any defense for a later violent attack? Which means to me that once I become close enough and speak to the perp that I cannot "stand my ground" I need to already have recognized my predicament and retreated or at least not engaged/spoken to him? Is "fisticuffs" a reasonable response to someone following you? I do know "fisticuffs" can be deadly. Does it require a trial and jury to define what a reasonable person response to fisticuffs is in every case? Since this is all based on some very bad reporting, conjecture and even misinformation from the media can anyone except a lawyer with the pertinent [as yet unavailable] information be able to even say it's not applicable? Lastly, one purported advantage to stand your ground is freedom from civil liability. Since Zimmerman is now charged can he be sued (civilly) and if he should be aquitted will he be once again protected? or do just having the charges brought remove all civil protection (forever)? Hopefully, I'm not testing your patience with all these questions. |
||
April 12, 2012, 10:56 AM | #5 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
ChuckS, there's a thread in Tactics & Training you can check out that covers some of the logistical issues.
As far as legal issues, the author is correct. Quote:
Quote:
It'll be different from situation to situation. An NFL linebacker probably won't be as threatened by a guy my size swinging his fists, but if the situation were reversed, I'd probably have a valid argument that lethal force was justified. Nonetheless, we'd need a jury to determine that. Homicide, justified or not, always merits scrutiny.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
||
April 12, 2012, 12:41 PM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
Quote:
|
|
April 12, 2012, 02:03 PM | #7 | |||||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
The original rule was that before using force in self defense, one had a duty to retreat if he could do so in complete safety. And this generally did not apply in your home, because your home was your place of refuges; and no one should be able to force you to leave your place of refuges. Of course, the duty to retreat reflected the core societal value that intentionally hurting another human was inherently repugnant, and resort to violence was to be avoided when possible. The real idea behind SYG is to avoid having to deal with a dispute about whether one could have safely retreated. That could often be a tough question. A difficult side question would be whether the actor, in the heat of the moment during a rapidly unfolding and dangerous emergent situation could even have been reasonably expected to have been aware of an available means of escape. BUT, all the SYG law does is relieve one of the obligation to retreat. In order for someone to establish that his resort to violence was justifiable self defense, he must still show that all other legal requirements necessary to justify his intentionally hurting or killing another human have been met. Quote:
Quote:
Second, whether an initial encounter is or is not reasonably perceived by one as an "attack" will depend on exactly how the person initiating the encounter conducts himself. There are ways in which you could approach someone and speak to someone that might reasonably lead him to believe that he is being attacked or about to be attacked. And that might justify his standing his ground and defending himself with appropriate force. The instigator must then essentially use every means to escape and avoid using force before he can defend himself. Here's the applicable Florida law: The laws of other States are pretty similar. Quote:
Quote:
Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground Laws are completely separate from Immunity Laws. It's probably the case that most States which have in recent years enacted Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground Laws also enacted Immunity Laws at the same time. But they are still different matters. It is correct that an Immunity Law can not be considered a "free ride." Every Immunity Law sets out various conditions that must be satisfied in order for immunity to attach. If there is a dispute about whether those conditions have been satisfied, you'll still wind up in court to work that out. Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|||||||
April 12, 2012, 02:39 PM | #8 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 6,126
|
Quote:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publics...-point/1222930 Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
April 12, 2012, 03:30 PM | #9 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
April 12, 2012, 03:32 PM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Blacksburg VA
Posts: 750
|
Quote:
Stand your ground doesn't let you shoot anyone who attacks you, it just says you don't have to retreat before fighting back. If I were to walk up to you and punch you in the nose, but then find out you're a much better fighter than me, and clearly try to stop the fight. Your right to self defense has ended. I am no longer a threat to you. If you continue to attack me, you have become the aggressor, and after retreating as far as I can, I now have the right to use force to defend myself. Even then I can't just shoot you. Your actions have to make me feel I'm about to be killed before I can use deadly force.
__________________
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain. |
|
April 12, 2012, 04:40 PM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
Quote:
|
|
April 12, 2012, 07:32 PM | #12 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Of course immunity is not self-executing. That's why I wrote (post 7): If there's no dispute about whether the conditions giving rise to immunity have been satisfied, no one is going to bother pursuing it. However, the evidentiary hearing appears thus far to be unique to Florida procedure based on a Florida Supreme Court decision, Dennis v. State, 51 So.3d 456 (Fla., 2010): The appellate court decision referred to in Dennis, Peterson v. State, 983 So.2d 27 (Fla. App., 2008) ruled: As far as I know, no other State with an Immunity Law has thus far established that particular procedure. There are other ways the matter could be handled. It could for example be reserved to be dealt with at trial. In Dennis, while the Florida Supreme Court adopted the Peterson approach, it affirmed Dennis' conviction at trial. In its analysis, the Florida Supreme Court noted that Dennis was still able to fully present his self defense claim at trial.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|||||
April 12, 2012, 08:08 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
Sigh! back to you Frank. All I meant was that courts will have to sort out disputes (no specific process suggested) if the legislature doesn't define a process.
|
April 12, 2012, 08:18 PM | #14 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
April 13, 2012, 06:31 AM | #15 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 31, 2009
Posts: 642
|
Quote:
If this happens you better really hope there are plenty of friendly witnesses to the fact you sued for peace prior to using deadly force. The standard was adopted as a response to the action of persons starting fights they knew they could win, escalating things to deadly force, then killing their opponent, then claiming self defense. |
||
April 13, 2012, 07:06 AM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 301
|
In regards to the "following" issue here and to use the Martin Zimmerman case, have they ever determined whether the call was made in the car and he then exited? Or was he calling from outside the car and the incident took place on the way back to the car? This is important because there is a difference between coming out of your house to chase an intruder and going back in after checking out a noise outside.
|
April 13, 2012, 07:33 AM | #17 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
April 13, 2012, 11:36 AM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 11, 2004
Location: Redwood City, Ca.
Posts: 4,114
|
Thank you Mr. Roberts for posting the pieced from the CATO Institute.
The SYG laws are widely misunderstood it seems. The misunderstanding covers both detractors and supporters of the laws. Even the name is misleading as those involved still have an obligation to "retreat", withdraw or avoid the confrontation. If the confrontation develops into a physical one they still have an obligation to seek to end it short of death. The defensive concept of shooting to stop aggression rather than shooting to kill still applies. If your actions provoke an encounter the law may not see self defense no matter who threw the first punch. tipoc |
April 20, 2012, 12:45 PM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,530
|
Stand your ground laws can also ensnare the innocent.
This woman was being choked and threatened by her ex-husband, who had a restraining order against him, so she fired a shot into the ceiling to scare him off. She has been convicted for standing her ground. She is facing 25 years in prison. The irony is that the same prosecutor who is prosecuting George Zimmerman is the same prosecutor who prosecuted and convicted her. The ex recanted his false charge that she tried to kill him and the children yet the prosecution continued and she was convicted. You can learn more on Marissa's case No:2010-CF-8579 Division:CR-G by clicking link below: CBS Jacksonville News 47 SOURCE Quote:
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm. "Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare "Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed" -- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey |
|
April 20, 2012, 01:05 PM | #20 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
[2] I also wonder how this would have turned out differently under the prior law. [3] But in any case, this illustrates that a SYG law is not a "get out of jail free" card.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
April 21, 2012, 12:33 AM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,530
|
Apparently, the ex told the PD that she tried to kill him and his two children. He has since recanted that story. How someone is trying to kill you by firing into the ceiling is beyond me -- unless, of course, you are standing on the roof.
He had a restraining order on him but was still in her home. Her fault? His fault? Who knows? Perhaps if she had planted one CoM the story would be different. For now, she is convicted of 3 counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon with no intent to harm. I have never heard of that type of charge; but why would the penalty for a crime where no harm was intended be so harsh? The part of the story which I found curious was this: Quote:
I am getting the feeling that this prosecutor does not like the SYG law and is going to prosecute anyway. I did find the case HERE but it doesn't tell a lot. It does show that this case has dragged on since the arrest on 8/2/2010. There is a login. Type "public" in both the login and password spaces. There are interesting details such as a year later there was a motion to revoke bond - denied; but another motion was granted and she was remanded to jail. There was also a home monitoring system, ankle bracelet, ordered at one point. The jury must have wanted to go home because they were in and out in thirteen minutes flat. 3/16/2012 JURY IN: 5:12; JURY OUT: 5:25 3/16/2012 1 VERDICT- GUILTY 3/16/2012 2 VERDICT- GUILTY 3/16/2012 3 VERDICT- GUILTY
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm. "Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare "Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed" -- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey Last edited by jimpeel; April 21, 2012 at 12:39 AM. |
|
April 21, 2012, 01:16 AM | #22 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
The bottom line is that we have no decent information about this matter, and it would be speculation and a complete waste of time to try to draw any meaningful conclusions from the limited information we have.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
April 21, 2012, 01:51 AM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,530
|
Is thirteen minutes a record for jury deliberations?
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm. "Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare "Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed" -- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey |
April 21, 2012, 01:57 AM | #24 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
April 21, 2012, 02:01 AM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
The case of Marissa Alexander does provide an example of a Motion for Immunity and to Dismiss based on Florida's SYG law.
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|