One of the prime movers behind this law is a guy whose family owns a Funeral Home business in my town. See, there IS logic to this law!
9
I've been in places where for a price you can shoot a water buffalo with a machine gun.
But here in the US you can shoot another human being--no need to even buy a ticket.
NRA is a sickness to the United States of America. It's a deadly disease.
But here in the US you can shoot another human being--no need to even buy a ticket.
NRA is a sickness to the United States of America. It's a deadly disease.
37
Another aspect of the national dialogue NOW on why there is so much violence in our lives and so much impunity for deaths of black citizens. Prof. Spitzer is on WCNY's "Ivory Tower Half Hour" (online on PBS) every week & for years now has proven himself to be a careful, data-based critic of our laws and public policies on police, guns, violence, urban poverty and other matters. Thank you, Prof. Spitzer, for this succinct and devastating critique.
9
Stop squabbling about issues that do not matter!! Stop the Dem vs GOP nonsense! They are both the same where it counts!!!
Again we bicker and argue about an issue that distracts us from the real problems that are destroying us. Guns, abortion, race, gender equality - these are issues that the plutocracy wants us to squabble about as they fleece the nation and the world of trillions. These are issues that NO NOT MATTER!! They want to keep poor whites and poor blacks fighting each other! They want pro-life and pro-choice squabbling! They want pro and anti second amendment to throw accusations at each other! IT SERVES THEIR PURPOSES! If everyone forgot about these silly social issues and focused on how the plutocrats are manipulating the laws that mean something to them - they would be in trouble.
Banking laws, international trade agreements, campaign finance, tax code - these are the issues that matter to them. These are the issues that they do not want us to get inflamed about.
An article like this gets hundreds of responses and the article about how the FEC is helpless to enforce campaign laws gets relegated to the second or third page. C'mon people!!! Keep your eye on the ball!!
Again we bicker and argue about an issue that distracts us from the real problems that are destroying us. Guns, abortion, race, gender equality - these are issues that the plutocracy wants us to squabble about as they fleece the nation and the world of trillions. These are issues that NO NOT MATTER!! They want to keep poor whites and poor blacks fighting each other! They want pro-life and pro-choice squabbling! They want pro and anti second amendment to throw accusations at each other! IT SERVES THEIR PURPOSES! If everyone forgot about these silly social issues and focused on how the plutocrats are manipulating the laws that mean something to them - they would be in trouble.
Banking laws, international trade agreements, campaign finance, tax code - these are the issues that matter to them. These are the issues that they do not want us to get inflamed about.
An article like this gets hundreds of responses and the article about how the FEC is helpless to enforce campaign laws gets relegated to the second or third page. C'mon people!!! Keep your eye on the ball!!
18
Stand your ground makes no sense. i agree, silly law. But Barack Obama thought it was good sound policy when he was an Illinois state senator. So much so that in 2004 he co sponsored 'stand your ground'. Oh no! But MSNBC didn't tell us that! Charlie Blow doesn't have a chart with that! Nicky boy hasn't told us the untold harm the Illinois law has done to girls! Tommy Friedman isn't informing us of how it adds to global warming! No. lets just not talk about it and call anyone who brings it up any of the approved slurs. Paulie Krugman has the list for anyone interested.
1
Let's all take a moment to remember Jeb Bush's support of these laws.
25
We're pretty dumb. The NRA and their advocates have made America a meaner place. The Florida law also provides protection to the an attacker, who initiates a confrontation, is then overcome and uses their gun to "stand their ground". This piece of the law was instrumental in the Zimmerman case. I guess it never occurred to Florida lawmakers that the person initially being attacked was STANDING THEIR GROUND. But because they didn't have a gun, somehow their rights were diminished. Unbelievable.
15
It's going to get interesting as the SYG crowd ages into dementia.
9
Guns don't kill people....
"People with guns kill people!"
"People with guns kill people!"
9
"STAND YOUR GROUND" is an obvious misnomer. The "law" should have been named "LICENSE TO KILL"!
Those who argue in favor of it know very well what they are supporting and why they are supporting it. They are not stupid, but they are filled with hate and are mean-spirited and are anti-American values.
In Vietnam, we fought for "the hearts and minds" of the Vietnamese. We lost!
In America, fair-minded Americans (a majority) are fighting to change the heats and minds of the hate-filled. At the moment, I think we're losing that battle as well. Hopefully, this will change.
Those who argue in favor of it know very well what they are supporting and why they are supporting it. They are not stupid, but they are filled with hate and are mean-spirited and are anti-American values.
In Vietnam, we fought for "the hearts and minds" of the Vietnamese. We lost!
In America, fair-minded Americans (a majority) are fighting to change the heats and minds of the hate-filled. At the moment, I think we're losing that battle as well. Hopefully, this will change.
9
My mother wears a button around: Minnesotans Against Being Shot. Laws are already on the books in every, if not most, states that allow for killing in self-defense if someone breaks into your home, threatens you or has a weapon, etc. SYG laws allow anyone to shoot anyone anywhere, because of any "perceived", or completely made-up, "threat". There needs to be more accountability on what "threat" means- you're standing to close to my car when getting into your own next to it- BAM! Pizza guy delivers to the wrong house next door- BAM! Someone's breaking into my house- BAM! Oh wait, that was my son (true story, son died).
11
1) If you have to reach back hundreds of years to justify an argument, you have no argument.
2) When the police are there, consistently, to stop a crime BEFORE it happens, I'll support the idea of repealing stand your ground laws.
2) When the police are there, consistently, to stop a crime BEFORE it happens, I'll support the idea of repealing stand your ground laws.
4
If this were a country with Christian values, wouldn't we have "turn the other cheek" laws?
11
“How dumb are we?”
I don't think we are dumb, I think we are timorous. Scaredy-cats. Frightened of our own shadows.
Guns are our transitional objects, our blankies.
This is a poor choice indeed, because knowing that we are armed makes our neighbor even more panicky, leading them to buy more guns and ammunition, which eventually comes around and makes us need our blankie even more (and need even more blankies).
I don't think we are dumb, I think we are timorous. Scaredy-cats. Frightened of our own shadows.
Guns are our transitional objects, our blankies.
This is a poor choice indeed, because knowing that we are armed makes our neighbor even more panicky, leading them to buy more guns and ammunition, which eventually comes around and makes us need our blankie even more (and need even more blankies).
2
The author asks: how dumb are we?
Answer: A lot more than he thinks.
Exhibit A - N.R.A. and its chokehold on all our politicians.
Answer: A lot more than he thinks.
Exhibit A - N.R.A. and its chokehold on all our politicians.
10
Most times the stand your ground defense is thought to be that deadly force can be used if the person using it believed that they were in danger of being seriously injured or killed or to protect another. The standard in the law for using deadly force was previously that if one sincerely believed that oneself or another was about to be maimed or killed, then deadly force was justified. In other words, a person could use deadly force where that person perceived the threat to be real. The principle that the stand your ground law introduced was to remove an obligation to avoid a potentially serious or deadly confrontation if one could. The reason is obvious, if one chooses to fight, one incurs the risks inherent in fighting, including serious injury and death. Basically, the stand your ground law allowed people to get into fights and to use deadly force without having to prove that their lives were in peril beyond the same standard as anyone might use who did not choose to engage in a fight but had one forced upon them.
4
Anything that sells more guns makes more sense than anything to the NRA. Which means that nothing else does, but since they've got the money what else is there to wonder about? Logic has no place in this discussion, nor in that of any other violation of principles when money is involved.
4
Of course self defense, self preservation makes no sense to the ideologically blinded fools inhabiting the pretend politically correct universe that defies common sense, the real world. Normal people expect nothing less from these miserable hopeless souls..
6
Stand your ground can be reduced to this: My ego is more important than your life. The NRA has taken the view that backing down or walking away is unmanly.
54
The answer to the last question in the article? Pretty darn dumb.
4
I must have a sheltered life. I never even heard of this concept before the Zimmerman case.
4
The American gun lobby is simply crazy. No question about it. And this law is one of the craziest manifestations of that mindset. Glad to be living in a country now where gun ownership is under better control.
11
There should be no concealed carry allowed. Anyone who wants to have a gun in public needs to wear it OPENLY, so that others can have the right to identify and avoid them.
If all those concealed carry people had to wear their guns openly, there would be a huge backlash against carrying weapons in public.
People would be horrified to see all those weapons strapped on in the grocery store, coffee shop, mall.
My right to avoid a lethal weapon should supersede anyone's right to carry a concealed weapon in public.
Lobby for open carry. Bring on the backlash. Stop this madness.
If all those concealed carry people had to wear their guns openly, there would be a huge backlash against carrying weapons in public.
People would be horrified to see all those weapons strapped on in the grocery store, coffee shop, mall.
My right to avoid a lethal weapon should supersede anyone's right to carry a concealed weapon in public.
Lobby for open carry. Bring on the backlash. Stop this madness.
12
Should our police justify shootings of citizens based on the premise of SYG laws, but not ordinary citizens claiming SYG justification of shootings? Spitzer never mentions that neither the F.B.I. nor any other government agency collects national data on the number of annual police shootings whether justified or not. Most police who shoot civilians have the presumption of innocence from the small number ever convicted of unjustified homicide. It's a tacit SYG assumption for the police. But it's also as though police are the only class of citizens, contrary to our Constitution's affirmation of legal equality, with an inherent natural right over other citizens to defend themselves with an implied SYG defense. This country's laws, nonetheless, are premised on equal rights before law; our courts recognize no privileged class of citizens with inherent natural status in law over other citizens. Spitzer's statistics leave out too much data to justify his proposal with his selectively biased statistics.
3
How dumb are we? The NRA is really dumb, but they do not care. Guns matter more than lives to them So it is incumbent, once again, for the rest of us to smarten up.
3
Society as Self-Sustaining Sausage Machine.
Guns are sold to kill; and more killings sell more guns. It is a perfect, self-expanding commodity-revenue stream, turning 30,000 deaths per year into $3 billion per year and $3 billion per year back into 30,000 death per year.
Guns are sold to kill; and more killings sell more guns. It is a perfect, self-expanding commodity-revenue stream, turning 30,000 deaths per year into $3 billion per year and $3 billion per year back into 30,000 death per year.
7
I am a conservative, second amendment supporter and I support stand your ground. Have we not learned anything from the recent cases of police brutality and discretionary justice? The media's obsession with black v. white is a diversion. The criminal justice system has been and is increasingly politically motivated. Defending oneself against attack by a criminal is only one leg of stand your ground; the other is the protection it gives you from overzealous whorry prosecutors pandering to whatever political group. Mike Nifong. Al Sharpton. "Put your hands up". Without stand your ground, one who defends his life is handicapped as the state uses its enormous resources, funded by your tax dollars, lying and conspiring cops protecting their own, bogus FBI experts, and media whose least concern is justice and fairness. I can defend myself against the criminals. Its the state and the media that I fear.
10
I believe there is entirely too much leeway in Stand Your Ground as it is written. However, that being said: I will retreat on the street. I will not retreat in my home. I don't carry outside the house, I don't even carry inside the house. But if someone is trying to break in, I have plenty of time to get my weapon. I am too old to run, or fight. I will shoot you and worry about it later.
3
Where exactly do you folks live? I somehow manage to get through my day without any violent confrontations, without feeling threatened and without having to stand my ground. I understand that Fox and the NRA want us all to believe that gangs of dark-skinned thugs are breaking into houses, killing all the men and raping all the women, but its a myth. What combination of fear and hatred does it take to buy into such nonsense?
9
Stand your ground makes utterly no sense in a civilized society. Nobody would endorse laws that told ships, planes or cars to keep on going ahead as planned in light of a possible impending collision, if avoiding it was a safe choice. Stand your ground is nothing but the legalization of a "game of chicken" with guns. It's adolescent and irresponsible.
6
The absurdity of this law was evident in the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman encounter in Florida. Given what we know about what happened that evening, both of of them could have claimed a stand-your-ground defense for their actions. Whoever survived gets acquitted. It is only fools who think these laws make us safer. More guns equal more death.
9
"The police must accept the claim’s validity. In other words, the individual need only assert the belief that the use of force was necessary to prevent serious harm or death."
That statement is a felonious interpretation of the law and is 100% false. Plus it mocks police everywhere they investigate violence. However you certainly have a right to keep your agenda on fire!
That statement is a felonious interpretation of the law and is 100% false. Plus it mocks police everywhere they investigate violence. However you certainly have a right to keep your agenda on fire!
9
Floridas SYG law-
(3) A person who is attacked in his or her dwelling, residence, or vehicle has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use force, including deadly force, if he or she uses or threatens to use force in accordance with s. 776.012(1) or (2) or s. 776.031(1) or (2).
I have no idea what is racist about a law such as this. It seems like a natural reaction for most people to defend themselves and not be forced to run away from an attack inside ther own home.
(3) A person who is attacked in his or her dwelling, residence, or vehicle has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use force, including deadly force, if he or she uses or threatens to use force in accordance with s. 776.012(1) or (2) or s. 776.031(1) or (2).
I have no idea what is racist about a law such as this. It seems like a natural reaction for most people to defend themselves and not be forced to run away from an attack inside ther own home.
14
I am not at all in favor of these laws, but I'm curious:
Have such laws ever been successful in cases of domestic abuse? I would think these laws would help to exonerate women who are threatened by abusive husbands or boyfriends.
Have such laws ever been successful in cases of domestic abuse? I would think these laws would help to exonerate women who are threatened by abusive husbands or boyfriends.
3
These are terrible laws -- maybe not in principal but apparently in practice. To often it seem there is mutual aggression and one aggressor is able to shoot the other with impunity.
1
Mr. Spitzer makes many excellent points here, but they are ultimately of little practical effect against the pro-gun culture of political correctness and boundless entitlement.
1
So these laws are exactly as I suspected without knowing the data.
They create an open season on African Americans.
Which presumably is exactly their intent.
Shame on any state legislator who voted for such nonsense!
They create an open season on African Americans.
Which presumably is exactly their intent.
Shame on any state legislator who voted for such nonsense!
4
In my experience, too many people who carry guns around are just looking for an opportunity to use them, defensively or otherwise.
7
For God's sake, I don't need statistics to know that the Stand Your Ground laws in most states are invitations to disaster and unpunished crime. Common sense alone tells you that.
The statistics are useful yes, but on the basis of common sense alone, most of these laws would not past muster as being just. They simply give the trump card to people who commit manslaughter or murder. That is not justice.
The statistics are useful yes, but on the basis of common sense alone, most of these laws would not past muster as being just. They simply give the trump card to people who commit manslaughter or murder. That is not justice.
3
I wonder if part of the motivation is that in Florida many people are elderly or disabled and retreating is difficult when you can't move very easily.
7
Did any of the studies look at education (adjusted for school districts' performance against nation standards) and income levels and their impact on the shoot-firsters? Given many firsters had already had prior brushes with the law, how many were members of the NRA? How many of the dead were members?
A database should be created of all firsters who have a history of finding themselves pulling a gun and shooting someone in self-defense. I would think it would also be very useful to law enforcement and those who found themselves at the muzzle end of a weapon.
Of course, the NRA would call it un-American...
A database should be created of all firsters who have a history of finding themselves pulling a gun and shooting someone in self-defense. I would think it would also be very useful to law enforcement and those who found themselves at the muzzle end of a weapon.
Of course, the NRA would call it un-American...
"How dumb are we?" the writer asks, as we show our endless capacity for turning away from what we know about the danger of guns at home and in society. To favor increased gun power in the face of its obvious harm to society is to demonstrate more than political weakness. It points to the truth of Marx's dictum that when history repeats itself, it is tragic. When it repeats itself again, it is farce. We are thus far worse than dumb. We are delusional in our capacity for magical thinking.
1
Retreat is likely to be the safest response in almost all violent situations in which it is possible. Once a gun is out, the situation becomes eminently more dangerous. The person who draws a gun, even with are and good intentions, stands a chance of losing the gun to the other person. Fear, adrenaline, and other difficult-to-control emotions make any situation more unpredictable. The gun makes it more dangerous.
1
There are an estimated 11 million to 12 million concealed carry ( or equivalent) permits issued in the US. About 3 or 4 percent of the population. Florida has the most permits, 1.2M, which is about 6% of its population. While some states don't require permits for conceal carry, I think its safe to say that less than 5% of the population is scared enough to carry concealed. Why is it the other 95% of us are not? Could it be that those 5% are either in a dangerous job, or place themselves in situations where they would need a gun? Or are prone to violent confrontations?
As far as using firearms for home protection, I'm sure the rates for ownership are much higher, and can certainly understand keeping a gun (responsibly) in the house for protection. But most states already have castle doctrine which allow you do defend yourself in your home, making SYG unnecessary.
As far as using firearms for home protection, I'm sure the rates for ownership are much higher, and can certainly understand keeping a gun (responsibly) in the house for protection. But most states already have castle doctrine which allow you do defend yourself in your home, making SYG unnecessary.
2
Carrying a gun concealed or exposed, is based on the philosophy that everyone is a wolf onto wolf. It is entirely predicated on fear, rather than trust which is the foundation of our democracy. America has to grow up and exit the wild West .
Instead of tackling the cause of blatant iniquities which leads to violent behavior. Some mindless groups with a mercurial temper are trying to impose the bearing of arms on everyone even if they don't want it, simply because they may have to defend themselves, what an insane solution to a fabricated problem. stand your ground should be exclusively limited to one's home, with specific conditions attached. I am becoming tired of the level of violence that permeates American life.
Instead of tackling the cause of blatant iniquities which leads to violent behavior. Some mindless groups with a mercurial temper are trying to impose the bearing of arms on everyone even if they don't want it, simply because they may have to defend themselves, what an insane solution to a fabricated problem. stand your ground should be exclusively limited to one's home, with specific conditions attached. I am becoming tired of the level of violence that permeates American life.
3
it is one thing to go out looking for a confrontation, but should I really put me and mine at risk for the sake of some thug (yes, the "t-word). Violent offenders aren't cute little children in need of love but threats to the innocent. we don't benefit from taking risks with our own safety.
6
Even in the New York Police Department the rule was changed around 1980 that required police officers to take reasonable steps, including backing up where possible and practicable, if it helped an officer avoid shooting a suspect. Darren Wilson, the former cop in Ferguson, would have violated this rule when he approached the fleeing Mike Brown and forced a confrontation that resulted in shooting Brown to death. Retreating should be an obligation for any armed person if it is reasonable and possible to do without increasing the threat to the armed person or someone else nearby. Reasonable retreat makes sense and should be obligatory. Stand your ground laws make absolutely no sense as they hare now written, and only lead to unnecessary shootings in addition to allowing others to, in effect, "set up" an adversary to shoot and kill him. As a retired NYPD lieutenant, from what I learned in studing the entire Wilson-Brown shooting, I believe Wilson set up Brown to shoot and kill him. He followed the fleeing Brown, and after Brown was shot three times, he said Brown charged at him so he had to shoot him in self defense. Nonsense. If Brown charged at Wilson it was only to try to stop Wilson from continuing to shoot him. No reasonable police officer anywhere in the world would have had to shoot Michael Brown after he was already shot. Even the federal investigation report leaves out so much that it amounts to a whitewash of a wrongful shooting.
4
Every 30 minutes, a child is killed or injured by a gun. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the largest organization of pediatricians, recommends that conversations about guns and gun safety start during a prenatal visit and be repeated every year as part of anticipatory guidance. NRA wants doctors gagged and are actively facilitating the enactment of legislation to do just that.
8
You conclude with "how dumb are we?" The answer to that is" We are plenty stupid." Guns, health care, taxation, environmental safety, employment opportunities, education, affordable housing, and capital improvements of the countries infrastructure and a list that goes on are all examples of our collective ignorance.
5
Stand your ground laws are senseless, irresponsible and unconstitutional.
Every civil liberty limits the authority of government by defining the powers of each department and the protection of individual rights.
The federal and state governments have begun to insinuate religious and moral grounds to increase the authority of special interests. Stand Your Ground has become 'Stand any ground, anywhere, for any reason'. This allows the use of deadly force to protect feelings, beliefs, bigotry, and personal ethics. The use of firearms evens the playing field for religious fanatics and bigots at the expense of any judicial process.
The perpetrator is free to charge anyone with a criminal act and act as prosecutor, judge and jury, with impunity, with license not permissable under
any other civil or criminal authority.
Every civil liberty limits the authority of government by defining the powers of each department and the protection of individual rights.
The federal and state governments have begun to insinuate religious and moral grounds to increase the authority of special interests. Stand Your Ground has become 'Stand any ground, anywhere, for any reason'. This allows the use of deadly force to protect feelings, beliefs, bigotry, and personal ethics. The use of firearms evens the playing field for religious fanatics and bigots at the expense of any judicial process.
The perpetrator is free to charge anyone with a criminal act and act as prosecutor, judge and jury, with impunity, with license not permissable under
any other civil or criminal authority.
5
One must wonder if the "Stand Your Ground" laws were enacted to allow those citizens who are most adamant about living the mythology of gun culture, to experience the ultimate thrill of killing someone without consequences. It seems to be a law made for cartoon characters and super heroes.
7
I'm not the kind to do such a thing, but I'd sure sign something that starts a petition to get rid of ALL privately owned guns in America except those that fall into a narrowly defined area.
For sportsmen there could be special ranges and clubs and hunting areas. (Yes, I am aware people get shot in these places.) Australia might serve as a source of information about this kind of thing as their laws are very restrictive and controlled, as ours should be, thought gun ownership is not prohibited.
I grew up in Texas and my father hunted and I was taught to shoot a gun at a fairly early age. They are terribly final instruments of terror and they make weak people powerful. How easy it is to pull a trigger.
If ever there was a part of the US Constitution that needs to be revised, it is the Second Amendment. It was written in a different time for a different people.
For sportsmen there could be special ranges and clubs and hunting areas. (Yes, I am aware people get shot in these places.) Australia might serve as a source of information about this kind of thing as their laws are very restrictive and controlled, as ours should be, thought gun ownership is not prohibited.
I grew up in Texas and my father hunted and I was taught to shoot a gun at a fairly early age. They are terribly final instruments of terror and they make weak people powerful. How easy it is to pull a trigger.
If ever there was a part of the US Constitution that needs to be revised, it is the Second Amendment. It was written in a different time for a different people.
9
The paranoia that lives in the souls of people who think like this is dumbfounding. It is astounding to me that uppermost in their minds is that the world is a dangerous, threatening place and the only succor is to be armed with a deadly weapon. In fact they've never experienced the threat except that posed by the people in their communities who think and act as they do. Perhaps if I lived in a community where my neighbor carried a gun, I would feel the need to carry a gun. Not to protect myself from a criminal but to even the confrontation field with my neighbor. A branch falls on my property from a neighbors property and he always carries a loaded revolver. Well if I am going to speak with him about the branch then I better be carrying a loaded revolver. Or my husband has a temper and a loaded revolver. I guess I better get a loaded revolver. In a mad world, this all makes perfect sense.
34
The statistics in this article aren't all the right statistics, and in places, they could be understood to undermine the article's thesis. Paragraph 6 is the worst offender:
"'Justifiable homicides' [...] increased 85% in states with Florida-style laws, while overall killings [...] declined."
A gun rights proponent would interpret this to mean that people are successfully defending themselves while not being wrongfully prosecuted, and despite this statistical contribution to the rate of killings, stand-your-ground policies are successful as a deterrent to the point where they have lead to an overall decline in homicides.
It would be noteworthy if the homicide rate had declined more rapidly in states without stand-your-ground laws than in those with said laws. A statistic like that is complicated, since obviously there are many other factors that contribute to rise and fall in homicide rate (urban migration, etc). But that is the sort of statistical exploration that might be compelling.
This article seems to fall into the trap wherein people's numeracy is undermined by their political convictions; they see all statistics as supporting their position.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/new-study-politics-makes-you...
"'Justifiable homicides' [...] increased 85% in states with Florida-style laws, while overall killings [...] declined."
A gun rights proponent would interpret this to mean that people are successfully defending themselves while not being wrongfully prosecuted, and despite this statistical contribution to the rate of killings, stand-your-ground policies are successful as a deterrent to the point where they have lead to an overall decline in homicides.
It would be noteworthy if the homicide rate had declined more rapidly in states without stand-your-ground laws than in those with said laws. A statistic like that is complicated, since obviously there are many other factors that contribute to rise and fall in homicide rate (urban migration, etc). But that is the sort of statistical exploration that might be compelling.
This article seems to fall into the trap wherein people's numeracy is undermined by their political convictions; they see all statistics as supporting their position.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/new-study-politics-makes-you...
14
Clearly one would be justified in gunning down the Florida Legislature out of justified fear of an even worse law further endangering one's life.
3
During a recent trip to the Southwest I went for a jog in the early morning. All the houses in the development were identical. As I went to enter my friend's house, I paused: Was this his house? What if I were confused? Someone could easily think I was attempting to break in and shoot me citing SYG. I paused, and checked and rechecked the address until I tentatively opened the door sighing in relief upon recognizing the interior. Some may say my caution was a positive, the gun acting as a deterrent, but I experienced it as a breakdown of basic human civility.
15
You really did not know your own address?
Is this a solution looking for a problem? So far the supporters of "Stand Your Ground" always talk about their right to protect themselves from someone bigger than them using a gun. How often does this happen? Where? To whom?
The argument that some people will misuse it so we should not get rid of the law is also concerning. The presumption of innocence and not punishing the innocent is a core principle of our legal and moral code. If you have a "Some innocent people get killed and some guilty folks get away using this law, so what?" attitude, that is not an acceptable thing. Not at all.
Like they want for Global Warming, right-wingers seriously need to do some more study about it before they pass any more draconian laws.
The argument that some people will misuse it so we should not get rid of the law is also concerning. The presumption of innocence and not punishing the innocent is a core principle of our legal and moral code. If you have a "Some innocent people get killed and some guilty folks get away using this law, so what?" attitude, that is not an acceptable thing. Not at all.
Like they want for Global Warming, right-wingers seriously need to do some more study about it before they pass any more draconian laws.
2
Sekhar, it happens every day. However, it doesn't mean someone gets shot every time. The sight of a weapon is usually enough to send a criminal running.
1
How dumb are we? We're NRA dumb!
4
If I were one of these stand your ground types, every man who ever accidentally walked behind me or near me in an underground parking garage would have been shot. Because I do get really scared in those circumstances. That's one reason why I'm against these laws. Because most of the time these fears are unreasonable. The men who walk near me in a parking garage are just trying to get to their cars. And it's not worth killing an innocent person just because there's a small statistical likelihood that one day one of those men might intend me harm.
81
Patricia, you have an itchy trigger finger? I've carried a gun for 5 or 6 years and have never had to draw it, as millions of others have.
2
I've seen a lot of life in 73 years and if I had used a gun instead of just walking away every time I had an argument, felt threatened or listened to my fears and naysayers, I would have filled a graveyard by now.
Stand Your Ground is a license to kill with impunity.
Stand Your Ground is a license to kill with impunity.
137
Going by the list of laws passed early in the nation's history, including the 19th century, our supposedly gun-totin Wild West ancestors (even state legislators) had more sense about what's wrong with everybody carrying guns around than we do living in this media- and myth-addled "modern" times. Only the NRA, the gun makers, the purveyors of guns and knuckledragging state legislators sucking on the NRA teat perpetuate the Old West myth that guns equal freedom and security.
2
The FBI study on racial disparities here focuses on interracial killings, which are only a small sliver of those who claim stand your ground. In all cases in Florida, for example, blacks were one-third of those who used "stand your ground" defense, even though they were only 15% of the population. They were acquitted in 69% of the cases, versus only 62% for white defendants making such a claim. Say what you want about the law but to imply it is racial will only draw barriers between groups. The Zimmerman/ Martin case had nothing to do with "Stand Your Ground". Zimmerman was not standing his ground but was being pummeled into the ground. It is not illegal to profile or follow someone. It is illegal to commit aggravated assault. Strange how when a black man shot an unarmed white kid in Long Island who was not committing an type of assault, the NAACP and Sharpton defended the shooter. But when a Hispanic man was being beaten and shot in defense, it becomes a national debate on white racism, and we are bombarded with a false narrative of white people shooting and killing innocent black people, when anyone who reads crime statistics knows it is exactly the opposite: 85% of interracial crime is black on white, and 91% of violence against blacks is by other blacks (no one cares of course). Democrats know the way to get out the black vote is to whip up racial paranoia.
8
circumstances around people -- wealth, technology, education, comity, values -- change with history, but human nature does not change nearly so much.
it's not so much that we are stupid, but that humans periodically need to test how much a change in circumstances might signify a change in human nature.
the stupidity is when the evidence of the test is in, the findings are clear, but we don't accept the lesson and restore the safeguards we relinquished. then we see that some people really are stupider than others, just as an understanding of human nature would lead us to expect.
it's not so much that we are stupid, but that humans periodically need to test how much a change in circumstances might signify a change in human nature.
the stupidity is when the evidence of the test is in, the findings are clear, but we don't accept the lesson and restore the safeguards we relinquished. then we see that some people really are stupider than others, just as an understanding of human nature would lead us to expect.
well said.
1
Please do not finish that article with the rhetorical question "how dumb are we?" That's just rubbing salt in the wound...
2
What a strangely inconsistent country.
In some states, the carrying and use of handguns is encouraged as a sacred right.
Whereas in other states, carrying a (legal) knife gets a person tied up, thrown in a paddywagon, and subjected to death by spinal injuries, incurred in a "rough ride."
In some states, the carrying and use of handguns is encouraged as a sacred right.
Whereas in other states, carrying a (legal) knife gets a person tied up, thrown in a paddywagon, and subjected to death by spinal injuries, incurred in a "rough ride."
15
They say that money talks. I would very much appreciate this newspaper listing those states with stand your ground laws and those who are in the process of changing these laws. This would allow me to better decide where I want to spend my vacation dollars.
9
Stand your ground laws are more than stupid - they are logically flawed. What this allows is basically for the last man standing to make up a story to justify why he killed the rest, and he goes scot-free. Just shoot the witness to your crime, and you win. The moral hazards in this are so stupefying that this law really needs to be repealed in all the states that support it and made federally unconstitutional.
113
Good point by RajS, but it doesn't stop at moral hazard -- game it out.
Any person seen carrying in a public place in an SYG state could immediately be killed by bystanders as self-defense, on the grounds that the bystanders might be killed with impunity at any moment, for reasons known only to the person with the gun. And ... the person with the gun knows that! Meaning that s/he had better start firing sooner rather than later. Indeed, presumably s/he entered the public place already knowing the likely dynamic and intending to act on it.
Any person seen carrying in a public place in an SYG state could immediately be killed by bystanders as self-defense, on the grounds that the bystanders might be killed with impunity at any moment, for reasons known only to the person with the gun. And ... the person with the gun knows that! Meaning that s/he had better start firing sooner rather than later. Indeed, presumably s/he entered the public place already knowing the likely dynamic and intending to act on it.
1
I think we should get rid of the police, national guard, army, navy, air force, and whatever else is out there to protect us. They're too expensive anyway. We should all be issued firearms at birth - so that we can defend ourselves against our fellow human beings. Can you just see those little guys in kindergarten with their mini guns shotting each other up on the playground. The 'real' men will survive and we will become magically a nation of law abiding citizens. Think of all the taxes we could save.
4
A legal regime that requires you to flee your own home rather than defend yourself, or face murder charges, is oppressive and tyrannical.
12
Dumb, dumber and gittin' more by the second!
2
It is not just the guns. We are bombarded with movies, video games, and sports that glorify violence and fighting as a solution to problems. Even NPR broadcasts incessant updates on a boxing match.
3
Another NYT anti-gun rant by a university professor? Oh wait! This is Monday. Cue the adoring masses for agreeing comments.
I will say that at least the NYT picks this time include some dissenting voices.
I will say that at least the NYT picks this time include some dissenting voices.
8
There are facts and statistics here, proving a point. What do you have to offer in return?
i have just read a post from someone piously intoning that hey no one has been shot over a parking spot in NC (also he can use rocket launchers so hey). Because the truth is three ******3***** young dental students were recently mown down by a concealed carry, armed to the teeth guy over, wait for it...parking in an apartment building. That's right folks, the kids, dental students, were unarmed and had been in fear of this guy, along with the complex, and nothing could be done about. He has been arrested, sure, but the kids are dead.
12
C'mon, you can think more clearly than that. You are reaching for causality where there is none. The man who murdered those students was a murderer, and concealed carry had nothing to do with it.
1
So those of us not wealthy, powerful or just plain upper class rigging, cheating, dishonest, abusive enough to have found some way to live in expensive zip codes, gated communities or to have security and body guards - the rest of us should just submit to abuse and lethal and crippling attack. Because apparently the only way we can prove our innocence and victimhood and moral worth is to crucified by fear, bankrupting injuries, or put in a wheel chair or on a morgue slab. The problem is that this is obviously not a winning life-strategy for 99% of Americans. But wait! Our 1% think of the rest of us as beasts of burden who exist to do their bidding so they don't want any of the serfs contemplating or getting in the habit of fighting back against high or low human predators of any kind.
12
waaa? Are you equating the wealthy 1% with stand your ground? It seems as if you are for stand your ground but I have read what you wrote three times and am still not sure?
2
Where do you live? Sounds like Somalia.
You're more likely to be the victim of abuse and lethal and crippling attack in states where Stand Your Ground Laws are passed.
I'm a conservative, second amendment supporter, and I oppose stand your ground laws. I think they make little difference for the law abiding, and there is at least anecdotal evidence that drug dealers have used stand your ground defenses in cases of drug deals gone bad.
15
Many people who favor these laws and rejoice in them are full of hatred and fear. I often wonder if my neighbor who is a gun lover and advocate of "shoot first and ask questions later" laws might get a little upset some time and shoot me or another neighbor. While he worries about some unknown person sneaking inside our small, fenced (but not gated) community I worry about him shooting me. He's not the most pleasant man around to begin with. God forbid someone might get him riled up.
24
How nice to be able to assess the physiological and moral make up of people you don't even know ("are full of hatred and fear") simply because you disagree with them on the correctness of a legal principle. One might be tempted to turn the tables and suggest that many who criticize not the stance but the character of those who favor the so-called stand your ground laws are themselves engaging in hatred and fear.
7
Carole, the only thing you can do is purchase a revolver, strap it on, and STAND YOUR GROUND against your neighbor! If he looks at you cross-eyed, draw your piece, STAND YOUR GROUND, and blast away. Problem solved.
Of course I'm only kidding. I feel sorry for you living next to a half-hinged neighbor who has a gun. People like him should not own weapons.
Stay safe, Carole.
Of course I'm only kidding. I feel sorry for you living next to a half-hinged neighbor who has a gun. People like him should not own weapons.
Stay safe, Carole.
So because he is a "gun lover" and " He's not the most pleasant man around to begin with" you assume he will shoot anyone he gets mad at.
2
"the individual need only assert the belief that the use of force was necessary"
That is not true.
It must make sense on the facts.
Unarmed is not the same as unthreatening. Someone big enough does not need a gun to be a serious threat to many others. Nor is anyone required to take a beating from him.
Shooting deaths are serious problems, but understanding these laws is not helped by falsehoods nor by ignoring real issues.
That is not true.
It must make sense on the facts.
Unarmed is not the same as unthreatening. Someone big enough does not need a gun to be a serious threat to many others. Nor is anyone required to take a beating from him.
Shooting deaths are serious problems, but understanding these laws is not helped by falsehoods nor by ignoring real issues.
24
Mark Thomason writes: "It [the use of force] must make sense on the facts."
This is true in theory. But unfortunately, there may be little hard evidence, in which case, shootings turn into "he said, she said" situations. And more unfortunately, one of the parties, by definition, is not around to present their side. Like Trayvon Martin.
This is true in theory. But unfortunately, there may be little hard evidence, in which case, shootings turn into "he said, she said" situations. And more unfortunately, one of the parties, by definition, is not around to present their side. Like Trayvon Martin.
1
Am I the only one who thinks it odd that the videos of "knock-out" attacks disappeared from the MSM about the time Ferguson occurred? An unarmed person can be just as deadly of a threat as an armed one.
4
"Under the new breed of laws," writes Robert J. Spitzer, "a person who has harmed or killed another in a public place can presumptively claim self-defense. The police must accept the claim’s validity."
In situations where one armed person is alive and tells one side of a story, and the other person is shot dead, how can one establish "the facts" that Mark Thomason mentions?
Spitzer also writes that "the police and prosecutors need to be able to conduct full, unencumbered investigations." That certainly did not happen in the Trayvon Martin case, as Florida law-enforcement officials themselves admitted. The crime scene was not identified or handled as such, because the armed killer simply asserted that a crime had not occurred. This is not the way rule of law works.
In situations where one armed person is alive and tells one side of a story, and the other person is shot dead, how can one establish "the facts" that Mark Thomason mentions?
Spitzer also writes that "the police and prosecutors need to be able to conduct full, unencumbered investigations." That certainly did not happen in the Trayvon Martin case, as Florida law-enforcement officials themselves admitted. The crime scene was not identified or handled as such, because the armed killer simply asserted that a crime had not occurred. This is not the way rule of law works.
1
If one of my fellow citizens wishes to carry a concealed weapon and can pass the background check I see no problem with them doing so. But 'Stand Your Ground' laws are a completely different issue.
Taking up the right and the responsibility of carrying the means to defend yourself and your loved ones in no way relieves you of the necessity to answer for the actions you take. Nor does it change the social contract which requires you to respect the rights of others to live their lives.
Taking up the right and the responsibility of carrying the means to defend yourself and your loved ones in no way relieves you of the necessity to answer for the actions you take. Nor does it change the social contract which requires you to respect the rights of others to live their lives.
14
This is the most decisive way to dismiss the effectiveness of the "Stand Your Ground" laws than any posited thus far. As it stands, anyone in this state can approach anyone else, nearly anywhere (other than someone else's home), shoot them to death in cold blood, and then claim that they felt threatened and were required by the law not to retreat. In the absence of witnesses and/or survivors, the law indemnifies the aggressor. Its only evident purpose is to fortify suburban white communities from those who appear to belong.
16
There is a substantial difference between what you assert ("...were REQUIRED [emphasis added] by the law not to retreat") and actual statutes which state you do not have the obligation to retreat but in no way deny you the option to do so. That's night and day from what you write.
Adding the offensive racial component ("suburban white communities") only cheapens your position on the issue.
Adding the offensive racial component ("suburban white communities") only cheapens your position on the issue.
3
Cheapens my position? There are NO legal statutes anywhere in this country that deny individuals the right to defend themselves. The belief that additional legislature is required to empower individuals already fully protected under the law simply feeds the persistent myth that we need additional justification for killing people with whom we cannot be bothered to reason. And that's simply shameful.
Your comments provides a perfect example of the ignorance of people who oppose these laws. Stand your ground does not require you to stand your ground... it allows you to.
In the case of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, Stand Your Ground figured in his defense. This always confused me - Zimmerman was the one with the gun, and Zimmerman was the one who apparently aggressively pursued Martin, without being a real security person or having anything identifying him as anything other than Joe Blow guy with a gun. Martin was the one minding his own business and with the 'ground to stand', but of course he didn't have the gun.
In cases of home invasion, Stand Your Ground is understandable, though probably redundant, but when it's in the public sphere and there are no witnesses, it seems like it becomes a facile defense for the last man standing. Excepting for the moment the fact that a policeman was the perpetrator, how is the killing of Walter Scott in South Carolina any different but for a quick thinking citizen taking a video on an iPhone?
In cases of home invasion, Stand Your Ground is understandable, though probably redundant, but when it's in the public sphere and there are no witnesses, it seems like it becomes a facile defense for the last man standing. Excepting for the moment the fact that a policeman was the perpetrator, how is the killing of Walter Scott in South Carolina any different but for a quick thinking citizen taking a video on an iPhone?
13
Zimmerman did NOT use Stand Your Ground at his trial. He did NOT "aggressively pursue" Martin. Martin confronted Zimmerman, beat him, and Zimmerman defended himself.
5
Greg,
Zimmerman benefitted from changed jury instructions which came into effect with Stand Your Ground (SYG), even though he waived the pre-trial SYG hearing.
The old instructions read in part that: "a person had a duty to retreat by using “every reasonable means...”
The new jury instructions, given to jurors as directed by the Stand Your Ground law in statute 776.013, read in part:
“If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
Quotes from http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/trayvon-martin/article1953...
Zimmerman benefitted from changed jury instructions which came into effect with Stand Your Ground (SYG), even though he waived the pre-trial SYG hearing.
The old instructions read in part that: "a person had a duty to retreat by using “every reasonable means...”
The new jury instructions, given to jurors as directed by the Stand Your Ground law in statute 776.013, read in part:
“If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
Quotes from http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/trayvon-martin/article1953...
An increase in justifiable homicides occurring with a decrease in over all homicides would suggest that stand-your-ground is having a good effect on crime. Crime decreases in states where people can and do defend themselves. Stand-your-ground can be abused, just like criminals with guns abuse gun ownership.
We cannot remove from all a right simply because a few people abuse their right. That's what people oppose when supporting Charlie Hebdo: the cartoons were an abuse of a free speech right, but we condemn those who killed the cartoonists. We do not take from cartoonists the right to draw.
We cannot remove from all a right simply because a few people abuse their right. That's what people oppose when supporting Charlie Hebdo: the cartoons were an abuse of a free speech right, but we condemn those who killed the cartoonists. We do not take from cartoonists the right to draw.
6
Stand your ground is not a right like free speech; rather it is a law about which there are serious questions as to its effectiveness.
2
Spitzer pointed out 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."
By the way, the Second Amendment does not confer a right to carry a concealed weapon in public.
By the way, the Second Amendment does not confer a right to carry a concealed weapon in public.
You confuse issues. Violence on the whole is decreasing - not just in our society but across the planet. Firearm data is very clear that you are nearly an order of magnitude more likely to die to your own firearm than that of someone else (like this elusive home invader who breaks in to kill people...you know, fiction).
A reasonable human being looks at that and says well, our society on the whole is safer and my gun is likely to get me killed, so we probably don't need more firearm use.
But that's a reasonable person.
A reasonable human being looks at that and says well, our society on the whole is safer and my gun is likely to get me killed, so we probably don't need more firearm use.
But that's a reasonable person.
This law was the result of justified self defense shootings that resulted in criminal charges, later dismissed, and civil suits in which the shooter had to spend a fortune defending him/herself. People were at the mercy of prosecutes and an arbitrary judicial system that often left them broke, even when later exonerated. As for guns themselves, a recent poll found 57% of Americans now supporting gun ownership for self protection. The bottom line is this. If the criminal justice system isn't able to protect people they will then take matters into their own hands.
8
Interesting take, Steve. I'm reminded of the gent who when caught inflagrante, denies it and faces his wife saying, "Are you gonna believe me or your lyin' eyes?'
People are persuaded by fear. When told 'the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,' gun sales go up. The stats presented here clearly show that while overall shootings are down, 'justifiable homicides' are up. Much of that is no better than state-sanctioned genocide. That is as plain an indictment of gun violence as you'll want or need.
People are persuaded by fear. When told 'the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,' gun sales go up. The stats presented here clearly show that while overall shootings are down, 'justifiable homicides' are up. Much of that is no better than state-sanctioned genocide. That is as plain an indictment of gun violence as you'll want or need.
1
Sadly the 'fearing of America' campaign seems to be working.
More sadly the good citizens who are most afraid are most likely to shoot someone for no particular reason, or to fumble the ball when actually accosted, and get themselves killed by an assailant who will then claim innocence under these anarchical laws.
More sadly the good citizens who are most afraid are most likely to shoot someone for no particular reason, or to fumble the ball when actually accosted, and get themselves killed by an assailant who will then claim innocence under these anarchical laws.
22
"If the criminal justice system isn't able to protect people they will then take matters into their own hands."
According to all reports violent crime has significantly dropped in America. So where do you get the notion that the criminal justice isn't able to protect people? Heck, we even got Osama Bin Laden!
According to all reports violent crime has significantly dropped in America. So where do you get the notion that the criminal justice isn't able to protect people? Heck, we even got Osama Bin Laden!
Yesterday as I was driving back from Albuquerque New Mexico, I noticed a man who passed us on a motorcycle had a pistol strapped to his side. As we approached Bloomfield New Mexico, and needing to gas up my vehicle, I noticed that this same individual was gassing up his motorcycle at a gas station I usually stop at. I drove on, I saw no need to put myself in a situation where an individual, who I do not know and have no reason to trust, would be present with a dangerous firearm. We are a country which has lost its sanity. According to the most recent issue of Mother Jones magazine,gun violence cost this country 229 billion dollars each year. We all need to raise our voices against this madness.
24
People who feel the need to carry a gun all the time are probably more confrontational than others in the first place. That and, if the NRA supports the idea, I am against it.
25
More confrontational? I know many people who are licensed for concealed carry who are gentle and not at all confrontational. Some have been victims of violent crime in the past, or have had close calls from no fault of their own. All of them see no sense in denying themselves the opportunity to responsibly defend themselves and their loved ones if unavoidable, life-threatening aggression should come their way. Tell me, have you ever met a victim of rape or someone whose loved one was murdered who had not wished they had an effective means to stop the aggression that befell them?
1
We have proven time and time again that lessons learned from the past don't carry enough weight to make them practical in the present.
On a far larger scale, America had the lesson of Vie Nam and more recently our ongoing conflict is the Arab country's. The carry laws fall in the same category only now, we have political powers backing them up.
Is it possible that American will never learn?
On a far larger scale, America had the lesson of Vie Nam and more recently our ongoing conflict is the Arab country's. The carry laws fall in the same category only now, we have political powers backing them up.
Is it possible that American will never learn?
4
IF "stand your ground" made sense, then why am I not allowed to exit my vehicle and punch someone in the nose who has placed my life in jeopardy, with their car ? In traffic situations, no matter what the other person has done, the person exiting their car, is going to jail. ( , in Canada and England, I can hold the person forcibly for the police) that, is a REAL stand your ground law. Apparently, due to strange firearms mentality, I can shoot and kill the perpetrator, but NOT get out of my car !
6
In most states you are not allowed to discharge a firearm in or from a motor vehicle.
The burden of proof should be on the person who pulled the trigger to show how they were threatened in a violent manner. In one state, the stand your ground law has been modified by its legislature. After a man set up a blind and killed a German student who walked into his open garage to steal something he left in plain sight, the state of Montana rewrote the law to say that the person must violently enter the home before the homicide would be considered justifiable. In any case, the shooter, was found guilty of homicide and sentenced to prison.
9
We're complaining about excessive use of force by ther po,lice now. 'Stabnd Youir Ground' turns the mass of citizenry into a vast, fearful, and poorly trained mob of piolice auxiliaries.
How can this be a good idea?
The answer is simple: more support and better training for the police. I don't like it when someone shoves a gun in my face in the middle of the night -- been there, done that, yawn -- but if they absolutely must, I'd prefer they were a poilce officer
How can this be a good idea?
The answer is simple: more support and better training for the police. I don't like it when someone shoves a gun in my face in the middle of the night -- been there, done that, yawn -- but if they absolutely must, I'd prefer they were a poilce officer
6
We need to be clear what "stand your ground" laws are about: they're about macho pride, not public safety.
In any state, a person who reasonably believes that another person is about to use deadly force against him can respond, even pre-emptively, with deadly force. But in a "duty to retreat" case, there is an exception: if the person facing imminent deadly force knows that he can withdraw from the situation in complete safety, he must do so. In a "stand your ground" law, that person need not retreat, even though retreat can be done with complete safety, but instead may pre-emptively use deadly force.
Comparing the two laws, it is clear that "stand your ground" laws value personal pride over human life - better to kill a person than to incur the humiliation of retreat. Conversely, "duty to retreat" laws value human lives over ego - better to swallow your macho pride than unnecessarily kill someone.
Stand your ground laws are their own retreat - a retreat from modern civilization, back to the wild, wild west, a dangerous step closes to Hobbes's state of nature, the war of all against all, in which life is nasty, brutish and short.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
In any state, a person who reasonably believes that another person is about to use deadly force against him can respond, even pre-emptively, with deadly force. But in a "duty to retreat" case, there is an exception: if the person facing imminent deadly force knows that he can withdraw from the situation in complete safety, he must do so. In a "stand your ground" law, that person need not retreat, even though retreat can be done with complete safety, but instead may pre-emptively use deadly force.
Comparing the two laws, it is clear that "stand your ground" laws value personal pride over human life - better to kill a person than to incur the humiliation of retreat. Conversely, "duty to retreat" laws value human lives over ego - better to swallow your macho pride than unnecessarily kill someone.
Stand your ground laws are their own retreat - a retreat from modern civilization, back to the wild, wild west, a dangerous step closes to Hobbes's state of nature, the war of all against all, in which life is nasty, brutish and short.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
19
Why should someone be obliged to retreat when threatened? Do we really want a society where aggressors are legally guaranteed success?
22
The tendency to assume that someone is threatening simply by their presence is one problem. The article highlights the fact that the way some laws are written, there is no standard to measure the judgment of the shooter. It allows for any kind of prejudice and unwarranted fears to be expressed with bullets, when there has been no other exchange.
2
Stand your ground is not about "macho pride" nor public safety. It is about my right to be somewhere in public, and not have to back down from your infringement of that right. I don't carry a gun, but my cane will do the same job.
1
It's not that we're dumb. It's that we're beholden to politicians who are easily "swayed" by an organization such as the NRA.
The NRA exists to "protect the right to bear arms." It has twisted original Constitutional language out of context to suit their aims. They love guns. And the gun makers love the NRA. Those two bedfellows got onto the lobbying bandwagon and realized money=influence=power=money.
This is just one example of MANY that expose how our lobbying system has become a breeding ground for corruption, decisions made for money making purposes as opposed to championing causes for the commonwealth.
The NRA exists to "protect the right to bear arms." It has twisted original Constitutional language out of context to suit their aims. They love guns. And the gun makers love the NRA. Those two bedfellows got onto the lobbying bandwagon and realized money=influence=power=money.
This is just one example of MANY that expose how our lobbying system has become a breeding ground for corruption, decisions made for money making purposes as opposed to championing causes for the commonwealth.
9
Makes huge sense when you live where there are many home invasions by strangers with weapons. I am not a fan of guns, as my first boyfriend at age 8 was killed by a playmate messing with his big brother's gun, and my brother committed suicide by gun 3 years ago, and my husband's father did the same 30 years ago, but when a man with a black belt in karate came to my home when I was 8 months pregnant threatening to beat me up (I was alone) I pointed a Saturday night special at him and he promptly left, never to return. And when a peeping tom repeatedly peered through our window at night when my teenage daughters were undressing for bed, I shot my little pistol in his direction and he disappeared, never to return. I believe in Stand Your Ground if properly applied. And I'm a "nice person" with PhD and high social status, not in a ghetto.
5
But those weren't stand your ground situations, they were defense of home and family. What if you had been in a public park and the black belt confronted you, or some pervert was stalking your girls?
Wow, "And I'm a "nice person" with PhD and high social status, not in a ghetto." I think you just revealed a lot about how nice a person you are there, Anne.
1
When you shot that pistol at night into what you thought was empty space, you could have killed someone other than the peeping tom. How would you have justified that?
When the peeping tom was in the act, you could (and should) have called the police.
When the peeping tom was in the act, you could (and should) have called the police.
3
Maybe these laws would be acceptable if the shooters in these cases were required to prove their membership in a well-regulated militia before they could claim SYG as a defense.
6
All the statistics I have ever seen show that legal gun owners and carriers are the most law abiding people around. Robert Heinlein was 100% correct when he wrote "an armed society is a polite society." It is just common sense.
10
So that must mean that Afghanistan is really, really polite.
4
But as the article cites, "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." In other words, these beneficiaries of the Stand Your Ground laws were by definition previously NOT law abiding, yet by virtue of a Stand Your Ground law they could present themselves as law-abiding gun users. I don't think that's what Robert Heinlein had in mind.
22
I'm sorry for all you people who feel so threatened that you don't want to leave your house without a gun. I'm a 5'2" woman in her 60's. You would think that if anyone should feel threatened, it would be someone my size. But I've never had the feeling that I needed to live my life armed, and I hate living in a world where so many people are toting guns. There's a certain population of those people who, if they strut around with a gun long enough, will find a reason to use it. Those are the people who "stand your ground" laws work out well for.
9
If there was ever an example of the importance of an armed citizenry, those that protect themselves, it is Baltimore. When the government stops, and in this case, orders police to stand down, the only alternative is to protect oneself when anarchy ensues.
9
It's usually about humiliation, not fear. Retreating is an emotional bummer; standing one's ground glorifies oneself--unless you are a mature human being, who's learned to "take it from where it comes", then "rises above" the miscreant displaying his "prison ego". When a resentful teen gives a grown man the surly eye, it is not cool, after all, for that man to descend to the level of a teenager--or an angry ape. A mature citizen's reaction should be to defuse the situation, rather than defend his juvenile pride. Packing heat in this country is an emotional, not rational act. Alas, so is voting, and look what we get.
7
What is not mentioned in the story are the prosecutions and private lawsuits against the victims when they sought to protect themselves. Once again society via court rulings was turning into a suicide pact where the aggressors can go after you and you become the defendant for defending yourself and yours. If the laws now seem too loose it is because of the fundamental unfairness of what was happening to those who were assaulted, burglarized and set upon by the marauders.
8
Why don't lawmakers who talk about SYG present those prosecutions and private lawsuits in their arguments? You can accuse the NYT of liberal bias, fair deal, but those who are advocating these laws never mention these cases when they explain or defend the law, they always seem to resort to nebulous fears and macho verbiage.
NYTimes, June 28, 2005:
“WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.”
“ . . . the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.”
Since the police have no enforceable duty to protect, it is up to each of us to be ready to protect ourselves. And our children.
“WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.”
“ . . . the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.”
Since the police have no enforceable duty to protect, it is up to each of us to be ready to protect ourselves. And our children.
20
Logic and thoughtful analysis is not going to change the minds of millions of Americans who have been consistently and intentionally scared to death by those whose only goal is to sell more guns to more people.
8
The position of the "stand your grounders" and the NRA with its suggestions that immature children in schools should be armed and "the only defense against a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun is fairly straight fwd - they believe that civil society should operate like a combat zones operates - that all of us should exist in an environment where we must be ready to make instantaneous decisions on whether we will use deadly force - that being prepared to kill or be kill is some how a sustainable or desirable state for society.
Even the most cursory examination of what historically has happen in the preparation for existence in a combat zone(military training) and the consequences of long time exposure to combat zone leads you to understand what a stupid poisonous idea this is.
One of the main aims of military training is to dehumanize the "enemy" so that soldiers do not hesitate - at risk of their life - if the only good Red or Palestinian or Indian is a dead one why would you hesitate to kill.
Combat fatigue and its consequences is becoming better understood all the time - it has life long destructive consequences.
Some of the shills for this hideous stupidity like Wayne LaPierre and corporate executives in the small arms industry have a fairly straight fwd motivation - LaPierre averages over a million dollars a year in compensation for his spewing this child killing poison.
Even the most cursory examination of what historically has happen in the preparation for existence in a combat zone(military training) and the consequences of long time exposure to combat zone leads you to understand what a stupid poisonous idea this is.
One of the main aims of military training is to dehumanize the "enemy" so that soldiers do not hesitate - at risk of their life - if the only good Red or Palestinian or Indian is a dead one why would you hesitate to kill.
Combat fatigue and its consequences is becoming better understood all the time - it has life long destructive consequences.
Some of the shills for this hideous stupidity like Wayne LaPierre and corporate executives in the small arms industry have a fairly straight fwd motivation - LaPierre averages over a million dollars a year in compensation for his spewing this child killing poison.
5
Guns don't kill people, the NRA does.
5
***Why must we relearn a lesson we codified centuries ago? How dumb are we?***
Well, it appears that we are pretty dumb. Gangbangers must like it though.
Well, it appears that we are pretty dumb. Gangbangers must like it though.
4
Of the 30,000 or so Americans who die from gun shot every year about 20, 000 or 2/3rds are suicides. Standing your ground while shooting yourself tends to make eminently good emotional and mental sense to them.
The Second Amendment was born in an America where there were real looming threats from hostile native tribes, slaves, the British Empire and wild beasts in a rural farming nation with no significant standing military nor law enforcement. Guns are meant to evoke the machismo mythology of the Wild West and the Confederacy. Standing your ground while white in that part of the nation makes sense.
Neither Trayvon Martin nor Jordan Davis looked like they could be their son nor looked like them. Many Americans have a gun fetish and an illegal drug addiction and racial bigotry.
The Second Amendment was born in an America where there were real looming threats from hostile native tribes, slaves, the British Empire and wild beasts in a rural farming nation with no significant standing military nor law enforcement. Guns are meant to evoke the machismo mythology of the Wild West and the Confederacy. Standing your ground while white in that part of the nation makes sense.
Neither Trayvon Martin nor Jordan Davis looked like they could be their son nor looked like them. Many Americans have a gun fetish and an illegal drug addiction and racial bigotry.
1
And all the folks in your last sentence are gun carrying white guys?
1
SYG laws demonstrates the welfare mentality of the 2nd amendment crowd, welfare mentality meaning you do not accept personal responsibility for yourself but seek to foist that responsibility on to the larger society.
Gun advocates oppose any laws that require training in the use of the weapon the person carries. The gun crowd says that is an infringement on their right to KABA. As I recall, the early militias required extensive training in how to shoot to defend themselves against the British in the founding era.
Yet, at the same time, gun advocates want third party immunity for any collateral damage they may cause when defending themselves in the public square.
The welfare mentality writ large: no proficiency responsibility in the use of the gun; no consequences for its misuse, that's somebody else's problem.
Gun advocates oppose any laws that require training in the use of the weapon the person carries. The gun crowd says that is an infringement on their right to KABA. As I recall, the early militias required extensive training in how to shoot to defend themselves against the British in the founding era.
Yet, at the same time, gun advocates want third party immunity for any collateral damage they may cause when defending themselves in the public square.
The welfare mentality writ large: no proficiency responsibility in the use of the gun; no consequences for its misuse, that's somebody else's problem.
5
I agree that weapons training is good for people who intend to carry. However, government permission and licensing cannot be required in order to exercise a right.
Nothing good can come of a legal or social structure that encourages the individual to view every stranger presumptively as an aggressor against which he must be prepared at any second to defend himself. Psychologists have names for that mindset, including 'paranoia' and 'psychosis'. Add in concealed-carry, and you all but justify that paranoia.
You would think this would be so obvious as not to need saying.
You would think this would be so obvious as not to need saying.
3
This is not a question of statistics! Saudi Arabia chops the hands of robbers and the statistics prove that it works. This is a question of Morality and the kind of society we want live in. We can not pretend to live in a civilized society with laws like that. If we are really debating whether "Kill first, explain later" is right or wrong, we have to start asking ourselves some very basic questions.
This passage really struck me: [....Florida’s 2005 law in more than 200 cases (about half of them fatal) through mid-2012] 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.
Why do these people not lose their right to carry? Go to jail, lose your right to vote - why do we continue to allow clearly dangerous people to carry guns?
Why do these people not lose their right to carry? Go to jail, lose your right to vote - why do we continue to allow clearly dangerous people to carry guns?
5
I judge in Missouri is currently making a determination on whether the guns statutes, as written, make it unconstitutional to deprive a felon of a gun.
As a resident of Florida, I am appalled at how the Florida state legislature is in the pocket of the NRA. Florida is the original "Stand Your Ground" state which led to situations such as the Tryvon Martin case. The legislature continues to expand the places where concealed weapons can be carried. Employers cannot keep employees from bringing guns on to company property as long as the gun is locked in the employee's car. A bill was introduced during the recent legislative session to allow students over 21 with a gun permit to carry concealed weapons on college campuses. The presidents of the Florida state schools opposed the bill but it would likely have passed if it had come to a vote.
Recent studies have shown that trained policeman are not very good shots when involved in a shooting. If a policeman who receives ongoing training is nota good shot in highly stressful situations, how do you think the average person with little or not training will perform?
Recent studies have shown that trained policeman are not very good shots when involved in a shooting. If a policeman who receives ongoing training is nota good shot in highly stressful situations, how do you think the average person with little or not training will perform?
2
"Recent studies have shown that trained policeman are not very good shots when involved in a shooting" Indeed. You could go on to add that "Nevertheless, police won't be handing in their guns any time soon."
"How dumb are we?" Oh, don't ask!
4
There are no easy calls here. Simplistic calls, most assuredly, but easy? No.
The right of self defense, protection of one's person, family and friends in one's home and on one's property, is universal and inarguable. That right is in proportion to the severity of the immediate and impending threat. Lethal threat: Lethal response is an option but, and here is where the foundational argument for its use begins to feel like a floor of Jell-O, not always necessary, not to mention not always appropriate. And this is in one's home, his "castle."
Away from home the floor of argument gets even squishier.
Arming oneself to run to Walmart for batteries for the TV remote and a quart of milk? The odds of being killed in a car wreck en-route are orders of magnitude greater than that of being gunned down at the self-checkout register.
My opinion -and this from an owner of several firearms from handguns to rifles and shotguns- is the primary motivating thought for those who must be armed everywhere but the shower is a wish to be hailed as a hero for bringing down a bad guy as much or more than it is to prevent harm to themselves or others. For many it is the hope to fulfill a narcissistic fantasy, not a reasonable precaution.
Legislating a "right" to put this fantasy into action is irresponsible.
The right of self defense, protection of one's person, family and friends in one's home and on one's property, is universal and inarguable. That right is in proportion to the severity of the immediate and impending threat. Lethal threat: Lethal response is an option but, and here is where the foundational argument for its use begins to feel like a floor of Jell-O, not always necessary, not to mention not always appropriate. And this is in one's home, his "castle."
Away from home the floor of argument gets even squishier.
Arming oneself to run to Walmart for batteries for the TV remote and a quart of milk? The odds of being killed in a car wreck en-route are orders of magnitude greater than that of being gunned down at the self-checkout register.
My opinion -and this from an owner of several firearms from handguns to rifles and shotguns- is the primary motivating thought for those who must be armed everywhere but the shower is a wish to be hailed as a hero for bringing down a bad guy as much or more than it is to prevent harm to themselves or others. For many it is the hope to fulfill a narcissistic fantasy, not a reasonable precaution.
Legislating a "right" to put this fantasy into action is irresponsible.
5
You could subtitle this article "Civilization and its Discontents." Society has a need to defuse violence among its members, but men (the vast majority of the cases cited here) have as individuals a need to act "manly." Until our concept of manhood changes -- until the notion of "safe retreat" is no longer perceived as a cowardly act -- there will be no solution to this dilemma.
And such a change will have to occur on a grand scale, since unilateral disarmament can be dangerous: "Pale Ebenezer thought it wrong to fight, but Roaring Bull (who killed him) thought it right."
And such a change will have to occur on a grand scale, since unilateral disarmament can be dangerous: "Pale Ebenezer thought it wrong to fight, but Roaring Bull (who killed him) thought it right."
3
These studies that show an increase in violence are surprising to no one.
The NRA is a lobby group to convince people to buy more guns. All of its logic is twisted to push that one agenda.
The NRA is a lobby group to convince people to buy more guns. All of its logic is twisted to push that one agenda.
4
Again, those pesky facts show that crime of every sort has declined to levels not seen since they started keeping statistics on it.
Stand-your-ground laws are so poorly written that when somebody gets killed, its justification too often becomes a matter of taking the killer's word for it.
Must those attacked give way, if they can? When attackers have the advantage, should they get more by making the attacked give way?
The concern is whether the dead man was an attacker who kept attacking?
If so, how much force should the defender be allowed? It seems that Zimmerman's 1st brandishing his weapon would have cooled any attack or bravado of Trayvon's.
When people are attacked in their homes, use of deadly weapons to fend off or kill an attacker should need the least explanation, but the explanation should have to hold water.
When people are attacked away from home, a context of greater threat should support any use of a deadly weapon. Just saying one was attacked or scared is too easy.
And though on-duty police are not obliged to get shot or injured, they agreed to accept those risks when they signed up. As for policemen emptying their weapon's engine-block piercing rounds into an attacker or fleer, nothing credilby supports their usually claimed extreme fright.
What does it take to halt an attacker or a fleer? ONE .27-cal round to the butt or a leg. A torn femoral artery would usually be fatal and very fast, but that outcome is not automatic.
Eight armor-piercing rounds are too much!
Must those attacked give way, if they can? When attackers have the advantage, should they get more by making the attacked give way?
The concern is whether the dead man was an attacker who kept attacking?
If so, how much force should the defender be allowed? It seems that Zimmerman's 1st brandishing his weapon would have cooled any attack or bravado of Trayvon's.
When people are attacked in their homes, use of deadly weapons to fend off or kill an attacker should need the least explanation, but the explanation should have to hold water.
When people are attacked away from home, a context of greater threat should support any use of a deadly weapon. Just saying one was attacked or scared is too easy.
And though on-duty police are not obliged to get shot or injured, they agreed to accept those risks when they signed up. As for policemen emptying their weapon's engine-block piercing rounds into an attacker or fleer, nothing credilby supports their usually claimed extreme fright.
What does it take to halt an attacker or a fleer? ONE .27-cal round to the butt or a leg. A torn femoral artery would usually be fatal and very fast, but that outcome is not automatic.
Eight armor-piercing rounds are too much!
"And though on-duty police are not obliged to get shot or injured, they agreed to accept those risks when they signed up."
And the attacker agreed to accepted the risks of being killed when he or she threatened a police officer. This works both ways, my friend.
And the attacker agreed to accepted the risks of being killed when he or she threatened a police officer. This works both ways, my friend.
Another prime example of emotional and irrational rhetoric that undercuts the argument you seek to make.
Police do not carry 'armor piercing' rounds in their service weapons. Police carry pistols and pistols don't fire those rounds. If you want 'armor piercing" rounds, you need to have a 50 caliber rifle, which stands some four feet tall and weighs over 30lb. Try hiding that under your coat! BTW, just what is a 27 caliber round?
Police do not carry 'armor piercing' rounds in their service weapons. Police carry pistols and pistols don't fire those rounds. If you want 'armor piercing" rounds, you need to have a 50 caliber rifle, which stands some four feet tall and weighs over 30lb. Try hiding that under your coat! BTW, just what is a 27 caliber round?
The current iteration of the Stand Your Ground laws plus permissive carry laws promote a system where each individual can become his own judge, jury and executioner. Not exactly the system of justice envisioned by the Constitution.
Perhaps one fix would be to remove the presumption of self-defense when the deceased is unarmed. At a minimum, the shooter should be put through the same rigorous examination as a police officer who is responsible for someone's death.
States like Florida with those SYG and permissive carry laws create an environment akin to the Old West. Maybe a good place for gunslingers but not so great for grocery shoppers.
Perhaps one fix would be to remove the presumption of self-defense when the deceased is unarmed. At a minimum, the shooter should be put through the same rigorous examination as a police officer who is responsible for someone's death.
States like Florida with those SYG and permissive carry laws create an environment akin to the Old West. Maybe a good place for gunslingers but not so great for grocery shoppers.
3
I recall hearing the jury instructions in the Zimmerman trial as they were and as they would have been before the "stand your ground law". Under that law the instructions contained two pertinent points: Was the shooter in a place were he was legally entitled to be? and, did he have reason to feel threatened? Zimmerman testified that there had been a physical struggle and that Martin attempted to take the gun. Jury members said afterward that they had little choice but to acquit. OK, consider that if
Zimmerman's story is true and Martin had taken the gun and killed Zimmerman, the killing would have been justified by the same two qualifications. Martin was legally entitled to be walking down the street and after Zimmerman pulled a gun Martin definitely had reason to feel threatened. How can a law written to make killing justifiable by whichever party controls the gun without regard to who brought the gun and who initiated the conflict make any sense to anyone?
Zimmerman's story is true and Martin had taken the gun and killed Zimmerman, the killing would have been justified by the same two qualifications. Martin was legally entitled to be walking down the street and after Zimmerman pulled a gun Martin definitely had reason to feel threatened. How can a law written to make killing justifiable by whichever party controls the gun without regard to who brought the gun and who initiated the conflict make any sense to anyone?
5
An excellent question! Its almost as if the law might be the problem.
Minds conjure up fear. That fear may be justified or not and have many origins, including past experiences or expectations that have nothing to do with the present situation. It's all inside the fallible human mind. What one person may fear, another would not.
The mind, rummaging through its expectations based on the past, or past beliefs, can not be trusted to clearly see the present. It may pick up what it has heard from others, it may have learned fear from close acquaintances or relatives, it may have read or heard of similar situations. It may totally misinterpret the current situation.
To give an okay to kill based on fear alone is absurd. Retreat may not be a satisfactory macho solution, but it could save a couple of lives. One can not kill without negatively affecting the rest of one's life and those of many others.
And of course there are no doubt those who claim to fear what they actually do not.
The mind, rummaging through its expectations based on the past, or past beliefs, can not be trusted to clearly see the present. It may pick up what it has heard from others, it may have learned fear from close acquaintances or relatives, it may have read or heard of similar situations. It may totally misinterpret the current situation.
To give an okay to kill based on fear alone is absurd. Retreat may not be a satisfactory macho solution, but it could save a couple of lives. One can not kill without negatively affecting the rest of one's life and those of many others.
And of course there are no doubt those who claim to fear what they actually do not.
3
So in order to placate the National Rifle Association, (mostly) conservative politicians have created a situation in which a law-abiding citizen is at risk of being shot to death by another (law-abiding?) citizen who just happens to feel threatened by him. No proof of any actual threat required. "I thought he had a gun" or something along those lines will do just fine, even if it turns out the now-dead non-threatening victim was unarmed. And the now-dead non-threatening victim's family has no recourse in criminal or civil court. All this to keep the campaign contributions flowing and stave off the attack ads. Only in America.
10
I'm not an initiate into the cult of "data," but these statistics are overwhelmingly persuasive.
The statistics show that "Stand Your Ground" codifies racist fears and increases the homicide rate. That 68% of the victims were unarmed is staggering. Yes, you can be put in danger and killed by an unarmed person, but generally if that person knows you have a gun, he's dissuaded. That's why I don't like "concealed" carry: if the gun is supposed to be a deterrent to keep you safe, wouldn't it be better if potential attackers knew you were packing? You shouldn't get to pull it out of nowhere and fire away when you're only assuming that the threat against you could escalate to lethal force.
It may be that many or even most people of all races are more afraid of young black males than any other category of person. (I recall President Obama's anecdote about his white grandmother's fear of such, contrary to her beliefs and emotions.) But that's why laws need to be very careful when they cross from the facts to perception. Can we really support law that in effect says "my fear was justified because I'm scared of black people"?
And last, the laws from the pre-Civil War era are fascinating. Is it possible that fears of losing white supremacy have always underlain gun-lust laws? And when abolition threatened the status quo, guns helped shore up the white supremacist's damaged ego? There's a species of American who doesn't feel free unless he holds life-and-death power over others.
The statistics show that "Stand Your Ground" codifies racist fears and increases the homicide rate. That 68% of the victims were unarmed is staggering. Yes, you can be put in danger and killed by an unarmed person, but generally if that person knows you have a gun, he's dissuaded. That's why I don't like "concealed" carry: if the gun is supposed to be a deterrent to keep you safe, wouldn't it be better if potential attackers knew you were packing? You shouldn't get to pull it out of nowhere and fire away when you're only assuming that the threat against you could escalate to lethal force.
It may be that many or even most people of all races are more afraid of young black males than any other category of person. (I recall President Obama's anecdote about his white grandmother's fear of such, contrary to her beliefs and emotions.) But that's why laws need to be very careful when they cross from the facts to perception. Can we really support law that in effect says "my fear was justified because I'm scared of black people"?
And last, the laws from the pre-Civil War era are fascinating. Is it possible that fears of losing white supremacy have always underlain gun-lust laws? And when abolition threatened the status quo, guns helped shore up the white supremacist's damaged ego? There's a species of American who doesn't feel free unless he holds life-and-death power over others.
4
Now with Kansas lifting training requirements for carrying a weapon, we have opened the gates of incompetence. The SEALS train monthly with usually 30,000 rounds from various weapons. Most SWAT teams are less than 100 rounds a month, and it is lucky to get 100 rounds of practice from the average police, many of whome have to buy their own practice ammunition. Again, I would remind these cowboy and TV cop show wannabees the gI have given to police, "the gun that will kill you is the one on your belt." Virtually none of these weapons will ever be used in self defense, but many will find themselves in the hands of criminals, children, or in the desperate hands of suicides. The act of carrying a weapon threatens everyone, and that can only be reduced with expensive and intense training, as we have seen on the streets of Baltimore and Missouri. In many of the neighborhoods, incompetent but swaggering white folks packing their expensive sidearms are simply "upgrades", a convenient source of weaponry.
10
My wife and I use 500 rounds a month at the range with 8 different guns from Semiautomatic 9mm and 40 calibers to pump shot guns and AR15s and a 38 Special revolver. I was also a Navy SEABEE and have extensive training in firearms including grenade launchers. M60 Machine Guns and a Browning Automatic Rifle. There are two ranges a block apart a mile from my house and they are open 7 days a week for shooting. Somebodies getting in practice.
We also have attended self defense training courses.
We also have attended self defense training courses.
1
Well, at least there is one couple.
The expense and intensity of training is not in "Hogan's Alley" conga line shooting courses, but in how to talk a suspect into not using his/her weapon, a complex and powerful process. I support your training and access to a controlled range (fewer every year even for police). But, competence with the firearm on a controlled range is a basic step, not using a weapon in a confrontation is the challenge. Once the first shot is fired, it is a chaotic and uncontrolled event no matter who is behind what.
Unfortunately, the NRA has won the legislative war, and we are unlikely to significantly change gun laws or rights to carry in some states. Possibly we could work on legislation to require stricter registration and better training for those who insist on carrying. It is amazing to me to see people that view the world as such a threat that they need to carry a gun, and that they would be willing to kill someone over minor things like a traffic dispute. Is this what we've become?
5
We've had concealed carry here in North Carolina since 1995 and no one has been shot over a parking spot yet. Nor have permitted carriers engaged in street shootouts. For that stuff you need to go downtown and watch the people who aren't supposed to have a gun because they are felons.
3
The NRA and extreme right scream machine are systematically convincing many to fear all. I live in rural FL and hear constant gun fire on all sides of our property. This is allegedly "target" practice and it's legal from sunup to sundown. Scary to say the least. Cities can not overturn this "right", it's state mandated. The Deputy Sheriff and his pals did finally stop using 50 caliber military weapons that sounded like a cannon after I begged him to stop. One small victory in an ocean of grievances.
1
Seeing the world as a potential threat is simply a reality check in many cases and places, but that does not equate into killing someone over a traffic dispute. If you check the facts (those inconvenient bits of reality), you will see that an extremely low number of legal gun owners are ever involved in a shooting incident. Putting rhetoric aside for the moment, look at who is the likely victim of gun violence and the answer is young black males in the vast majority of cases. Who does the shooting? Again, it is most likely to be another young black male with an illegal gun, not some older white guy with a legally registered gun. Getting the illegal guns off the streets will make a difference, harassing legal gun owners will not. I am a retired NYPD officer who has turned to inventing in recent years and my scientist friend and I have devised a vehicle mounted, non- intrusive device that can detect hidden weapons. I proposed such an idea to Bloomberg (via' registered mail) when he was still in office and received not a word in reply. When "stop & frisk" fell out of vogue, I proposed a series of training aids to assist police officers in detecting concealed guns without confronting the suspect physically. I sent this proposal to Wm. Bratton, again by registered mail, and my reply was being asked if I had a question about the Freedom of Information Act. These are public officials who should do something about the problem beside proselytize about the
evil of guns.
evil of guns.
2
What´s on trial here is the "stand-your-ground" law, how it was conceived, enacted and implemented. This law created an unhealthy permissive atmosphere giving free-rein and legal licence to use extreme force in a situation where caution and prudence should have been the order of the day.
A troubling aspect of this situation is that this law was conceived and imposed by an organized clique of right-leaning corporate interests (ALEC) that operates clandestinely to advance politicized self-serving agendas to alter laws and facilitate their streamlined enactment and imposition on unwitting and gullible populations, in essence hi-jacking traditional legislative processes.
The same processes aided and abetted by efficient law-making machinery (ALEC) are playing in GOP-dominated state legislatures to implement radicalized GOP ideologies dismantling a host of individual rights, including voter rights, women´s right, and union rights throughout the nation.
A troubling aspect of this situation is that this law was conceived and imposed by an organized clique of right-leaning corporate interests (ALEC) that operates clandestinely to advance politicized self-serving agendas to alter laws and facilitate their streamlined enactment and imposition on unwitting and gullible populations, in essence hi-jacking traditional legislative processes.
The same processes aided and abetted by efficient law-making machinery (ALEC) are playing in GOP-dominated state legislatures to implement radicalized GOP ideologies dismantling a host of individual rights, including voter rights, women´s right, and union rights throughout the nation.
12
We had an outrageous example of stand and defend in Pasco, Washington. A drunk was beating on the door of the wrong house in the middle of the night. While the wife was on the phone with police, the husband OPENS the door and shoots the guy. The killing was declared justifiable because the dead man was found inside the house -- of course the killer, admitted to opening the door.
7
Stand your ground laws are inherently flawed because they can only be claimed by the victor. Putting aside home invasion cases, wouldn't the person injured or killed have an even greater reason to think that he or she was in danger?
9
So far SYG laws have been used more frequently to protect victims from weapon brandishing charges where they scared away a violent attacker than to justify any actual shootings.
SYG makes perfect sense as long as citizens who choose armed self defense are content with "scaring away" an attacker when possible. According to the 2012 National Victimization Survey armed victims repelling violent attacks without firing a shot happens hundreds of thousands of times per year.
A law that give the power of self defense back to the people is only dangerous to aggressive criminals.
SYG makes perfect sense as long as citizens who choose armed self defense are content with "scaring away" an attacker when possible. According to the 2012 National Victimization Survey armed victims repelling violent attacks without firing a shot happens hundreds of thousands of times per year.
A law that give the power of self defense back to the people is only dangerous to aggressive criminals.
5
Where are your facts? Please post studies that state this. Hundreds of thousands?
2
Really? Did you read the article? Care to address the many problems raised there? Or better to just think magically that guns are only used in a competent fashion by calm people who have thought out all the consequences of their actions and only shoot at 'aggressive criminals'. Every fact out there flouts this point of view.
1
"Why must we re-learn lessons codified centuries ago?" Because our collective mindset has regressed to the time of jungle laws. Oh, wait a minute. That would be insulting jungle laws because there was a law and a code of conduct then.
4
There is a narrative, and it's a false one, where being armed saves the gun owner (and family) from further harm. Stand Your Ground is just a variation on that theme.
You may as well try to argue some people out of belief in their religion, as try to argue them out of their "belief" in being armed. The only way forward is to keep public records on how guns are actually used.
Also, for the media to present counter narratives: the young child shooting another child with dad's gun, suicides, women killed by domestic abusers, drive-by shootings. Oh wait, that describes about 80% of American TV programming....
You may as well try to argue some people out of belief in their religion, as try to argue them out of their "belief" in being armed. The only way forward is to keep public records on how guns are actually used.
Also, for the media to present counter narratives: the young child shooting another child with dad's gun, suicides, women killed by domestic abusers, drive-by shootings. Oh wait, that describes about 80% of American TV programming....
4
Well, it does occasionally happen that someone uses their firearm to stop a physical assault on their person by someone who does not have a reasonable reason to be inflicting said assault.
But the data appears to strongly support your assertion that you are far more likely to die from your own gun than stop a bad guy.
But the data appears to strongly support your assertion that you are far more likely to die from your own gun than stop a bad guy.
There is no leadership to take an honest action against social menace. Money, guns and relaxed regulations to carry concealed weapons will haunt us one day but it may be too late to relearn. The intention of the second amendment bill of rights has totally been misconstrued in the modern days. Our mistakes will correct by itself when mass public massacres will start happening. let me describe a scenario - a public gathering of 50 people and 30% persons carry concealed weapons without knowing each other. If one of those 30% initiates a shooting the rest of other 30% will start shooting at each other with pride that the law will protect them.
This "public massacres" fears have proven delusional about 45 times. Still the people who fear guns refuse to let it disapear into the dust bin of history.
At the Gabby Giffords tragedy, dirt bag started shooting, a CCW holder carrying could not figue out who was the problem. He left his gun in the holster and joined the scrum to bring down the dirt bag.
Portland, a dirt bag started shooting up the place. A CCW holder drew his weapon, but he was concerned with the people behind the dirt bag get hit accidentally and held his fire. The dirt bag saw the law abiding gun owner and dirt bag killed himself.
There has never been your "Wild West" shoot-em up anywhere. With education and training, there never will be.
The intention of the 2nd Amendment was to allow the good citizens of the community to protect the community from unlawful harm. A community is made up of individuals. If you do not protect those individuals, you are not protecting the community.
Your entire premise is flawed. It is based on the fear that gun owners are crazed individual just waiting for a chance to create mayhem. That is not true.
At the Gabby Giffords tragedy, dirt bag started shooting, a CCW holder carrying could not figue out who was the problem. He left his gun in the holster and joined the scrum to bring down the dirt bag.
Portland, a dirt bag started shooting up the place. A CCW holder drew his weapon, but he was concerned with the people behind the dirt bag get hit accidentally and held his fire. The dirt bag saw the law abiding gun owner and dirt bag killed himself.
There has never been your "Wild West" shoot-em up anywhere. With education and training, there never will be.
The intention of the 2nd Amendment was to allow the good citizens of the community to protect the community from unlawful harm. A community is made up of individuals. If you do not protect those individuals, you are not protecting the community.
Your entire premise is flawed. It is based on the fear that gun owners are crazed individual just waiting for a chance to create mayhem. That is not true.
The analogy with "mythologized mayhem of the old west" is exactly on point when one understands it is entirely mythology.
The battle of the OK corral was fought because one of the Clantons got caught violating Tombstone's no-carry law, Earp took his gun away, he came back with his buddies to fight. Think about that: cow towns and mining towns had no-carry laws.
In the old west if you shot an unarmed man (no gun, no knife) it was murder. If you shot a man in the back it was murder.
If you look at the graves in any of the boot hills (Tombstone's, or Dodge City's or several other less well known ones), there are more graves of men who were hung than men who were shot.
In the old west "I'm scared" wasn't a legal right to kill somebody.
And in the old west you couldn't start a fist fight with an unarmed man, start losing it, and pull out a gun and shoot him.
In Florida you can do that -- the key to this is that there is no requirement that if you wish to disengage you must drop your gun -- you can claim you want to stop, and then kill him. Why should the guy you have been beating up in a fight you started, and is now winning, trust that if he lets you go, that you won't simply use the disengagement to shoot him?
Indeed, why doesn't he have SYG rights, to kill you?
The battle of the OK corral was fought because one of the Clantons got caught violating Tombstone's no-carry law, Earp took his gun away, he came back with his buddies to fight. Think about that: cow towns and mining towns had no-carry laws.
In the old west if you shot an unarmed man (no gun, no knife) it was murder. If you shot a man in the back it was murder.
If you look at the graves in any of the boot hills (Tombstone's, or Dodge City's or several other less well known ones), there are more graves of men who were hung than men who were shot.
In the old west "I'm scared" wasn't a legal right to kill somebody.
And in the old west you couldn't start a fist fight with an unarmed man, start losing it, and pull out a gun and shoot him.
In Florida you can do that -- the key to this is that there is no requirement that if you wish to disengage you must drop your gun -- you can claim you want to stop, and then kill him. Why should the guy you have been beating up in a fight you started, and is now winning, trust that if he lets you go, that you won't simply use the disengagement to shoot him?
Indeed, why doesn't he have SYG rights, to kill you?
5
Our Constitution does not recognize an inherently privileged class of citizens with an exclusive right to exercise our 2nd Amendment right to self-defense, such as our police. Actually, an implicit Stand Your Ground gun use defense has always been a police defense in court cases over police shootings of civilians. But if police, on- or off-duty, have a Constitutional right to argue that defense as a 2nd Amendment right when they shoot a person representing a criminal threat, so do ordinary citizens under our 2nd Amendment.
Hmm, doesn't the 2nd amendment directly call for well regulated militias? The police are probably not a militia but they are certainly well regulated and closer to the militia than the "ordinary" citizen.
Depending on how they are structured, Stand Your Ground laws could face a challenge under the Fourteenth Amendment. No state would be allowed to establish an untrained, unregulated, and unaccountable police force. That would clearly be a violation of the idea of equal protection of the law. But that is exactly what Stand Your Ground laws do.
1
You do not understand these laws. They do not stop inquiry. They do require the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the non-existence of self-defense, but only after the defendent has established a prima facia case that the Defendent, did in fact, reasonably percieve and imminent threat of death or great bodiliy injury that was appropriately addressed by a resort to lethal force.
That does not appoint anyone as a police officer.
A prima facia case is a set of facts, which if believed, could be the reasonable basis for a finding of self defense by a jury. Once that set of facts is presented to the jury the burden of proof shifts to the State to prove that those facts were not the actual motivating driver for the defendent.
That does not stop the investigation or remove fact finding from the jury. It merely changes the odds for politically motivate prosecutor.
How does that address a 14th Amendment concern?
That does not appoint anyone as a police officer.
A prima facia case is a set of facts, which if believed, could be the reasonable basis for a finding of self defense by a jury. Once that set of facts is presented to the jury the burden of proof shifts to the State to prove that those facts were not the actual motivating driver for the defendent.
That does not stop the investigation or remove fact finding from the jury. It merely changes the odds for politically motivate prosecutor.
How does that address a 14th Amendment concern?
Stand your ground laws are right wing republicans version of open season on killing blacks. These cowards should stay at home under their bed if they're so afraid of a black person that their only solution is to kill them- usually unarmed black men
7
I do not carry because I am in fear. I carry because it is an inexpensive method to address a remote risk of criminal assualt that may have catastrophic consequences.
Proper risk managment compares the cost of advoidance or reduction vs the quantum of risk and extent of loss or damage. Being dead seems to be pretty catastrophic to me. Since I enjoy firearms, the cost of slipping a holstered firearm descretely under my belt is very low.
45 years ago, more or less, I came of a convenience store late at night and was accosted by 2 latino males. When one of them struck me as I walked to my car I did not step back an run. I went beserker and decked him. Police sirens started to wail and they decided there better places to be. The intervening 45 years have changed my ability to deliver on berzerker. Today, I would step back, draw and order them to "LEAVE". Hopefully, that clerk will be a prescient as first and call the cops so I can be supported by wailing sirens.
If I cannot carry because some fearful person like you has bhe power to lawfully forbid it, my handgun is either locked in my safe at home, or in the small safe bolted to the floor of my car's trunk. If I perceive the risk of harm is too great to go unarmed, I don't go. I would not have attended the Baltimore Riots. A person of my complexion would not be welcome. However, I do go the movies across town where my gun is not welcome. I respesct the propreitor's ability to decide what happens on his premises.
Proper risk managment compares the cost of advoidance or reduction vs the quantum of risk and extent of loss or damage. Being dead seems to be pretty catastrophic to me. Since I enjoy firearms, the cost of slipping a holstered firearm descretely under my belt is very low.
45 years ago, more or less, I came of a convenience store late at night and was accosted by 2 latino males. When one of them struck me as I walked to my car I did not step back an run. I went beserker and decked him. Police sirens started to wail and they decided there better places to be. The intervening 45 years have changed my ability to deliver on berzerker. Today, I would step back, draw and order them to "LEAVE". Hopefully, that clerk will be a prescient as first and call the cops so I can be supported by wailing sirens.
If I cannot carry because some fearful person like you has bhe power to lawfully forbid it, my handgun is either locked in my safe at home, or in the small safe bolted to the floor of my car's trunk. If I perceive the risk of harm is too great to go unarmed, I don't go. I would not have attended the Baltimore Riots. A person of my complexion would not be welcome. However, I do go the movies across town where my gun is not welcome. I respesct the propreitor's ability to decide what happens on his premises.
1
"How dumb are we?" is the question central to any examination of humankind. We are monkeys with a mutation that equipped us with a brain that can analyze and invent. This leads to technology. But we still have our hard-wired ape drives and instincts towards hierarchy and tribalism and their children, selfishness, xenophobia, and violence. We are basically monkeys with guns. We can use our brain mutation to understand the destructiveness of our ape drives instincts and devise solutions to mitigate them, basically religion and government, but it is a constant battle. One we are losing, as exemplified by global warming.
4
How dumb are we? Pretty darn stupid. Kansas just enacted a law that will go into effect July 1 that will allow anyone 21 and over to be able to carry a concealed weapon without any kind of permitting. They cite other states where this type of law has been passed with few problems. The states they cite are very rural with low density populations. They are bastions of small town America. Kansas has some large, dense urban centers with serious crime problems.
If you think the cops are on edge now, wait until they are confronted with the possibility that a gun may be legally carried by all. The mere act of carrying is most likely viewed as an act of intimidation, not protecting. I don't want to sit down at a restaurant or bar with guns poking out of peoples jackets. I don't want to live in fear for my life because anyone that passes me may be carrying. I don't want my life to be held in the balance because a nut, who for some reason, finds me threatening. Guns everywhere does not a polite society make. It makes a fearful society. That's not freedom.
If you think the cops are on edge now, wait until they are confronted with the possibility that a gun may be legally carried by all. The mere act of carrying is most likely viewed as an act of intimidation, not protecting. I don't want to sit down at a restaurant or bar with guns poking out of peoples jackets. I don't want to live in fear for my life because anyone that passes me may be carrying. I don't want my life to be held in the balance because a nut, who for some reason, finds me threatening. Guns everywhere does not a polite society make. It makes a fearful society. That's not freedom.
12
This CCW holder shares a concern regarding "constitutional" carry which allows an adult who can lawfully own a gun to carry. However, the facts do not bear out your fears. There are states that have recognized this type of "right" for years. Those states have murder rates that are less than that of Washinton DC, Chicago, New York, Los Anglese, San Diego, and San Francisco. All of those local make even permitted carry very dificult. The absence of fireams in the hands of the law abiding citizens has not made the oppresive communities safer.
If you are worried about the great unwashed carrying concealed, quit malighing them and educate them about the true requirements of Self Defense Law. Self Defense is predicated on the good faith, reasonable perception of an imminent (the next instant of time) threat of death or great bodily injury by an innocent defender (not an instigator).
If you are worried about the great unwashed carrying concealed, quit malighing them and educate them about the true requirements of Self Defense Law. Self Defense is predicated on the good faith, reasonable perception of an imminent (the next instant of time) threat of death or great bodily injury by an innocent defender (not an instigator).
1
UNEQUAL BEFORE THE LAW The "stand your ground" statutes are lethally flawed and unconstitutional. First, the rationale given for firing is that the gun owner feels threatened. No metrics are given nor are any standards. Therefore, due process is impossible. The determination of when it is justified to stand your ground is based on the state of mind at the instant at which the gun is discharged. It is not dependent upon specific observable threats by the person who is shot. Nor can the narrative given by the shooter be questioned or analyzed, effectively trumping both law enforcement and the courts. Since there is no distinction between the legislative and judicial branches of government in this equation, there is another constitutional violation, based on the principle of separation of powers. According to the stand your ground laws, all the power resides in the mind of the shooter. The law itself is so constructed that it places the shooter above the law. That is another constitutional violation of the person shot, who is not afforded equal protection under the law. It is high time for the federal government to take on the stand your ground laws on the basis of multiple constitutional violations and interference with the constitutional freedom of peaceful assembly of citizens. Yet another constitutional violation. Perhaps the most glaring fact is that a significant number of shooters have perpetrated violent crimes previously. Can they be deemed fair and safe?
4
Almost every state the majority in fact that allow concealed carry of firearms have a background check system in place. No one convicted of a felony is issued a permit. No one adjudicated mentally ill is given a permit.
Stand your ground does not preclude an investigation of the shooting. It is investigated the same as any shooting. If the evidence does not support your contention of fear your will be indicted.
Stand your ground does not preclude an investigation of the shooting. It is investigated the same as any shooting. If the evidence does not support your contention of fear your will be indicted.
1
You are wrong. Mischaracterized "Stand Your Ground" laws do not substantially change the reality of self defense law. They merely shift the burden of proof to the State after a primea facia case has been established that the Defendent did, in fact, reasonably percieve themselves to be in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury. Once a reasonable jury could make that finding on the facts, the State then has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendent did not in fact act in good faith on a reasonable perception of that threat.
This does not limit either the investigation or good faith determination of reality by law enforcement. It merely makes them some what less likely to prevail on an unreasonable spin of the jury dice.
The laws were enacted because politically motivated prosecutors were abusing the law. A civil lawyers where shaking down victims of crime for a setlement. Good people who legitiamately acted in defense of themselves or their familty were being abused and extorted beyond reason.
This does not limit either the investigation or good faith determination of reality by law enforcement. It merely makes them some what less likely to prevail on an unreasonable spin of the jury dice.
The laws were enacted because politically motivated prosecutors were abusing the law. A civil lawyers where shaking down victims of crime for a setlement. Good people who legitiamately acted in defense of themselves or their familty were being abused and extorted beyond reason.
2
The point you miss - and I suspect will continue to miss until you or a loved one ends up dead - is that the investigation after the fact is irrelevant to the person who has been killed.
Your obsession with firearms (thank you describing this in an earlier post) does not mean the rest of us should have to risk bodily injury or harm. Go find a safer hobby or accept that you don't get to tote your guns around with you.
Your obsession with firearms (thank you describing this in an earlier post) does not mean the rest of us should have to risk bodily injury or harm. Go find a safer hobby or accept that you don't get to tote your guns around with you.
1
Under these stand your ground laws, wouldn't you be blameless if you shoot a policeman who is approaching you? After all, in some places, police have been known to shoot law abiding citizens for no good reason.
6
What's actually more frightening is that the original Stand Your Ground law was passed in Florida under Jeb Bush while he was Governor. And now he wants to become President ? How absurd-- is this law really an example of what Bush believes will reasonably promote and protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of this country. All this law does is to lead to more senseless tragedies that could have been avoided in the first place. It gives the dead no chance to defend themselves and gives the surviving, gun-toting imbeciles the chance to lie and distort the real facts of the situations in order to protect themselves. Give a person a gun and he will, in most cases, find a reason to eventually use it. Your statistics speak for themselves. SYG needs to repealed.
6
Despite claims made here that Florida and other states have repealed the Old West custom of checking your guns with the town sheriff before bellying up to the bar for a skin-full of rotgut, the truth is that actual results haven’t been as dystopian as claimed by a long shot. We’ve had a litany of prosecutions charging wrongful death by those claiming self-defense under “stand your ground”, and a majority of Americans supports the outcomes. As just two examples, the Trayvon Martin tragedy presented evidence, during a detailed trial, of a boy who appeared to lose it when challenged by a busybody, inflicting serious physical injury precipitating lethal use of a legally-carried firearm in the interests of self-defense; but Michael Dunn was convicted of attempted murder when racism and antipathy for loud music caused him to shoot at (and kill Jordan Davis, a member of) a group of black youths who had offended but not threatened him – and Dunn faces over 60 years of incarceration for his act. Both were Florida cases -- the state singled-out as being the most retrograde in its insistence on rights of self-defense.
Police always argue for less lethal power in civilian hands, largely to maintain their advantage in potential altercations; but we need to be judicious in balancing their needs with the needs of others to defend themselves.
The author is waging a losing war, largely because the evidence doesn’t support his position and it fails to convince enough Americans.
Police always argue for less lethal power in civilian hands, largely to maintain their advantage in potential altercations; but we need to be judicious in balancing their needs with the needs of others to defend themselves.
The author is waging a losing war, largely because the evidence doesn’t support his position and it fails to convince enough Americans.
4
I think you're conclusion is half-right. The author's position is extremely well-supported, relying on broader data than the cherry-picked examples you cite. But your point is taken: no matter what the facts say, people in red states love their guns.
2
Two cases a compelling argument do not make. What about the overwhelming fact of increased homicide due to SYG laws? No response to those. And was Trayvon Martin a dangerous criminal who deserved to die, whether or not Zimmerman was acquitted? I don't think a majority of Americans agree with that, as if a majority of anything is relevant in an unnecessary homicide. If Americans don't agree yet with changing SYG laws, it's not because of the 'evidence', which is consistently unsupportive, but it's because of the American myth of the individual (man usually) against the world armed only with his six shooter. It's pernicious, false, and fundamentally uncivilized.
3
Actually, you cite two anecdotes that not only could be used to refute your point (two people died - neither needed or deserved to), but the author actually has the preponderance of evidence on their side.
Some time ago, I traveled in the South and Midwest and thought the culture and mindset of racism was changing for the better.
No more....
With their legislatures concocting laws like these along with anti-abortion, voter suppression, racism and the advocating of religious government, I have lost all hope that they will ever see the immorality and backwardness of their world view.
Maybe we should have let me secede.
No more....
With their legislatures concocting laws like these along with anti-abortion, voter suppression, racism and the advocating of religious government, I have lost all hope that they will ever see the immorality and backwardness of their world view.
Maybe we should have let me secede.
3
Be careful, if it rains while your hoity-toity nose is so high in the air, you may drown. You maligh good people on the basis mis-reporting a political rag.
However, if you wish to secede - feel free. I hear the U.K. is wonderful this time of year.
However, if you wish to secede - feel free. I hear the U.K. is wonderful this time of year.
1
The NRA, once a club for sportsmen, is a vicious and fanatical organization now funded in large measure by the gun industry; it practices a highly sophisticated and ultra-aggressive marketing /public relations / lobbying strategy focused on dividing Americans against each other in order to secure profits for gun makers, not to promote sportsmanship or personal safety.
I don't know if any other industry has had nearly as much success: we are now at a point where ordinary Americans now think twice about going to the mall or a movie theater.
Mr. Spitzer has done a great public service with his article and book; it puts teeth into what any American intuitively knows when laws like "Stand Your Ground" and "Open Carry" at bars are passed and when mild "Background Checks" are blocked (supported by 90% of Americans). Americans are literally in the "crosshairs" of the NRA.
I don't know if any other industry has had nearly as much success: we are now at a point where ordinary Americans now think twice about going to the mall or a movie theater.
Mr. Spitzer has done a great public service with his article and book; it puts teeth into what any American intuitively knows when laws like "Stand Your Ground" and "Open Carry" at bars are passed and when mild "Background Checks" are blocked (supported by 90% of Americans). Americans are literally in the "crosshairs" of the NRA.
7
How dumb are we? There are plenty who will not stand mute, but the testosterone poisoned NRA is all about enhancing gun violence whenever possible and has the money megaphone provided by the makers of weapons to drown out all other voices and opinions. What we are is terrible, terribly ignorant of history and exceeding stupid when we allow the "little heads" to dictate acceptable behavior in our supposedly civilized society.
1
How many NRA members do you know? What is your basis for saying the NRA is "testosterone poisoned"? Are you basing your opinions on what you read in the NYtimes?
The violent crime rate in the "gun free" environments of big cities is far greater than it is in the smaller communities populated by those you would characterized as uncivilized gun crazed loonies.
Women benefit more from being discretely armed than men, becuase they are generally the ones needing a force multiplier to protect themselves.
Please tell me, how well did relying on police protection work for the merchants in Baltimore?
In the Watts riots the Korean Shop keepers defended their businesses with ARs from the roof. Nobody got shot, and the Korean businessed reopened after peace returned. People depending one the cops where buying their soft drinks from the Koreans while police protectees filtered through the ashes of what had been their business.
The question becomes exactily who is ignorant of history?
The violent crime rate in the "gun free" environments of big cities is far greater than it is in the smaller communities populated by those you would characterized as uncivilized gun crazed loonies.
Women benefit more from being discretely armed than men, becuase they are generally the ones needing a force multiplier to protect themselves.
Please tell me, how well did relying on police protection work for the merchants in Baltimore?
In the Watts riots the Korean Shop keepers defended their businesses with ARs from the roof. Nobody got shot, and the Korean businessed reopened after peace returned. People depending one the cops where buying their soft drinks from the Koreans while police protectees filtered through the ashes of what had been their business.
The question becomes exactily who is ignorant of history?
SYG laws are a reaction to a legal system that choses to prosecute a person who choose to defend himself against a criminal. These laws were created to protect the victim of a crime and it also has created an atmosphere of where some look forward to any chance to use their gun. When there is no middle ground what do you expect? When we live in era when a burglar is dumb enough to carry a gun to break in, the lesser of two evils is SYG.
15
Stand Your Ground does not apply to "break-ins"; those cases would be "Castle Doctrine cases. It is assumed that a resident can defend against unauthorized entry. Stand Your Ground applies to public spaces where retreat is possible and there is no property to defend, thus the large percentage of criminals who use Stand Your Ground to defend killing others in shoot-outs which often endanger innocents. Do the research, check the data and oppose Stand Your Ground; it only helps criminals.
80
Too little too late.
We took this path to self perdition, influenced by fear (9-11 disaster) and the promulgations from the right.
I do not believe we can back track given the current state of affairs in the USA.
Sadly, there is no silver lining on the horizon.
We took this path to self perdition, influenced by fear (9-11 disaster) and the promulgations from the right.
I do not believe we can back track given the current state of affairs in the USA.
Sadly, there is no silver lining on the horizon.
2
Stand Your Ground was never about good policy. It was about doing the National Rifle (Sellers') Association's bidding. Selling more guns, and then allowing people to use those guns irresponsibly without consequences, and thereby encouraging others to buy guns - was always the goal. The fallout of SYG is immaterial to lawmakers whose political fates depend on the approval of the NRA. Once people decide that THEIR welfare is of NO interest to these NRA-loving politicians, they might actually decide to vote them out of office. IF voter-suppression hasn't already made that impossible, as well.
2
Instead of calling these types of laws Stand Your Ground, we should call them Right to Murder Someone and Get Away with It. My cousin, Michael Goodman, was murdered in Sarasota, Florida last year by his girlfriend, who is now claiming self-defense. She bought the gun 3 weeks before the murder. She visited domestic violence centers 3 times in those 3 weeks. Michael never had a history of hitting anyone. Hundreds of people came to his funeral. Not one ever heard or saw Mike say a bad word to this murderer. But there were only 2 witnesses, and one is dead. Now the county attorney tells us she can not pursue a murder charge for lack of evidence. Mike was shot 5 times in his own bedroom. Every shot was fatal. The murderer will receive 2.5 million in life insurance and all of Mike's property. Welcome to The Age of Koch. One day after we've had enough of this kind of political terrorism, I hope we arrest these criminals and the politicians they own for mass murder on a national scale. What they have done is criminal. Jeb Bush is one of those politicians who is in the Koch Brother's pocket and was one of the first to put this law into place. I hope he pays for it.
5
When you start believing that your possessions are more valuable than life, or that everyone out there wants to hurt you, or your family, you have a problem with critical thinking and morality. Republicans have whipped up this fear for 40 years. Start thinking for yourself. Try some common sense.
6
This is a bit misleading. "roughly half the states" have passed CASTLE DOCTRINE laws, allowing for defense of one's own home or vehicle; only 20 or so states extend the reach of the laws to other locations.
3
I figured the law would become the basis for a new type of adventure travel to hunt humans. You get a lesson on the law, what to say to whom, a loaded gun, and a map of the area. Stand your Ground.
2
That's a great idea! Maybe some budding entrepreneur can start a new theme park in Orlando. (To those Floridians who say A Ferencz and I are out of line, I say, who passed this horrible law?)
It is sad to see what passes for insight and/ or scholarship these days; especially to The New York Times. Cherry picked statistics and tortured context doth not a case make, but maybe it seems rigorous to a political scientist. I could spend a day picking this column apart, but I'll leave you with this: the biggest reason the pendulum has swung so far to the side of the shooter is for the way things used to be. Anti gun/ anti self defense politicians and bureaucrats across the country made it difficult to posses firearms and perilous to use them. In these jurisdictions, citizens who defended themselves in even the most obvious of circumstances were summarily arrested and referred for prosecution. The current era of "stand your ground" laws are the result. Finally, the notion that the assailed should be required to "retreat" is silly; a blank check for the violent to neutralize a peaceful person's right to control one's movements.
4
These laws remind me of the events leading up to World War 1. Remember how one country mobilizing its reserves forced other countries to also mobilize their reserves? So too with widespread firearm ownership: the more people carrying firearms, the more likely it is that someone reaching for their waist is planning to draw a gun rather than a cell phone, or their ID. This, in turn, makes a shooter's belief that the other person was armed more reasonable. (Look at all the folks who get shot by police officers because they "reached for their waist" - and police officers are trained to face this situation. The thought of a bunch of untrained, frightened people thinking that they must be ready to draw and shoot "bad guys" at any time does not make me feel "safer." Besides, I've seen how they drive.)
The combination of the "stand your ground" and "arm everyone" laws will get a bunch of people killed - most innocent, some actual criminals. The criminals will merely adjust their tactics to take advantage of the stand your ground laws by claiming they shot their victims in self defense. The NRA will work to boost gun sales. The rest of us only get more bullets to dodge.
The combination of the "stand your ground" and "arm everyone" laws will get a bunch of people killed - most innocent, some actual criminals. The criminals will merely adjust their tactics to take advantage of the stand your ground laws by claiming they shot their victims in self defense. The NRA will work to boost gun sales. The rest of us only get more bullets to dodge.
22
Stand Your Ground laws place the risk with the aggressor as it should be. Civilians tote guns so they don't have to flee.
36
Sorry, but aggression is too often in the eye of the beholder. SYG laws and permissive gun regs put everyone at risk of the trigger-happy paranoid.
Why on earth would you think it is a good thing for someone to kill someone when the situation permits safe retreat?
Why on earth would you think it is a good thing for someone to kill someone when the situation permits safe retreat?
1
That's emotional logic, not something backed up by statistical reality.
The "aggressor," as you argue, is mostly an unarmed individual, while this law give shelter to those with criminal backgrounds.
A parallel law that had similar unintended consequences: in Greece, after the military junta was removed from power, a law was passed barring the police from entering universities without special permission from the university chancellor. This was enacted to protect students from sanctioned abuse. However, the outcome has been that anarchists use the universities as safe havens to carry out mayhem while avoiding prosecution.
This is exactly what these laws cause: mayhem and fear, with no consequences. leave the decisions to take a life up to the people who have years of training to overcome the adrenaline the the confusion of a moment: the police. And even they don't always get it right.
A parallel law that had similar unintended consequences: in Greece, after the military junta was removed from power, a law was passed barring the police from entering universities without special permission from the university chancellor. This was enacted to protect students from sanctioned abuse. However, the outcome has been that anarchists use the universities as safe havens to carry out mayhem while avoiding prosecution.
This is exactly what these laws cause: mayhem and fear, with no consequences. leave the decisions to take a life up to the people who have years of training to overcome the adrenaline the the confusion of a moment: the police. And even they don't always get it right.
In a number of ways, laws like 'Stand Your Ground' (SYG) are symptoms of a growing trend, in America, towards anarchy, the latest of which are the recent Religious-Freedom, (R.F.). laws that sprang-up in Indiana, Arkansas, and elsewhere. Florida's SYG-law effectively repealed the 6th commandment - en effect since virtually the beginning of time - and R.F. laws threaten the emasculation of a host of other laws designed to assure fairness and equality in the market-place. Its anybody's guess as to what's next!
11
Much of this is covered under our Menacing Laws. Someone threatening you with a baseball bat from across the street is much different than when he's up close and can actually cause physical harm. Notice that Officer Wilson in Ferguson was eventually exonerated by Eric Holder's own investigation.
Demanding police wear cameras won't help in most of these determinations. New York police officer Pantaleo, charge with a chokehold death, was not indicted because it was a headlock. Yet even non-police viewers still claim the officer was choking him. Officer Slager, in South Carolina, was being assaulted by Scott and was going for Officer Slager's weapon; threatening his life.
Nothing has been shown where any of the 6 Baltimore police officers assaulted Freddy Gray, but were helping him. The video shows Gray was already suffering effects of his injury.
You refuse to support your police and what you're going to end up with is police refusing to arrest anybody that resists arrest in the slightest way. Insurrection will rule and our cities will burn to the ground.
Demanding police wear cameras won't help in most of these determinations. New York police officer Pantaleo, charge with a chokehold death, was not indicted because it was a headlock. Yet even non-police viewers still claim the officer was choking him. Officer Slager, in South Carolina, was being assaulted by Scott and was going for Officer Slager's weapon; threatening his life.
Nothing has been shown where any of the 6 Baltimore police officers assaulted Freddy Gray, but were helping him. The video shows Gray was already suffering effects of his injury.
You refuse to support your police and what you're going to end up with is police refusing to arrest anybody that resists arrest in the slightest way. Insurrection will rule and our cities will burn to the ground.
1
Apparently in your world, black is white and white is black. Whether Pantaleo used a "headlock" or "chokehold" makes no difference. He turned a live man into a dead man for no valid reason. That is manslaughter, at the least. And Officer Slager chased a man down for running from a traffic stop, leaving the passenger sitting in the car. When he caught up to Scott, Scott did resist arrest and then run again. Shooting a man in the back for no valid reason is also manslaughter, at the least. These are indefensible crimes, so do not try to justify them. And the statistics are correct, carrying a gun around or having one in your home makes everyone around you or in the home at greater risk of being shot, not the other way around.
2
Jerry: I read your post..I don't see much relation to the article, which is about carrying guns and shooting someone you feel might hurt you...It's not about the police at all. You're barking up the wrong tree.
1
Sorry, I'm not retreating in my own house or property nor turning my back on an assailant, nor giving them a possible advantage. When the circumstances are correct, and I'm in fear of my life, stand your ground makes perfect sense.
There are no shortcuts, and you always better be 100% right however.
There are no shortcuts, and you always better be 100% right however.
7
How dumb are we? Well apparently, some are dumb enough to put their loaded handgun, in it's special purse, right in the shopping cart with their toddler. Or dumb enough to have their 6 or 8 year old shoot an semi-automatic weapon at a shooting range just for fun. Or have guns accessible to a emotional and mentally disturbed teen. I guess the rest of us are dumb enough to put up with this crap.
58
To Erik, who claims that early gun control laws were motivated by slave owners; let't put it all in context. The second amendment was written to mollify slave owning states who, ever afraid of a revolt by their slaves, demanded the right to their own state militias for the protection of their white ctizens. These militias devolved into the infamous slave patrols, which hunted down and often killed runaway slaves. Hence the phrase so totally ignored by the NRA, "A well regulated militia......"
12
In answer to your question: "How dumb are we"? - Very!
9
This law was intended to circumvent the misguided laws that said you must try to flee or go into avoidance mode when confronted by violence in your home or on your street. It was intended to protect the elderly and infirm from onerous obligations they could not physically meet. It has not been administered well nor has the population been educated well enough. The police obviously do not understand it, either. But condemning the law shows a lack of understanding that all individuals, not just the fit and young have a right to protection from violence. Too often the elderly and infirm are the victims of violence and robbery. What are they to do when the police are not around?
35
Bad facts make bad laws.
In every issue of the NRA's house magazine are cases where a citizen has used a firearm to protect themselves. The majority are of senior citizens. There's something good about an 80 year old lady warning a man to stop climbing in her window reaching under her blanket and pulling out a 38 Special revolver ( the preferred gun of women) and stopping him.
I'm not buying it. I believe the law was pushed by the NRA and insecure and mentally infirm gun owners.
3
"These laws encourage a “shoot first and ask questions later” mentality, which may help explain why, in supposedly justifiable killings, the victim is more likely to be black when the shooter is white."
Unfounded statements like that are grossly misleading and wrong. Stand your ground does not encourage anyone to shoot first. Anyone who legally carries a weapon or keeps one in their home knows full well that shooting someone can result in great tragedy. No one wants to "shoot first and ask questions later." But everyone wants to live with peace and security in their homes, cars and public places.
Today in America we are faced with criminals and criminal behavior that did not exist 150 years ago. Drugs and violence go hand in hand. Too many communities faced with poverty and deprivation have a population of criminals and gangs that take advantage of unarmed citizens and commit robbery, murder, rape, and every other crime imaginable. Drug cartels exists across America. In our cities too many minorities live in violent neighborhoods. Yesterday two NYPD police were shot as they attempted to search a man acting suspiciously as he adjusted a pistol he was hiding in his waist band. Even our young students are not safe in schools. In one elementary school more than 20 first graders were literally slaughtered. They had nowhere to retreat. Not even one teacher or administrator was armed. Stand your ground does make sense. Criminality does not. Being disarmed makes even less sense.
Unfounded statements like that are grossly misleading and wrong. Stand your ground does not encourage anyone to shoot first. Anyone who legally carries a weapon or keeps one in their home knows full well that shooting someone can result in great tragedy. No one wants to "shoot first and ask questions later." But everyone wants to live with peace and security in their homes, cars and public places.
Today in America we are faced with criminals and criminal behavior that did not exist 150 years ago. Drugs and violence go hand in hand. Too many communities faced with poverty and deprivation have a population of criminals and gangs that take advantage of unarmed citizens and commit robbery, murder, rape, and every other crime imaginable. Drug cartels exists across America. In our cities too many minorities live in violent neighborhoods. Yesterday two NYPD police were shot as they attempted to search a man acting suspiciously as he adjusted a pistol he was hiding in his waist band. Even our young students are not safe in schools. In one elementary school more than 20 first graders were literally slaughtered. They had nowhere to retreat. Not even one teacher or administrator was armed. Stand your ground does make sense. Criminality does not. Being disarmed makes even less sense.
8
In a sane country, a seriously mentally disturbed young man would not have access to the weaponry needed to kill twenty children. He wouldn't have a mother who encouraged him to take up shooting as a hobby. There would not be an industry dedicated to arming every single mentally disturbed individual and every single dumb coward in the US. Why will Arapahoe County spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to pretend that a clearly mentally disturbed man who killed twelve and injured 70 some others was sane except that to acknowledge that James Holmes was insane would mean that we would have to question what such a clearly insane man was doing with guns in the first place?
It amuses me that New Yorkers and people from New Jersey find time to complain about a state more than 1000 miles away. If you don't like the laws in Florida then by all means stay home. I find New York laws and procedures (some of them) absurd, socialistic and corrupt but it does not keep me from visiting. I would never think to complain about your odd habits because it is none of my business, not being a citizen of those states. Please extend the same courtesy to us. And, by the way, we don't care what you think. The Stand Your Ground laws will not be repealed because the reasons they were enacted still stand.
12
The reasons they were enacted is because there is an industry that was losing customers and the way they could increase sales was to drum up fear. I don't live in Florida but you should read the results of the studies because you do. Your citizens are the so called beneficiaries of a law that criminals and the terminally stupid use to justify murder.
A study, not by the NYTimes but by your own Tampa Bay Times found, "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." Such lovely people--just the kind most of us want to see armed and ready to shoot.
A study, not by the NYTimes but by your own Tampa Bay Times found, "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." Such lovely people--just the kind most of us want to see armed and ready to shoot.
2
every southern state govt lives on socialism because they wont collect enough taxes to cover their basic bills. The states that support their socialism are the more vital blue states.
when youre adult enough to cover your own bills you can be trusted with a gun.
oh and by the way, since youre on welfare i want you to take a drug test
"
when youre adult enough to cover your own bills you can be trusted with a gun.
oh and by the way, since youre on welfare i want you to take a drug test
"
1
Still whistling "Dixie." Climate change is destined to rid us of the malignant tumor called Florida. Good luck with your guns as you all rush to board the ark.
1
"In 68 percent, the person killed was unarmed."
While that line may give succor to those who oppose these laws, in and of itself it means nothing. Implicit in the figure is the belief that an "unarmed" person cannot pose a meaningful, legitimate threat to life and limb to another person. That is simply absurd on its face. The reality is that sheer size, bulk, physical conditioning, strength and age, the affect of narcotics, etc., can make being "armed" rather moot in the right conditions. A frail 70-year old being confronted or assaulted by a muscular 20-year male or a 5'0" woman being grabbed by a 6' 06" drunk male does not need to face a weapon in order to be in grave peril should the assailant chose. Denying that is simply denying reality.
Yes, cases need to be judged individually, looking at the totality of circumstances. But simply tossing out this oft heard "oh, well they were unarmed" as dismissive proof that a shooting was not justified is absurd on its face.
While that line may give succor to those who oppose these laws, in and of itself it means nothing. Implicit in the figure is the belief that an "unarmed" person cannot pose a meaningful, legitimate threat to life and limb to another person. That is simply absurd on its face. The reality is that sheer size, bulk, physical conditioning, strength and age, the affect of narcotics, etc., can make being "armed" rather moot in the right conditions. A frail 70-year old being confronted or assaulted by a muscular 20-year male or a 5'0" woman being grabbed by a 6' 06" drunk male does not need to face a weapon in order to be in grave peril should the assailant chose. Denying that is simply denying reality.
Yes, cases need to be judged individually, looking at the totality of circumstances. But simply tossing out this oft heard "oh, well they were unarmed" as dismissive proof that a shooting was not justified is absurd on its face.
48
I'd be very interested to know whether there is data on how many "Stand Your Ground" shootings were carried out by 70-year-olds or extremely small women. That is definitely not the understanding I get from those cases that reach the news.
3
The red herring of a "frail 70 year old" is absurd on its face; the stats don't bear out that the majority of the killings under these SYG laws are commited by "frail" elderly people. Honestly, we don't need a SYG law to prove that, when a frail elderly person is confronted by a "muscular 20 year old male", that shooting at that person was justified. The facts speak for themselves, as a frail, elderly person probably cannot retreat nor defend themselves otherwise. This overbroad law causes unjustified deaths and give cover to violent criminals, and only enriches gun manufacturers.
2
And how, exactly, would an armed frail or physically weak victim maintain possession and control of their weapon when faced with a powerful assailant? It seems more likely that the assailant would soon be the one that was armed.
In my opinion, the worst development in the past 60 years has been the NRA's evolution from gun education advocacy and training to lead marketing shill for gun manufacturers. I somehow doubt had the NRA stuck to its core mission, we'd be having these discussions today.
I'm just glad I live in Massachusetts, which has some of the most restrictive gun licensing requirements in the country. Stand your ground just seems to be a license to kill, particularly if the killing takes place with no witnesses. After all, who can prove or disprove what a killer defines as a reasonable threat?
The dead can't speak.
I'm just glad I live in Massachusetts, which has some of the most restrictive gun licensing requirements in the country. Stand your ground just seems to be a license to kill, particularly if the killing takes place with no witnesses. After all, who can prove or disprove what a killer defines as a reasonable threat?
The dead can't speak.
31
Massachusetts also one of the safest states to live in, from a crime statistic standpoint, and Boston one of safest big cities in the country. In a state where loacl police decide who gets a concealed weapons permit, and as a result, very few such licenses are issued.
I am unable to consider myself or my wife as a statistic. I would find the statistics of little solace if my wife or I should be victims of violent crime. We both have concealed carry permits and will support that right for other law abiding citizens who choose to reduce the probability of being part of the victims of violent crime data set.
24
What about the statistics that say a gun owner's weapon is about ten times as likely to wound or kill a family member than an intruder? You may FEEL like you're more in control and making your family safer, but in practice the opposite is true.
1
However, we as a nation have agreed to form a government and governments mean sacrifice; the more people you govern the more the individual has to sacrifice. Statistics are important ingredient in making laws and if it can convincingly be shown that toting a gun is more harmful to the public than otherwise then I can only hope that we as a nation are intelligent enough to make and pass the appropriate laws. Notwithstanding on person's opinion or personal of safety.
You are actually more likely to become the victim of gun violence because you keep guns in your home and carry them. It's unfortunate that people who intend to make themselves safer by possessing guns actually make themselves less safe. If you don't believe me, do the research yourself. Look up studies from credible researchers at renowned institutions and you'll see for yourself.
"A man who gives way before the wicked
Is like a polluted well
And trampled spring."
-God-
Is like a polluted well
And trampled spring."
-God-
3
"But I say unto to you. That ye not resist evil: but whomsoever smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other," Jesus
1
"There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar." -God- (after Jesus was here)
3
"Yahoo! Set 'em up, barkeep; ahh see some strangers in here who ahm gonna preach to . . . with mah forty-five (snicker)". Cowboy mentality. Get real, the wild west struggles toward continued existence in backward pockets of my state and others, yet suddenly, it appears in Florida and other states where the mentality has experienced a comeback. It speaks loudly to the fantastic dearth of empathy in this society.
1
H. L. Mencken's famous quote might be the answer to your question about how dumb we are: "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the american public."
The NRA is using the American hysteria about guns to help weapons manufacturers and sellers wealthy, and in turn, make themselves incredibly well funded.
It's like the cigarette industry and big oil climate denial, the burden of proof is on the victim, while the victimizers get rich.
The NRA is using the American hysteria about guns to help weapons manufacturers and sellers wealthy, and in turn, make themselves incredibly well funded.
It's like the cigarette industry and big oil climate denial, the burden of proof is on the victim, while the victimizers get rich.
15
The only circumstances I can see "stand your ground" useful, is in defending ones family, pets and property from dangerous/invasive wildlife ( such as coyotes, bears, and mountain lions in some psrts of the country; alligators and snakes like pythons in Florida ).
Apart from that, it further proves "guns don't
kill people; idiots who cherry-pick the Second Amendment to justify their 'packing heat' in public, do."
Apart from that, it further proves "guns don't
kill people; idiots who cherry-pick the Second Amendment to justify their 'packing heat' in public, do."
10
Actually, most of the murders in the country are done by gang members, not NRA members.
Or did you think there's no difference between the two?
Or did you think there's no difference between the two?
3
The "invasive wildlife" I most worry about travels on two legs.
2
How will you protect yourself from all that wildlife if you aren't carrying?
The question is how in the world did these laws get passed? It gives all those wanna be cowboys itching to use their guns, a perfect excuse to act the hero. I live in Florida and I don't feel safe, I actually feel LESS free knowing that people have guns on them, and that if I have a disagreement with one of them over parking or what not, I could possibly get shot. I am less inclined to stand up for myself now.
195
It is amazing that so many of the people who want more "gun freedom" proclaim themselves to be good Christians. Aren't Christians supposed to revere life?
We have a certain percentage in our population who have impulse control problem, anger issues, and are just plain careless. And a certain percentage of these have guns. The problems just will continue to happen. Innocent people will be killed or maimed. And those who are adamantly against any form of gun control will insist that the status quo must remain. The U.S. used to be leader in the world. What happened?
We have a certain percentage in our population who have impulse control problem, anger issues, and are just plain careless. And a certain percentage of these have guns. The problems just will continue to happen. Innocent people will be killed or maimed. And those who are adamantly against any form of gun control will insist that the status quo must remain. The U.S. used to be leader in the world. What happened?
4
SYG law was born of a few cases where innocent victims were prosecuted or sued civilly for clear self defense situations. It serves it purpose. It like many laws is not perfect for every situation. They never will be. That is why we have the courts, jurys and judges.
4
"Stand Your Ground" laws are evidently viewed as a legal permit to kill. George Zimmerman evidently thought so when he killed Trayvon Martin, who was unarmed.
3
"Under the new breed of laws, a person who has harmed or killed another in a public place can presumptively claim self-defense. The police must accept the claim’s validity." No, that's true. A person shooting someone in public cannot claim self-defense if it is not truly self-defense. In Florida a man who shot to death a young man in the car next to him for playing music too loudly. He was tried and convicted of murder. No one accepted the so-called validity of the claim of self defense. There was no threat to the shooter.
Stand your ground does make sense. It made sense the other day in Utah when a woman being assaulted and car jacked in a public parking lot was saved by a man with licensed to carry a firearm. Since the beginning of the year there have been more than one incident in which licensed and legal weapons were used to defend homes and businesses or to protect people from assault.
What doesn't make sense is why there are so many criminals in America who totally disregard the rights and safety of others. Those criminals often are armed with illegal firearms or guns they have stolen.
I live in Florida. There are 1.4 million concealed carry licensed firearm permits. Many homeowners and sportsmen and women have legal firearms in their homes or vehicles. Our community, The Villages has little or no violent crime. There are 120,000 residents, mostly seniors, and most are armed. Seniors, many elderly and frail can't just retreat. Stand your ground makes sense.
Stand your ground does make sense. It made sense the other day in Utah when a woman being assaulted and car jacked in a public parking lot was saved by a man with licensed to carry a firearm. Since the beginning of the year there have been more than one incident in which licensed and legal weapons were used to defend homes and businesses or to protect people from assault.
What doesn't make sense is why there are so many criminals in America who totally disregard the rights and safety of others. Those criminals often are armed with illegal firearms or guns they have stolen.
I live in Florida. There are 1.4 million concealed carry licensed firearm permits. Many homeowners and sportsmen and women have legal firearms in their homes or vehicles. Our community, The Villages has little or no violent crime. There are 120,000 residents, mostly seniors, and most are armed. Seniors, many elderly and frail can't just retreat. Stand your ground makes sense.
5
I live in Massachusetts, where there are strict gun laws. Our state has one of the lowest number of gun deaths. States that have high gun ownership and weak gun laws have the highest number of deaths. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/29/weak-gun-laws-and-high-gu_n_657.... I am grateful that I live in a sane state.
There are no gun carry laws in Vermont, and they have lower gun deaths than Massachusetts. What was your point?
Two words: George Zimmerman.
5
So much for the admonitions of Jesus to turn the other cheek. As per usual, our country's supposed adherence to religion/Christianity is proven to be hollow. Welcome to the emerging Feral Republic of North America.
7
From the cases in last few years i get these two points - You will better be tried by 12 then carried by 4. And dead man/woman do not come back to tell their side of the story. This just makes people trigger happy in tense situations.
1
I see many comments about people saying they will avoid states with stand your ground laws. This is a current list according to Wikipedia. Not all are the deep red states that New Yorkers love to look down at. I'm sure if you indeed avoid these states I doubt you will be missed.The following states have adopted stand-your-ground laws: Alabama,[11] Alaska,[12] Arizona,[13] California,[14][15] Florida,[16] Georgia, Indiana, Iowa,[17] Kansas,[18] Kentucky, Louisiana,[13] Maine, Massachusetts (though the term is used very loosely there),[19] Michigan,[13] Mississippi, Montana,[13] New Hampshire,[13] North Carolina (Stand Your Ground law (N.C.G.S. 14 51.3)), North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,[13] Pennsylvania,[20] South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,[13] Texas,[21] Utah,[22] West Virginia,[13] Wisconsin[23] and Wyoming. Other states (Iowa,[24] Virginia,[25] and Washington) have considered stand-your-ground laws of their own
3
Mr. Spitzer, you don't understand. Increased violence and deaths is a feature not a flaw of Stand Your Ground laws. The NRA has spent decades convincing people that the world is dangerous and scary and so they go out and weapon up and then find no one to shoot. SYG has expanded the permissible targets. I have little doubt that the NRA has even more laws waiting to be announced expanding further the people it will be permissible for gun owners to shoot or at least be ready to shoot (I suspect the next wave of laws will allow gun owners to shoot anyone they see breaking a law even if their own life isn't threatened).
7
The writer missed the obvious point. These laws are designed to provide cover for white shooters of blacks.
15
Stand your ground laws, concealed gun laws, even open carry laws combined with a very successful fear mongering campaign toward our government and foreigners has pushed parts of this country back into a "states rights" death spiral. When everyday citizens can shoot first and ask questions later, is it any wonder that our police nationwide are more likely to shoot first. An armed citizenry does not make for a civil society
12
Absolutely! This explains why liberal jurisdictions that discourage gun ownership (New York, Chicago, New Orleans) have such low levels of crime!
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; "
Well, professor, prior arrests are NOT dispositive of wrongdoing, usually, your research MIGHT also tell us how many of those arrests are/ were unfounded,
FOR EXAMPLE "have you ever been arrested" is now an illegal question in job interviews
"over a third had illegally carried guns in the past"
"or had threatened others with them."
so you DO have outcome data, when you choose, and by implication you CHOSE not to provide outcome data for these prior arrest, therefore....
AND "OR (emphasis supplied) or had threatened others with them."
illegally threatened? or merely threatened - does 'illegal' modify both halves of the section which is separated by an OR
a plain language reading says - 1% illegally carried and 99% lawfully threatened
come sir you can do better, or we will do better for you, ambiguity is construed against the author, that's you
Well, professor, prior arrests are NOT dispositive of wrongdoing, usually, your research MIGHT also tell us how many of those arrests are/ were unfounded,
FOR EXAMPLE "have you ever been arrested" is now an illegal question in job interviews
"over a third had illegally carried guns in the past"
"or had threatened others with them."
so you DO have outcome data, when you choose, and by implication you CHOSE not to provide outcome data for these prior arrest, therefore....
AND "OR (emphasis supplied) or had threatened others with them."
illegally threatened? or merely threatened - does 'illegal' modify both halves of the section which is separated by an OR
a plain language reading says - 1% illegally carried and 99% lawfully threatened
come sir you can do better, or we will do better for you, ambiguity is construed against the author, that's you
6
If I were genuinely being attacked in public--telling me I'm cheering for the wrong sports team doesn't count--I wouldn't have a chance to reach for my weapon. I'd be dead on the spot.
A coward goes looking for a fight in public, but a real tough person avoids a confrontation that could lead to violence and goes on with life.
A coward goes looking for a fight in public, but a real tough person avoids a confrontation that could lead to violence and goes on with life.
9
This is the fundamental understanding we are taught in law school. Retreat is the best option.
81
If what you were taught in law school predates SYG laws, then perhaps your understanding is out of date. And while retreat is the sometimes best option, it doesn't preclude other options.
Yea, retreat and then get your head blown away.
Nobody buys things they don't intend to use. The ability to kill people at a distance has increased our inhumanity.
One could go on and on about how horrible this all is, but it will have no effect on those who think they know better. Sadly, there are too few consequences for those who prefer to ignore that others have a right to live too.
One could go on and on about how horrible this all is, but it will have no effect on those who think they know better. Sadly, there are too few consequences for those who prefer to ignore that others have a right to live too.
23
As a long time criminal law instructor, I can say with confidence that this law NEVER made sense.
231
It makes sense to criminals
Florida Gov Jeb Bush signed this law and started us down this spiral.
Governor's are supposed to exercise
adult supervision when it comes to stupid laws that arise from cowardly state legislators.
He failed.
Governor's are supposed to exercise
adult supervision when it comes to stupid laws that arise from cowardly state legislators.
He failed.
55
So, Jeb Bush is morally responsible for the death of Trayvon Martin, and a horde of other innocent individuals, as well as being the author of this illogical fear. Great presidential potential!
More good legislation brought to you by the NRA. I am sure their spin doctors are calculating a way to suggest all this new carnage is just a culling of the herd. As the csar said after each war "there are fewer but better Russians." How dumb indeed.
18
The framers of our constitution and those who amended it, just like the rest of us, ought to be lauded for what they did well and criticized for what they did poorly. Self defense, as understood thought contemporary interpretations of the second amendment, has turned into the right for violent people to kill with impunity. It's all primitive nonsense that is intellectually equivalent to supernaturalism.
21
The Second Amendment, as originally drafted, had nothing to do with personal self defense. At the time, the individual's ability to protect himself, his home, his family and his property, would have been so widely acknowledged that it would not have required codification in the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was intended and designed as a grass roots check against the rise of a tyrannical government (such as that overthrown in the Revolution).
1
I am so amused when the NRA becomes the bete-noir of gun grabbers.
In fact, the NRA is the *moderate* part of the gun lobby.
You want tough pro-gun organizations?
Try Gun Owners of America, who think the NRA is too soft on pro-gun laws.
In fact, the NRA is the *moderate* part of the gun lobby.
You want tough pro-gun organizations?
Try Gun Owners of America, who think the NRA is too soft on pro-gun laws.
5
Does that group include skinheads, who hate everyone and call themselves christians?
Army military combatants are trained to react and turn and fire and kill in a microsecond. If you don’t, you’re a dead duck. Cops however are not military soldiers and are not at liberty to turn and shoot. Instead they have protocols to follow. Police first warns, “stop, police, hands up, get face down on the ground, etc.” The person stopped by the police must adhere to these commands. If they don’t, then police have many other ways to apprehend and handcuff the bad guys. First, the smartest thing that should happen is for 2 (two) cops to get out of the police car.....not one (1). If the municipality is trying to save a buck on police department payroll, and only one cop is present, he must call for backup in a dangerous altercation. When an individual refuses to cooperate, then the police can pepper spray their eyes or can use their electric stun gun. The individual can then be apprehended and cuffed. This scenario is for an unarmed individual on drugs, alcohol, or with a serious mental disorder, or simply combatant and non-compliant. Police should only fire with intent to kill an individual only if the individual is armed, dangerous, will not comply, and begins shooting at the officers.
4
If only this were true. The people in Baltimore, New York, Ferguson, LA and other large urban segregated by race and class know something very different, based on the high rate on violence and even death inflicted by the police, who live elsewhere and are indifferent.
so it seems a number of police are not following their own protocols.
Why aren't gun owners in every state required to carry insurance against the possible misuse, theft, or accidental discharge of their privately owned guns, similar to auto or boaters insurance? It wouldn't impede anyone's rights under the second amendment. But it might reduce the number of guns purchased and in circulation, if there were a reasonable surcharge attached to the cause of 30,000 deaths every year in the US. I'm not totally against private ownership of guns. I'm against easy access to carry and use them.
28
Insurance makes sense, so it has been blocked by NRA sycophants in Congress. They have also blocked studying gun violence by the CDC which they know will show guns are DANGEROUS and inflict great harm on the owner or family members through accident, suicide or homicide.
Correct, we require auto liability insurance for the obvious problems, but ignore the even greater problem when a shooter exercises his "right" to defend himself.
I suggest each concealed carry permit require a $10 million liability policy.
I suggest each concealed carry permit require a $10 million liability policy.
1
This is such a remarkably good idea, I'm amazed I've never seen or heard it before. We need to bombard our state lawmakers over this.
#thanksNRA #YESmanymore dead in America.
3
Stand your ground makes sense if you have a gun, feel you must use it, feel surrounded by enemies or criminals, and believe that guns in the hands of the good guys will always make us safer. Otherwise, as George Zimmerman and a few others have shown, it's a way to shoot first, kill someone who is not threatening you on the assumption that they will or they are (even when you have provoked the situation), and not have answer some very inconvenient questions. Allowing school personnel to carry guns would not have prevented Sandy Hook. Allowing the public to carry guns would not have stopped James Holmes. The Second Amendment does not say that one can shoot on the mere supposition that a person is going to rob, injure, or invade your home or personal space. Yes, people have a right to be safe but that's all people, not just some of the people. There are people I know that I would not want to be with if they were carrying weapons of any sort let alone a gun. Guns kill, owning a gun is not a right as we have shown because we restrict it to people who are not felons, not mentally ill, and not children. It's really a privilege and should be treated as such. It's also a responsibility which means the gun should not be fired just because that person over there is looking at me the wrong way or as an excuse to provoke a reason to shoot.
17
"Stand your ground makes sense if you have a gun, feel you must use it, feel surrounded by enemies or criminals, and believe that guns in the hands of the good guys will always make us safer."
These are precisely the people who should NOT be allowed to purchase firearms. They suffer a form of mental illness called paranoia.
These are precisely the people who should NOT be allowed to purchase firearms. They suffer a form of mental illness called paranoia.
I meant it sarcastically but that's hard to get across. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Stand your ground provides a ready-made excuse for criminals and for people with a grudge; and it discourages people from restraining themselves from actions in the heat of the moment that that will regret for the rest of their lives.
18
Sadly, I don't think many of them regret anything.
Florida has the 4th highest rate of violent crime among the states, following S Carolina, Texas and Nevada. If gun possession suppressed violent crime, those states would be havens of personal safety.
Instead, Florida is the land of gated communities and prescription drug abuse. Sounds like guns are better for promoting anxiety to me.
Instead, Florida is the land of gated communities and prescription drug abuse. Sounds like guns are better for promoting anxiety to me.
48
Unless more Americans bother to learn about state-wide issues and vote in local elections, the NRA and it's more extreme members will continue to control the agenda. Complaining about them is wasted effort; getting more people involved in state-level politics can right wrongs.
15
Stand your Ground laws originated in the same "incarcerate everyone" mindset that has produced devastation in poor communities.
It is a form of "social engineering" that the American right embraces repeatedly, in order to draw votes from an insecure middle class.
Adding more drug laws, more incarcerations, more militarized police, and more gun violence have damaged American society badly.
It is a form of "social engineering" that the American right embraces repeatedly, in order to draw votes from an insecure middle class.
Adding more drug laws, more incarcerations, more militarized police, and more gun violence have damaged American society badly.
12
Can you say wedge issue?
Over 70% favor a higher minimum wage and balanced trade.
Why don't we get those things?
Sure, money and gerry-mandering are big contributors.
But wedge issues such as guns and abortion are a huge aid to the 1% in their divide and conquer strategy.
Gun rights are very popular among a large percentage of the populace - something that social liberals like to delude themselves about, within their own bubble using selective statistics.
So, go ahead and vote for economic neo-liberal Hillary, start big fights against guns and abortion, and then wonder why we still can't get a $15 minimum wage.
Over 70% favor a higher minimum wage and balanced trade.
Why don't we get those things?
Sure, money and gerry-mandering are big contributors.
But wedge issues such as guns and abortion are a huge aid to the 1% in their divide and conquer strategy.
Gun rights are very popular among a large percentage of the populace - something that social liberals like to delude themselves about, within their own bubble using selective statistics.
So, go ahead and vote for economic neo-liberal Hillary, start big fights against guns and abortion, and then wonder why we still can't get a $15 minimum wage.
4
The NRA is nothing but a fear mongering association that instills fear and militancy in some people.
17
Like all right-wing organizations their message is "be afraid, be very, very afraid".
1. I can pick a fight with you or exhibit menacing behavior.
2. Alarmed and afraid, you reach for the weapon in your purse or pocket.
3. Now I'm the one who is mortally afraid, and justifiably so.
4. I pull out my own weapon and shoot you first.
5. The law says I have stood my ground.
Insanity is not an adequate word for this.
2. Alarmed and afraid, you reach for the weapon in your purse or pocket.
3. Now I'm the one who is mortally afraid, and justifiably so.
4. I pull out my own weapon and shoot you first.
5. The law says I have stood my ground.
Insanity is not an adequate word for this.
71
I don't buy the skein of logic here because these laws (the Florida one anyway) state provocation prevents reliance on the defense.
True. But don't forget the part where you are shot dead by the other person before you reach your gun.
1
No, that is not what the law says, for you are over simplifying the situation. In the scenario you describe, point one makes you the provocateur, the one initiating the situation and subsequent conflict. If your victim reacts to defend him or herself you cannot reasonable claim self-defense to the consequence of your actions. Certainly - and this salient point is often left out of the discussion - all the circumstances are still subject to judicial scrutiny to allow application of the self-defense claim, thus the onus would be on you to demonstrate that reasonable grounds existed to underlie your claims. You are attempting to turn the self-defence concept on its head to make a point in opposition to the concept of laws. Your example, in that regard, I'm sorry to say, fails.
The NRA support for Stand Your Ground and concealed carry are not methods to "defend the 2nd amendment" as much as they are methods to increase the sale of guns and assorted paraphernalia. Follow the money. The NRA receives heavy financial support approaching nearly half its income from the gun industry. The NRA understands it's important to "dance with the person who brought you".
Perhaps we could return the NRA to the group of hunters and sportsmen it was at its inception if we could find a way to debit the association for each accidental shooting, gun suicide and gun death as an extension of domestic violence.
Smoke and mirrors are not limited to Congress.
Perhaps we could return the NRA to the group of hunters and sportsmen it was at its inception if we could find a way to debit the association for each accidental shooting, gun suicide and gun death as an extension of domestic violence.
Smoke and mirrors are not limited to Congress.
23
While those who oppose Stand your Ground want to negate those laws, but they have no recommendations for confronting a criminal in the home or outside. They seem to recommend that criminals should not be confronted in the home, and they should be given free run while the victim should stand aside and let them do what they want including injuring and killing the victims. That stance will never be accepted by freedom loving people.
11
There has never been any problem with "confronting a criminal in the home". The so-called Castle Doctrine assures that, and probably correctly. If someone has invaded your home, you should be able to fight back. The problem with Stand your ground is that is presumes no necessity to retreat in public space. I don't like your face and feel threatened - I get to shoot you. Yippee for the Wild West.
Stand Your Ground laws govern confrontations in public places. If such laws were repealed, you would still have the right to confront a criminal who enters your home and threatens your family. Gun-owners should educate themselves on the laws in their states pertaining to the use of such deadly weapons.
This has absolutely nothing to do with a firearm in your home. You're resorting to a false argument, as the NRA so often does. As far as being legally shielded whenever you choose to fire it in public, I have this question: Have you ever been confronted, in public, in school, in a store, or in church, with an armed assailant? The overwhelming majority of Americans have not, and therefore, do not need to be brandishing a gun in public.
1
A little recent news here in my area. Home invasion late at night. Black male 17 years old, paid $500 to participate in home invasion, shoots and kills 30 year old white male. Not a study just the facts. There are many things going on in the world today that make no sense. Legally owning and possibly using the weapon in self defense is not among those things. I'll continue to support the NRA and continue to have a weapon around in case I need one. Paranoid, maybe, but I've been buying car insurance for many years and still haven't had my first accident. Possibly because I practice defensive driving as I was taught.
9
So what lesson do you draw from your example? That we should kill all the black teenagers before they kill us? That the white guy should have had a handgun on his person so that he could defend himself? That the white guy should have had a handgun, an Uzi and a Kalashnikov, just in case?
20
Occurrence in my area: Drunken teen enters the wrong house ... his is next door ... and is killed by the homeowner staring down from the top of a full flight of stairs, who claims: "He didn't respond to my commands." And how much time did he allow to sort it out or for the teen to respond before firing a volley of bullets? "Maybe as much as 3 seconds" says our confident homeowner. Let's face it: the judgment and mindset of these owners are untested, untrained, and often insufficient for deciding to use them only when absolutely necessary. Avoidance as the primary defense is what we teach in grade school. Some never learn that.
You are arguing against a wide array of statistical facts investigated by trained research and law enforcement groups, with a single anecdote.
Have you ever heard the phrase, "A single swallow doth not a summer make?" That's people understanding centuries ago that one incident does not outweigh thousands of systematically gathered facts.
I sure hope you understand gun safety better than you understand national gun facts, but it sounds like you are part of the irrational gun-owners who are so making this country a scary, unsafe place. You worry about home invaders -- I worry about you.
Have you ever heard the phrase, "A single swallow doth not a summer make?" That's people understanding centuries ago that one incident does not outweigh thousands of systematically gathered facts.
I sure hope you understand gun safety better than you understand national gun facts, but it sounds like you are part of the irrational gun-owners who are so making this country a scary, unsafe place. You worry about home invaders -- I worry about you.
1
Robert Heinlein, the science fiction writer, use to say that an armed society was a polite society. I was only a kid when I read that, but I knew he was a fool. An armed society is a bullying society. The nastiest, the stupidest, and the craziest, will come to rule all public spaces and determine the courses of everybody's lives.
59
The NYT and assorted liberals commenting on the Baltimore (and other) riots have screamed bloody murder that Freddy Gray's "rap sheet" is meaningless and should not have been publicized. Yet here we are with this article saying "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", Mr.Pt meet Mr. kettle. In Florida a hearing in front of a Judge is required before a person can seek the laws protection. The NYT deliberately leaves this inconvenient fact out and deliberately obfuscates the Florida law by baldly stating the law makes people "immune from criminal prosecution"--nice middle school debate tactic huh? Bottom line: don't try to rob me and I won't shoot you, deal? If you mean to write a gun control editorial, write one, don't resort to this lame workaround.
10
The reference to shooters claiming SYG, who have had prior run-ins with the law, actually says the opposite of what you're claiming. SYG shooters with rap sheets are WORSE citizens than Freddie. As you say, Freddie has a long rap sheet and he's not a stellar citizen. But it's drugs and gambling. Not even break-ins or robberies. And none of his arrests were for violent crimes or weapons possessions (at least based on articles on the rap sheets I have seen), and he never fired a gun at anyone, for any reason, let alone hurt someone with one.
That can't be said of the SYG shooters with rap sheets. They stepped across the line and did lethal harm to another person and claimed self-defense -- and we will never know if their claims are true. I would rather walk down the street with a Freddie than with a SYG shooter with a rap sheet. He/she's taken a step toward violence that Freddie never took.
That can't be said of the SYG shooters with rap sheets. They stepped across the line and did lethal harm to another person and claimed self-defense -- and we will never know if their claims are true. I would rather walk down the street with a Freddie than with a SYG shooter with a rap sheet. He/she's taken a step toward violence that Freddie never took.
2
The comparison is not the same:
In the Freddie Gray case, Freddie Gray is the victim of the crime, not the alleged perpetrator. He might be a horrible person, but that does not absolve the cops for a series of actions that killed him when Gray present no threat whatsoever to the safety of the cops or anyone else.
In these cases, the person who is claiming self-defense is not the victim, but the alleged perpetrator. In those cases, their past behavior is indeed relevant.
To use an example from a different case: I served on a jury on a case where the defendant was accused of feloniously assaulting the victim with a knife. The only defense this defendant offered was an implication, without any kind of evidence, that the victim of the crime was a drug-addicted prostitute and thus not worthy of the protections of the law. However, the law is supposed to apply equally regardless of whether the victim was a saint or the worst of the worst, so we convicted the defendant within an hour.
In the Freddie Gray case, Freddie Gray is the victim of the crime, not the alleged perpetrator. He might be a horrible person, but that does not absolve the cops for a series of actions that killed him when Gray present no threat whatsoever to the safety of the cops or anyone else.
In these cases, the person who is claiming self-defense is not the victim, but the alleged perpetrator. In those cases, their past behavior is indeed relevant.
To use an example from a different case: I served on a jury on a case where the defendant was accused of feloniously assaulting the victim with a knife. The only defense this defendant offered was an implication, without any kind of evidence, that the victim of the crime was a drug-addicted prostitute and thus not worthy of the protections of the law. However, the law is supposed to apply equally regardless of whether the victim was a saint or the worst of the worst, so we convicted the defendant within an hour.
The pre-trial hearing requires only a preponderance of the evidence for the SYG defense to be raised at trial. If the court during the pre-trial hearing finds the a preponderance of the evidence supports SYG, the accused is exempted from proving at trial that he acted in self-defense.
This pre-trial hearing is not a full-blown trial. The prosecution thus loses its ability to challenge the SYG defense, and the jury is denied the right to determine whether it applies.
Further, given that the arrest of Freddie Gray was illegal, it questions the legality of all his other arrests, especially those in which criminal charges were not pursued. And that is the bulk of his rap sheet.
Thus, your argument is the lame one.
This pre-trial hearing is not a full-blown trial. The prosecution thus loses its ability to challenge the SYG defense, and the jury is denied the right to determine whether it applies.
Further, given that the arrest of Freddie Gray was illegal, it questions the legality of all his other arrests, especially those in which criminal charges were not pursued. And that is the bulk of his rap sheet.
Thus, your argument is the lame one.
All these arguments make much more sense when we recognize that our guns are our toys. See how your little kiddies behave when you try to take their toys away!
32
Guns as toys are certainly my observation. I live out in rural Minnesota, the woods are alive with gunshots no matter the time of year. Hunting and self defense just a rationale for what I see as a national gun fetish.
What a surprise.....
People with guns kill other people. The more guns in society and the more laws which protect and promote their use means more killings and more injuries.......and a greater likelihood that you or me or our family will be shot.
Until America comes to its senses and stands up against the NRA-Gun Industry-Republican coalition, that probability of innocent people being killed with guns will remain and increase.
People with guns kill other people. The more guns in society and the more laws which protect and promote their use means more killings and more injuries.......and a greater likelihood that you or me or our family will be shot.
Until America comes to its senses and stands up against the NRA-Gun Industry-Republican coalition, that probability of innocent people being killed with guns will remain and increase.
43
"Until America comes to its senses...". When Republicans gain the White House in 2017, they will then control all three branches of the federal government, and over 50% of the state houses. This is what the electorate wants, or better stated what the "voting" electorate wants. Democrats don't vote, so they've given the rule of the land to those that care only for the 1%. The middle of this century will make the Wild West look tame, especially with the huge numbers of poor from the elimination of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Democrats get out and vote!
Never mind that the facts don't even begin to bear-out the doomsday scenario you put forward. It's pure sensationalist dogma: all violence has been steadily declining since the 80's and gun crime has plummeted while total gun ownership has sky-rocketed. An inconvenient truth.
When the Second Amendment stipulates that the right of the people to bear arms exists so that we can have "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, " and the NRA, and the SCOTUS can make believe that James Madison could not have written: The right of the people to bear arms shall not be impinged without qualification or an explanation, we can assume that reason is not necessary or desired.
Rationally, there is no right to bear arms unless you are part of "a well regulate Militia" according to the Amendment. Of course, you can choose to change the meaning and ordinarily that would require a new amendment. Or you can hire a bunch of lawyers and get a bunch of corrupt judges on the court to just decide differently. This is not unlike what the Court did with Citizens United, the voting rights laws, and Hobby Lobby. They just changed the Amendments by changing the meaning. We have not heard any call to impeach the Justices....maybe because the Congress is in on this rouse? We have not heard denunciations from legal scholars, the ABA because....they are too busy?
Stand your ground is the child of the SCOTUS. They work for the elitists. Let's see all restrictions on carrying guns into courthouses and assemblies, and legislatures lifted to see how freedom loving our elected officials truly are. Let's see if the Congress could stand it's ground? Hypocrites, liars, depraved human beings?
Rationally, there is no right to bear arms unless you are part of "a well regulate Militia" according to the Amendment. Of course, you can choose to change the meaning and ordinarily that would require a new amendment. Or you can hire a bunch of lawyers and get a bunch of corrupt judges on the court to just decide differently. This is not unlike what the Court did with Citizens United, the voting rights laws, and Hobby Lobby. They just changed the Amendments by changing the meaning. We have not heard any call to impeach the Justices....maybe because the Congress is in on this rouse? We have not heard denunciations from legal scholars, the ABA because....they are too busy?
Stand your ground is the child of the SCOTUS. They work for the elitists. Let's see all restrictions on carrying guns into courthouses and assemblies, and legislatures lifted to see how freedom loving our elected officials truly are. Let's see if the Congress could stand it's ground? Hypocrites, liars, depraved human beings?
60
The Second Amendment does not say Americans have the right to bear arms because of the need for a "well-regulated militia." It says the "right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" due to the need for a "well-regulated militia." The right to bear arms, which stems from common law, exists independently of a requirement for a militia. If such a right did not exist, how could it be infringed?
1
The Militia Acts of 1792 defined "militia" as every able-bodied man between 18 and 45 yrs of age and further mandated that the same own and maintain a military-grade weapon with quantities of powder and shot. The Militia Act of 1903 repealed and revised the definition above and established the National Guard as the State Militia(s) (and stipulated that the National Guard could receive federal dollars), with a sub category of "reserve militia" again defined as every able-bodied man between the ages of 18 and 45. Therefore, according to the law as written, every able-bodied man between the ages of 18 and 45 is a member of the reserve militia and according to your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment maintains the right to keep and bear arms.
This illustrates an important point that you miss - or seem to: that the second amendment exists specifically to ensure that the States in specific and "the people" at large have the ability to defend themselves against a tyrannical federal or foreign government. Inherent as well is the responsibility of each individual to defend the collective whole.
This discussion ultimately ignores the fact that there are people with malignant intent in this world (and ignores that the numbers may be rising) and denies that there exists a right innate in nature to defend oneself and one's loved-ones, with the intent to score cheap points.
This illustrates an important point that you miss - or seem to: that the second amendment exists specifically to ensure that the States in specific and "the people" at large have the ability to defend themselves against a tyrannical federal or foreign government. Inherent as well is the responsibility of each individual to defend the collective whole.
This discussion ultimately ignores the fact that there are people with malignant intent in this world (and ignores that the numbers may be rising) and denies that there exists a right innate in nature to defend oneself and one's loved-ones, with the intent to score cheap points.
1
The security guard at the DC house of representatives would not let me take a banana into the building, in my purse, so paranoid are the powers that be about THEIR personal safety. The reset of us? Who cares.
The bitter irony of the Trayvon Martin trial was that he, too, stood his ground.
He was walking home innocently, he was stalked in the night by a self-appointed, police wannabe neighborhood watchman who was armed and who was told by a dispatcher to stand down but did not. When Trayvon turned to defend himself against someone who was stalking him, as a young, innocent black boy, he lost his right to stand his ground because in the he said/he said world of this law, he wasn't there to defend himself by declaring that he, too, feared for his life.
Ask yourself what you would do if you were walking home and were stalked by someone. No one knows how close Zimmerman came or even whether he pulled the gun or whispered "Stop or I'll shoot."
We can only hope that Zimmerman, like O.J., eventually comes a cropper before he's very much older, but that when he does so, the person standing his ground against him is also armed, as in a policeman doing diligence to rein in this angry, troubled, self-righteous felon who got away with murder.
He was walking home innocently, he was stalked in the night by a self-appointed, police wannabe neighborhood watchman who was armed and who was told by a dispatcher to stand down but did not. When Trayvon turned to defend himself against someone who was stalking him, as a young, innocent black boy, he lost his right to stand his ground because in the he said/he said world of this law, he wasn't there to defend himself by declaring that he, too, feared for his life.
Ask yourself what you would do if you were walking home and were stalked by someone. No one knows how close Zimmerman came or even whether he pulled the gun or whispered "Stop or I'll shoot."
We can only hope that Zimmerman, like O.J., eventually comes a cropper before he's very much older, but that when he does so, the person standing his ground against him is also armed, as in a policeman doing diligence to rein in this angry, troubled, self-righteous felon who got away with murder.
38
didn't we already have the Zimmerman trial? Wasn't he found innocent?
I'm also for strict gun control laws, but...the Trayvon Martin case wasn't a Stand Your Ground case. By the time Zimmerman pulled his gun, he was pinned to the ground by Martin and so didn't have an option to flee. At least, that's what we're asked to believe and that's the theory the jury applied. Even in states that don't have the looser Stand Your Ground standard, if fleeing isn't an option, you have a right to use deadly force to defend yourself. I'm not sure, but I also don't believe that in a case where you're confronting a burgler you are required to flee if you have the option because in that case you also have a right to defend your home/property.
Stand your ground makes lots of cents, and dollars for the insatiable greed of the gun and ammunition manufactures. It's all about profits and has nothing to do with gun rights. The gun lobby has managed to create the best propaganda/marketing organization in the nation. The NRA is not about gun safety and sportsmanship, it's an organization captured by the gun manufacturers to do their bidding. If only op-eds would focus on the industry's profits the truth about guns in the US would be told. Keep the gun buyers angry and frightened and the money will flow - it's all about money.
19
Look for the data missing. Where is the number of assaults or shootings of victims in states with a stand your ground law versus those without the law? Where is the change in the number of robberies in states before and after passage of stand your ground? Where is the statistic on the number of armed robberies in states with and without stand your ground?
What was the basis of determining when the shooting of a robber was justified. To my knowledge, the only time this is determined is when the shooter is tried in court by a prosecutor. The vast majority of these shootings are never prosecuted!
What are the number of armed robberies versus unarmed robberies in these states? What portion of the shootings have nothing to do with a robbery? What portion of these shootings involve a domestic dispute?
You can't count what would have happened if the stand your ground shooter shot and avoided it! However, you can count the number of people shot who had a criminal record or a history of violence. Where is that statistic?
What was the basis of determining when the shooting of a robber was justified. To my knowledge, the only time this is determined is when the shooter is tried in court by a prosecutor. The vast majority of these shootings are never prosecuted!
What are the number of armed robberies versus unarmed robberies in these states? What portion of the shootings have nothing to do with a robbery? What portion of these shootings involve a domestic dispute?
You can't count what would have happened if the stand your ground shooter shot and avoided it! However, you can count the number of people shot who had a criminal record or a history of violence. Where is that statistic?
4
It won't matter how much data is collected to show the effects of stand your ground laws like Florida's. There are those who will deny the results like the NRA and if they find even one study that confirms their bias, will quote it over and over again ad infinitum even if there may be a hundred studies that say otherwise.
53
Oh, dear sweet NYT Editorial Board, you cite facts and evidence as if they matter. That's so 1980s!
Facts and evidence in rightist policy-making went out the window decades ago. Now it's pure ideology.
SYG laws are great, 'cos they are raw, undiluted pander. Their effects on public safety are irrelevant. What really matters is keeping the NRA, gun makers and sellers, and Second Amendment fundamentalists happy, generous with donations, and voting. That people die is neither here nor there. Same with the non-expansion of Medicaid in red states: people die, but who cares? Ideology remains pure.
In Colorado, the Republican state government recently defunded a teenage planned family program that had cost the state $5 million but saved it $42.5 million and had reduced teen pregnancies by 35% and abortions by 40%. Reduced abortions and cost-effective investment are stated GOP goals, right?
But, no, you'd make the mistake of looking at facts and evidence. The program was a GOVERNMENT social program, so it was inherently bad, and it provided girls and women with FREE CONTRACEPTION, so it was morally evil. Ideology dictated that it had to go. So they defunded it.
As a result, Colorado will have to pay $37.5 million more to support unwanted children, and abortions will go up 40%.
The joys of pure ideology in legislation!
GOP 2016: Who needs the facts?
Facts and evidence in rightist policy-making went out the window decades ago. Now it's pure ideology.
SYG laws are great, 'cos they are raw, undiluted pander. Their effects on public safety are irrelevant. What really matters is keeping the NRA, gun makers and sellers, and Second Amendment fundamentalists happy, generous with donations, and voting. That people die is neither here nor there. Same with the non-expansion of Medicaid in red states: people die, but who cares? Ideology remains pure.
In Colorado, the Republican state government recently defunded a teenage planned family program that had cost the state $5 million but saved it $42.5 million and had reduced teen pregnancies by 35% and abortions by 40%. Reduced abortions and cost-effective investment are stated GOP goals, right?
But, no, you'd make the mistake of looking at facts and evidence. The program was a GOVERNMENT social program, so it was inherently bad, and it provided girls and women with FREE CONTRACEPTION, so it was morally evil. Ideology dictated that it had to go. So they defunded it.
As a result, Colorado will have to pay $37.5 million more to support unwanted children, and abortions will go up 40%.
The joys of pure ideology in legislation!
GOP 2016: Who needs the facts?
352
Kind of like The Treasure of the Sierra Madres- we don't need no stinkin
badges (facts)
badges (facts)
And that is how dumb we are!
Years ago when SYG law was unheard of, a man entered our home, started coming up our stairs toward our bedrooms. He was yelling "Shut up, lady," at our dog. As my husband approached him to push him down the stairs, we realized that he was confused and inebriated. He was compliant in giving my husband his billfold to show his identification. The fact of the story is that he was a friend of our neighbor's who was left sleeping in their car and when he awoke, he wandered into our house which resembled his own. He owned a dog named "Lady"! Our daughter who had a downstairs bedroom, ran across the street to tell the neighbor to call the police. Our neighbor realized what happened and came over to rescue his friend. In today's gun-toting world, he most likely would end up dead. Instead, the following day we received a beautiful bouquet of flowers, sent by a very embarrassed friend of our neighbor's. I've thought of our story so many times when we read of senseless deaths. This story could have ended up in a very tragic way--a wife losing her husband, children losing their father. We simply do not understand the NRA who pushes these SYG efforts. It's a strange world we live in these days.
304
Pat, it's about money for gun makers, with the NRA as their lobbyist. Just follow the money, always.
1
How dumb are we? Well, our national average IQ is 97 (98 depending on the source), so about half of us are dumber than that. Some states fare better than others.
31
Not necessarily true -- the average (mean) is not the median. Let's assume there are five people, four have an IQ of 100, one has an IQ of 90. The mean (average) of these is 98 -- but only one person is below 98. The median is 100.
yep, and some people don't know the difference between a mean (average) and a median...
Sadly, their stupidity holds as much weight at anyone's and the gun lobby exploits that. It's the American way of earning a buck; any way you can do it is justified.
I'm 68 years old. Served 3 years as an Army Officer. Have lived the past 17 years in New York City and traveled fairly extensively in many other cities.
I've never been "attacked" on the street or anywhere else.
I can't even imagine feeling insecure or frightened enough to want to carry a weapon.
In fact the only "fear" I have is of insecure, immature NRA fanboys swaggering through town imagining threats around every corner. Now that's scary.
I've never been "attacked" on the street or anywhere else.
I can't even imagine feeling insecure or frightened enough to want to carry a weapon.
In fact the only "fear" I have is of insecure, immature NRA fanboys swaggering through town imagining threats around every corner. Now that's scary.
493
"In fact the only "fear" I have is of insecure, immature NRA fanboys swaggering through town imagining threats around every corner."
That's my particular nightmare. Especially after reading the comments some of them post to articles like this—very few are overburdened with intelligence or wisdom, but they have lots and lots and lots of irrational hatred masking even more paranoia and fear. People that angry and jumpy should not be allowed anywhere near a gun, but there they are, armed to the teeth and ready to assert their rights.
That's my particular nightmare. Especially after reading the comments some of them post to articles like this—very few are overburdened with intelligence or wisdom, but they have lots and lots and lots of irrational hatred masking even more paranoia and fear. People that angry and jumpy should not be allowed anywhere near a gun, but there they are, armed to the teeth and ready to assert their rights.
3
You are white and don't live in a neighborhood you grew up in, do you? Not everyone has your financial resources.
1
Not wanting to carry a weapon is your choice and is respected by most if not all reasonable people. But then you say you "fear" insecure, immature NRA fanboys swaggering through town imagining threats around every corner. How many of these have you actually seen and how did you recognize them as such?
How dumb are we you ask? Well, apparently not dumb enough to place much value on your statistics; Sixty percent of those making self-defense claims when a person was killed had been "arrested" at least once before, and of those, 1/3rd had been "accused" of violent crimes. Are you familiar with how quickly cops "accuse" and "arrest" people people in this country? your statistics do not carry much sway.
11
The statistics quoted refer to "the law’s chief beneficiaries were “those with records of crime and violence.” It's the shooters who have the records and are benefiting from the law.
.... but DUMB enough to consider the election of one of an amorphous and unruly mob of hopeless ideologues to serve as President of the United States - not to mention having already ELECTED a bevy of them to governorships, legislatures, and a host of other state-offices. America is in a race with itself towards the bottom.
Those 19th century Southern gun-control laws cited at the end of the article should be viewed in historical context. They were about protecting slavery (links below). It's especially ironic that an article that triumphantly decries the dumbness of gun advocates would cite such laws. What have we learned? Apparently not how to do basic research.
http://www.guncite.com/journals/cd-reg.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-o...
http://www.guncite.com/journals/cd-reg.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-o...
8
The race card! Actually today's gun laws protect the rights of ALL citizens to carry, not just white people.
1
"In 68 percent, the person killed was unarmed."
Kinda says it all doesn't it? Common sense need not apply.
Kinda says it all doesn't it? Common sense need not apply.
207
The pro-NRA response would be: "Armed? Yes, he was armed. He has two arms."
What about other 32% ?
We all know 32 is less than 68, but nevertheless ...
We all know 32 is less than 68, but nevertheless ...
No, it doesn't say much of anything. Are you asserting that an unarmed person can never be a real, lethal physical threat to another person?
1
Well, your best line is your last line: "How dumb are we?" could very well replace "All the News that Fits the Print" under the Times' masthead. But it's not lack of wisdom, to be sure. It is a cynical, calculated reaction by a small paranoid section of the population to the world changing in ways that they don't like, and they manipulate the system to push back. And it won't end well.
97
Dare I say: 'Tea Party'?
1
Funny, these comments provide an accurate explanation of why I, a person who has spent his life traveling around the world on business and pleasure, has taken only 1 nation off my ongoing travel list.
40
I have traveled around the world too, and fairly widely in the United States. The two times our pockets (my wife and me) were picked were in Milan, Italy and Montreal, Quebec. I have been to east Baltimore and rougher side of numerous other U.S. cities and have never been threatened or robbed. (No, it wasn't at night, being foolhardy is not the same as exercising normal caution, but I've never had an issue). I would not hesitate to travel to the U.S. and doubt very much it is less safe than any other comparable urban area.
"Stand Your Ground" is nothing more than a license to kill, and too many people see themselves as agent OO7, fighting imaginary "bad guys". Packing a rod make them feel more manly. Poor schizophrenic fools.
49
Pity instead the innocent dead whom they thought were lookin' funny at them.
First, recognize that the NRA is a marketing arm of the gun manufacturers. They generate fear of the "other" to sell guns.
Second, these laws are typical of conservative either or thinking. Either you are like me or not. If you are like me you can be trusted, you are moral, and entitled to deliver deadly force when needed. You can trust me, I'm the "good guy with the gun". The "others" are to be feared, the good guy needs deadly force to protect Truth, Justice, and the American Way.
Third, these laws are the typical result of conservative shallow thinking and across the board solutions to isolated problems. Pay no attention the root cause of economic disparity, crime, etc. Just arm the "law abiding citizens" to the teeth and crime as we know it will disappear.
Gun control is like most intractable issues, it gets right to the heart of the American conflict between individualism and the common good. My right to a gun trumps your right to be free from weapons in the common areas.
Second, these laws are typical of conservative either or thinking. Either you are like me or not. If you are like me you can be trusted, you are moral, and entitled to deliver deadly force when needed. You can trust me, I'm the "good guy with the gun". The "others" are to be feared, the good guy needs deadly force to protect Truth, Justice, and the American Way.
Third, these laws are the typical result of conservative shallow thinking and across the board solutions to isolated problems. Pay no attention the root cause of economic disparity, crime, etc. Just arm the "law abiding citizens" to the teeth and crime as we know it will disappear.
Gun control is like most intractable issues, it gets right to the heart of the American conflict between individualism and the common good. My right to a gun trumps your right to be free from weapons in the common areas.
31
The NRA is smart. They know that more guns create more fear which creates more guns--and more and more profit in this escalating cycle of death. Why does any sane society let a business built on profit, an amoral system, decide its laws is beyond me. A more militarized, violent gun-toting world of fear is no longer a civilized society, but who cares when you are living in a wealthy gated community and only occasionally have to rub elbows with the hoi polloi?
29
Any state with a stand your ground law is a state I will not go to and will encourage my children to avoid.
41
@bill: "Any state with a stand your ground law is a state I will not go to and will encourage my children to avoid".
I'm encouraging my daughter to avoid America - to go find a civilized place to live. We are a crumbling Empire, dangerous to human life. It seems only the lives of the .01% count in this country. And that says to me we are not a civilized country. And more and more good people are waking up to this fact every day. Perhaps good people waking up will make all the difference and we can become a civilized country. But I'm not hopeful. If I were young and had my whole life ahead of me, I would not be here.
I'm encouraging my daughter to avoid America - to go find a civilized place to live. We are a crumbling Empire, dangerous to human life. It seems only the lives of the .01% count in this country. And that says to me we are not a civilized country. And more and more good people are waking up to this fact every day. Perhaps good people waking up will make all the difference and we can become a civilized country. But I'm not hopeful. If I were young and had my whole life ahead of me, I would not be here.
1
Our Constitution limits our government's ability to either harm or defend us totally at all times, as in a totalitarian state. Our Bill of Rights such as our 2nd Amendment right to self-defense with a firearm protects the freedom of our individual agency to protect ourselves, not protect ourselves at the discretion of our government, as for slaves. But our Constitution also does not recognize privileged classes of citizens with inherent natural rights not shared by other citizens under law. A policeman's life is not legally, inherently, worth more than the life of any other citizen's, yet police have used a form of "Stand Your Ground" defense has been used successfully by law enforcement officers for decades in cases of police shootings of alleged assailants, as in the Ferguson, Mo. 2014 case of policeman Darren Wilson. Relatively new SYG laws test how successfully civilians can use the same defense claiming justifiable use of lethal force to automatically immunize the shooter as a concealed carry right. So far it can't. On April 21, a Portland, Me. jury found 72-year old lobsterman Merrill "Mike" Kimball of Yarmouth, Me. guilty of shooting to death 63-year-old Leon Kelly in a verbal dispute that turned violent over his wife's honey harvesting at a local bee farm Kelly's family claimed ownership. Kimball's SYG defense failed. Both men were white. Kimball was sentenced to 25 years to life. (Bangor Daily News, Apr. 21, 2015)
3
That last question is easy. Our stupidity with guns is bottomless.
Stand Your Ground laws are racist to the core. They are borne of the wing-nut white paranoia of big, dangerous black men with nothing better to do than to cause honest, law-abiding white folks grievous harm, like playing music too loud or electing a non-white President.
Passing legislation to please the NRA is worse than stupid. It is totally insane.
Stand Your Ground laws are racist to the core. They are borne of the wing-nut white paranoia of big, dangerous black men with nothing better to do than to cause honest, law-abiding white folks grievous harm, like playing music too loud or electing a non-white President.
Passing legislation to please the NRA is worse than stupid. It is totally insane.
109
In Florida, blacks benefit from Stand Your Ground laws more than whites. Sorry to burst your progressive bubble.
http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2014/10/cprc-goes-to-orlando-fl...
http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2014/10/cprc-goes-to-orlando-fl...
1
Boconnel~John Lott has been discredited by credible news media but hey, nice try.
It is hard to believe that there is all this talk of the NRA being behind SYG laws so that they can sell more guns.
I hate to have to tell you but the right has the exclusive concession on all conspiracy theories. Therefore, under the Conspiracy Theory Book of Common Order I will have to report you!
I am sorry but I must follow the law.
I hate to have to tell you but the right has the exclusive concession on all conspiracy theories. Therefore, under the Conspiracy Theory Book of Common Order I will have to report you!
I am sorry but I must follow the law.
7
>
Since when did sense have anything to do with the NRA?
Since when did sense have anything to do with the NRA?
117
OMG, limiting lawyers' ability to prosecute and litigate? What a shame.
14
Taking the shooter's word for it is a good system, to you?
27
Yeah, I'm sure if your loved one was shot and killed by some gun nut, you would applaud the fact that the state could do nothing about it.
34
it's a huge loss when you consider the Zimmerman case, isn't it? The shame of living in an armed camp doesn't bother you? Then, if you get picked up for Syg, do it w/o counsel. Enjoy.
I think this is just like the gay marriage issue. If you do not believe in gay marriage then don't get one. If you do not believe in SYG then don't stand your ground.
19
But in one case, someone gets killed. Slightly different.
37
Same sex marriage rarely results in dead people, 68% of whom are unarmed when they are shot to death. That seems to be a slight but not unimportant difference between the apples and oranges you like to compare.
40
This is nothing like gay marriage. If another couple gets married, that has nothing to do with me. If another person kills me in a public place because they erroneously considered me a threat and couldn't be bothered to walk away, I'd say that does rather have something to do with me.
12
On the contrary, the law makes perfect sense, once you realize that the goal is to sell guns. The politics of guns in America is nothing but a marketing tool for the gun industry. The more crime & violence the better, from the NRA's point of view.
275
One way to stop this is for the criminals to quit committing crimes and thus making the law abiding citizens fearful.
7
The debate is about what the appropriate laws and policies are for a state to have. It's no use having a law saying that people must not commit crimes. We already have those laws (that's why they're crimes: DUH), and yet there are crimes (obviously), and hence fearful people. How should we, as a society, acting through our law-makers, respond? SYG, as far as I can see, just gives us more reasons to be fearful---of trigger-happy people too easily frightened (or acting from prejudice).
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/07/31/what-liberal-media-wont-tell-b...
"Blacks may make up just 16.6 percent of Florida's population, but they account for over 31 percent of the state's defendants invoking a Stand Your Ground defense. Black defendants who invoke this statute to justify their actions are acquitted 8 percent more frequently than whites who use that same defense...
Using the Tribune data, blacks killed in these confrontations were 13 percentage points more likely to be armed than the whites who were killed, thus making it more plausible that their killers reasonably believed that they had little choice but to kill their attacker. By a 43 to 16 percent margin, the black men and women who were killed were also more often committing a crime...
Surprisingly, the Tribune never examined if the data they collected might explain the different conviction rates.
Doing so actually reverses their claim. Everything else equal, in cases with only one person killed, killing a black person, rather than a white person, increases the defendant's odds of being convicted, though the result is not statistically significant. If you also include multiple murder cases, killing a black person increases the chances of conviction even more.
These regressions also show that white defendants are more likely to be convicted than black defendants, and both effects are significantly greater than for Hispanics."
"Blacks may make up just 16.6 percent of Florida's population, but they account for over 31 percent of the state's defendants invoking a Stand Your Ground defense. Black defendants who invoke this statute to justify their actions are acquitted 8 percent more frequently than whites who use that same defense...
Using the Tribune data, blacks killed in these confrontations were 13 percentage points more likely to be armed than the whites who were killed, thus making it more plausible that their killers reasonably believed that they had little choice but to kill their attacker. By a 43 to 16 percent margin, the black men and women who were killed were also more often committing a crime...
Surprisingly, the Tribune never examined if the data they collected might explain the different conviction rates.
Doing so actually reverses their claim. Everything else equal, in cases with only one person killed, killing a black person, rather than a white person, increases the defendant's odds of being convicted, though the result is not statistically significant. If you also include multiple murder cases, killing a black person increases the chances of conviction even more.
These regressions also show that white defendants are more likely to be convicted than black defendants, and both effects are significantly greater than for Hispanics."
16
Oh, please. Don't believe everything that Fox tells you.
52
Yeah - an anti-gun academic publishes on the NYT and we should believe him, but a pro-gun academic publishes on Fox and it all lies...just discard the argument and evidence if they don't agree with your viewpoint.
8
Let's see, on one hand we have an op-ed by a political scientist who is known for studying the balance (or lack of) between gun laws and gun rights, quoting multiple sources and attempting to show how these sources back up the premise. On the other hand, we have a right wing economist who believes there aren't enough guns in America, taking a set of unattributed 'statistics' from a newspaper and using them to make a case that has nothing in particular to do with this article. Since you use this op-ed from FOX as a rebuttal, perhaps you can explain just what in the piece you are rebutting? And could you also address the fact that the author of the piece you copy and paste, (while also using the piece to shill his latest book) admits that his conclusions are , and I quote: "not statistically significant."
31
The only way to pressure states like Florida to repeal these inane, dangerous laws is to boycott the huge corporate tourist attractions that draw millions of visitors to that state each year !! Once the financial pinch starts to hurt corporate profits and the likes of Disney, Universal,Sea World etc. start hurting, the state legislators will fall all over themselves to discard the radical NRA agenda !!
I, for one, do not want to be shot by some gun toting nut over a parking space dispute at Disney World and he can plead self-defense !! Therefore, I and my family will stay away until sanity reigns again !!
I, for one, do not want to be shot by some gun toting nut over a parking space dispute at Disney World and he can plead self-defense !! Therefore, I and my family will stay away until sanity reigns again !!
329
Great idea.
30
No to Disney World in gun-toting Florida. Yes to Disneyland in gun safety-minded California. Let the campaign to keep our kids safe this summer begin!
60
The article states that half the states have passed this law, or one like it. Shall we boycott half of our states?
4
I guess the dead and wounded don't have rights. Why would due process and investigation of potential crime scene be stopped because someone involved (possibly a violent criminal) said they felt threatened? If you want to shoot and defend yourself, you must be able to prove that you were in mortal danger and did everything possible to avoid confrontation-especially when you have a criminal record and the other person is unarmed.
29
Did you not follow the Treyvon Martin case? You can stalk someone until the person, fearful of their life, confronts you, and then you have the right to shoot them dead, even though the person was only armed with Skittles! All you have to claim is that you were "fearful for your life".
1
I am not certain that one incident is applicable to another when cautioning of the danger of prior convictions .
SYG laws are a dumb idea in America. The paranoia of those who support the NRA's campaign to arm America is further evidence that the country is heading down a very wrong path when it comes to ensuring "pursuit of happiness" in this country.
But the insinuation that whites can use the law to murder blacks and get away with it because of the law is just nonsense. Worse, it fans the false flames of paranoia permeating the media that blacks have become targets of whites. Numbers do lie and statistics do swear. Never more so than when it comes to inter-racial violence.
FBI uniform crime statistics for murders indicate that 6018 murders were committed in 2012, the last year published that I found in my quick google search, so take the following data with a grain of salt since it may have changed.
Blacks, ~13% of the population, committed 2896 of the murders.
Whites, ~70% of the population, committed 2875.
Black on White murders totaled 431, or ~15% of the total murders committed by blacks.
White on Black murders totaled 193, or ~7% of the total murders committed by whites.
Stand Your Ground laws are dumber than dirt for a number of reasons, but using the laws to exonerate whites of killing blacks is not one of them.
But the insinuation that whites can use the law to murder blacks and get away with it because of the law is just nonsense. Worse, it fans the false flames of paranoia permeating the media that blacks have become targets of whites. Numbers do lie and statistics do swear. Never more so than when it comes to inter-racial violence.
FBI uniform crime statistics for murders indicate that 6018 murders were committed in 2012, the last year published that I found in my quick google search, so take the following data with a grain of salt since it may have changed.
Blacks, ~13% of the population, committed 2896 of the murders.
Whites, ~70% of the population, committed 2875.
Black on White murders totaled 431, or ~15% of the total murders committed by blacks.
White on Black murders totaled 193, or ~7% of the total murders committed by whites.
Stand Your Ground laws are dumber than dirt for a number of reasons, but using the laws to exonerate whites of killing blacks is not one of them.
11
Why no mention that Stand Your Ground laws were originally intended to protect victims of domestic violence and an extension of Castle Laws where people have the right to protect themselves in their own homes?
Those laws work in many places. Florida always seems to be the exception though
Those laws work in many places. Florida always seems to be the exception though
12
I legally carry a concealed pistol. If I am attacked on the street, I will stand my ground. If the attacker is shot, he is not a victim. He is an unsuccessful criminal.
23
You're making the author's point. Individual gun owners of a certain cast of mind do not care about anyone other than themselves when it comes to this issue. Facts, stats, other people's lives are easily discarded.
46
Hey Jack, you didn't say how you were attacked. Physically, verbally, just a threat? What if you were attacked by a logical argument against gun control? What if your neighbor asked you to turn down your stereo, you didn't, and he yelled at you? At which point do you consider yourself justified to use your gun to "stand your ground"?
135
I don't think that's an effective rebuttal of Jack's point. By definition, anyone threatened with physical violence cares about himself and is entitled to. In practice, proving a self-defence charge - outside the SYG legal context that is - in a fast-moving emotive situation not caused by the gun-carrier is frequently impossible. It is hard enough for police to calibrate degrees of danger to their person let alone the average citizen.
Also, I don't know how the study mentioned can conclude it was usually possible to retreat or run away. How do they know that? How does someone threatened or attacked in the streets know that the other won't run after him or uncover his own weapon (gun or other) and attack him?
Also, I don't know how the study mentioned can conclude it was usually possible to retreat or run away. How do they know that? How does someone threatened or attacked in the streets know that the other won't run after him or uncover his own weapon (gun or other) and attack him?
10
What would Charlie Hebdo think about gun restrictions?
6
I don't know about France, but all U.S. states allow licensed firearm owners to keep firearms in their places of business. If the City of Paris followed those examples, a tragedy could have been minimized, if not prevented.
3
An armed police officer was killed in the Charlie Hebdo attack.
Those on the Left dislike SYG laws for the same reason they dislike the Second Amendment: these rules empower the individual to protect herself, her family and her property, rather than running away, or hoping the the authorities arrive in time to help (good luck with that). By empowering the individual, these laws dilute the power of the State, and impede its ability to control all aspects of society, and make all citizens dependent on it, even for protection of life and limb. What is ironic, is that as this trend continues, as the State grows ever more powerful, and the police, ever more arrogant and militarized, you get police executions of the type witnessed in Ferguson and Baltimore. State-sponsored violence vs. citizens, is a much greater threat to public safety than SYG or the Second Amendment.
25
People who object to the Stand Your Ground laws don't feel a second's worth of discomfort over individual empowerment, or the dilution of the power of the State. That is way too philosophical.
Most of us just don't trust the judgement of our fellow citizens not to shoot another human being when a better solution is available.
Watch people's behavior on the roads. Watch how they react in a long line at the DMV. Watch how they react when someone takes the last parking space. Or plays rap music too loud. Or walks in an unfamiliar neighborhood.
I don't have a problem with guns, or the second amendment. I have a lot of discomfort about my fellow humans. And I would like to know that there is something that keeps them from feeling empowered to shoot me if they feel threatened. Or annoyed.
Most of us just don't trust the judgement of our fellow citizens not to shoot another human being when a better solution is available.
Watch people's behavior on the roads. Watch how they react in a long line at the DMV. Watch how they react when someone takes the last parking space. Or plays rap music too loud. Or walks in an unfamiliar neighborhood.
I don't have a problem with guns, or the second amendment. I have a lot of discomfort about my fellow humans. And I would like to know that there is something that keeps them from feeling empowered to shoot me if they feel threatened. Or annoyed.
125
There is also the escalation factor. Texas just passed an open-carry gun law. Before there handguns had to be licensed for concealed-carry only. With so many guns in- and out-of-sight, there will inevitably be cases of miscalculation of intent. How close must the carrier's hand be to the holstered or "thought-to-exist" handgun before another handgun carrier draws and shoots? Maybe not clinical paranoia but folks who carry handguns--myself included--are suspicious of people they encounter outside familiar territory. Perhaps even more disturbing is the thought that the police in states with permissive gun laws will have a lower threshold for shooting folks whom they "perceive" may pose a danger because of the likely presence of a weapon on the person or in the car. We need policies that damp down rather than escalate the likelihood of deadly encounters
6
62 years old, living on the left coast, never had any reason to be fearful about my life as I went about my daily business UNARMED. I wonder if being armed makes one more fearful ie paranoid?
5
We need to turn the debate over guns on its head in this country. Rather than argue about the merits of carrying guns, let's talk about the ability for citizens to band together and make their own local decisions about allowing and/or regulating guns. Why do the rights of people favoring guns have to trump the rights of people who favor a safer society? Towns, cities, and states should be enable to enact local policies, and change them if they don't work, as the author suggests. Of course, the NRA will have none of this.
44
Probably because the people favoring the right to bear arms vastly outnumbers those who want to limit firearms possession. In a democratic system, the majority wins.
6
Ken, what do you propose? No concealed carry, no open carry, no gun ownership, weapons bans? How are you going to enforce no carry laws, stop and frisk for everyone?
1
When Dodge City residents organized their municipal government, the first law they passed was a gun control law. In most of the frontier towns in the old west guns were banned. They knew it was asking for trouble for people to be carrying in town. There was no question of the right of a municipality to restrict firearm use.
The more rabid gun rights folks seem to glorify the old cowboy days. I wish we could return to the gun laws they had then.
The more rabid gun rights folks seem to glorify the old cowboy days. I wish we could return to the gun laws they had then.
Yo! You lookin' at me?
Bang bang! Blam blam!
Oops. Maybe you weren't looking at me. But I felt threatened. I'll send flowers.
Bang bang! Blam blam!
Oops. Maybe you weren't looking at me. But I felt threatened. I'll send flowers.
151
You'll send them from prison. SYG does not allow you to just shoot someone for looking at you. But you knew that.
Steve Allen writes: "You'll send them from prison. SYG does not allow you to just shoot someone for looking at you. But you knew that"
We respectfully disagree. "I felt threatened" has turned into legitimate excuse in the eyes of the law.
George Zimmerman was acquitted for killing Trayvon Martin after chasing Martin, even when the 911 dispatcher instructed him not to. But Zimmerman felt threatened. Strangely, there was less discussion over whether Martin felt threatened after being chased by a guy with a gun.
We respectfully disagree. "I felt threatened" has turned into legitimate excuse in the eyes of the law.
George Zimmerman was acquitted for killing Trayvon Martin after chasing Martin, even when the 911 dispatcher instructed him not to. But Zimmerman felt threatened. Strangely, there was less discussion over whether Martin felt threatened after being chased by a guy with a gun.
3
You mean the Wild West wasn't a safe place?
14
Actually, in several towns, guns had to be checked into the sheriff's office while 'gun slingers' were within the town. Probably not all towns, but I don't think it had all the shoot outs featured in movies.
8
In fact, the gunfight at the OK corral was over gun control. Most western cattle towns had strict gun control, and little crime. It was the Clanton's refusal to check their guns that precipitated the fight.
5
Despite what popular TV shows have dramatized, during the late 1880's citizens of Dodge City Kansas were prohibiited from carrying guns within city limits.
6
The only rational motivation for supporting stand your ground laws is profit; the profit arms companies make from selling guns to obsessive, frightened middle class people. All these guns do is create more threat for all of us. They put a lethal edge to every day life that did not exist prior to their existence. I don't want all of my neighbors to be locked and loaded and ready to fire at the drop of a hat.
For generations we agreed to hire and pay police entities to take care of our security needs. That system pretty much worked for all of us. Why change? Why make security of ones self and family a personal responsibility? Are we reinventing the Wild West?
For generations we agreed to hire and pay police entities to take care of our security needs. That system pretty much worked for all of us. Why change? Why make security of ones self and family a personal responsibility? Are we reinventing the Wild West?
32
The NRA is the marketing arm of the firearms industry; no matter how many firearms you own, the NRA wants you to buy more!
A better alternative for gun owners is Gun Owners of America;
www.gunowners.org
A better alternative for gun owners is Gun Owners of America;
www.gunowners.org
1
How dumb are we? Dumb and dumber.
44
Good point! Just look at how many voted for Obama. Twice. He'd be happy to have everyone disarmed, the better to have that national police force he has long wanted in control of YOU.
9
And then there was that thing where he fired his generals because they refused to set off a nuclear device over South Carolina. Oh...wait...
1
The logical outcome of this, given recent events, is for citizens to begin opening up on police officers. It seems that there is increasingly a very real fear that their lives may be in danger. Just who are the good guys with guns and the bad guys with guns? We'll figure that out later. Bang! Bang! I feel safer already. Thank you, NRA.
57
How telling is it when the NRA convention does not allow anyone in who is carrying a gun?
The gun companies pay the NRA to whip up paranoia and racism to encourage people to buy guns and prevent government regulation.
I just read the article about how the furniture makers used the politicians they have bought to prevent the EPA from keeping formaldehyde out of consumer products.
Every evil in this country stems from the Profit System. Racism for example originated and persists because it is profitable to some.
It is impossible to fight these evils piecemeal because they are so ubiquitous. The only possible solution is to eliminate the Profit System.
I just read the article about how the furniture makers used the politicians they have bought to prevent the EPA from keeping formaldehyde out of consumer products.
Every evil in this country stems from the Profit System. Racism for example originated and persists because it is profitable to some.
It is impossible to fight these evils piecemeal because they are so ubiquitous. The only possible solution is to eliminate the Profit System.
43
The Neo-NRA has benefited three groups: gun manufacturers, ER doctors and funeral homes. Otherwise, it is a lobby for barbaric absurdity. I say this as a 10th and 12th generation rural Yankee WASP gun-owner, not as an urban pacifist.
156
I don't think ER doctors would regard the influx of unnecessary blood as a good thing. They're already too busy.
The ER doctors are busy enough. They would prefer to be spared the sucking chest wounds. Probably the funeral directors would rather work with intact bodies as well.
The gun lobby, now there is a group that truly benefits - as long as loaded weapons are not allowed on their grounds. Funny, the NRA, Congress, the Supremes, and most, if not all, state capitals don't allow weapons on their grounds, either. Come on, guys! What could be the problem?
The gun lobby, now there is a group that truly benefits - as long as loaded weapons are not allowed on their grounds. Funny, the NRA, Congress, the Supremes, and most, if not all, state capitals don't allow weapons on their grounds, either. Come on, guys! What could be the problem?
1
These laws separate the totin' mommas and men from the chickens. We should all be wearing guns--it's the American thing to do. Stand Your Ground, cowboy, I'm about to blow your head off. And most importantly--ya gotta be armed for when the national guard turns around and tries to get us to calm down. Not gonna happen.
8
Rational people agree that the law makes no sense. Unfortunately, at this point in our country's history, rational thought is on the decline and irrationality, fear, propaganda, and mean-spiritedness are rapidly rising. I personally refuse to travel to any of the states with these laws, but my economic impact and option don't matter as I'm not a member of the 1%.
212
Yes, your opinion does matter. Your pocketbook matters as much as the next person's. Thank you for expressing yourself. Too many of us just shake our head at the NRA. You said something.
7
My wife and I never vacation in the U.S. anymore because of our gun culture. I suspect there are others who do the same. Maybe we should write to the various state tourist agencies in SYG states why we won't be visiting their states.
1
Notice that the survey by the Tampa Times said that 60% of those who used a firearm in stand your ground had past criminal records. So, as usual you have criminals using firearms against others, what a surprise ! Law abiding citizens who chose to legally carry a fire arm for personal security reasons with proper training have every constitutional right to do so.
I have had to draw my firearm on three different occasions in the 20 years I have legally carried it in order to thwart an attempted robbery, and each time the criminal has ran without me firing a shot. That is the true meaning of stand your ground, maintaining control of a bad situation in your favor, and not being left at the mercy of a criminal !
I have had to draw my firearm on three different occasions in the 20 years I have legally carried it in order to thwart an attempted robbery, and each time the criminal has ran without me firing a shot. That is the true meaning of stand your ground, maintaining control of a bad situation in your favor, and not being left at the mercy of a criminal !
16
Amazing! And I've never had to draw my gun nor have I been attacked. Wonder why that is? I bet it has something to do with me not carrying a gun.
27
You're a very confused person.
2
Likewise, I've twice used "defensive display", just showing , not drawing the weapon, to wind down situations that were on their way to becoming a "jackpot". The last time I wrote in about this, someone responded saying I shouldn't go to dangerous places where I was "looking for it". Comments were closed before I could reply that trips to state parks and shopping malls hardly constitute travel in search of provocative encounters.
26
I can imagine an intelligent inhabitant of a far-flung planet opening up the morning newspaper, and reading the statistics cited in this article. It would be like a "Darwin Awards" story, but for American society as the victim.
19
Regardless of emotions and theories, the proof is in the pudding. Maybe we should make laws according to what brings a better outcome.
If the goal is to have a peaceful society, with less crime and violence, then these statistics show that SYG laws are not achieving that goal--they simply are not working.
If the goal is to have a peaceful society, with less crime and violence, then these statistics show that SYG laws are not achieving that goal--they simply are not working.
34
If you look at the stats the laws are working.
1
You ask "How dumb are we?" The answer is that since the simple-mindedness that we began to embrace with the rise of Ronald Reagan has made us dumb enough to pass laws with hokey labels redolent of "High Noon" that make homicide common and banal.
242
Well John, that proves Otto point. Through in a few friends and you get the Bundy ranch.
8
Whenever I hear someone spout the nonsense about Obama trying to destroy "the most successful country in the history of the world" I am reminded of this great speech. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q49NOyJ8fNA. I am also curious how so much hate can build up in people that makes them so blind to facts. Dislike his policies? Great. Think he's a terrible president? Me too. But the hyperbolic nonsense just dumbs down the debate to the point that nothing productive can ever come of it. And the same failures happen time and time again. Thanks for making the debate that much worse.
5
Our corporate owned newspapers are also pretty dumbed down. But oh so entertaining!
I think what is overlooked is that these laws are designed to ease the confusion on the person being threatened about whether they can retreat or not. Without these laws justifiable self-defense can easily become manslaughter. Remember the threat must be creditable and justified. Whether one could have retreated is a hard judgment call made in a split second. One may not know whether the perceived retreat is really false.
I agree it may cause more violence against attackers, but it may also save the lives of those being threatened. The "need to retreat" may cause fatal hesitation or a retreat that proves inadequate.
I agree it may cause more violence against attackers, but it may also save the lives of those being threatened. The "need to retreat" may cause fatal hesitation or a retreat that proves inadequate.
9
Yeah, I agree. That cute little four year old girl running at you with chocolate on her hands is liable to mess up your new suit. Best to shoot first and ask questions later. Florida law will protect you.
15
"Remember the threat must be creditable (sic) and justified." Ummm...Suppose you just feel threatened by my appearance? Scared of hoodies, much?
12
Ironically, Trayvon Martin could have, and probably would have, claimed SYG had the situation been reversed and he had killed Zimmerman. How would that have turned out?
11
How dumb are we? Isn't that obvious. After the killing of babies in Newtown, CN and the lack of response, I now understand that nothing will change here no matter what we do: marching, calling signing petitions. Also, why do you believe, in light of recent events, that we originally learned a lesson.
71
If those kids in newtown were standing their ground, it wouldn't have happened I guess...
1
No TV set or wallet is worth allowing citizens to administer the death sentence so "stand your ground" laws are just a recipe for mayhem.
They profit two groups: gun manufacturers and those on the Right who stand to gain as our society becomes more-fearful. And the open carry laws that are now spreading hot on the tail of "stand your ground" laws are the next step in our American society's descent into paranoid lunacy.
They profit two groups: gun manufacturers and those on the Right who stand to gain as our society becomes more-fearful. And the open carry laws that are now spreading hot on the tail of "stand your ground" laws are the next step in our American society's descent into paranoid lunacy.
90
If someone is in your home stealing your TV, or standing next to you on the street demanding your wallet you are in danger losing more than your TV or your wallet. Defending yourself with lethal force is legitimate.
10
@Alant: a 84 year old neighbor of mine was in his bedroom, and heard a noise. It was two teenage black boys who were stealing his new TV set, along with a few other items (laptop, etc.). He yelled at them and waved his cane at them (remember, he's a tiny 84 year old man), and they beat him up and pistol whipped him. They would have shot him, but the gun misfired (a junky Saturday night special). They left him bleeding on his living room floor, after going through his pockets and stealing his wallet.
So please do not tell me "no TV or wallet is worth it". The same people who would steal your possession would kill you without a second thought.
So please do not tell me "no TV or wallet is worth it". The same people who would steal your possession would kill you without a second thought.
The statistics alleged in the Urban Institute (a lefty, liberal organization devoted to special rights for minorities) are suspect, but assuming they are correct, when the shooter is white but the person shot (not "victim," since some of these are justified homicides) is black, the shooter is something like 12 to 2.4 times as likely to be declared justified.
Liberals, of course, see that as racism run amok, but for thinking people, isn't it interesting that those ranges encompass the number of times the black crime rate exceeds the white crime rate?
If the chief beneficiaries of the "special protection" are criminals, perhaps the "special protection" could be modified to only apply to those who have not been convicted of a crime of violence? Of course, that would discriminate against criminals, one of the Democrat Party's core constituencies, and is unlikely to become law anywhere controlled by liberals.
Liberals, of course, see that as racism run amok, but for thinking people, isn't it interesting that those ranges encompass the number of times the black crime rate exceeds the white crime rate?
If the chief beneficiaries of the "special protection" are criminals, perhaps the "special protection" could be modified to only apply to those who have not been convicted of a crime of violence? Of course, that would discriminate against criminals, one of the Democrat Party's core constituencies, and is unlikely to become law anywhere controlled by liberals.
10
James, it's awfully true -- and awful -- that African Americans are disproportionately represented in our prisons, but why does one suppose this is? Perhaps an underlying tendency to violence, which can be traced to an as-yet-undetected gene? Or mightn't it have something to do with the legacy of slavery, beatings, lynchings, Jim Crow, intimidation, racism, discrimination, drug wars, lack of job opportunities, no access to capital, unstable family life, unsafe neighborhoods, and underfunded, often decaying schools? Could we address some of the root causes of violent behavior, rather than just protecting ourselves from those who perpetrate it, before we condemn all of the population whom we associate with this violence and whose skin happens to be of a slightly darker hue from our own?
It's legitimate to question the effectiveness of the U.S. government when it comes to ameliorating social ills, but it is not legitimate to castigate blacks for being born into a situation, and into a culture, which breeds all of the particular character traits you find so abominable; this has origins in the deep past, and once it starts, it snowballs. And you cannot just wish it away. And we should all worry about black violence, but it was inaugurated by history and perpetuated by prejudice, poverty, ignorance, instability, despair.
Your political bent is a reflection of various misunderstandings and baseless bigotries. There is more to be said, but pontifications are frowned upon here.
It's legitimate to question the effectiveness of the U.S. government when it comes to ameliorating social ills, but it is not legitimate to castigate blacks for being born into a situation, and into a culture, which breeds all of the particular character traits you find so abominable; this has origins in the deep past, and once it starts, it snowballs. And you cannot just wish it away. And we should all worry about black violence, but it was inaugurated by history and perpetuated by prejudice, poverty, ignorance, instability, despair.
Your political bent is a reflection of various misunderstandings and baseless bigotries. There is more to be said, but pontifications are frowned upon here.
13
African-Americans are disproportionately represented in our prisons because, at least in part, they are more likely than whites to be sent to prison for the same behavior. There are ample statistics to show this. For instance, black people in New York City are far more likely to be stopped under "stop and frisk" and forced to empty their pockets, revealing in some cases something illegal which whites are as likely to be carrying but are far more rarely detected with.
3
You imply that you are a thinking person. Has it ever
occurred to you that one reason black crime rates are higher is because blacks are often convicted of crimes that whites get away with? Case in point, when I was in college in the 70s, white frat boys bragged about using drugs at their parties even as black kids in the cities were being arrested and sent to jail for doing it the very same thing. The War on Drugs was, in reality, a War on Blacks.
occurred to you that one reason black crime rates are higher is because blacks are often convicted of crimes that whites get away with? Case in point, when I was in college in the 70s, white frat boys bragged about using drugs at their parties even as black kids in the cities were being arrested and sent to jail for doing it the very same thing. The War on Drugs was, in reality, a War on Blacks.
3
How dare you use facts and statistics to try to improve collective safety and security! Socialist! Now, where's my social security check...
64
Does any of this actually surprise anyone?
6
SYG is NOT a racial thing. I assure you I won't know the color of any person who forcibly enters my home or attempts to do so until they are graveyard dead.
13
The issue here is not defending your home; it is shooting people on public property.
28
Good for you. You might not even know if it is a child or grandchild returning home in the middle of the night to surprise you with a visit.
22
. . . and you do understand that you have always had the right to defend yourself in your own home, even without Stand Your Ground laws, don't you?
23
Stand you ground laws should not be used as an excuse to kill. That was the problem in the Trayvon Martin case. The law was enacted to make it possible to protect an innocent person, not to go blast away at anyone whom you don't want in your neighborhood. Aggressive, anti-social people have used the law to commit murder. At least the guy in Jacksonville did not get away with it in the convenience store parking lot. No duty to retreat means that you can stand in your yard or home or sit in your car and not have to flee an attack. It does not mean that you can be the aggressor. Although the jury in the Martin case misinterpreted the law totally.
25
SYG was not used in the Martin trial at all. But don't let facts get in your way.
6
It was not an issue in the Martin trial, because Mr. Martin was shot while beating Mr. Zimmerman's head into the pavement -- a clear cut case of ordinary self-defense.
Now -- had Mr. Martin shot Mr. Zimmerman for following or menacing him, THAT would have been a SYG case.
Now -- had Mr. Martin shot Mr. Zimmerman for following or menacing him, THAT would have been a SYG case.
Another interesting legacy of Jeb Bush and the NRA push to sell more guns for the gun manufacturers.
35
So... The fact that violent crime plummeted in US states that allow concealed carry is not good justification?? Also, The last state to allow concealed carry was Illinois... And just before the landmark decision to overturn Chicago's unconstitutional gun control laws, Chicago was the murder capital of the country. The facts don't lie, you just have to be able to accept the facts, whether or not they back up your argument.
19
Show me the data. What you get from the NRA and Rush Limbaugh do not count as data.
35
The TRUTH is that violent crime is way, way down.
The stop-and-frisk laws, the high rates of incarceration -- the concealed carry and SYG laws -- they all WORKED. Because crime is way way down.
The stop-and-frisk laws, the high rates of incarceration -- the concealed carry and SYG laws -- they all WORKED. Because crime is way way down.
Well, crime is down - but that is not correlation. Its also down in states without this. And murder with SYG laws is up.
1
The idea that more gun ownership coupled with greater latitude to carry and use a gun will make us safer is just not true.
160
If you look up the stats it is true. You may not like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.
1
True.
Just ask anyone in Syria ... or Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya ... . But hey, we have Constitutional rights and they dont so that makes us different.
Just ask anyone in Syria ... or Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya ... . But hey, we have Constitutional rights and they dont so that makes us different.
3
Small business owner~"If you look up the stats it is true. You may not like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't true".
I know that a vast amount of right wing is mathematically challenged when it comes to PER CAPITA statistics but here goes:
The states that LEAD in gun deaths PER CAPITA, in other words per 100,000 of population, are
Alaska, Louisiana, Wyoming, Arizona, Nevada, Mississippi, New Mexico, Arkansas, Alabama,...the lowest are Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut,New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, New Hampshire...
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000
I guess if YOU look up the stats what YOU spout isn't true. But don't let the facts get in the way of your BELIEFS!!
I know that a vast amount of right wing is mathematically challenged when it comes to PER CAPITA statistics but here goes:
The states that LEAD in gun deaths PER CAPITA, in other words per 100,000 of population, are
Alaska, Louisiana, Wyoming, Arizona, Nevada, Mississippi, New Mexico, Arkansas, Alabama,...the lowest are Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut,New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, New Hampshire...
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000
I guess if YOU look up the stats what YOU spout isn't true. But don't let the facts get in the way of your BELIEFS!!
2
I think it is pretty much human nature to stand your ground. What species would not want to protect their family or themselves?
17
Many aspects of "human nature" are dysfunctional and/or illegal. The fact that someting has been part of human's quick reaction instinct does not make it right, or sacred, or valid.
21
This may be trivial knowledge but the purpose of human civilization is precisely to manage the raw elements of human nature not to excite them.
36
running away never discourages crime
it only changes who gets shot
if you don't like SYG, move to a state where 'duty to withdraw' is the law
each case is reviewed, and 80% are justifiable
so WHAT is the author's grievance
it only changes who gets shot
if you don't like SYG, move to a state where 'duty to withdraw' is the law
each case is reviewed, and 80% are justifiable
so WHAT is the author's grievance
21
Exactly, if you do not want to stand your ground then don't. Accept the consequences.
10
The issue is this: I don't want to be visiting your state, accidentally step on your foot in a grocery store and be shot for it.
106
Grocery store foot steeping shootings are down 97% since people started wearing soft sole shoes. No foolin'.
8
What is needed is not a dilution of the Stand Your Ground laws but new legislation to afford at least the same degree of protection to our police officers. When a citizen is faced with another posing danger to his life, the assailant may or may not have a serious criminal record. When someone takes a weapon to a police officer the chances of him [or her] being a career criminal are much higher. The police should have a higher level of legal immunity than regular citizens, not the opposite.
4
. . . and the Ferguson police officer who shot to death the fleeing man would be given a medal for protecting all of us . . .
9
(I think you're referring to Walter Scott, who was shot in the back as he ran from Michael Slager, an officer with the North Charleston, SC police department, who then trotter over and planted a tazer next to Scott's dying body, without offering any aid whatsoever. Understandable mistake, if you're not keeping a score card of the dead bodies that keep piling up.)
5
...and those officers in the van in Baltimore who were protecting themselves from lethal use of shackles by Freddy Gray, who "may or may not" have had a criminal record ... .
1
Stand your ground? It's an invite to crime,
Open sesame, shoot-a-Black time,
Justice has defected
So shoot, you're protected,
It's back to the old Jim Crow slime!
Open sesame, shoot-a-Black time,
Justice has defected
So shoot, you're protected,
It's back to the old Jim Crow slime!
87
Isn't the required presumption a violation of the other party's right to due process? I understand that a self-defense shooting can be justified. I don't understand that a claimed self-defense shooting is automatically justified, unless proven otherwise. Seems to me like the person being shot hasn't been afforded proper due process.
173
Due process refers to the requirement that the government use due process. There is no requirement that individuals use it. However, they are responsible to use good judgement and have reasonable cause.
2
Well no, alls you have to do is kill that horrible person, wipe a sort of tear awy, and say I was afraid. Popcorn can kill.
6
you don't need due process once you are dead.
I'm curious if anyone has looked at age differences between the shooter and the victim. From trends in gun ownership, I would not be surprised to find in general that the shooter is older than the victim.
8
Good point. I am nearly 70 and no match for a much younger guy who chooses to do violence to me or my family. Concealed carry and Stand Your Ground laws make me able to protect myself and my family.
8
Independent Virginia - why conceal your weapon? If you are "no match for a much younger guy" are you going to ask for a bit of time to whip it out and convince him who has a bigger piece? Carry it out in the open like you mean it, even at the risk of appearing the fool.
BTW, at "almost 70" exactly how many times in your life have you had to "protect" yourself - with armed, possibly deadly - force?
My read on this whole issue is mass hysteria with a mindset that "they" are coming to get us and I can only rely on myself for salvation. Pathetic.
BTW, at "almost 70" exactly how many times in your life have you had to "protect" yourself - with armed, possibly deadly - force?
My read on this whole issue is mass hysteria with a mindset that "they" are coming to get us and I can only rely on myself for salvation. Pathetic.
6
You state, "Under the new breed of laws, a person who has harmed or killed another in a public place can presumptively claim self-defense. The police must accept the claim’s validity. In other words, the individual need only assert the belief that the use of force was necessary to prevent serious harm or death."
Tha is not correct. The individual must have a reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm. If the fear is not reasonable, then the mere assertion of belief does not require the police to accept the claim of validity.
If you are being attacked on the street by someone using deadly force, why should you have a duty to retreat? Shouldn't you at least be able to choose the ground on which you defend yourself?
Tha is not correct. The individual must have a reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm. If the fear is not reasonable, then the mere assertion of belief does not require the police to accept the claim of validity.
If you are being attacked on the street by someone using deadly force, why should you have a duty to retreat? Shouldn't you at least be able to choose the ground on which you defend yourself?
49
Because of the consequences of the panic that may ensue.
5
When is there ever (or ever been) a duty to retreat if your life is in imminent danger? Self-defense is always, and has always been, a legal justification against murder/battery.
36
Before SYG if you are in imminent danger you still had a duty to retreat. So someone pulls a gun on you, you shoot them, there was a possibility of retreat, you go to jail.
SYG doesn't change self defense, it just takes away the duty to retreat. You still have to prove you were in imminent danger.
SYG doesn't change self defense, it just takes away the duty to retreat. You still have to prove you were in imminent danger.
5
NRA buys the pols & scams us again. If we don't object, then we deserve the idiocies they inflict on us. HRC was a law & order advocate back in the day … where does she stand now on stand your ground? Rand Paul? Bernie Sanders? Let's have some choices. Jeb supports such idiocies, caveat emptor.
9
Of the 36%, how many had criminal records? Facts are always pesky things to Democrats.
10
Does being convicted of a crime remove your humanity. Does it remove your right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Your comment makes no sense. They have the same rights as people not convicted of felonies.
21
And then some of the pols listen to their constituents and vote for stand your ground laws because that is what the voters want. The NRA doesn't have to buy them at all.
4
Pretty dumb, really dangerously stupid in so many ways, and getting dumber every day,
but I bet that was a rhetorical question.
but I bet that was a rhetorical question.
30
The "stand your ground" laws elevate fearfulness to a justification for killing others. Some people have irrational fears, particularly of African Americans, and their actions may seem reasonable to others who havae these fears. The combination leads to a complete breakdown of the fundamental social contract of civil society. As places get more crowded, some people seek to eliminate those they consider "outsiders".
82
Stand Your Ground laws make perfect sense for the people who benefit from them, who elect and pressure legislators to give themselves a right to use violent, life-changing or ending methods that no one should possess in public places. All these laws do is increase the state's homicide rate and make a certain segment of its white population feel more at ease despite leaving the vast majority of its minority population very uneasy.
People who seek confrontation in public places are the real threats to society, particularly the ones who insist on having the right to carry deadly weapons in public. Perhaps their arms-bearing wouldn't be so awful if they didn't also bear destructive, prejudicial notions about other people who do not look like them. At this point, however, it would be easier, if only slightly, to remove the firearms than to remove the stereotypes from their minds.
Stand Your Ground laws are not drafted and codified by ignorant people. They are very calculated measures designed to apply or we should say restore a degree of control that white people once explicitly had over other people. These laws are not designed to ensure protection from perceived nefarious elements but to ensure immunity for actions taken against those same elements. Again, no one should have this power, least of all the still very privileged majority.
People who seek confrontation in public places are the real threats to society, particularly the ones who insist on having the right to carry deadly weapons in public. Perhaps their arms-bearing wouldn't be so awful if they didn't also bear destructive, prejudicial notions about other people who do not look like them. At this point, however, it would be easier, if only slightly, to remove the firearms than to remove the stereotypes from their minds.
Stand Your Ground laws are not drafted and codified by ignorant people. They are very calculated measures designed to apply or we should say restore a degree of control that white people once explicitly had over other people. These laws are not designed to ensure protection from perceived nefarious elements but to ensure immunity for actions taken against those same elements. Again, no one should have this power, least of all the still very privileged majority.
622
How many of the 36% were felons? Facts are pesky things to Democrats and Socislists.
11
You ask this question, but you also don't know the answer. You don't ask it as a matter of interest, you ask it rhetorically as though the answer were self-evident. If the answer were 0 would it matter to you in the least?
You examine this article, declare it to be wanting or in error without a scintilla of evidence to support your claim.
"Nearly 60% of those making self-defense claims when a person was killed had been arrested in the past; ... over a third had illegally carried guns in the past or had threatened other 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."
Sometimes killing in self-defense is justified; sometimes women falsely accuse men of raping them; and all are supposedly innocent until proven guilty. True. But also true is that false accusations of rape, given the nature of the crime, are rare, and thus most accused of rape are guilty. This also comes from research, not from guesses, but since for you assumptions are as good as facts, how many murderers, do you think, claim they acted in self-defense?
Even without SYG laws, self-defense is sometimes a valid justification for violence. SYG laws matter only in questionable cases. And what cases are those?
Facts are pesky things to those, left or right, who think they already know all the answers.
You examine this article, declare it to be wanting or in error without a scintilla of evidence to support your claim.
"Nearly 60% of those making self-defense claims when a person was killed had been arrested in the past; ... over a third had illegally carried guns in the past or had threatened other 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."
Sometimes killing in self-defense is justified; sometimes women falsely accuse men of raping them; and all are supposedly innocent until proven guilty. True. But also true is that false accusations of rape, given the nature of the crime, are rare, and thus most accused of rape are guilty. This also comes from research, not from guesses, but since for you assumptions are as good as facts, how many murderers, do you think, claim they acted in self-defense?
Even without SYG laws, self-defense is sometimes a valid justification for violence. SYG laws matter only in questionable cases. And what cases are those?
Facts are pesky things to those, left or right, who think they already know all the answers.
29
please state where you got these statistics.
2