Have Stand Your Ground laws had some beneficial impact by allowing law-abiding citizens to protect themselves? The evidence doesn't show that. The Texas A&M study finds no evidence that Stand Your Ground laws deter crimes: rates of burglary, robbery and aggravated assault are unaffected by the laws. Instead, too often the law is used to protect criminals rather than innocent victims. In a review of the close to 200 Stand Your Ground cases heard in Florida courts since 2005, the Tampa Bay Times finds that most people who raise a Stand Your Ground defense have a criminal arrest record. Indeed, in more than 1/3rd of Florida Stand Your Ground defendants who killed someone have previously been arrested for threatening someone with a gun or illegally carrying a weapon. The law has been used to free gang members, drug dealers fighting with their clients, and perpetrators who shot their victim in the back. Indeed, in most of the Florida Stand Your Ground confrontations, the victim was not committing a crime that led to the confrontation, and was not armed.Anyone with half-a-brain and a bit of honesty already knew this.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
NRA members want the opportunity to kill people and that is what SYG gives them. All dead people are, amazingly enough, dangerous criminals who attacked the gun murderer.
ReplyDeleteThe law has been used to free gang members, drug dealers fighting with their clients, and perpetrators who shot their victim in the back.
ReplyDeleteCry me a river. So has the 4th amendment, the 5th amendment, the 6th amendment, etc…
Baloney. The difference is that anyone freed under 4th Amendment or 5th Amendment protection had due process.
DeleteThe victims under shoot first laws DON'T, because the shooters are the judge, jury, prosecution and executioner.
That is lawlessnes, vigilantism, and contrary to our Constitution.
Due process isn't provided by two parties during the course of an altercation. It is applied by the government when determining if a crime has been committed by a citizen. Why do you want to throw all that away when someone uses a gun?
Deletedog gone whined..."Baloney. The difference is that anyone freed under 4th Amendment or 5th Amendment protection had due process. "
Delete??? And so have these potential defendants. Other civil rights don't protect VICTIMS they protect DEFENDANTS.
Stand your ground, and all its associated attitudes, does more harm than good, not unlike guns themselves.
Deletemikeb,
DeleteI am not saying that some of the states versions of the law don't need tweaking - they obviously do. But, as I have said here before, ALL laws have unintended consequences ... every single good intentioned law gets twisted and pushed to the limits by both prosecutors and defense attorneys alike.
The only point I was trying to make was that the law was not about deterring crime as the article implies (at least not primarily). So looking for that effect from the law will not show if it has any benefit to society.
It's primary purpose is to reduce prosecutorial backlash against citizens who are just protecting themselves.
In Texas, for example, before our recent castle doctrine changes, there were two conflict sections of code regarding self defense leaving citizens unsure when they were allowed to defend themselves (I won't derail on the details here). But the law needed clarification.
Then let's modify the law to include the statement that you can't provoke an attack and then claim to be standing your ground. That's fine. But the principle here is sound. I have the right to remain wherever I have the right to be. I shouldn't have to leave just because some thug wants to threaten violence.
ReplyDeleteLet's toss the law out as a bad deal all round.
DeleteNo, people's lives are more important than your right to be dickish. If the choice is leave or shoot someone -- LEAVE.
Dog Gone, the surrender monger. Listen, idiot, I'm not talking about someone being rude or offensive. I'm talking about someone who is threatening violence. Otherwise, I'll go on about my business. You want all of us to give in to thugs.
DeleteUntil you side with good citizens and stop seeing my side as just itching to shoot someone, you will continue to lose.
You shouldn't have to leave, huh, Greg? If it's a matter of killing another human being or stepping off, you really want to stand your ground. That makes you WRONG.
DeleteMikeb, try to follow this reasoning. I'm not talking about shooting a person for mouthing off. I'm talking about using force against someone who is trying to kill me. Do you understand the difference? The principle here is that I don't have to turn my back and try to run. That's all Stand Your Ground is about.
DeleteAs always, you want the good citizen to take a mortal wound before using force.
Greg, I do understand the difference between lethal threat and annoyance. But, since you're the one with the gun, it's more important that you understand it, and I'm not convinced you do.
DeleteIf it's a question of killing an offender or turning your back and running away, you are morally bound to do the latter. Just because you've got a fucked-up law like "stand your ground" doesn't make the action right.
Gun guys usually arm themselves out of insecurity and fear in the first place. How could they possibly make life or death decisions when their fragile manly egos are involved?
Practicing psychoanalysis without a license again, Mikeb? My owning and carrying a gun has nothing to do with anything relating to Sigmund Fraud (not a typo).
DeleteBut as I keep telling you, I'm not arguing for shooting someone who's merely running his mouth. I can stay or leave or ask the guy to stop talking, and all of those are fine. The only time my weapon would come out is if someone poses a lethal threat to me or someone I could or should protect. The Stand Your Ground law means that I don't have to attempt to run away under that circumstance. In other words, I'm not obliged by the law to increase the danger to me.
Stand your ground is less about deterring crime as it is about protecting people from overzealous, anti-gun prosecutors. And it that regard, it is probably working pretty well.
ReplyDeleteNo, it is all about keeping gun crazy over-zealouos shooters from accountability.
DeleteWe had NO problemw ith overzealous anti-gun prosecutions.
Now we have a problem with over-zealous shootings, that not only are immune from criminal prosecution, but from civil accountability. THAT is a disaster that has resulted in more homicides, a singular increase as crime goes down that is indefensible.
Scrap the damned laws altogether.
Because thugs and their families need to be able to sue good citizens who defend themselves. It's all part of the left's jobs and social services programs.
DeleteBut at what cost, FL? People are getting away with murder as a result of this wrong-headed idea.
DeleteThe problem with your assessment Greggy, is that it is NOT thugs who are gettig shot. It is not people who are committing crimes either - just as Trayvon Martin was minding his own business before George Zimmerman overstepped his rights, and began stalking him with a gun, and then shot him.
DeleteThe list of people killed under stand your ground, shoot first laws show that people were either doing nothing wrong, or were doing something that was incredibly trivial - like kids running across someone's lawn at night - when they were shot. There never WAS a problem with people being sued for shooting someone when they were in the right and there was no existing problem to be fixed of people being criminally prosecuted for justifiable shootings either.
And yes - if there is a choice between you shooting someone or leaving, leaving IS the better choice. Because YOU Greggy and the other gun nuts here, based on the statistics are NOT qualified to distinguish legal from illegal conduct or when shooting is the last resort. Shoot first laws make shooting the FIRST resort. If you can leave, then shooting is NOT the last resort -- so cut the crap about how you believe it is a course of last resort and admit that you guys want to shoot in cases where law enforcement would not.
mikeb,
Delete(Somehow I managed to he the wrong reply button above - this comment belongs here)
I am not saying that some of the states versions of the law don't need tweaking - they obviously do. But, as I have said here before, ALL laws have unintended consequences ... every single good intentioned law gets twisted and pushed to the limits by both prosecutors and defense attorneys alike.
The only point I was trying to make was that the law was not about deterring crime as the article implies (at least not primarily). So looking for that effect from the law will not show if it has any benefit to society.
It's primary purpose is to reduce prosecutorial backlash against citizens who are just protecting themselves.
In Texas, for example, before our recent castle doctrine changes, there were two conflict sections of code regarding self defense leaving citizens unsure when they were allowed to defend themselves (I won't derail on the details here). But the law needed clarification.
dog gone said:
Delete"We had NO problemw ith overzealous anti-gun prosecutions."
You could not be more wrong. If you haven't found any examples, you simply are not looking.
dog gone ... and you assessment of the TM / GZ shooting is twisted also. I won't get lost on that here either as I am sure you guys talked it to death before I started commenting here.
DeleteDog Gone, you're conflating again. The woman who chased children into a park because they rang her doorbell in no way falls under the Stand Your Ground definition.
DeleteBut take the Zimmerman case. According to the reports that I've seen, Zimmerman turned around and was heading back to his car. The gun was in his pocket, and he didn't pull it out until he was attacked. Martin doubled back to pursue Zimmerman. Martin struck Zimmerman, knocking him down, and was beating Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk. We'll see what happens with those reports at the trial, but as things stand, I'd vote not guilty.
Let's talk principles here. Do you agree or disagree that I have the right to remain anywhere that I have the right to be? Do you agree or disagree that I have the right to use force to defend my life if someone is being violent?
The point is that I'm not arguing for pulling out a gun and shooting just because some guy's being obnoxious. That's what you keep implying in your comments about me--more conflating, that. The idea of Stand Your Ground is that I don't have to turn my back on someone who's trying to kill me.
Mikeb, Jade, Laci, Democommie, and the rest of you - Happy Thanksgiving.
ReplyDeleteThanks, you too.
DeleteI miss Thanksgiving, It's one of the traditional holidays we don't have in Italy.
DeleteHappy Thanksgiving to all ... regardless of what side of this issue you fall.
DeletePlease present the specifics of some of the cases you claim that should have been prosecuted as murders. Thus far, everyone claiming that they exist has failed to do so.
ReplyDeleteTelling? Hmmmm.....
Here's a good one. He chased the bad guy down the street and then blew him away and was NOT arrested for anything. And old Tigh's not the only one to have gotten away with murder while adding to the total count of DGUs.
Deletehttp://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2011/02/detroit_homeowner_tigh_croff_g.html
Notice how the judge wasn't sympathetic with the burglar? Your side always whines about thugs. Right or wrong, you're not going to get much support for that. But keep it up. It shows people your true intentions.
Delete