Monday, May 4, 2015

Stand Yer Ground

Hoocoodanode?


The Tampa Bay Times examined the effects of Florida’s 2005 law in more than 200 cases (about half of them fatal) through mid-2012. It reported that the law’s chief beneficiaries were “those with records of crime and violence.” Nearly 60 percent of those making self-defense claims when a person was killed had been arrested at least once before; a third of those had been accused of violent crimes in the past; over a third had illegally carried guns in the past or had threatened others with them.
Stand Your Ground claims succeeded 67 percent of the time, but in 79 percent of the cases, the assailant could have retreated to avoid the confrontation. In 68 percent, the person killed was unarmed.
The Wall Street Journal studied “justifiable homicides” nationwide from 2000 to 2010. It reported that these killings increased 85 percent in states with Florida-style laws (some states’ versions of the law were more limited), while overall killings, adjusted for population growth, declined during this period.
Researchers at Texas A&M University studied F.B.I. data to analyze the same 10-year period, and found no evidence that Stand Your Ground laws deterred crimes like burglary, robbery or aggravated assault. But they did find a homicide rate increase of 8 percent (that’s about 600 additional homicides annually) in states with newly buttressed Stand Your Ground laws. A 2012 National Bureau of Economic Research studydrew on different data, but also found Florida-type laws associated with a 6.8 percent increase in homicide.

17 comments:

  1. "Nearly 60 percent of those making self-defense claims when a person was killed had been arrested at least once before; a third of those had been accused of violent crimes in the past; over a third had illegally carried guns in the past or had threatened others with them."

    Of course, you have to throw in the obvious caveat which is thoughtfully supplied by the very source cited,

    "The Times' background checks relied on Florida Department of Law Enforcement records, which log arrests within the state. The records do not always show when arrests end in conviction, and it is likely that many did not.
    And of course, having an arrest record doesn't mean you give up your right to defend yourself in the future. A person who was guilty of something in the past may be utterly innocent in a different case now.
    In some cases examined by the Times, a defendant's prior arrests occurred years before their fatal confrontation and therefore may reveal nothing about their propensity for trouble. For example, Max Wesley Horn Jr. successfully claimed self-defense after he shot a man during a 2010 dispute in New Port Richey. The arrests on Horn's record — for battery, larceny and for violating probation — were more than 15 years old.
    Steve Romine, a Clearwater defense attorney, said a person's arrest record may affect their credibility, but that should not disqualify them from claiming stand your ground.
    "It would be impractical to try and apply the law differently between those who do and don't have records," he said. "And frankly, it would be unfair."

    http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/many-killers-who-go-free-with-florida-stand-your-ground-law-have-history/1241378

    It sounds like Mr. Spitzer would be well served by watching this video that Mike thoughtfully posted on this blog detailing the SYG process and how it works.

    http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/05/massad-ayoob-on-castle-doctrine-and.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ss, how many times have you been arrested which did not result in a conviction. How about your friends and acquaintances?

      Although there may be some cases like that, they certainly wouldn't add up to enough to change the point made. Most, or at least many, who use the stand your ground defense are bad guys with guns.

      Delete
    2. Although there may be some cases like that, they certainly wouldn't add up to enough to change the point made.

      Arrests that don't result in convictions are not at all rare.

      Delete
    3. "Although there may be some cases like that, they certainly wouldn't add up to enough to change the point made. Most, or at least many, who use the stand your ground defense are bad guys"

      Well Mike, in 2013 Florida had a conviction rate of about 69% of counts filed and 42% of arrests resulted in charges being filed.

      904,634 total arrests
      387,484 counts charged
      266,273 convictions including guilty pleas.

      So convictions seem to come to 30% of total arrests. I don't think your use of most is accurate.

      http://trialstats.flcourts.org/TrialCourtStats.aspx

      http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/ae04de65-ced9-4536-bf07-82ffbe9878ae/arr_cnty13.aspx

      Delete
    4. ss, what I said was not simply "most." I said, "most, or at least many."

      I was referring to the 60% cited in Jadegold's post.

      Delete
    5. The 60% figure as the series itself states, is misleading. A better question might be why didn't they just research the number of people invoking stand your ground with prior convictions rather that arrests? Though even if they did, this statement could still be applied to those convicted,

      "And of course, having an arrest record doesn't mean you give up your right to defend yourself in the future. A person who was guilty of something in the past may be utterly innocent in a different case now."

      Mike, weren't you trying to suggest in that comment that most arrests end in convictions when I brought up the article's disclaimer that arrests aren't the same as convictions? I was quite surprised by the low percentage myself.

      Delete
  2. So? Look, it's no secret that those who lead a life of violence are more likely to be victims of violence themselves, which means there are more situations where they might engage in self-defense. Each case needs to be evaluated on it's own. Was it self-defense, or not?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My contention has always been that many DGUs are not really legitimate. I'll bet among the half that are reported by bad guys with guns, that percentage is even higher.

      Delete
    2. Being "bad" doesn't mean you can't legitimately defend yourself. And those "bad" people are more likely to need to defend themselves. Most people don't get shot at because of the colors they are wearing, or the corner they are standing on.

      Delete
    3. I didn't say it's zero. I said "many DGUs are not really legitimate." And further, among the bad guys with guns, who, as you rightly point out, have a right to defend themselves, that number is even higher.

      Delete
    4. Ok then, you agree with me that bad people still have a right to defend themselves. What's your point then? The article implies that SYG has something to do with that, so are you contending that if not for florida's SYG law, these bad people would wrongfully be imprisoned for a serious crime like murder or manslaughter?

      Delete
    5. I thought my point was clear. Claims of SYG, or DGUs are often false. When we have bad guys reporting them, I'd imagine the number of false ones is even higher. Wouldn't you?

      Delete
    6. Claims of SYG, or DGUs are often false. When we have bad guys reporting them, I'd imagine the number of false ones is even higher. Wouldn't you?

      Better that one hundred guilty men go free, than one innocent man be punished. Actually, I think that's a bit of an understatement. I'd say, "Better that a trillion guilty men go free . . . ." No, let's take it further: "Better that all guilty men go free, than one innocent man be punished" (before I'm accused of sexism, I would apply this without regard to gender--just sticking a bit more closely to the original quote).

      Delete
    7. Yet, you disparage the old "if it prevents one child death" position. Your extreme numbers are based on a principle. The "one child death" idea is based on a concrete fact of dead kids.

      Delete
    8. Your extreme numbers are based on a principle. The "one child death" idea is based on a concrete fact of dead kids.

      The "one innocent man" sent to prison is also a concrete fact, rather than some nebulous "principle."

      Delete
    9. And by the way, can you name the "one child death" caused by a killer who successfully invoked the Stand Your Ground defense against a child?

      Delete
    10. The "one child death" idea is not usually invoked about SYG. That's you moving the goal posts, Kurt.

      Delete