AnonymousJuly 19, 2013 at 11:06 AM
The point of the stand your ground laws was to prevent people who engaged in self defense from being wrongfully convicted of murder or manslaughter. They were passed in reaction against cases where prosecutors were pushing juries to second guess whether there was some avenue of retreat that might have worked when evaluating situations with the benefits of hindsight rather than asking if the person reasonably feared for their life, which is the traditional legal standard.
Maybe this reaction went too far--I'm open to hearing actual suggestions for better solutions to that problem. On the other hand, constantly calling them "get away with murder laws" and claiming that they were passed to sanction vigilantism is dishonest, idiotic, and getting old and tired.
ReplyDeleteMaybe this reaction went too far--I'm open to hearing actual suggestions for better solutions to that problem. On the other hand, constantly calling them "get away with murder laws" and claiming that they were passed to sanction vigilantism is dishonest, idiotic, and getting old and tired.
-
That's not what the point is. It's about an adolescent, school-yard concept of not backing down. Previously the self-defense laws required a person to retreat if possible in order to avoid shooting someone. But, that was too unpalatable for the macho assholes behind the SYG movement to swallow. Backing down is not manly, especially when you're in the right. It's a pride-driven distortion of what's right and it completely loses sight of the fact that the lives of bad guys, being human lives, are valuable too.Delete
Self-defence is using reasonable force against an unjust threat.
ReplyDeleteI would also add that the doctrine of self-defence also requires the force used to stop the threat is REASONABLE. It is reasonable in that it is enough to stop the threat. The amount of force must be proportionate and reasonable given the value of the interests being protected and the harm likely to be caused by use of force.
The use of excessive force can turn the "defender" into an "aggressor".
But, the test of reasonableness is not left to the defendant, since they would always say that the force used was reasonable, but the jury.
Additionally, one should lose the claim of self-defence if one actually instigated the confrontation.
Thus if a person who is carrying a deadly weapon starts a confrontation with an unarmed person, he has forgone any claim of self-defence--especially if the confrontation leads to the death of the unarmed person.
OTH, had unarmed person cause the gun to go off and kill armed person--then he would have the ability to claim self-defence.
Oh, this also means that deadly force is NEVER the first option--it is the most extreme option.
DeleteThe fact that this discussion is based upon Zimmerman (an armed person), rather than Martin (an unarmed person) demonstrates that these laws are biased toward the killer.
Isn't an unarmed person walking home from the store entitled to "stand his ground"? Especially when threatened by an armed assailant?
To use your favorite phrase, asked and answered.
DeleteLaci, you're obfuscating again. You're saying that self defense isn't an option if the person starts the "confrontation". The law removes self defense if the person claiming it started a fight with the other person. It doesn't if they confronted them in some peaceful way without starting a fight. By using "instigated the confrontation" instead of "instigated the use of force" you twist the law to make it seem that Zimmerman became the aggressor merely by following Martin or responding to Martin's question with a question.
DeleteAs for your comment about Zimmerman being armed and Martin not--it's just more of your oversimplification of the situation and the law. Yes, the force used in return must be proportional, but it is possible for an unarmed individual to inflict lethal force, either in self defense or in aggression, so the armed vs. unarmed thing is not important. What's important is who started the fight and whether the person claiming self defense was in reasonable fear for his life.
As for your final little question: Yes. Your hypothetical unarmed person is entitled to stand his ground. However, as you've pointed out over and over, he cannot instigate force, and his force must be proportional. In your hypothetical, the armed person merely being armed and asking what the unarmed person is doing in the neighborhood doesn't qualify as threatening him, and the unarmed person has no right to attack. If the armed person attacks, the unarmed person can fight back with proportional force, ramping it up as the other person ramps up the force they're attacking with. If the armed person starts threatening the unarmed person with their weapon, the unarmed person has every right to take the weapon and use it or use whatever other force they're able to.
Do you think beating someone's head into the sidewalk is a proportional response to the threat of being followed?
Delete"Isn't an unarmed person walking home from the store entitled to "stand his ground"? Especially when threatened by an armed assailant?"
ReplyDeleteThere is no way to know in this case if Martin knew Zimmerman was armed. In Florida, permit holders are required to conceal, and in fact can be charged if the weapon is exposed.
If Zimmerman's story is accurate, Martin didnt see his gun until after he knocked Zimmerman down and was assaulting him. This resulted in a struggle to retain the gun and Martin being shot.
If Martin did try to grab the gun, that in itself is justification to use deadly force. Its pretty doubtful that Martin would have engaged in a fight if he knew Zimmerman was armed.
That's a lot of "ifs."
DeleteSarge is just honest enough to say what the if's are. Your conception of what happened is based on a bunch of ifs too.
DeleteIf I have a right to be somewhere, I should have no obligation to leave, nor should I be obliged to run away from an attack, thereby putting myself in greater danger.
ReplyDeleteNo, you would never be required to put yourself in greater danger. The old statute called for your retreat in order to diffuse the situation. But your macho ego can't handle that. You're manly self-worth would be too damaged by such a cowardly action.
DeleteIt's as simple as a nature film. Predators go after prey that run. Besides, what a world we've fallen into that denegrates standing up for oneself.
DeleteBut it's ok when Trayvon Martin doesn't run from a "creep-ass cracker gay rapist"?
DeleteAnd again we have you telling us what our motivations were, Mike. Because, as always, you know the secret motivations of our hearts better than we know them ourselves.
ReplyDeleteI must have imagined the articles pushing SYG laws and the cases that they reported--cases that fit my description.
Clearly, we're a bunch of chest thumping neanderthals who just don't want to back down. It's a delusion in our minds that we would be concerned with the idea of preventing wrongful convictions caused by excessive second guessing. I have to say, though, it's impressive that our brains are able to come up with such an impressive delusion, making us think that we have motives that are too complex for us to even understand!
"Clearly, we're a bunch of chest thumping neanderthals who just don't want to back down."
DeleteYes.
You're too much of a cartoon to even argue against.
DeleteIf you want to have a serious discussion of this law, we can. However, if you're just going to toss insults and tell us how much better you know our motivations than we know them ourselves, then this is just a waste of time.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that some of the commenters here are assuming they know exactly what happened after Zimmerman followed Martin on his way home. We don't know what happened. Trayvon Martin is dead and all we have is what people heard and what George Zimmerman said happened. That is what Stand Your Ground laws are all about. They let the person who did the killing tell their story while the victim has no voice. It's a very bad idea.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct Japete, we dont really know what happened in the exchange between Zimmerman and Martin. And the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Then the question would be, would Zimmerman have a credible defense in a non-SYG state? In that case, wouldnt the prosecution still bear the burden to prove that he could have retreated after being assaulted.
DeleteA recent interview with the talking juror brought out that the only thing that really determined the verdict was what happened after the face to face altercationd started.
Absolutely. The very discussion of SYG belies the claim that killing someone in self-defense is the last resort, that no gun owner wishes to ever do that.
DeleteKilling someone is a last resort. But during an attack, good people don't have a lot of time to check whether this is the last resort or something very close to that. Again, you two sympathize with thugs, not good citizens.
DeleteMy side acknowledges that we weren't present, so we don't know for certain what happened. The evidence is consistent with Zimmerman's account, but other accounts are possible. But your side shows a lot of certainty that Zimmerman is guilty and then demand that we admit to being uncertain.
"They let the person who did the killing tell their story while the victim has no voice."
DeleteHow do SYG laws do that? I thought that was just the unavoidable situation any time a gun is used in self defense and the attacker is killed.
If we don't know what happened "not guilty" is the right verdict.
Delete"We don't know what happened."--Japete
DeleteYou, Mike, Laci, and others have said this over and over again as if that clinches the argument that Zimmerman should have been convicted.
It doesn't.
As several others have pointed out here, the STATE bears the burden of proof and must prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. If all you can say is "we don't know what happened" even after the trial, then the jury made the RIGHT DECISION, regardless of SYG laws.
What Laci, MikeB and others keep forgetting is the fact that SYG wasn't even brought up in the trial...it was a "simple" case of self defense.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Zimmerman and testimony from witnesses, Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him about the head and smashing his head into the sidewalk.
And as others have pointed out, the state couldn't make their case, thus they lost.
Mike, are you shittin' me? After all the discussions here and on other sites you're still pushing that lying bullshit.
DeleteSYG was brought up in the trial in the jury instructions. It did not need to me mentioned specifically by the defense since it is the law of the land, it's part of the Florida self defense statutes. And finally, the one blabber-mouth juror that's planning on writing a book said the jurors considered it in their deliberations.
But here you come, after all that, and tell us "SYG wasn't even brought up in the trial."
Try to think for yourself a bit and not just repeat other stuff that you thought sounded cool.
The defense didn't bring it up.
DeleteMikeB,
DeleteStop acting like SYG was a pivotal part of the trial. It wasn't brought up by either side in the trial itself because the trial focused on who started the fight and whether the force used was excessive or due to a reasonable fear of death. The SYG element wasn't covered since neither side saw it as an issue that would make a difference in the case.
Yes, it got mentioned in the Jury Instruction as it's part of the Self defense statute, but it wasn't an issue raised at the trial. And yes, the juror referred to the "stand your ground issue" in a context that indicated that she was talking about the broader issue of self defense as a whole. Without more detail about the deliberations, that comment is not probative.
Sorry, but repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. The case did not TURN on the SYG issue--it turned on whether Martin started the fight and whether Zimmerman feared for his life while pinned to the ground.
Being the "law of the land" doesn't mean the changes made in 2005 apply to every case of self-defense that ever happens in Florida. It's in the instructions because that's how the statute reads. They are not going to redact portions of it for this case, and it's not the courts job to decide whether Zimmerman was standing his ground when he killed Martin- it is the defenses job to make that case (which of course they didn't).
DeleteBut your point about how the defense didn't have to say it because the jury already knows is a real hoot. What was it a three week trial? And you think the case balances on the SYG line, but the defense would even bother mentioning it once? What kind of lawyer would let the media drive the narrative of what the law allows? Or is that your point? You guys push the misconception that SYG allows you to do whatever you want, so why bother correcting that lie? Is that it?
Mike B, I shit you not. The defense demurred on using SYG in their defense of Zimmerman. It was in one of the pretrial motions.
DeleteYou guys are pathetically incapable of giving in or admitting you were wrong. Have it your way, the defense didn't mention it or the defense "demurred on using" it. Stick to those narrow parameters and you're absolutely right.
DeleteInitially every one of you stubborn boys said it played no part and it had nothing to do with the conviction. This is not true, as I have repeatedly shown. So, retreat into your carefully worded justifications and keep telling us how honest you are and how much integrity you have.