Stand Up to "Stand Your Ground"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

You can have self-defense without stand your ground laws. Stand your ground is about not taking every possible action to avoid conflict before defending one's self. It is counter-intuitive and has its roots in the pseudo-machismo of the wild west.

The essence of self-defense is necessity. It is not necessary to use deadly force unless you've taken every possible avenue to avoid it. One of them may be running because you don't want to kill someone, even someone who is breaking the law.

---

How would you react if some random person is repeatedly punching you in the face and you can't defend yourself or run away?

Quote:

---

Yes, you are correct that there is SYG language in Florida's self-defense law.

---

And it is also correct that the jury had no obligation to take Zimmerman's testimony as true nor any other witness's testimony. Any question of the veracity of said testimony (as I already indicated) would render SYG more than relevant to but focal to the jury deliberations. 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.

But regardless of all this, whether Zimmerman was the aggressor or not is irrelevant to my points 1, 2, 3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by notdrunk

How would you react if some random person is repeatedly punching you in the face and you can't defend yourself or run away?

---

I don't know that he couldn't run away. And second of all, if I could not run away, I would not use a gun until I had no other choice. Zimmerman was getting beaten up, but I don't think he was on the verge of being killed. You can argue that by the time he was put on the verge, it would be too late to pull his gun, but this is an attempt to get around the imminence requirement in self-defense.

You can only defend yourself from an imminent threat. I don't think Zimmerman was in imminent danger of being killed. Until he is, he can only defend against the type of violence he is being threatened with imminently. The fact is that if you don't have to retreat, every fight escalates to a near-fatal encounter. You could say, "I was getting hurt, how do I know he would stop beating me"? But this really leads to pre-emptive defense, a contradiction in terms.

We don't know exactly how things played out, which is why I understand the verdict (lack of evidence). I just find it incredibly unlikely that Zimmerman had no alternative but to kill. I think he was looking to kill.

Still, I must insist, for fear of being misunderstood. I do not and have not argued that Zimmerman was the aggressor. I really don’t give a damn if he was or wasn’t. I’m willing to go one better than the jury and find him innocent. For the sake of brevity, let Q1 denote the question, “Was Zimmerman the aggressor in his confrontation with Martin?” and let Q2 denote the question, “Was Zimmerman in imminant danger of being killed by Martin when he killed Martin?” Let us suppose the factual answer to Q1 is “No,” and the factual answer to Q2 is “Yes.”

Neither of these questions nor their factual answers have any bearing on

assertion 2: SYG laws and concealed carry together serve to encourage the escalation confrontations rather than attenuate them. It’s part of a more general self-evident principle: More people will engage in an activity hazardous to themselves and others, if the law makes them feel safe from prosecution. Couple that with the another self-evident general principle: The more people who engage in an activity thats hazardous to themselves and others, the more people will be harmed by that activity. If you feel you absolutely need the SYG-law to feel safe enough to stand-your-ground instead attempting to attenuate a conflict, back away or avoid it altogether, then you are emboldened to stand-your-ground by the SYG-law. Thus was Zimmerman emboldened by Florida’s SYG law and the gun he carried, regardless of whether it was necessary for him to later appeal to SYG in a court of law. (Now as an aside, notice that Q1 and Q2 just don’t figure into this argument at all. This is because (in accord with this argument) the effect of SYG and concealed carry on Zimmerman’s attitude and behavior came prior to the tragedy; before the confrontation, before the questions Q1 and Q2 made any sense. Zimmerman too is a victim of this aggregious pair of laws. )

Neither do the factual answers to questions one and two have any bearing on

assertion 3: A jury has every obligation to listen and give weight to the testimony given in the courtroom. They are under no obligation to believe testimony. Moreover, it is the jury’s obligation to judge, interpret and draw conclusions from what it observes in the courtroom. If a jury member drew the wrong conclusion from the testimony and thought beyond a reasonable doubt that “No” was the answer to Q2, then suddenly that juror is faced with the question, “Was Zimmerman standing his ground?” In this sense SYG is relevant. You might imagine an unsophicated juror under pressure might be persuaded to give up this line of reasoning on the grounds that either way (self-defense or stand-your-ground) Zimmerman’s innocent and the rest of the jury leaning for self-defense. Again SYG is relevant because it was used to sway the opinion of a juror. SYG was Zimmerman’s safety net, if you will. Certainly it was important to the defense that every juror be familiar with SYG and how it works. It may be the case the SYG is so inextricably entangled with self-defense law that it must be outlined in any jury instructions that aim to instruct them in other portions of self-defense law. If that is the case it only supports the case that SYG was relevant to the Zimmerman case. (Notice the factual answers to questions one and two are irrelevant to this argument. What may have been relevant is what the jury members eventually came to believe and how they got there. )

Finally the factual answers to questions one and two have any bearing on

assertion 1: The jury was instructed, among other things, on Florida’s SYG law and that alone makes SYG relevant to the case. Perhaps it was there because it’s so inextricably entangled in self-defense law that it can’t be left out. If that’s the case it is certainly relevant. Perhaps it’s there because the judge or at least one of the attorneys insisted it be there. Either way I can’t help but think the defense attoney was happy to have it there for reasons explained in assertion (3) above. Either way, SYG is relevant to the case. (Notice once again that the factual answers to Q1 and Q2 are irrelevant to the argument. Regardless of the real answers to these two questions, assertion 1 stands. )

These three points are not the only ways in which SYG has relevance to the Zimmerman case. It has had a profoundly negative effect on the way in which the case and others was initially (not) investigated. See http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...merman/277829/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by notdrunk

Good luck proving that he profiled Trayvon because he is Black. Zimmerman didn't report the race of Trayvon until the operator asked for it. Furthermore, and unfortunately, there is/was a crime in Zimmerman's neighborhood. Apparently, weeks before the shooting, Zimmerman called the police because there was an odd acting teen looking through windows. The teen got away from the police that day. It turns out the teen was breaking into homes stealing property. The teen was later arrested carrying stolen property. During the 911 call made by Zimmerman, I got the feeling the comment that he made about "these assholes, they always get away" was in relation to that previous incident. Zimmerman decided to follow somebody that he believed was another teen engaged in a possible criminal act. The rest is history.

Because "stand your ground" is about self-defense. Throwing the first punch and beating somebody that is down isn't self-defense.

---

To me Zimmerman story is not all that likely. You believe his word that he got out of his car, after following him, he may have ran after TM, but then suddenly at the exact moment he ended his pursuit he was jumped from behind. They did not have any words? Before he ran after him, he said "fucking punks, they always get away". He identified TM as a "fucking punk".
he could have easily thrown the first punch, also knowing he was armed. Dont people have a right to look around as they are walking on a public space, as TM was doing when he was first observed? But then even Oprah Winfrey was refused from looking at something recently.

To see if GZ is credible, is why his history was relevant. Especially since TM's history was relevant. GZ's assault charge should have been. It was probably an example where he thew a punch, or something physical. That Rachel Gentel woman had no major incentive to lie about the day, in contrast to GZ, who could have had over 10 years in jail. I think it was relevent that GZ took classes related to law enforcement. So he had prior knowledge of what to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Still, I must insist, for fear of being misunderstood. I do not and have not argued that Zimmerman was the aggressor. I really don’t give a damn if he was or wasn’t. I’m willing to go one better than the jury and find him innocent. For the sake of brevity, let Q1 denote the question, “Was Zimmerman the aggressor in his confrontation with Martin?” and let Q2 denote the question, “Was Zimmerman in imminant danger of being killed by Martin when he killed Martin?” Let us suppose the factual answer to Q1 is “No,” and the factual answer to Q2 is “Yes.”

Neither of these questions nor their factual answers have any bearing on

assertion 2: SYG laws and concealed carry together serve to encourage the escalation confrontations rather than attenuate them. It’s part of a more general self-evident principle: More people will engage in an activity hazardous to themselves and others, if the law makes them feel safe from prosecution. Couple that with the another self-evident general principle: The more people who engage in an activity thats hazardous to themselves and others, the more people will be harmed by that activity. If you feel you absolutely need the SYG-law to feel safe enough to stand-your-ground instead attempting to attenuate a conflict, back away or avoid it altogether, then you are emboldened to stand-your-ground by the SYG-law. Thus was Zimmerman emboldened by Florida’s SYG law and the gun he carried, regardless of whether it was necessary for him to later appeal to SYG in a court of law. (Now as an aside, notice that Q1 and Q2 just don’t figure into this argument at all. This is because (in accord with this argument) the effect of SYG and concealed carry on Zimmerman’s attitude and behavior came prior to the tragedy; before the confrontation, before the questions Q1 and Q2 made any sense. Zimmerman too is a victim of this aggregious pair of laws. )

Neither do the factual answers to questions one and two have any bearing on

assertion 3: A jury has every obligation to listen and give weight to the testimony given in the courtroom. They are under no obligation to believe testimony. Moreover, it is the jury’s obligation to judge, interpret and draw conclusions from what it observes in the courtroom. If a jury member drew the wrong conclusion from the testimony and thought beyond a reasonable doubt that “No” was the answer to Q2, then suddenly that juror is faced with the question, “Was Zimmerman standing his ground?” In this sense SYG is relevant. You might imagine an unsophicated juror under pressure might be persuaded to give up this line of reasoning on the grounds that either way (self-defense or stand-your-ground) Zimmerman’s innocent and the rest of the jury leaning for self-defense. Again SYG is relevant because it was used to sway the opinion of a juror. SYG was Zimmerman’s safety net, if you will. Certainly it was important to the defense that every juror be familiar with SYG and how it works. It may be the case the SYG is so inextricably entangled with self-defense law that it must be outlined in any jury instructions that aim to instruct them in other portions of self-defense law. If that is the case it only supports the case that SYG was relevant to the Zimmerman case. (Notice the factual answers to questions one and two are irrelevant to this argument. What may have been relevant is what the jury members eventually came to believe and how they got there. )

Finally the factual answers to questions one and two have any bearing on

assertion 1: The jury was instructed, among other things, on Florida’s SYG law and that alone makes SYG relevant to the case. Perhaps it was there because it’s so inextricably entangled in self-defense law that it can’t be left out. If that’s the case it is certainly relevant. Perhaps it’s there because the judge or at least one of the attorneys insisted it be there. Either way I can’t help but think the defense attoney was happy to have it there for reasons explained in assertion (3) above. Either way, SYG is relevant to the case. (Notice once again that the factual answers to Q1 and Q2 are irrelevant to the argument. Regardless of the real answers to these two questions, assertion 1 stands. )

These three points are not the only ways in which SYG has relevance to the Zimmerman case. It has had a profoundly negative effect on the way in which the case and others was initially (not) investigated. See http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...merman/277829/

---

SYG laws don't encourage confrontations. The purpose of those laws are meant to discourage confrontations between a dangerous person and an innocent person in a public setting. According to the Tampa Bay Times, between 2005-12, there were over 130 times in which somebody claimed self-defense using SYG in Florida. Out of those over 130 times, 70% of those case involved somebody's death. How many CCW owners are in Florida? Over a million people have a CCW license in Florida. According to your assumption, if those CCW and SYG laws encourage confrontation, wouldn't 130 times be a lot bigger? Additionally, using a firearm is the last resort to ending a confrontation. The law is very clear on this matter. Even prosecutors can't figure out if SYG laws are directly causing increases in confrontation that lead to a justifiable homicide.

http://themonkeycage.org/2013/07/17/...arm-homicides/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yodajazz

To me Zimmerman story is not all that likely. You believe his word that he got out of his car, after following him, he may have ran after TM, but then suddenly at the exact moment he ended his pursuit he was jumped from behind. They did not have any words? Before he ran after him, he said "fucking punks, they always get away". He identified TM as a "fucking punk".
he could have easily thrown the first punch, also knowing he was armed. Dont people have a right to look around as they are walking on a public space, as TM was doing when he was first observed? But then even Oprah Winfrey was refused from looking at something recently.

To see if GZ is credible, is why his history was relevant. Especially since TM's history was relevant. GZ's assault charge should have been. It was probably an example where he thew a punch, or something physical. That Rachel Gentel woman had no major incentive to lie about the day, in contrast to GZ, who could have had over 10 years in jail. I think it was relevent that GZ took classes related to law enforcement. So he had prior knowledge of what to say.

---

http://news.yahoo.com/george-zimmerm...151403988.html

Zimmerman's wife plead guilty to perjury yesterday. Her and GZ discussed ways to hide money in order hide money from the court. So we more evidence of deceptive behavior. They knew it was wrong and talked in code. And this is the same person, whom some people every word of his version of the story where he killed a person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

http://themonkeycage.org/2013/07/17/...arm-homicides/

---

Since the passage of SYG in Florida, the average number of justifiable homicide is 35. Yet, the research fails to look at the murder itself. Was the murder caused by a criminal act? Domestic violence? Argument gone bad? Etc. Etc. Additionally, what about the 90s? The number of murders in Florida was higher than currently now. SYG wasn't around in the 90s. There are too many factors to say SYG has caused an increase in violence.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

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?

Bob asks:

Quote:

---

...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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

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.