Although George Zimmerman's defense team did not request a Stand Your Ground hearing, one of the jurors told CNN's Anderson Cooper that the self-defense law was considered in their not-guilty verdict.
Florida first adopted the self-defense law that removed the duty to retreat in 2005, and local law enforcement immediately identified the trouble in providing citizens with a shoot-first-ask-questions-later right.
"Whether it's trick-or-treaters or kids playing in the yard of someone who doesn't want them there or some drunk guy stumbling into the wrong house," former Miami police chief John F. Timoney told the New York Times, "you're encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn't be used."
In the eight years since, the law has been invoked to protect drug dealers and gang members from murder charges, and it's allowed personal disputes over lovers, possessions, and yes, trash bags, to escalate into bloody murder scenes without consequences.
"What in the hell is our state government doing passing a law encouraging our citizens to solve disputes with guns?," Arthur Hayhoe, executive director of the Florida Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, told the Tampa Bay Times. "This is the right-to-commit-murder law."
Since people who oppose Stand Your Ground also typcially oppose self-defense, it's no wonder that they see Zimmerman as guilty. But I do wish you would admit to your pacifism. Be honest. Doing so won't lose you any more support than lying does.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a pacifist if by that you mean I would oppose self defense in every case. I think the duty to retreat provision is the right one not the SYG macho bullshit.
DeleteI can't recall you ever giving unqualified support to someone who kills another in self-defense. Even if you generally accept the story, you wonder if the person still could have retreated. I know where your sympathies lie.
DeleteYou should. My sympathies lie with NOT KILLING PEOPLE.
DeleteNo, your sympathies lie with thugs.
DeleteStand your ground laws do not empower citizens to murder trick-or-treaters or anyone else. A citizen can never justify deadly force unless the aggressor has threatened the citizen with imminent death or great bodily harm -- and the aggressor must have the actual ability to cause imminent death or great bodily harm.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing that "stand your ground laws" do is protect the right of citizens to be anywhere they lawfully want to be. A citizen's right to be anywhere they want to be doesn't end because a violent criminal starts an attack. But that is exactly what "duty to retreat" laws did: they ended a citizen's right to be anywhere they lawfully wanted to be.
All rights are important and valuable. When our government tells us that victims of violent criminals must yield rights to those violent criminals, that is tyranny. Stand your ground laws stop that tyranny.
- TruthBeTold
"A citizen can never justify deadly force unless the aggressor has threatened the citizen with imminent death or great bodily harm"
DeleteWrong. All a citizen has to do is THINK there is a threat.
No. There are three requirements:
Delete1) A citizen must believe that the aggressor is going to cause imminent death or great bodily harm.
2) The aggressor must have the ability to actually cause death or great bodily harm. That means the aggressor must have a weapon or the brute strength to cause death or great bodily harm.
3) The citizen's belief must be reasonable.
A reasonable person would not conclude that a trick-or-treator is a reasonable threat of death or great bodily harm.
Stop being hysterical. If you never assault anyone, you will never have to worry about stand your ground laws.
- TruthBeTold
False, Mikeb. That thought has to be reasonable. You can't exercise Stand Your Ground because you don't like the look of someone and expect to get away with it.
DeleteIt's always reasonable to the guy with the gun standing over a dead body.
DeleteKeep believing that, Mikeb. It's good for our side. But the problem is that someone may believe you, so you should stop being so irresponsible.
DeleteNice sarcasm there, Mike. Nice way to deflect from the truth when someone posts the elements of self defense.
DeleteForget that the legal definition isn't just that it was reasonable to the shooter, but that a reasonable person would fear for their life given the circumstances.
That would be inconvenient for you, so you make a flippant remark trying to discredit those who speak the truth.
But if it is not reasonable to the police, prosecution, judge, and jury, they go to prison.
DeleteTennessean, I appeal to you since among the commenters on this thread you're definitely the most reasonable. If a gun owner shoots someone dead in self defense and there are no witnesses or video surveillance, don't you think he's gonna describe the events leading up to the shooting in a way that covers his ass? Isn't that just human nature?
DeleteAnd apparently, Mikeb, it's your nature to challenge gun owners. But tell us this: Are the police able to do their jobs?
DeleteBy the way, I do appreciate the new comments policy.
Mike,
DeleteOf course he's going to describe it that way. Maybe he's telling the truth and maybe he's not. If the cops or prosecutions think he's lying, it's on THEM to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he's lying about the circumstances.
If they can't prove it using other evidence, then the shooter ought to be found not guilty.
You may not like it, and it may result in some guilty people going free, but that's the system we have because we don't want to convict and imprison innocent people on accident.
T., I agree with every word of your comment except the "You may not like it" dig. I actually do like it. I like the presumption of innocence and the reasonable doubt requirement.
DeleteWhere we probably disagree is in the frequency of these "guilty people going free."
When it comes to DGUs in which we only have the "good guy's" version to go on, I think many of them are false. Let's take a popular figure like 50%, shall we?
"What in the hell is our state government doing passing a law encouraging our citizens to solve disputes with guns?," Arthur Hayhoe
ReplyDeleteA more important question is, "What in the hell is our state government doing passing duty to retreat laws that suspend the right of citizens to be anywhere they want to be when a violent criminal attacks?"
- TruthBeTold
You'd rather kill someone than back down. That's your SYG attitude. It's morally reprehensible. It's based on ego and a distorted view of what it means to be a man. And worst of all, it presupposes that the criminal's life is worthless.
DeleteI don't want to kill anyone.
DeleteYou would rather a victim surrender to an attacker. That is morally reprehensible. And your position presupposes that a person's liberty is worthless.
Why are the rights of a violent criminal attacker more important than the rights of their victim ... especially given that the victim did not choose to be a victim?
And you'd rather surrender public spaces to thugs. See, I can make wild accusations too, Mikeb.
DeleteThis is just your favorite slander of all of us, Mike. You are desperate to tell us how bloodthirsty we are, assuming that you know us, our thoughts, and our motivations better than we do. We've told you why we prefer SYG provisions, and you have refused to discuss the reasons that motivate us. Instead, you just reiterate your slanderous remarks.
DeleteAs for your little slander that we consider that the criminal's life is worthless--no, we don't. However, when a situation could result in the death of an innocent person, or the criminal threatening them, we prefer that the criminal who initiated the violence be the one who suffers harm.
DeleteThis is a simple, moral judgment that a five year old could make.
Mike, I would say just for the sake of argument, most armed individuals do back away or retreat if you will, just to do their best to NOT shoot anyone. Even when there is no requirement to do so, they still will retreat. I would because I will do my best to avoid conflict and to give me the needed space to react. If the aggressor/s decides to keep advancing, he or they will advance into a wall of bullets. If I am forced to the ground, retreating just isn't an option anymore.
DeleteI am too old and bummed up to run. Doing so can cause me harm and give the aggressor an advantage they don't deserve. So I will walk back, not turn my back on, keeping myself at the best advantage and not take my eyes off of the aggressor. This is not much different than finding yourself at a close call with a four legged predator.
A predator, ANY predator two or four legged will come after you if you run from them. If you run from a predator, you WILL lose. Don't run, back away slowly if possible. A four legged predator will pause, sizing you up. That pause will give you time to react and gain the advantage.
A two legged predator will need a reason to pause, he is a predator because he has already sized you up. He also speaks the same language as you (or should) and communication could help IF you have the space and time. Presenting your weapon may stop him, warning him of your weapon may help, maybe. Here is where space helps. He, on the other hand, may reason he can get you BEFORE you get to your weapon. Too close and you may not get the time to present or fire your weapon. In concealed carry states (like Texas and Florida) he may assume you don't have a weapon and rush you.
The point is this, no two situations will ever be exactly the same. So rules, or laws that help protect the victim are written with broad interpretations in an attempt to include all legal definitions of defensive weapons use.
If you use your weapon in a defensive use, be prepared to be arrested and your weapon taken. You will be questioned and investigators will do their job. A prosecutor will ALWAYS be involved to look at the case. If its cut and dried as a defensive case, you are let go but may not get your gun back for a while. Sometimes you will. If there is any doubt present, you will be charged accordingly and the case sent to the grand jury. The grand jury looks at the indictment and may send the case to court or no bill the case. If the court gets the case then, and only then will you go to court charged of any wrong doing.
Too much pressure from outside law enforcement brought this Zimmerman case. The Gov Rick Scott bowed to the political pressure, even from outside the state to allow this to go on. The prosecutor appointed by Scott decided to bypass the grand jury and over charge. Then the judge, who should simply thrown this out decided to hear the case. In the end the jury saw the same thing the investigators found in the first place, a legal defensive use of a weapon by its owner. A grand waste of money and time and undo harm to the legal system. Incitements of protests and misrepresentations of the laws, the victim and the aggressor was the target all along. Media and politics is the real disaster here. Cases like Zimmerman/Trayvon have happened long before this and will continue long after. Parents that teach racism, public officials that continue to promote it, media that feed off of it and offer the public misrepresentations or out right lies and malicious editing to sway the public about laws THEY don't like will continue to foster this conflict to laws that protect victims.
Texas, you give a rational analysis of the situation. Don't expect Mikeb to have anything good to say about it.
DeleteOn the contrary, I like what Texas said. But, why is it so bad to have the duty to retreat as part of the law? It never said you have to do the impossible or to retreat if that would further jeopardize your life. You have to retreat IF POSSIBLE in order to avoid hostile action even if you're in the right and in a place you have the right to be in.
DeleteI'll answer my own question. You find that unacceptable because the life of a bad guy is worth less to you than your own pride and ego. You're too insecure to back down when you're in the right, which takes real courage (I'm talking to Greg now not Texas).
1. Why should good people have to leave?
Delete2. But more than that, retreating exposes you to danger. If you like what Texas said, you saw that, right?
Actually, the answer to your question is what I've said in other posts--We've seen cases where prosecutors forgot that "If Possible" idea, or misrepresented the danger of some form of retreat, pursuing, and sometimes winning convictions against people who had just claims of self defense, but who didn't retreat as much as the DA wanted them to.
DeleteDuty to retreat was removed because it punished the victim. Very simply hind site is always 20/20. After the incident has happened analysis of it can be judged a hundred different ways, and half of them may meet the duty to retreat requirement. The problem is when you are confronted with a deadly situation, the time and ability to think of those 50 approved of tactics is most likely not going to happen. You are only trying to save your own life, that's a LOT of pressure for ANYONE, including law enforcement. And law enforcement supposedly has the training to deal with deadly situations, studies show that they are no better, or worse, than the general public at making mistakes or bad decisions when trying to defend themselves.
DeleteSo instead of trying to make the victim do the at times impossible duty to retreat, investigators do their job to find all the facts in the case. The retreat always happens naturally anyway. There have been many studies that have born that out. Its called fight or flight, human nature (animal nature as well) will choose flight if they feel threatened, will fight when cornered.
Becoming frozen with fear is another natural reaction, the inability to MOVE! What then? Cant physically retreat, legs wont cooperate, ever been there?
Too many situations can legally trap a victim that has done nothing wrong, instigated nothing and just became a target of an aggressor and the law. Even when the prosecutor agreed that the victim was innocent in the situation, the law made them a criminal. So those laws were changed. And rightly so.
No duty to retreat, however if the legs cooperate, it happens naturally anyway. We don't need a law to tell anyone what is gonna happen anyway, its like passing a law that says you have to breath, you know, both in and out!
You have to think of the other side of the coin, Mike. Is it ok to throw someone in prison for the crime of "not getting away"? You could have a squeaky clean record, be doing nothing wrong, and be attacked by a drug crazed lunatic. The prosecution could make a case that, yes, you weren't doing anything wrong. And yes, he was trying to kill you. But they present a case to the jury that you didn't do a good enough job getting away... "why didn't you run away BEFORE he got on top of you?"
DeleteGranted, that will rarely happen because juries tend not to buy that, but it should never happen. What happens more frequent than going to prison, is ruining someone's life while they have the battle of their life to get the acquittal. That was the bigger intent of SYG laws in my opinion.
"1. Why should good people have to leave?
Delete2. But more than that, retreating exposes you to danger. If you like what Texas said, you saw that, right?"
Your second point is so stupid that it pisses me off. I said you'd have to retreat IF POSSIBLE without increasing the danger to yourself or others. That was always the law.
Your first point says it all. You're a dangerous man. The reason why good people have to leave is to avoid a confrontation that might lead to someone's death. You sound like a fucking high school bully.
You missed the whole "good" part of good people, I see. But you've yet to offer a satisfactory explanation of why good people should have to retreat. Don't you see what that leads to? It leads to bad people controlling public spaces.
DeleteNow, on the question of whether retreat is possible, do you really imagine that you know better how to handle a dangerous situation than experts in self-defense?
"I said you'd have to retreat IF POSSIBLE without increasing the danger to yourself or others. That was always the law."
DeleteYou know Mike, I have taken the classes to get the CHL, obviously, and even tho not required I do sit in on the latest classes to keep current with the laws. Texas has no duty to retreat, however every instructor will tell you to do so if your encountering a bad situation, IF you can without making things worse for yourself or others. Duty to retreat should never be a law, but something taught, a recommendation within the law, but not punishable if you cant. The instructors teach you to listen, reason, stall or just about anything you can do to defuse the situation instead of just shoot. At least the instructors in Texas does, they have to. Its required by Texas law that they teach this.
Its like teaching driving school, just because the speed limit is 75 doesn't mean you HAVE to drive 75. If its not safe for some reason, or you just want to save gas, SLOW DOWN! There is no law that says 75 is the minimum. The minimum is 60, that protects you from everyone else, and everyone else from you. Any speed between and your good as gold. But some people have to be taught that, others have already figured that out on their own.
The same applies to SYG, just because you can, may not give you moral standing to do so. Its not law to retreat, but given a situation, it may be the prudent thing to do. It can help your defense doing so. Moral standing is not law, but does sway juries.
And like have stated before, it happens anyway as a natural response to a bad situation.
"Duty to retreat should never be a law, but something taught, a recommendation within the law, but not punishable if you cant. "
DeleteDo you see the contradiction in what you're saying? Of course you couldn't be punished "if you can't" retreat. Even if it were the law, as it is taught and should be, obviously if it's not possible no one could blame you.
Morally, it's required to avoid the loss of life. Like many other moral imperatives, this one should be required by law.
Moral imperatives can never have force of law. If you do make it force of law then you open the door for all kinds of perceived moral standards that are someone's or some groups opinions, which includes religion. Anyone who thinks something is morally wrong or right could be petitioned it to become force of law. Abortions, religion, politics, clothes, cars,,,,,, Hell Mike, the list could become endless. You really need to think about what you want to impose on others.
DeleteAlso, like I have said before "if you cant retreat" can be in many cases an opinion. "That's a lot of ifs", to quote someone else on here, to take into account.
"Duty to retreat should never be a law, but something taught, a recommendation within the law, but not punishable if you cant. " What I was saying here, the recommendation within the law is the class you take to get your license. In some states, like Texas its already required by law for that subject be taught. In fact that subject covers more time than any other portion of your class for a CHL license. This to do anything to avoid loss of life, but not at the cost of your own injury or death to yourself or another innocent person when the aggressor wont stop.
"Moral imperatives can never have force of law."
DeleteI know you'd like to rephrase that or qualify it some.
I believe that I have already qualified it Mike. No need to rephrase anything.
DeleteMorals are interpreted by the individual, laws are interpreted by the courts. As soon as you start mixing the two your going to have kangaroo courts over anything.
Some believe wearing a red dress by a female is immoral, would you like a law that bans red dresses? There probably is somewhere. Kinda stupid in my book, dontcha think? You would really have the "color" of law having a new definition.
I believe that you lumping all licensed gun owners in the same basket is immoral, would you like to have your site restricted or banned because of what you preach? That would be a new law of the morals on speech. That would be as equally stupid, dontcha think?
I will say tho that some laws on the books, in fact a LOT of laws were based on morals and they are unenforceable and ignored even by the courts, because they are stupid. Some actually get removed now and again. Just check around for stupid laws, they are all over, and they are laughed out of court. If, that is, they even get to court, charges brought or tickets written.
Someone thought that it is immoral to eat chocolate ice cream on a Tuesday outside in front of others, so there is a law written against it. Really? That's your enforcement of someone having their opinion of morality to be foisted on others for you.
Some people think it's morally wrong for a woman to wear a red dress, but does that rise to the level of a true moral issue? No. Obviously not. Murder and stealing are moral issues. Laws against them do not cause any problems or conflicts.
DeleteYou need to rephrase your bizarre and extreme statement. True moral issues must be represented in the law.
Murder and stealing are against the law because laws are written to punish those that inflict harm against innocent people. There are no moral judgements in that law for good reason
ReplyDeleteTo include morality issues in the law clouds the judgements against the person or persons who broke the law.
There are no moral judgments in the laws against murder? Are you shittin' me? You're sounding like Greg the Contentious now.
DeleteNo, there are no moral considerations for murder. Murder is illegal. If you include morals in the equation then someone or maybe the whole jury, the judge, lawyers or what have you could find a way to justify a cold blooded murder.
DeleteIE: She would not lose weight, dye her hair or what not so she gave me no choice other than to put her down.
Or: He would not stop nagging me, he is always bossing me around, he never lets me drive and so on, so its the best way for me to end my harassment from him.
Someone would argue that morality of the killing was justifiable in order to end someones personal misery of, or from another.
No moral imperatives should ever be considered in force of law, for obvious reasons.
We're quibbling over semantics now. I say "thou shalt not kill" is a moral imperative that needs the weight of law behind it. "Thou shalt not allow a kid to get a gun" is another one.
DeleteWhat semantics? Now your including bible verses and then a twist of the bible verse including kids and guns? Really Mike? You are reaching or something that isn't there. I thought you weren't religious.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible contains good language as a guideline on how people should treat each other. Its also a good reference to law writing. But it does not contain any force of laws. Unless you want to follow the examples given in the bible for yourself you can call it a law for your own beliefs that you choose to follow. But no force of law (in this country, remember first amendment) can force you to follow any religion or force you to believe in any religion. Those are personal matters and convictions held to yourself. There is where morals belong, not in a court of law or force of law.
Case in point, you may "believe" Zimmerman was morally wrong for his actions, but he did nothing LEGALLY wrong. Morals are too vague and too differing when using people to make judgements of another persons actions. That's why laws are supposed to be cut and dried, black and white so to speak with guidelines in which to follow.
Equally, Trayvon was a morally corrupt individual, his record of violence shows that. Did he deserve to die for his actions, no. But his actions forced death upon him. It wasn't his morals that got him killed, it was his ILLEGAL actions that did. His morals may been perfectly fine with him, but his morals ran contrary to most others moral beliefs.
Its not semantics to separate morals from laws, it necessary to do so to keep society as whole law abiding. At least for those who choose to follow the laws of the land laid out by society. It would immoral to do otherwise.