The Deadly Legacy Of Jeb Bush's 'Stand Your Ground' Law
How Jeb Bush started it all... and the lethal consequences across America...
Posted by Think Progress on Friday, July 31, 2015
The Deadly Legacy Of Jeb Bush's 'Stand Your Ground' Law
How Jeb Bush started it all... and the lethal consequences across America...
Posted by Think Progress on Friday, July 31, 2015
They forgot to color in California red (the leading state for thinking about progress) because California never had a duty to retreat to be taken away since 2005.
ReplyDeleteJustified homicides are up? So it's saving innocent lives? Good.
They forgot to mention the black acquittal rate for killing another black person, which is higher than it is for whites. But Think Progress means think racism.
The justified homicides tripled in FL. Was that a coincidence?
DeleteFirst explain to me why justified homicides are bad. If this is true (which I'm not likely to believe statistics spouted by Think Progress), then these are people who would be in prison under the old law. But you guys keep saying this law wasn't needed to protect innocent people who defended themselves. Saying justified homicides tripled does not address whether or not these people are innocent.
DeleteMany so called justified homicides, just like DGUs in general, are nothing of the kind. The dead guy cannot tell his side of what happened and so the gun owner gets away with murder.
DeleteBesides, why would it have tripled overnight?
DeleteMikeB: “Besides, why would it have tripled overnight?”
DeleteYou’re too gullible, Mike. Stats like that don’t triple “overnight”, so if you see a claim like that you should be suspicious. For one, I’d ask if all the other states went up similarly. Second, which I already mentioned is that saying that they went up is not addressing whether or not this is a good thing. Previously you have claimed that SYG is not necessary, because the law was working at assuring no innocent people were going to prison, while supporters of self-defense were saying there is a small but important distinction so that people wouldn’t go to prison when a prosecutor successfully argued that the victim “could have gotten away” rather than defend themselves. So how can you say that none of these increased justifiable homicides were a case of someone who defended themselves rather than flee and would have been charged with murder before the law change. Remember, society accepts that it is better to let 10 guilty go free than to punish one innocent.
However, the most likely reason is a change is police report having nothing to do with an actual change in behavior. Here is the politifact article on the subject.
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/mar/26/christopher-l-smith/sen-chris-smith-claimed-deaths-due-self-defense-fl/
Hardly an unbiased source, and they come up with a wishy-washy answer, but I want to draw your attention to a key fact which politifact overlooked. The incidents of police justifiable homicides also tripled at the same time. Police are not affected by SYG law. Not only did they never have a duty to retreat, but they have a duty to pursue. So how do you explain why police justified killing also “tripled overnight”?
"The dead guy cannot tell his side of what happened and so the gun owner gets away with murder."'
DeleteThe same is true in a homicide that occurs in a non-SYG state also Mike.
MikeB: “Many so called justified homicides, just like DGUs in general, are nothing of the kind. The dead guy cannot tell his side of what happened and so the gun owner gets away with murder.”
DeleteTell me, Mike, when a murderer gets away with murder because of the technicality that the police obtained evidence through an illegal search, does that make you want to repeal the fourth amendment? People “get away with murder” all the time through a variety of ways besides claiming self-defense. We make it hard to convict people of serious crimes, and we do that on purpose. The state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to twelve peers that the accused is guilty, and there is a strict set of rules for obtaining and presenting evidence. All of this is designed to protect the innocent by heavily favoring the justice system towards the innocent. Why are you so hung up on a small fraction of defense claims that the homicide was committed in self-defense?
That's why Zimmerman killed Martin, so he couldn't tell his side.
DeleteDead men tell no tales, so make sure he's dead.
Yes Anon, he tricked Martin into putting him on the ground and beating his head against a sidewalk. Very clever...
DeleteCute SS, it only proves how depraved a kill crazy gun loon you are. Martin was defending himself against a kill crazy gun loon carrying a gun and stalking him. This is what you got? HA HA HA HA HA HA
DeleteThat was the whole premise behind the prosecution's case against Zimmerman, and he was acquitted.
DeleteThe point isn't won ju8st because Zimmerman got off, you lied many times now about what evidence was introduced in to the trial.
Delete"They forgot to color in California red (the leading state for thinking about progress) because California never had a duty to retreat to be taken away since 2005."
ReplyDeleteAn interesting bit of information TS, and apparently quite true,
"California does have the Castle Law, allowing you to use force if there is forcible entry into your home and fear of imminent death or great bodily injury. There is no legislated “Stand Your Ground” law in the State of California, but it has been upheld by the courts, making it a de facto law. It has been around for more than a century and some believe it might even be more expansive than the NRA/ALEC model legislation. In California if a defendant claims self defense the jury is given the following instruction:
California’s Criminal Code 3470
“He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself, and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of death or great bodily injury has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating”.
http://www.elliottnkanter.com/2013/07/16/is-there-a-stand-your-ground-law-in-california/
Gun loons think SYG means they can shot people who play music to loud, throw popcorn, and other life threatening circumstances.
ReplyDeleteLikely not Anon. This was brought up in another thread and it was mentioned that that belief has been pretty well disproven because the people who did those things have either been charged with homicide or convicted.
DeleteEven Michael Dunn doesn't believe that crap that you can shoot someone for playing music too loud, given that he fled the scene and only claimed self-defense after being arrested (because someone got his license plate). Even the story he made up had a phantom shotgun in it. He was not claiming he was defending himself from the music.
DeleteYes, some were convicted, but not all. The Alzhiemer's sufferer got his shit blown away for stumbling around lost - remember him?
DeleteNot true SS, some did, some did not, but all were were supported through their trials by gun loons and their monetary donations, proving gun loons don't think those reasons are not qualified shootings.
DeleteYou can never say why Michael Dunn didn't get away with it. Would it be so hard to be honest about the law? Here we have our good old anonymous friend saying SYG means you can shoot people for playing music too loud. Will you at least agree with me and sarge and say "no, it does not".
DeleteOf course it does not, but in the sick minds of many gun owers it does. The drone shooter that I posted today in Kentucky, for example, said if the drone owners stepped onto his property there would be another shooting. Perfect example. SYG doesn't mean you can shoot people for tresspassing, but apparently in his mind it does.
DeleteObviously the gun loons thought those shootings were good shootings, or why would they give their monetary and philosophical support.
DeleteMikeB: "Of course it does not, but in the sick minds of many gun owers it does."
DeleteAnd then they go to prison.
MikeB: "Perfect example. SYG doesn't mean you can shoot people for tresspassing, but apparently in his mind it does."
Your "perfect example" is a case where someone didn't shoot anyone, and de-escalated what could have been a violent encounter by being armed. Ooooohhh. They rightfully turn and ran when they saw his 40mm "bunker busting" Glock (yeah, antis aren't the only ones who make that mistake).