Surprising Stand Your Ground Law results

[normiss 635]

Results of recent claims of Stand Your Ground in Florida
Certainly has made me think.....

[JohnRich 4]

Re: "The law has freed killers even though most of their victims were unarmed"

That statement implies that there is something inherently wrong with that set of circumstances, and that is incorrect. It implies that anyone who shoots an unarmed attacker is a murderer, and that is incorrect.

An attacker doesn't have to possess a weapon in order to present a threat in which deadly force is justified in response by the intended victim.

And that's the whole point of concealed carry laws, because it allows citizens to protect themselves from criminals in an effective manner, instead of being defenseless against a younger, stronger, more ruthless opponent.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Florida's "stand your ground" law is being used in ways never imagined — to free gang members involved in shootouts, drug dealers beefing with clients and people who shot their victims in the back

Isn't it grand that gang members and drug dealers are being argued as those who shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves? Are they planning on making exceptions to "stand your ground" if a person is a gang member?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

Florida's "stand your ground" law is being used in ways never imagined — to free gang members involved in shootouts, drug dealers beefing with clients and people who shot their victims in the back

Isn't it grand that gang members and drug dealers are being argued as those who shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves? Are they planning on making exceptions to "stand your ground" if a person is a gang member?

It is a very interesting article which confirms some of my misgivings about the law.

In my opinion a plain reading of the law does not allow the claim of stand-your-ground when the person in engaged in criminal activity, such as the drug cases which are mentioned. I've never been big on the "guilt by association" of "gang members."

In my opinion the law does plainly allow a person to bring a gun or knife, initiate a confrontation and then shoot the person if it starts to go wrong. I think that is wrong and the law needs to be corrected there.

I am not sure somebody who is illegally possessing a gun should be able to claim immunity.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Quote

In my opinion the law does plainly allow a person to bring a gun or knife, initiate a confrontation and then shoot the person if it starts to go wrong. I think that is wrong and the law needs to be corrected there.

This I agree with.

[kelpdiver 2]

this sheet has a lot of judgement calls ... but without having an idea about the persons making the calls (like could the shooter retreat), it's difficult to take at face value.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

In my opinion the law does plainly allow a person to bring a gun or knife, initiate a confrontation and then shoot the person if it starts to go wrong. I think that is wrong and the law needs to be corrected there.

This I agree with.

I can think of many circumstances where this would be perfectly appropriate.

Punks harassing a woman at the bus stop.
People defacing/grafitizing a park.

Telling them to stop it, you're calling the police, and they should leave is a proper action. If their response is to physically attack you, you haven't yielded your right to self defence. Note this is very different from walking up with the gun drawn, though if the harassment had already progressed to assault, are you going to tell me that's wrong too?

Do nothing and let the police show up 2 days later is a big part of society's problem now. No one will even speak up.

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Quote

I can think of many circumstances where this would be perfectly appropriate.

Punks harassing a woman at the bus stop.
People defacing/grafitizing a park.

Telling them to stop it, you're calling the police, and they should leave is a proper action. If their response is to physically attack you, you haven't yielded your right to self defence. Note this is very different from walking up with the gun drawn, though if the harassment had already progressed to assault, are you going to tell me that's wrong too?

Yup, that would be a circumstance in which it would be appropriate. Though we could have a nice semantics argument about whether that is initiating a confrontation or inserting yourself into a confrontation that has already begun.

When I responded to the post, I was speaknig to situations in which no confrontation had yet occured.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

When I responded to the post, I was speaknig to situations in which no confrontation had yet occured.

such as? A neighborhood watch captain checking on a stranger?

Or something else that really happened, with a frequency count? It's easy to debate using a vague strawman, but it serves no purpose.

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Quote

such as? A neighborhood watch captain checking on a stranger?

No, not if a neighbourhood watch captain is just checking.

Quote

Or something else that really happened, with a frequency count? It's easy to debate using a vague strawman, but it serves no purpose.

Why would I need frequency counts, or specific examples?

In principle I do not agree with a law which allows you to start a confrontation (where none existed) and allows you to escalate that to the use of deadly force.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Why would I need frequency counts, or specific examples?

In principle I do not agree with a law which allows you to start a confrontation (where none existed) and allows you to escalate that to the use of deadly force.

Well, that's the problem. You make that statement (along with one other), I give excepting situations which you accept, leaving us with the question then, what are you really saying here. "This is bad, except when it isn't?"

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Quote

I give excepting situations which you accept,

If you had read somewhat clearly, you would have seen those were not the situations I had in mind, since a confrontation was already taking place.

I guess I am hoping that most people you reference in "us" have better reading comprehension.

[wmw999 2,166]

Quote

but without having an idea about the persons making the calls (like could the shooter retreat

Well, the linked article has that listed as one of the variables studied. Out of 192 cases, the analysis indicated (yes, it's hindsight)
120 could have retreated
25 could not have retreated
47 it wasn't clear or it was disputed.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Results of recent claims of Stand Your Ground in Florida
Certainly has made me think.....

In a nutshell, what this article is saying is that although the intent of the law was good, the law itself was poorly written in the extreme.

"....It has also served its intended purpose, exonerating dozens of people who were deemed to be legitimately acting in self-defense. "

"....If you're a defense counsel, you'd be crazy not to use it in any case where it could apply,'' said Zachary Weaver, a West Palm Beach lawyer. "
(emphasis mine)

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

When I responded to the post, I was speaknig to situations in which no confrontation had yet occured.

such as? A neighborhood watch captain checking on a stranger?

Or something else that really happened, with a frequency count? It's easy to debate using a vague strawman, but it serves no purpose.

Well, like this one, from the article:

Compare that case to Deounce Harden's. In 2006, he showed up at Steven Deon Mitchell's Jacksonville carwash business and started arguing over a woman. When the fight escalated, Harden shot and killed Mitchell, who was unarmed.

Prosecutors filed no charges.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

but without having an idea about the persons making the calls (like could the shooter retreat

Well, the linked article has that listed as one of the variables studied. Out of 192 cases, the analysis indicated (yes, it's hindsight)
120 could have retreated
25 could not have retreated
47 it wasn't clear or it was disputed.

Wendy - my question is WHO did this analysis? I bet you'd see very different summaries if it were done by Wayne LaPirerre versus Josh Sugarman.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

I give excepting situations which you accept,

If you had read somewhat clearly, you would have seen those were not the situations I had in mind, since a confrontation was already taking place.

I guess I am hoping that most people you reference in "us" have better reading comprehension.

now you're just weaseling. Initiating a new confrontation doesn't preclude an existing (and just as vaguely defined) confrontation. So in a manner made famous by Kallend, you're arguing an unstated belief where you can answer any discourse with "that's not what I meant" rather than take a real stand. All the while, you're asserting a general belief that if an armed person enters a situation that leads to him using his gun, he is criminally responsible.

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Quote

Initiating a new confrontation doesn't preclude an existing (and just as vaguely defined) confrontation. So in a manner made famous by Kallend, you're arguing an unstated belief where you can answer any discourse with "that's not what I meant" rather than take a real stand. All the while, you're asserting a general belief that if an armed person enters a situation that leads to him using his gun, he is criminally responsible.

Nope.

The last line is even laughable.

I do believe that if I walk up to a person, call him a wifebeating, kid raping asshole, and then I shoot him when he tries to take a swing, I should not be allowed to claim I was standing my ground.

See, starting a confrontation, when none yet existed, then escalating to deadly force. I have stated it three times now.

Will be interesting to see how you will butcher this just so you can disgaree with me

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I do believe that if I walk up to a person, call him a wifebeating, kid raping asshole, and then I shoot him when he tries to take a swing, I should not be allowed to claim I was standing my ground.

Do you believe this is really what the debate of SYG is about?

[SkyDekker 1,150]

Quote

Do you believe this is really what the debate of SYG is about?

I believe similar sitations have happened. I believe it is an uninteded consequence of SYG. I also believe it should not be so.

Do I believe it is the only debate regarding SYG? Not by a long shot. I actually believe that if somebody attacks me, I should have a right to defend myself.

[wmw999 2,166]

Missed that, sorry.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

Initiating a new confrontation doesn't preclude an existing (and just as vaguely defined) confrontation. So in a manner made famous by Kallend, you're arguing an unstated belief where you can answer any discourse with "that's not what I meant" rather than take a real stand. All the while, you're asserting a general belief that if an armed person enters a situation that leads to him using his gun, he is criminally responsible.

Nope.

The last line is even laughable.

I do believe that if I walk up to a person, call him a wifebeating, kid raping asshole, and then I shoot him when he tries to take a swing, I should not be allowed to claim I was standing my ground.

See, starting a confrontation, when none yet existed, then escalating to deadly force. I have stated it three times now.

Will be interesting to see how you will butcher this just so you can disgaree with me

You are being lead around on a never-ending string of inanities.


You've made your stance perfectly clear.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Do you believe this is really what the debate of SYG is about?

For clarity, in your opinion, what IS the SYG argument about?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Do you believe this is really what the debate of SYG is about?

For clarity, in your opinion, what IS the SYG argument about?

the political debate is largely an extension of the gun control debate, as well as the right of people to act on their own, rather than call the police.

[wmw999 2,166]

Quote

the right of people to act on their own, rather than call the police

I'm not particularly for gun control, but I think that in deadly force situations, yeah, I want them extremely tightly circumscribed.

LEO have had training, and are formally investigated, if they shoot someone. It's not a perfect system, but it's understood, and since there's some downtime for a cop who shoots someone, it's not something they look for.

There are plenty of yahoos out there who are perfectly capable of manipulating the situation so that they end up in an SYG situation multiple times.

It'll happen. And it most likely won't be unlucky people.

There's a reason we have traffic laws now; speeds are too great, and traffic too congested. And the need for kill-someone laws goes up with congestion, not down. The ability to find a nut goes up with more people, not down. I'm fine with true self-defense -- blow them away if they come into your house. Sucks to be that girl in Colorado, but he was within his rights.

But if you go get a gun to continue an argument, that's fucking premeditation, not SYG.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)