Stand Up to "Stand Your Ground"

[bobvela]

If what you indicate is true, SYG is inextricably entangled in Florida's self-defense law and is relevant (if not applicable) to all cases involving self-defense.

It remains quite interesting how you still refuse to address the points I raised earlier... despite me discussing many of the points you raised.

Doubly so here where you make a statement similar to something I said earlier... if you want to attack SYG, how far back do you want to ratchet back self defense laws?

The next step behind SYG is 'duty to retreat'... should one have to retreat when they are in public? When they are on their own property? When they are within their own property?

Of course... as said previously all of this is moot as GZ had no ability to retreat once he believed his life to be in imminent danger because of the criminal actions of TM.

Though to make this all even more fun to watch... GZ's lawyers will soon be seeking compensation from the State of Florida related to the costs of his defense (excluding attorney fees) as he was acquitted of the charges.

Good to see that the lynch mob not only put this man on trial, but also compelled the State of Florida to pay for both sides of a case they had zero hope of winning.

[Queens Guy]

As I mentioned before in this thread, the number of U.S. households with firearms is down from approximately 50% to around 30% in the last few decades. Yes, gun sales are way up. There are more gun enthusiasts these days. There are more guns in fewer hands. Homicides in the U.S. have gone down in the same period. Why? That’s is of course a complex question. Fewer households own guns for one. The population is aging for another. Thanks to easy and effective contraception today’s teens have been born into families who wanted them and could provide for them. It’s not a success story by any means. We still have 19 times the homicide rate of other high income nations. Florida is no success story either. The factors that push down on the homicide rate (like those mentioned immediately above) are countered by those that tend to push it up (drugs, poverty, the availability of guns, concealed carry and SYG laws). As the article I linked ( http://themonkeycage.org/2013/07/17/...arm-homicides/ ) maintains, statistics can only measure the net effects; the interpretation of cause and effect is up to us. It remains a tautology that If you allow (concealed carry) and encourage (syg) more people to carry concealed weapons, then all else being equal, the result will be more firearm accidents, more gun suicides and more homicides. Even though we cannot hold all else equal, we do see more firearm accidents and we do have more gun suicides, and we do (I repeat) have 19 times the homicide rate of otherwise similar nations.

Emergency Medicine has improved dramatically. Maybe that has something to do with the lower number of homicides. What are the numbers like for shootings and number of people shot over that time period?

[trish]

Bob asks:

...if you want to attack SYG, how far back do you want to ratchet back self defense laws?

The next step behind SYG is 'duty to retreat'... should one have to retreat when they are in public? When they are on their own property? When they are within their own property?...

Ah yes, slippery slope anxiety. I’m all for standing your ground if it really is your ground; i.e. someone breaks into your house you may be stupid not to remove yourself, but you have a right (given by our Creator?) to defend your home. But the relevant question isn’t what I think. The relevant questions are: “Is the slope really slipper?” and “Which direction does it slope?” Thanks to boiler plate laws written by organizations like ALEC we’ve gone from the caste doctrine to SYG. We’ve gone from right to carry, to the right to carry in secret. Gun enthusiats have the right to semi-automatics weapons. How many want automatic weapons? Let’s see the hands.

It’s labor day weekend here in the good ol’ U.S. and I’ll be travelling to visit family. See you on Tuesday.

[Stavros]

Bob asks:

Ah yes, slippery slope anxiety. I’m all for standing your ground if it really is your ground; i.e. someone breaks into your house you may be stupid not to remove yourself, but you have a right (given by our Creator?) to defend your home. But the relevant question isn’t what I think. The relevant questions are: “Is the slope really slipper?” and “Which direction does it slope?” Thanks to boiler plate laws written by organizations like ALEC we’ve gone from the caste doctrine to SYG. We’ve gone from right to carry, to the right to carry in secret. Gun enthusiats have the right to semi-automatics weapons. How many want automatic weapons? Let’s see the hands.

It’s labor day weekend here in the good ol’ U.S. and I’ll be travelling to visit family. See you on Tuesday.

I don't know what the deep background to SYG law in Florida is, but the argument that a person always has a right of self-defence is morally and legally flawed. It seems to mean that when a person is being threatened, say, by a thief on the street, or by a burglar in the home, violence -which is what SYG seems to imply- is justified. But the assumption that a violation of personal space must lead to a violent act is not always proven; and proportionality should also be weighed in the balance of judgement.

I was burgled a few years ago, and the person responsible returned the next day to collect items which had not been taken because they were disturbed by noises in another part of the building. I was at home when she tried to gain entry, but had she done so and we had confronted each other, it is only theoretically true that I could, for the sake of argument, have whacked her over the head with a blunt object. In fact, the person concerned was known to the police and had no record of violence, in which case I would not have been justified in causing harm and would have had to make people believe I believed I was under threat from someone who had never acted in that way before. She would have had the legal right to sue me for assault, and I would probably have been found guilty even though it was my home that was burgled. Self-defence is not a legal right to act in a violent manner at any time a person feels threatened, because the threat may not actually exist; most burglars can be talked out of a situation.

As for Zimmerman, as I have said before, along with others, if he had not alighted from his vehicle, the confrontation with Martin would not have unfolded as it did; the assumptions that are made about what actually happened are just assumptions, Zimmerman never took the stand to tell the truth under oath.

Enjoy the Labour Day break, wherever you go; and go gently.