Much like voter ID laws I think the premise is sound, I very strongly believe that everyone has a right to defend themselves, much like I believe in sound and secure elections. But I also think...
Much like voter ID laws I think the premise is sound, I very strongly believe that everyone has a right to defend themselves, much like I believe in sound and secure elections. But I also think that the enforcement of these laws and in many cases the motive itself behind the laws is bad, wanting to disenfranchise minorities in the case of voter ID laws and wanting to murder them in the case of stand your ground laws. This is in many ways a failing of the justice system, it was obvious that Zimmerman wanted to murder a black kid (the fact that he literally auctioned off the murder weapon should make that perfectly clear to anyone on the fence), but the fact that he "feared for his life" allowed him to get away with it. It's the exact same excuse the cops always pull too.
Ultimately a lot of this stems from American gun culture and an attitude that you're always in grave danger and need to be prepared for it, when in reality the majority of people will go their whole lives without ever being in a situation where drawing a firearm is justified--let alone firing it at someone.
"I very strongly believe that everyone has a right to defend themselves ..." People have this right in non-stand-your-ground states. Stand your ground solves a problem that doesn't exist while...
"I very strongly believe that everyone has a right to defend themselves ..."
People have this right in non-stand-your-ground states. Stand your ground solves a problem that doesn't exist while creating very real problems. It makes it so that almost any physical confrontation can escalate to murder without either party being legally held responsible for each others' lives. We don't even need to bring race into this for it to be a problem (though obviously the subjectivity in the law gives far too much leeway toward prejudicial treatment of victims and perpetrators).
Both examples in OP perfectly illustrate this. The inciting incident in the Trayvon Martin killing is that a kid vaguely fit a criminal profile. That led to him being followed, which led to the physical confrontation, and from there a fight to the death could take place without either party (in theory, before even considering racial prejudice) being culpable regardless of who killed whom. That's flatly ridiculous. In the other case, a dispute over a parking spot was the inciting incident that made neither party responsible for it escalating to the point of death.
The law should hold people accountable for allowing innocuous situations escalate to fatal violence. Just like you get charged for assault if you escalate a verbal confrontation to a physical one, whoever escalates it from fisticuffs to a fatal encounter should be held responsible too. If someone kills someone without being put in mortal danger, then they should be charged with at least manslaughter.
SYG laws don't revoke the burden of self defense, what it does is remove the duty to retreat in the face of life threatening danger. Let's look at it from an absurdist example. Let's say that...
The law should hold people accountable for allowing innocuous situations escalate to fatal violence. Just like you get charged for assault if you escalate a verbal confrontation to a physical one, whoever escalates it from fisticuffs to a fatal encounter should be held responsible too. If someone kills someone without being put in mortal danger, then they should be charged with at least manslaughter.
SYG laws don't revoke the burden of self defense, what it does is remove the duty to retreat in the face of life threatening danger.
Let's look at it from an absurdist example. Let's say that reddit has been hiring big burly men to stab to death people who have abdicated it in favor of tildes. You're trying to get groceries at the super market, and a big muscular guy with a nasty looking knife sees you and shouts: "Reddit sends its regards, prepare to die!" at which point, he charges at you. This is an absurdist scenario in which any reasonable person would find themselves in and feel like they're probably going to get stabbed to death in the immediate future. Now, as any reasonable person living in such a fucked up, anarchistic, absurdist world where people are being butchered in the street by corporate hired psychopaths would would do, you're carrying a gun. So you shoot the guy before he gets a chance to practice his amateur proctology skills on you. In a SYG state, the DA looks at your case and says "Yeah, that dude was totally going to kill you, so we're not going to prosecute." In a non-SYG state, the DA looks at your case and says "Yeah, that dude was totally going to kill you, but you didn't run away, and you didn't have your back to the wall, so I'm going to get you for manslaughter."
It operates just as you mention, responsibility for the confrontation lies with the person who escalated the confrontation to lethal levels. In the McGlockton case, Drejka's defense is that McGlockton shoving him to the pavement from behind constituted McGlockton escalating their confrontation to the life threatening level, and that he was defending himself from further attack. The only reason SYG is applicable here, is that McGlockton didn't immediately follow up his assault. In a non-SYG state, Drejka would need to prove that retreating from McGlockton was impossible, whereas in this case, he merely needs to prove standard self defense, that he was in a situation where any reasonable man would feel like his life was in danger.
In the Martin case, SYG was never invoked in court, because the scenario that the defense established, that Martin escalated the conflict to lethal levels by pinning Zimmerman to the sidewalk and bouncing his head off the concrete, was a scenario where there was nowhere to retreat to. So Zimmerman was acquitted on a standard self defense strategy, not one based on SYG.
You are only obligated to retreat if you think you can do so safely in the case of self-defense laws. In the absurdist example that you give, you would be covered by self-defense laws because it...
You are only obligated to retreat if you think you can do so safely in the case of self-defense laws. In the absurdist example that you give, you would be covered by self-defense laws because it is not clear that you could've safely retreated.
The verdict "When a person has reasonable grounds for believing, and does in fact actually believe, that danger of his being killed, or of receiving great bodily harm, is imminent, he may act on such appearances and defend himself, even to the extent of taking human life when necessary, although it may turn out that the appearances were false, or although he may have been mistaken as to the extent of the real actual danger."
The example you give would be considered a perfect self-defense case. Perfect self-defense is the use of force by one who accurately appraises the necessity and the amount of force to repel an attack. Perfect self-defense requires that when deadly force is used the defendant reasonably believed it to be necessary to kill the decedent, to avert imminent death or great bodily harm, and the defendant was not the initial aggressor nor was responsible for provoking the fatal confrontation. In the example, the danger is appraised correctly and therefore the defendant would not be culpable for manslaughter.
With the existing strength of self-defense laws, SYG seems pretty unconscionable. Debating it in the abstract is neat, but if you look at the practical effects, SYG has no place in civilized society.
In the Drejka case when you call him the aggressor is this because he queries the lady in the parking spot or because the altercation with the push is over when he shoots the guy? As I've said...
In the Drejka case when you call him the aggressor is this because he queries the lady in the parking spot or because the altercation with the push is over when he shoots the guy?
As I've said before this event seems inevitable to me if you take self defence seriously in countries where people can wonder around with hand guns and no training (wtf America).
Humans being humans will start physical altercations. Someone will have sufficient grounds to feel under imminent threat and will shoot their 'assailant'. I certainly think the police should've arrested him and done more investigation than it appears they did. I'm not yet convinced he'd be convicted by a jury even under normal self defence laws. Last time this came up the police in the linked reddit thread felt the duty to retreat ended if you were on the floor.
Do you think the CCTV & information is enough information to call it? IANAL or even an American so happy to admit I have no idea!
So, while other states SYG and self-defense laws are different after further research into Florida's SYG law, as it is written, it's uncertain whether there is a case to be made. Florida's SYG law...
So, while other states SYG and self-defense laws are different after further research into Florida's SYG law, as it is written, it's uncertain whether there is a case to be made. Florida's SYG law is particularly bad because as of 2017, in Florida, the burden is now on the prosecution to prove the defendant didn't believe they were at risk and was not acting in self-defense (wtf, right?). Obviously, this is a ridiculously high bar just to prove manslaughter charges. The sheriff is even quoted as saying:
At the news conference, Gualtieri, who is also a lawyer, said the outcome may have been different before "stand your ground," and maybe even before last year’s revision, pointing out there’s a few-second pause between the time Drejka hits the ground and the time he shoots.
So in Florida, the law is ridiculously favorable to the defendant and makes prosecution of these cases near impossible.The prosecution would basically need to have evidence sufficient for murder charges to prosecute manslaughter.
Outside of Florida though, I believe Drejka would not have a strong self-defense case if he was taken to trial, maybe even under SYG. I called him the aggressor based on his interaction with the woman inside the car. If you watch the CCTV footage, you can tell based on the reactions of passerby (ex @2:30) that this was heated and confrontational. The woman was in a public place with her kids getting harassed, I don't think this is too strong a word according to FL law by a stranger and probably feared for her own safety. Under SYG the pause we see before he shoots McGlockton is the only chance of prosecution really. Without SYG, the pause would reduce a self-defense claim to at best an imperfect defense, since he was clearly wrong about the danger of the situation, which would open him up to manslaughter charges. What I think is ironic about this case is that McGlockton would have a reasonable claim to self-defense if the altercation ended when Drejka was shoved to the ground. From his perspective, he leaves the gas station seeing a man yelling at his partner and her kids, and being confrontational enough to force her to leave the car. I'd probably do the same honestly.
This seems like motivated reasoning to me. You're in a car there's an agitated man outside it (who you do not know is armed). You're fearful he may attack you. Do you lock the car doors and get...
being confrontational enough to force her to leave the car.
This seems like motivated reasoning to me. You're in a car there's an agitated man outside it (who you do not know is armed). You're fearful he may attack you.
Do you lock the car doors and get ready to drive off when your partner returns or do you open the car door and get out to confront him?
Sure. Alternatively, depending on what he said to her, she may have been fearful to remain in the car. Further, if we consider it reasonable behavior for the guy to kill another human being when...
Sure. Alternatively, depending on what he said to her, she may have been fearful to remain in the car. Further, if we consider it reasonable behavior for the guy to kill another human being when confronted, then even if the woman was fearful of him attacking, it was just as reasonable for her (and her partner) to confront the man, even if she felt threatened.
If someone is yelling viciously at your partner, it's perfectly reasonable to confront them, and it would make sense to confront the person together.
What could he possibly say that makes her motivated by fear get out of the car and stand next to it? Sorry by "confront" here you mean blind side attack with possibly lethal force? (Do I really...
What could he possibly say that makes her motivated by fear get out of the car and stand next to it?
If someone is yelling viciously at your partner, it's perfectly reasonable to confront them
Sorry by "confront" here you mean blind side attack with possibly lethal force?
(Do I really have to pull up some deaths from falls onto concrete here?)
Maybe not completely rational, but I have had someone yell at me while I was parked a few steps from the bank. (I wasn't in the handicap or anything, but wasn't in a real parking spot. I wasn't...
Maybe not completely rational, but I have had someone yell at me while I was parked a few steps from the bank. (I wasn't in the handicap or anything, but wasn't in a real parking spot. I wasn't blocking anyone though.) He was way bigger than me and was just going off. His reaction to the situation was absolutely not proportional. It was summer, so I rolled up my window while he was yelling at me, which I think made him more mad.
I honestly debated jumping out my passenger side door and making a dash for the bank.
And I agree that getting totally blindsided by a third party sort of justifed the escalation.
Any threatening variation of "get out of the car" would do. It doesn't matter if the shove was potentially lethal, you can't kill someone for "almost maybe killing you" if you are no longer in...
Any threatening variation of "get out of the car" would do.
It doesn't matter if the shove was potentially lethal, you can't kill someone for "almost maybe killing you" if you are no longer in danger. If you watch the video, the engagement ends after Drejka gets shoved. McGlockton backs away and makes no indication of attacking further. In fact, there is a gap of seconds where McGlockton is backing up before being shot. If this happened in any other state, even others with SYG laws, Drejka would be charged with (and likely convicted of) at least manslaughter.
And yes, if Drejka was being verbally aggressive or threatening (pretty clear by how people react walking by), then McGlockton could reasonably claim self-defense in his actions to defend his partner.
SYG is an extension of a self-defense plea. Self-defense is an affirmative defense in which the burden of proof falls on the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence their defense. In...
In Florida, the prosecution would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt either that the defendant wasn't acting in self defense or that the defendant knew they weren't in danger. Can you even prove beyond reasonable doubt a person's mental state? And if the person wasn't acting in self-defense, we're not talking about manslaughter anymore but murder. This means that it is virtually impossible as it currently stands to prosecute manslaughter or even assault if the defendant claims SYG.
Imagine a scenario. Driving on a road late at night, you accidentally rear-end a car in front of you. You both pull over. The other person does not get out of their car, so you grab your insurance docs, get out of the car, and start walking towards their car. As you approach their window, you are shot and killed. The killer, now the only witness, claims self-defense. He claims he saw you get out of your car, and charge towards his with something in your hand that he mistook for a gun. As you approached his car, he says, he feared for his life, and thus was only acting in self-defense. Now, instead of him having to prove that he was actually afraid for his life, or that he was in any form of danger, your post-humous lawyer would have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that he did not fear for his life and did not think he was in danger. This would of course, be impossible.
This would be the same as, in insanity pleas, if the burden of proof fell on the prosecution to disprove that the defendant is insane. It's near impossible to disprove a negative.
To be fair, proving mens rea is a part of proving the case for many crimes. Notably, it is usually the entire distinction between First and Second Degree murder. I believe the burden for that is...
Can you even prove beyond reasonable doubt a person's mental state?
To be fair, proving mens rea is a part of proving the case for many crimes. Notably, it is usually the entire distinction between First and Second Degree murder.
Now, instead of him having to prove that he was actually afraid for his life, or that he was in any form of danger, your post-humous lawyer would have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that he did not fear for his life and did not think he was in danger.
I believe the burden for that is slightly, but critically, different. As you noted earlier, "When a person has reasonable grounds for believing, and does in fact actually believe, that danger..."
The defense requires not only that this particular person believed a thing, but that a "reasonable person" would also have done so.
I do agree that the fallback to the vague and unhelpful projection onto a "a reasonable person" is a very weak construct, but it's one with considerable precedent in many other parts of law.
Thank you for the correction, the "reasonable grounds"/"reasonable person" distinction is significant. Usually, in self-defense cases, the defendant would have to prove that they had reasonable...
Thank you for the correction, the "reasonable grounds"/"reasonable person" distinction is significant.
Usually, in self-defense cases, the defendant would have to prove that they had reasonable grounds to act as they did, that another reasonable person may have done the same.
To my understanding. in Florida, the prosecution would have to prove that a reasonable person would not have believed they were in danger, or prove that the defendant intended to attack and therefore was the aggressor.
Another point to raise is that Florida, when shifting the burden of proof, also raised the standard required from "preponderance of evidence" to "beyond a reasonable doubt". I was taught to think of preponderance of evidence as proving that, more likely than not, the claim is true. Beyond reasonable doubt would be proving that a claim is true with near certainty. This sets the very high standard of having to prove to near certainty that the defendant didn't have reasonable grounds to act as they did. It concerns me because I do think it creates situations that would be virtually impossible to prosecute, namely any unplanned confrontation between two people without eyewitnesses, especially if one ends up dead.
I don't live in a place with SYG laws, so I can't really say. Also have no real legal qualifications, so take this as you will. A couple years back a judge explained to me that reasonable doubt is...
I don't live in a place with SYG laws, so I can't really say. Also have no real legal qualifications, so take this as you will. A couple years back a judge explained to me that reasonable doubt is not 51% or 100%, though it's closer to absolute than just more certain. (He phrased it much better). Also, it is not any doubt and is not a frivolous doubt. And being the responsible of someone's death does not automatically make you guilty of murder (manslaughter or otherwise).
In the driving case you posed, I would think you'll have to reasonable convince a judge or jury that you were honestly worried for your life. The person coming to you with his insurance in hand, are they the splitting imagine of your murderous ex?
That's definitely the impression I got from the article on his "road rage" incidents. But would this be admissible in court? I don't know. As to Djerka being the aggressor by yelling do you really...
It seems to me like he could almost be putting himself in these situations, just so he can shoot someone.
That's definitely the impression I got from the article on his "road rage" incidents.
But would this be admissible in court? I don't know.
As to Djerka being the aggressor by yelling do you really want to outlaw verbally passing judgement on a strangers anti-social actions? All disagreements must be mediated by the police or else you're an aggressor? A push to the ground can and has killed people who land badly. Is potentially lethal force justified in this situation? Can you really argue she's in imminent threat when Djerka made no move to even open the car door?
Please understand I'm not really trying to argue about the right and wrong in this case. In my view SYG is a scapegoat for situations caused by Americas insane gun laws. At least insist upon training by some certified body. The road rage incidents should certainly have lost him his concealed carry license in my book.
Here's what I'm wondering...let's say I know can identify this Djerka guy by sight and know his history. I find myself in a similar situation where a guy who appears to be Djerka shows up and...
Here's what I'm wondering...let's say I know can identify this Djerka guy by sight and know his history. I find myself in a similar situation where a guy who appears to be Djerka shows up and starts yelling at me. However, I'm armed. Since I now have a reasonable fear that this guy is the dude who goes around instigating these situations, am I allowed to shoot him immediately?
It feels absurd to be stopped for a routine license check or whatever in the US and the officers ask you to put your hands on the steering wheel, to sit still etc. for their own safety because the...
It feels absurd to be stopped for a routine license check or whatever in the US and the officers ask you to put your hands on the steering wheel, to sit still etc. for their own safety because the attitude is, as you say, that you're always in grave danger.
This weaponizes society and spreads fear and distrust. It's a culture that festers.
The whole idea that you get to protect your property in ways that's worth more than human life is something that doesn't sit right with my moral feeling.
I'll give an alternative to how it could be with a different ordering of priorities.
The vikings generally viewed a right to travel across, and stay on land owned by others through Rights of commons rules. You could pick berries, hunt, fish etc. for your own consumption, but not for economic gain. There were exceptions for things like harvesting crops grown by others, or resources commercially/systematically exploited.
In Norway, those laws were codified formally in the new Country law of Norway from 1276 (revolutionarily, it was the second time a country ever had national laws, The kingdom of Castilla were first in 1265).
Those rights are still in effect in Norway today, with reference to law and jurisprudence from the 1200s. For example, rules along the coast mean that you can't essentially privatize beaches. Anyone can still swim/use the beach and walk through as they please.
Conversely, the process of Enclosure took place in Britain from the 15h centuries, and those values were brought to the Americas: you establish an absolute and exclusive property right.
Then the US has gone even further: you get to shoot someone for "trespassing" on your lands.
What a contrast between the two legal systems.
It just seems inconsistent with the other value-judgements in the legal system for Stand your ground laws: you're valuing the sanctity of human life much, much less heavily on the balance of justice when it comes to defending property or perceived harm than in any other situation, including actual murder, manslaughter, etc.
It's really a strong statement of how materialist society is, and how that stems from deeply rooted sentiments enshrined into laws.
The role of prosecutors and when they don't press charges is another massive topic of discussion worth having in the US: why do plea deals dominate so much? Who gains off that or is it just that the system of full-blown jury cases, the legal process is too demanding so it can't keep up with the scale of society without being expensive, if everything goes to trial?
systems of lay judges let you be judged by your peers in a way that seems much more suited to the complexity of both modern law and modern society, while at the same time being more effective, and essentially more fair especially with regard to economic compensation and sentence lengths rather than having eloquent jurors dominate their peers leading to outlier verdicts.
While I generally agree, don't forget pets are considered property.
The whole idea that you get to protect your property in ways that's worth more than human life is something that doesn't sit right with my moral feeling.
While I generally agree, don't forget pets are considered property.
To me the circumstances that allow for the killing of a person to save an animal have to be rather extraordinary. That especially rings true in many stand-your-ground cases, where it'd be much...
To me the circumstances that allow for the killing of a person to save an animal have to be rather extraordinary.
That especially rings true in many stand-your-ground cases, where it'd be much more reasonable to fire to disarm/disable rather than to kill.
For example:
To me the circumstances for killing a poacher have to be extraordinary even if they threaten rare animals that have a much higher value than any pet.
To me acceptable reactions to stop a kidnapping are very different than a petnapping, even if I love my pet.
If a man falls into an enclosure with a dangerous predator, when do you shoot the person, and when do you shoot the predator if someone is in danger? I'd almost always say you shoot the animal not the person, even though the person got themselves in the mess in the first place.
What I'm trying to say, is that in short, to me human life is pretty special, also compared to the lives of other beings.
More specifically with the stand your ground sort of law, I would say harming a pet signals a huge potential for escalation. So for me, it's more about shooting and killing my dog is way more...
More specifically with the stand your ground sort of law, I would say harming a pet signals a huge potential for escalation. So for me, it's more about shooting and killing my dog is way more "proof" that you're willing to shot me, compared to just having pulled a gun. I'm not necessarily saying my dog's life is worth more than a person's. Though I will definitely rather some guy attacking me die than my dog. (In theory, I don't have a dog).
Regarding the poacher's thing, that's way more complicated than some guy verse some rare animal. Poachers have a pretty dangerous reputation for not just killing rare animals, but also the people trying to protect them. I feel it's a bit too off topic to get into here, so I'll leave it at that.
As for someone falling into an enclosure with a dangerous animal, I do support killing the animal, which has generally not been all that grey a case. Again, I believe this is a bit too off topic for this discussion.
My comment was not to say an animal's life is worth more than a person's, but that property is not necessarily replaceable material goods. And anytime a strong emotion is elicited, laws like stand your ground (which is pretty emotional to begin with) become greyer. Just my two-cents on why threatening property can be protected.
In SYG is their a difference between potential for danger and actual danger. Say someone shot your dog in front of you then made no move to try shoot you, are you allowed to kill them?
In SYG is their a difference between potential for danger and actual danger.
Say someone shot your dog in front of you then made no move to try shoot you, are you allowed to kill them?
I would guess it'll be based on how reasonable it is for someone to feel that they are in danger. So if someone shot a dog while they were running away would probably be different from someone...
I would guess it'll be based on how reasonable it is for someone to feel that they are in danger. So if someone shot a dog while they were running away would probably be different from someone shooting a dog defending their owner.
This stands out to me. A lot of Americans almost seem to fetishise the idea of defending themselves in a home invasion. I've talked to a few who sound almost giddy at the prospect of having a...
Ultimately a lot of this stems from American gun culture and an attitude that you're always in grave danger and need to be prepared for it
This stands out to me. A lot of Americans almost seem to fetishise the idea of defending themselves in a home invasion. I've talked to a few who sound almost giddy at the prospect of having a legal excuse to murder someone. I think "stand your ground" laws, like most laws that seem absurd to the international community, are heavily rooted in America's violence culture.
There are a lot of people in the united states. Some of them are stupid. Some are impulsive. Some do not care about the lives of others. It's simply a numbers game - some of the people who are...
There are a lot of people in the united states. Some of them are stupid. Some are impulsive. Some do not care about the lives of others. It's simply a numbers game - some of the people who are stupid, impulsive, or uncaring will want and get access to guns.
I do not support the idea of giving any of these people the right to choose whether someone else lives or dies.
You wouldn't support letting one of these people in an operating room, would you? Operating an airplane? Driving heavy machinery? Even with a license and good intent, high stakes accidents happen. The difference here is that these examples are all jobs. The only people who's job involves discharging a firearm to protect others is the military and police - and they get it wrong all the time. Why lower the stakes?
I would say that it's a bit more dismal even than a sheer random numbers game. There is significant selection bias: anyone wishes to acquire a gun has already given evidence that they are...
I would say that it's a bit more dismal even than a sheer random numbers game. There is significant selection bias: anyone wishes to acquire a gun has already given evidence that they are disproportionately likely to be one of those individuals who exhibit impulsiveness, poor judgment, and a disregard for life.
The idea behind self defense statutes, of which SYG is a subset, is not merely that they thought their life was in danger, it's that "A reasonable man would feel that their life was threatened in...
The idea behind self defense statutes, of which SYG is a subset, is not merely that they thought their life was in danger, it's that "A reasonable man would feel that their life was threatened in that situation." Which is still subjective, but less solipsistic.
The real problem in self defense cases, is that juries are instructed to only consider the moment of action, which means only the seconds immediately preceding the shooting. For example, in the Daniel Shaver shooting, the jury didn't see the complete body cam video. They were only allowed to consider the moment where Shaver, whom police had been told had a firearm, had been instructed to keep his hands in view, suddenly grabbed at his waistband. Now, a reasonable person who finds themselves, with only that context, in the shoes of a police officer in that moment, might be afraid that Shavers was going to pull a concealed weapon and shoot you. However, a reasonable person who found themselves in the totality of the situation, where Shavers was clearly drunk, disoriented, blubbering, and trying to follow a dozen conflicting commands could surmise that he was trying to pull his pants up.
The problem isn't with SYG, or fearing for your life, the problem is that the juries are only being shown a fraction of the context.
I like the idea of "Stand Your Ground" and "Castle Doctrine" laws that enshrine in law the right of individuals to use violence in self-defense, but I have issues with both their implementation...
Do you think these Stand Your Ground laws are appropriate or ethical?
I like the idea of "Stand Your Ground" and "Castle Doctrine" laws that enshrine in law the right of individuals to use violence in self-defense, but I have issues with both their implementation and application.
So far, we've seen them invoked mainly by white men, and used by police to justify not pressing charges against white men when they draw their guns and kill unarmed black men who had responded with non-lethal force to aggression or intimidation by the white men who ended up killing them.
This is unacceptable for multiple reasons:
A right to use violence in self-defense should not be exclusive to white men.
A right to use violence in self-defense should be balanced by a responsibility to refrain from using excessive force, especially
Whether you were justified in using deadly force is something that should be determined in court, not decided by police or the local/state/federal prosecutor.
Existing "Stand Your Ground" and "Castle Doctrine" laws should be scrapped and replaced with laws that allow defendants to plead "not guilty by reason of self-defense" at trial and allow acquittal on self-defense grounds if the prosecution cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did not initiate or provoke the situation by insulting, intimidating, or attacking another person.
I should still go down for murder if I was hassling you, you shoved me away, and I responded by shooting you.
Do you think that these laws target minorities?
No. That would require malice on the part of the legislators who write these laws and vote for them. I think the truth is far more insidious. I think the people who enact these laws may genuinely believe they're protecting individual rights by enshrining the right to self-defense in law, but they're indifferent to the unintended consequences of the applications of these laws. They know that racist cops and prosecutors will be selective in how they go about doing their jobs, and will go easier on white people than they would on anybody else. They just don't care.
Do you have a citation for this because wikipedia casts some doubt. Although I don't know what the deciding factors for the jury were, I didn't follow that case.
Florida's Stand Your Ground law was also the deciding factor in the shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman
Do you have a citation for this because wikipedia casts some doubt. Although I don't know what the deciding factors for the jury were, I didn't follow that case.
That's from your own Washington Post link above. So "may have contributed to the verdict" compared with "deciding factor" is quite a leap. edit> Realized you're claiming it was the deciding factor...
The “Stand Your Ground” law was certainly an important issue in the debate over the shooting, and may have contributed to the not-guilty verdict. But describing the law as the “cause” of the shooting is incredibly reductionist
That's from your own Washington Post link above. So "may have contributed to the verdict" compared with "deciding factor" is quite a leap.
edit> Realized you're claiming it was the deciding factor in the aquittal whilst the WP is discussing an advert claiming it was the cause of the shooting it still doesn't really support your claim though.
It absolutely was not. That case argued by the defense on simple self defense, which is NOT stand your ground. It would help legitimate your discussion if you were correct on basic facts about...
Florida's Stand Your Ground law was also the deciding factor in the shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman.
It absolutely was not. That case argued by the defense on simple self defense, which is NOT stand your ground. It would help legitimate your discussion if you were correct on basic facts about what stand your ground even is.
At this point you're in another reality. The defense never used stand your ground in the trial (the defense specifically didn't use it because law did not apply to Zimmerman's case) -- if we're...
At this point you're in another reality. The defense never used stand your ground in the trial (the defense specifically didn't use it because law did not apply to Zimmerman's case) -- if we're talking about the law then talk about cases where the law applied.
Since you can't abide by the facts, I won't abide this conversation.
First off, you have this part wrong "you can use deadly force against the assailant,". Stand You Ground and Castle Doctrine laws reinforce that a defender can use sufficient for to protect...
First off, you have this part wrong "you can use deadly force against the assailant,".
Stand You Ground and Castle Doctrine laws reinforce that a defender can use sufficient for to protect themselves relative to the threat they are receiving.
The point is, if you haven't attacked someone, you have no reason to worry. But if you do attack someone, expect them to fight back just as much or more so that you are willing.
I think of it this way, if you attack me once in my home, you've just proven that you don't care about me or yourself. I don't want that to happen. So I'm going to beat you into the ground till the threat is ended.
If you attack me away from my home, I'm going to exert any amount of force required that I KNOW you will not do more.
Now, that means if you push me, you're at least going to get shoved back. If you shove me, I'm going to hit you. If you punch me, I'm going to pound/kick into you. If you pull a weapon, I'm going to pound you into the ground so you know not to do so again.
If you pull a firearm, I'm going to do everything I can to permanently stop you. Why? Rule #2 of firearms: Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.. So, by pointing a firearm at me, you've proven you're willing to destroy me and do not care about my life. Why should I care about yours?
"Stand Your Ground" laws introduce only the specific change to deem force justifiable even in cases where departure was a viable option. So I think this would need to be factored into your...
"Stand Your Ground" laws introduce only the specific change to deem force justifiable even in cases where departure was a viable option. So I think this would need to be factored into your examples, right?
If you attack me away from my home, I'm going to exert any amount of force required that I KNOW you will not do more.
If someone attacks you, and simply walking away would remove you from danger, do you believe that you should have a legal right to respond with violence--potentially even lethal violence--simply as a salve to your pride?
No one is suggesting that if you are attacked you should be required to just let that continue without any right to respond forcefully if that is necessary. But the one and only thing that SYG laws do is endorse a violent response in cases where it is specifically not necessary.
Pride has nothing to do with it. If I back away, what's to stop the person who has already proven they are attempting me harm, from following? When I back away, I am losing effective range for my...
simply as a salve to your pride?
And here is someone attempting to either insult or inflame the issue.
Pride has nothing to do with it.
If I back away, what's to stop the person who has already proven they are attempting me harm, from following?
When I back away, I am losing effective range for my self-defense.
When I back away, I am asserting to the attacker that I am prey.
When I back away, I am mentally distracting myself from self-defense in favor of focusing on a path of flight. My mental faculties are now processing mostly everything BUT what the attacker is doing. That is giving the attacker an advantage they did not have before. That is enhancing my danger.
Something I was taught as a kid, if you attack someone expecting them to be a victim, expect to be attacked back.
And here's another person who likes to inflame things by throwing out implications and going off on tangents. But I'll play your game. I don't start arguments. I don't cause arguments either. If...
And here's another person who likes to inflame things by throwing out implications and going off on tangents.
But I'll play your game.
I don't start arguments. I don't cause arguments either.
If someone starts an argument with me... sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me. That's something that I have stayed true to, and actually is true for me, since I was taught it at six.
If someone is trying to argue with me, it's not an attack. I will try to disengage. No big deal.
If they chose on their own to escalate the situation to a physical one, then I will defend myself to the best of my ability to make sure that I am no longer in danger. That IS NOT to say as you imply, that if someone shoves me I would shoot them. That's just ignorant bullshit and if you think that, I'm saddened you are so easily led by people politically and financially motivated to spread such bullshit.
If I am armed and someone if overtly attempting to overpower me or obviously cause me critical harm, then yes I will defend in kind and some. My goal will be to stop the threat. Nothing beyond that. If the attacker is incapacitated, then that is enough. If they are not and are still attempting to harm me and I can safely disengage, then of course I would do so. But making sure I am not going to be in danger is priority.
Much like voter ID laws I think the premise is sound, I very strongly believe that everyone has a right to defend themselves, much like I believe in sound and secure elections. But I also think that the enforcement of these laws and in many cases the motive itself behind the laws is bad, wanting to disenfranchise minorities in the case of voter ID laws and wanting to murder them in the case of stand your ground laws. This is in many ways a failing of the justice system, it was obvious that Zimmerman wanted to murder a black kid (the fact that he literally auctioned off the murder weapon should make that perfectly clear to anyone on the fence), but the fact that he "feared for his life" allowed him to get away with it. It's the exact same excuse the cops always pull too.
Ultimately a lot of this stems from American gun culture and an attitude that you're always in grave danger and need to be prepared for it, when in reality the majority of people will go their whole lives without ever being in a situation where drawing a firearm is justified--let alone firing it at someone.
"I very strongly believe that everyone has a right to defend themselves ..."
People have this right in non-stand-your-ground states. Stand your ground solves a problem that doesn't exist while creating very real problems. It makes it so that almost any physical confrontation can escalate to murder without either party being legally held responsible for each others' lives. We don't even need to bring race into this for it to be a problem (though obviously the subjectivity in the law gives far too much leeway toward prejudicial treatment of victims and perpetrators).
Both examples in OP perfectly illustrate this. The inciting incident in the Trayvon Martin killing is that a kid vaguely fit a criminal profile. That led to him being followed, which led to the physical confrontation, and from there a fight to the death could take place without either party (in theory, before even considering racial prejudice) being culpable regardless of who killed whom. That's flatly ridiculous. In the other case, a dispute over a parking spot was the inciting incident that made neither party responsible for it escalating to the point of death.
The law should hold people accountable for allowing innocuous situations escalate to fatal violence. Just like you get charged for assault if you escalate a verbal confrontation to a physical one, whoever escalates it from fisticuffs to a fatal encounter should be held responsible too. If someone kills someone without being put in mortal danger, then they should be charged with at least manslaughter.
SYG laws don't revoke the burden of self defense, what it does is remove the duty to retreat in the face of life threatening danger.
Let's look at it from an absurdist example. Let's say that reddit has been hiring big burly men to stab to death people who have abdicated it in favor of tildes. You're trying to get groceries at the super market, and a big muscular guy with a nasty looking knife sees you and shouts: "Reddit sends its regards, prepare to die!" at which point, he charges at you. This is an absurdist scenario in which any reasonable person would find themselves in and feel like they're probably going to get stabbed to death in the immediate future. Now, as any reasonable person living in such a fucked up, anarchistic, absurdist world where people are being butchered in the street by corporate hired psychopaths would would do, you're carrying a gun. So you shoot the guy before he gets a chance to practice his amateur proctology skills on you. In a SYG state, the DA looks at your case and says "Yeah, that dude was totally going to kill you, so we're not going to prosecute." In a non-SYG state, the DA looks at your case and says "Yeah, that dude was totally going to kill you, but you didn't run away, and you didn't have your back to the wall, so I'm going to get you for manslaughter."
It operates just as you mention, responsibility for the confrontation lies with the person who escalated the confrontation to lethal levels. In the McGlockton case, Drejka's defense is that McGlockton shoving him to the pavement from behind constituted McGlockton escalating their confrontation to the life threatening level, and that he was defending himself from further attack. The only reason SYG is applicable here, is that McGlockton didn't immediately follow up his assault. In a non-SYG state, Drejka would need to prove that retreating from McGlockton was impossible, whereas in this case, he merely needs to prove standard self defense, that he was in a situation where any reasonable man would feel like his life was in danger.
In the Martin case, SYG was never invoked in court, because the scenario that the defense established, that Martin escalated the conflict to lethal levels by pinning Zimmerman to the sidewalk and bouncing his head off the concrete, was a scenario where there was nowhere to retreat to. So Zimmerman was acquitted on a standard self defense strategy, not one based on SYG.
You are only obligated to retreat if you think you can do so safely in the case of self-defense laws. In the absurdist example that you give, you would be covered by self-defense laws because it is not clear that you could've safely retreated.
Here's a legal example where the defendant was protected under self-defense laws.
The verdict "When a person has reasonable grounds for believing, and does in fact actually believe, that danger of his being killed, or of receiving great bodily harm, is imminent, he may act on such appearances and defend himself, even to the extent of taking human life when necessary, although it may turn out that the appearances were false, or although he may have been mistaken as to the extent of the real actual danger."
The example you give would be considered a perfect self-defense case. Perfect self-defense is the use of force by one who accurately appraises the necessity and the amount of force to repel an attack. Perfect self-defense requires that when deadly force is used the defendant reasonably believed it to be necessary to kill the decedent, to avert imminent death or great bodily harm, and the defendant was not the initial aggressor nor was responsible for provoking the fatal confrontation. In the example, the danger is appraised correctly and therefore the defendant would not be culpable for manslaughter.
Also, in the Martin case, SYG was not invoked by the defense, but it was discussed by the jury and influenced their verdict.
In the Drejka case, he was both the aggressor, he incorrectly assesses the situation, and he doesn't try really anything besides immediately shooting someone, which rules out any self-defense.If you watch the video McGlockton has clearly disengaged from Drejka, who shoots him seconds after he backed off..
With the existing strength of self-defense laws, SYG seems pretty unconscionable. Debating it in the abstract is neat, but if you look at the practical effects, SYG has no place in civilized society.
In the Drejka case when you call him the aggressor is this because he queries the lady in the parking spot or because the altercation with the push is over when he shoots the guy?
As I've said before this event seems inevitable to me if you take self defence seriously in countries where people can wonder around with hand guns and no training (wtf America).
Humans being humans will start physical altercations. Someone will have sufficient grounds to feel under imminent threat and will shoot their 'assailant'. I certainly think the police should've arrested him and done more investigation than it appears they did. I'm not yet convinced he'd be convicted by a jury even under normal self defence laws. Last time this came up the police in the linked reddit thread felt the duty to retreat ended if you were on the floor.
Do you think the CCTV & information is enough information to call it? IANAL or even an American so happy to admit I have no idea!
So, while other states SYG and self-defense laws are different after further research into Florida's SYG law, as it is written, it's uncertain whether there is a case to be made. Florida's SYG law is particularly bad because as of 2017, in Florida, the burden is now on the prosecution to prove the defendant didn't believe they were at risk and was not acting in self-defense (wtf, right?). Obviously, this is a ridiculously high bar just to prove manslaughter charges. The sheriff is even quoted as saying:
So in Florida, the law is ridiculously favorable to the defendant and makes prosecution of these cases near impossible.The prosecution would basically need to have evidence sufficient for murder charges to prosecute manslaughter.
Outside of Florida though, I believe Drejka would not have a strong self-defense case if he was taken to trial, maybe even under SYG. I called him the aggressor based on his interaction with the woman inside the car. If you watch the CCTV footage, you can tell based on the reactions of passerby (ex @2:30) that this was heated and confrontational. The woman was in a public place with her kids getting harassed, I don't think this is too strong a word according to FL law by a stranger and probably feared for her own safety. Under SYG the pause we see before he shoots McGlockton is the only chance of prosecution really. Without SYG, the pause would reduce a self-defense claim to at best an imperfect defense, since he was clearly wrong about the danger of the situation, which would open him up to manslaughter charges. What I think is ironic about this case is that McGlockton would have a reasonable claim to self-defense if the altercation ended when Drejka was shoved to the ground. From his perspective, he leaves the gas station seeing a man yelling at his partner and her kids, and being confrontational enough to force her to leave the car. I'd probably do the same honestly.
This seems like motivated reasoning to me. You're in a car there's an agitated man outside it (who you do not know is armed). You're fearful he may attack you.
Do you lock the car doors and get ready to drive off when your partner returns or do you open the car door and get out to confront him?
Sure. Alternatively, depending on what he said to her, she may have been fearful to remain in the car. Further, if we consider it reasonable behavior for the guy to kill another human being when confronted, then even if the woman was fearful of him attacking, it was just as reasonable for her (and her partner) to confront the man, even if she felt threatened.
If someone is yelling viciously at your partner, it's perfectly reasonable to confront them, and it would make sense to confront the person together.
What could he possibly say that makes her motivated by fear get out of the car and stand next to it?
Sorry by "confront" here you mean blind side attack with possibly lethal force?
(Do I really have to pull up some deaths from falls onto concrete here?)
Maybe not completely rational, but I have had someone yell at me while I was parked a few steps from the bank. (I wasn't in the handicap or anything, but wasn't in a real parking spot. I wasn't blocking anyone though.) He was way bigger than me and was just going off. His reaction to the situation was absolutely not proportional. It was summer, so I rolled up my window while he was yelling at me, which I think made him more mad.
I honestly debated jumping out my passenger side door and making a dash for the bank.
And I agree that getting totally blindsided by a third party sort of justifed the escalation.
Any threatening variation of "get out of the car" would do.
It doesn't matter if the shove was potentially lethal, you can't kill someone for "almost maybe killing you" if you are no longer in danger. If you watch the video, the engagement ends after Drejka gets shoved. McGlockton backs away and makes no indication of attacking further. In fact, there is a gap of seconds where McGlockton is backing up before being shot. If this happened in any other state, even others with SYG laws, Drejka would be charged with (and likely convicted of) at least manslaughter.
And yes, if Drejka was being verbally aggressive or threatening (pretty clear by how people react walking by), then McGlockton could reasonably claim self-defense in his actions to defend his partner.
In a system that's innocent until proven guilty, this makes sense. The benefit of a doubt is always given to the defendent.
SYG is an extension of a self-defense plea. Self-defense is an affirmative defense in which the burden of proof falls on the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence their defense.
In Florida, the prosecution would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt either that the defendant wasn't acting in self defense or that the defendant knew they weren't in danger. Can you even prove beyond reasonable doubt a person's mental state? And if the person wasn't acting in self-defense, we're not talking about manslaughter anymore but murder. This means that it is virtually impossible as it currently stands to prosecute manslaughter or even assault if the defendant claims SYG.
Imagine a scenario. Driving on a road late at night, you accidentally rear-end a car in front of you. You both pull over. The other person does not get out of their car, so you grab your insurance docs, get out of the car, and start walking towards their car. As you approach their window, you are shot and killed. The killer, now the only witness, claims self-defense. He claims he saw you get out of your car, and charge towards his with something in your hand that he mistook for a gun. As you approached his car, he says, he feared for his life, and thus was only acting in self-defense. Now, instead of him having to prove that he was actually afraid for his life, or that he was in any form of danger, your post-humous lawyer would have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that he did not fear for his life and did not think he was in danger. This would of course, be impossible.
This would be the same as, in insanity pleas, if the burden of proof fell on the prosecution to disprove that the defendant is insane. It's near impossible to disprove a negative.
To be fair, proving mens rea is a part of proving the case for many crimes. Notably, it is usually the entire distinction between First and Second Degree murder.
I believe the burden for that is slightly, but critically, different. As you noted earlier, "When a person has reasonable grounds for believing, and does in fact actually believe, that danger..."
The defense requires not only that this particular person believed a thing, but that a "reasonable person" would also have done so.
I do agree that the fallback to the vague and unhelpful projection onto a "a reasonable person" is a very weak construct, but it's one with considerable precedent in many other parts of law.
Thank you for the correction, the "reasonable grounds"/"reasonable person" distinction is significant.
Usually, in self-defense cases, the defendant would have to prove that they had reasonable grounds to act as they did, that another reasonable person may have done the same.
To my understanding. in Florida, the prosecution would have to prove that a reasonable person would not have believed they were in danger, or prove that the defendant intended to attack and therefore was the aggressor.
Another point to raise is that Florida, when shifting the burden of proof, also raised the standard required from "preponderance of evidence" to "beyond a reasonable doubt". I was taught to think of preponderance of evidence as proving that, more likely than not, the claim is true. Beyond reasonable doubt would be proving that a claim is true with near certainty. This sets the very high standard of having to prove to near certainty that the defendant didn't have reasonable grounds to act as they did. It concerns me because I do think it creates situations that would be virtually impossible to prosecute, namely any unplanned confrontation between two people without eyewitnesses, especially if one ends up dead.
I don't live in a place with SYG laws, so I can't really say. Also have no real legal qualifications, so take this as you will. A couple years back a judge explained to me that reasonable doubt is not 51% or 100%, though it's closer to absolute than just more certain. (He phrased it much better). Also, it is not any doubt and is not a frivolous doubt. And being the responsible of someone's death does not automatically make you guilty of murder (manslaughter or otherwise).
In the driving case you posed, I would think you'll have to reasonable convince a judge or jury that you were honestly worried for your life. The person coming to you with his insurance in hand, are they the splitting imagine of your murderous ex?
That's definitely the impression I got from the article on his "road rage" incidents.
But would this be admissible in court? I don't know.
As to Djerka being the aggressor by yelling do you really want to outlaw verbally passing judgement on a strangers anti-social actions? All disagreements must be mediated by the police or else you're an aggressor? A push to the ground can and has killed people who land badly. Is potentially lethal force justified in this situation? Can you really argue she's in imminent threat when Djerka made no move to even open the car door?
Please understand I'm not really trying to argue about the right and wrong in this case. In my view SYG is a scapegoat for situations caused by Americas insane gun laws. At least insist upon training by some certified body. The road rage incidents should certainly have lost him his concealed carry license in my book.
Here's what I'm wondering...let's say I know can identify this Djerka guy by sight and know his history. I find myself in a similar situation where a guy who appears to be Djerka shows up and starts yelling at me. However, I'm armed. Since I now have a reasonable fear that this guy is the dude who goes around instigating these situations, am I allowed to shoot him immediately?
It feels absurd to be stopped for a routine license check or whatever in the US and the officers ask you to put your hands on the steering wheel, to sit still etc. for their own safety because the attitude is, as you say, that you're always in grave danger.
This weaponizes society and spreads fear and distrust. It's a culture that festers.
The whole idea that you get to protect your property in ways that's worth more than human life is something that doesn't sit right with my moral feeling.
I'll give an alternative to how it could be with a different ordering of priorities.
The vikings generally viewed a right to travel across, and stay on land owned by others through Rights of commons rules. You could pick berries, hunt, fish etc. for your own consumption, but not for economic gain. There were exceptions for things like harvesting crops grown by others, or resources commercially/systematically exploited.
In Norway, those laws were codified formally in the new Country law of Norway from 1276 (revolutionarily, it was the second time a country ever had national laws, The kingdom of Castilla were first in 1265).
Those rights are still in effect in Norway today, with reference to law and jurisprudence from the 1200s. For example, rules along the coast mean that you can't essentially privatize beaches. Anyone can still swim/use the beach and walk through as they please.
Conversely, the process of Enclosure took place in Britain from the 15h centuries, and those values were brought to the Americas: you establish an absolute and exclusive property right.
Then the US has gone even further: you get to shoot someone for "trespassing" on your lands.
What a contrast between the two legal systems.
It just seems inconsistent with the other value-judgements in the legal system for Stand your ground laws: you're valuing the sanctity of human life much, much less heavily on the balance of justice when it comes to defending property or perceived harm than in any other situation, including actual murder, manslaughter, etc.
It's really a strong statement of how materialist society is, and how that stems from deeply rooted sentiments enshrined into laws.
The role of prosecutors and when they don't press charges is another massive topic of discussion worth having in the US: why do plea deals dominate so much? Who gains off that or is it just that the system of full-blown jury cases, the legal process is too demanding so it can't keep up with the scale of society without being expensive, if everything goes to trial?
systems of lay judges let you be judged by your peers in a way that seems much more suited to the complexity of both modern law and modern society, while at the same time being more effective, and essentially more fair especially with regard to economic compensation and sentence lengths rather than having eloquent jurors dominate their peers leading to outlier verdicts.
But that's a whole different can of worms.
While I generally agree, don't forget pets are considered property.
To me the circumstances that allow for the killing of a person to save an animal have to be rather extraordinary.
That especially rings true in many stand-your-ground cases, where it'd be much more reasonable to fire to disarm/disable rather than to kill.
For example:
To me the circumstances for killing a poacher have to be extraordinary even if they threaten rare animals that have a much higher value than any pet.
To me acceptable reactions to stop a kidnapping are very different than a petnapping, even if I love my pet.
If a man falls into an enclosure with a dangerous predator, when do you shoot the person, and when do you shoot the predator if someone is in danger? I'd almost always say you shoot the animal not the person, even though the person got themselves in the mess in the first place.
What I'm trying to say, is that in short, to me human life is pretty special, also compared to the lives of other beings.
What do you think?
More specifically with the stand your ground sort of law, I would say harming a pet signals a huge potential for escalation. So for me, it's more about shooting and killing my dog is way more "proof" that you're willing to shot me, compared to just having pulled a gun. I'm not necessarily saying my dog's life is worth more than a person's. Though I will definitely rather some guy attacking me die than my dog. (In theory, I don't have a dog).
Regarding the poacher's thing, that's way more complicated than some guy verse some rare animal. Poachers have a pretty dangerous reputation for not just killing rare animals, but also the people trying to protect them. I feel it's a bit too off topic to get into here, so I'll leave it at that.
As for someone falling into an enclosure with a dangerous animal, I do support killing the animal, which has generally not been all that grey a case. Again, I believe this is a bit too off topic for this discussion.
My comment was not to say an animal's life is worth more than a person's, but that property is not necessarily replaceable material goods. And anytime a strong emotion is elicited, laws like stand your ground (which is pretty emotional to begin with) become greyer. Just my two-cents on why threatening property can be protected.
In SYG is their a difference between potential for danger and actual danger.
Say someone shot your dog in front of you then made no move to try shoot you, are you allowed to kill them?
I would guess it'll be based on how reasonable it is for someone to feel that they are in danger. So if someone shot a dog while they were running away would probably be different from someone shooting a dog defending their owner.
This stands out to me. A lot of Americans almost seem to fetishise the idea of defending themselves in a home invasion. I've talked to a few who sound almost giddy at the prospect of having a legal excuse to murder someone. I think "stand your ground" laws, like most laws that seem absurd to the international community, are heavily rooted in America's violence culture.
There are a lot of people in the united states. Some of them are stupid. Some are impulsive. Some do not care about the lives of others. It's simply a numbers game - some of the people who are stupid, impulsive, or uncaring will want and get access to guns.
I do not support the idea of giving any of these people the right to choose whether someone else lives or dies.
You wouldn't support letting one of these people in an operating room, would you? Operating an airplane? Driving heavy machinery? Even with a license and good intent, high stakes accidents happen. The difference here is that these examples are all jobs. The only people who's job involves discharging a firearm to protect others is the military and police - and they get it wrong all the time. Why lower the stakes?
No, I do not support stand your ground laws.
I would say that it's a bit more dismal even than a sheer random numbers game. There is significant selection bias: anyone wishes to acquire a gun has already given evidence that they are disproportionately likely to be one of those individuals who exhibit impulsiveness, poor judgment, and a disregard for life.
The idea behind self defense statutes, of which SYG is a subset, is not merely that they thought their life was in danger, it's that "A reasonable man would feel that their life was threatened in that situation." Which is still subjective, but less solipsistic.
The real problem in self defense cases, is that juries are instructed to only consider the moment of action, which means only the seconds immediately preceding the shooting. For example, in the Daniel Shaver shooting, the jury didn't see the complete body cam video. They were only allowed to consider the moment where Shaver, whom police had been told had a firearm, had been instructed to keep his hands in view, suddenly grabbed at his waistband. Now, a reasonable person who finds themselves, with only that context, in the shoes of a police officer in that moment, might be afraid that Shavers was going to pull a concealed weapon and shoot you. However, a reasonable person who found themselves in the totality of the situation, where Shavers was clearly drunk, disoriented, blubbering, and trying to follow a dozen conflicting commands could surmise that he was trying to pull his pants up.
The problem isn't with SYG, or fearing for your life, the problem is that the juries are only being shown a fraction of the context.
I like the idea of "Stand Your Ground" and "Castle Doctrine" laws that enshrine in law the right of individuals to use violence in self-defense, but I have issues with both their implementation and application.
So far, we've seen them invoked mainly by white men, and used by police to justify not pressing charges against white men when they draw their guns and kill unarmed black men who had responded with non-lethal force to aggression or intimidation by the white men who ended up killing them.
This is unacceptable for multiple reasons:
Existing "Stand Your Ground" and "Castle Doctrine" laws should be scrapped and replaced with laws that allow defendants to plead "not guilty by reason of self-defense" at trial and allow acquittal on self-defense grounds if the prosecution cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did not initiate or provoke the situation by insulting, intimidating, or attacking another person.
I should still go down for murder if I was hassling you, you shoved me away, and I responded by shooting you.
No. That would require malice on the part of the legislators who write these laws and vote for them. I think the truth is far more insidious. I think the people who enact these laws may genuinely believe they're protecting individual rights by enshrining the right to self-defense in law, but they're indifferent to the unintended consequences of the applications of these laws. They know that racist cops and prosecutors will be selective in how they go about doing their jobs, and will go easier on white people than they would on anybody else. They just don't care.
Do you have a citation for this because wikipedia casts some doubt. Although I don't know what the deciding factors for the jury were, I didn't follow that case.
That's from your own Washington Post link above. So "may have contributed to the verdict" compared with "deciding factor" is quite a leap.
edit> Realized you're claiming it was the deciding factor in the aquittal whilst the WP is discussing an advert claiming it was the cause of the shooting it still doesn't really support your claim though.
It absolutely was not. That case argued by the defense on simple self defense, which is NOT stand your ground. It would help legitimate your discussion if you were correct on basic facts about what stand your ground even is.
If you need a source (you shouldn't since this is easily something you can google or even research yourself since the entire trial was televised and otherwise recorded in transcripts) here's one: https://abcnews.go.com/US/floridas-stand-ground-law-determine-zimmerman-dunn-cases/story?id=22543929
This isn't a discussion you're trying to have. It's a soapbox.
It wasn't a deciding anything -- it was a talking point in media. It was never even mentioned during the actual trial.
At this point you're in another reality. The defense never used stand your ground in the trial (the defense specifically didn't use it because law did not apply to Zimmerman's case) -- if we're talking about the law then talk about cases where the law applied.
Since you can't abide by the facts, I won't abide this conversation.
First off, you have this part wrong "you can use deadly force against the assailant,".
Stand You Ground and Castle Doctrine laws reinforce that a defender can use sufficient for to protect themselves relative to the threat they are receiving.
The point is, if you haven't attacked someone, you have no reason to worry. But if you do attack someone, expect them to fight back just as much or more so that you are willing.
I think of it this way, if you attack me once in my home, you've just proven that you don't care about me or yourself. I don't want that to happen. So I'm going to beat you into the ground till the threat is ended.
If you attack me away from my home, I'm going to exert any amount of force required that I KNOW you will not do more.
Now, that means if you push me, you're at least going to get shoved back. If you shove me, I'm going to hit you. If you punch me, I'm going to pound/kick into you. If you pull a weapon, I'm going to pound you into the ground so you know not to do so again.
If you pull a firearm, I'm going to do everything I can to permanently stop you. Why? Rule #2 of firearms: Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.. So, by pointing a firearm at me, you've proven you're willing to destroy me and do not care about my life. Why should I care about yours?
"Stand Your Ground" laws introduce only the specific change to deem force justifiable even in cases where departure was a viable option. So I think this would need to be factored into your examples, right?
If someone attacks you, and simply walking away would remove you from danger, do you believe that you should have a legal right to respond with violence--potentially even lethal violence--simply as a salve to your pride?
No one is suggesting that if you are attacked you should be required to just let that continue without any right to respond forcefully if that is necessary. But the one and only thing that SYG laws do is endorse a violent response in cases where it is specifically not necessary.
Pride has nothing to do with it.
If I back away, what's to stop the person who has already proven they are attempting me harm, from following?
When I back away, I am losing effective range for my self-defense.
When I back away, I am asserting to the attacker that I am prey.
When I back away, I am mentally distracting myself from self-defense in favor of focusing on a path of flight. My mental faculties are now processing mostly everything BUT what the attacker is doing. That is giving the attacker an advantage they did not have before. That is enhancing my danger.
Something I was taught as a kid, if you attack someone expecting them to be a victim, expect to be attacked back.
And here's another person who likes to inflame things by throwing out implications and going off on tangents.
But I'll play your game.
I don't start arguments. I don't cause arguments either.
If someone starts an argument with me... sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me. That's something that I have stayed true to, and actually is true for me, since I was taught it at six.
If someone is trying to argue with me, it's not an attack. I will try to disengage. No big deal.
If they chose on their own to escalate the situation to a physical one, then I will defend myself to the best of my ability to make sure that I am no longer in danger. That IS NOT to say as you imply, that if someone shoves me I would shoot them. That's just ignorant bullshit and if you think that, I'm saddened you are so easily led by people politically and financially motivated to spread such bullshit.
If I am armed and someone if overtly attempting to overpower me or obviously cause me critical harm, then yes I will defend in kind and some. My goal will be to stop the threat. Nothing beyond that. If the attacker is incapacitated, then that is enough. If they are not and are still attempting to harm me and I can safely disengage, then of course I would do so. But making sure I am not going to be in danger is priority.