# SYG laws Post-Zimmerman **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 14, 2013, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459 "2013-07-14T05:03:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2013, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/281 "2013-07-25T17:41:09Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > No probability analysis is involved. It’s a yes or no question: “would retreating have increased the danger to the defendant?” So If the defendant says yes retreating would put me in more danger, and the jury says no, then that’s a crime? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2013, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/282 "2013-07-25T17:48:36Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I don’t think that’s a fair reading of the statistics. 2005 happened to be a low point, but FL’s homicide rate has fluctuated up and down both before and after the SYG law was passed. Every year before 1997 it has been above 7.0 and every year since 1997 it’s been below. [Cite](http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/flcrime.htm) The same is true of the rate for the entire [United States](http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#nat1970): a rate of 6.8 in 1997, and lower than that every year since, with mild fluctuations up and down. Every region of the U.S. (same source) has shown a decline (it uses the period '01-'11), both those where SYG laws are common and where they are not. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2013, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/283 "2013-07-25T17:53:53Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > So If the defendant says yes retreating would put me in more danger, and the jury says no, then that’s a crime? Yeah, pretty much. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2013, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/284 "2013-07-25T17:57:32Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > So If the defendant says yes retreating would put me in more danger, and the jury says no, then that’s a crime? That’s how most crimes work. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2013, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/285 "2013-07-25T17:59:21Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > And no, they don’t go hand in hand. Various jurisdictions have allowed the concealed carrying of weapons more or less since firearms were invented. The Stand Your Ground law dates back all of eight years. Yes, I mentioned CC laws, but I did so specifically in the context of SYG. It’s right there in the next couple sentences. But in any case, they do go hand in hand. If we didn’t have any CC then SYG would be rendered toothless. SYG builds upon CC, and wouldn’t be meaningful without it. Criminals aren’t going to think: I better not attack that person, they might fight back with their fists. They are, however, going to think: I better not attack anyone, since anyone might be armed and will legally shoot me. Another way to put it would be SYG without CC would really just be a law that applied to physically strong men who might look intimidating to unarmed criminals. SYG with CC laws in place benefits anyone, since even a little old lady might be armed. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2013, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/286 "2013-07-25T18:01:15Z")
And gun rights folks think _anti_-gun people are “incrementalists”. You understand that you have the right to defend yourself even in non-SYG jurisdictions, right? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2013, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/287 "2013-07-25T18:04:38Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Yes, I mentioned CC laws, but I did so specifically in the context of SYG. It’s right there in the next couple sentences. > > But in any case, they do go hand in hand. If we didn’t have any CC then SYG would be rendered toothless. SYG builds upon CC, and wouldn’t be meaningful without it. > > Criminals aren’t going to think: I better not attack that person, they might fight back with their fists. They are, however, going to think: I better not attack anyone, since anyone might be armed and will legally shoot me. > > Another way to put it would be SYG without CC would really just be a law that applied to physically strong men who might look intimidating to unarmed criminals. SYG with CC laws in place benefits anyone, since even a little old lady might be armed. Concealed carry, on the other hand, is highly meaningful without Stand Your Ground. SYG is not necessary in order to benefit from concealed carry. The concealed weapon should always be a last resort. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2013, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/288 "2013-07-25T18:18:54Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Concealed carry, on the other hand, is highly meaningful without Stand Your Ground. Agreed. > [@](#): > > SYG is not necessary in order to benefit from concealed carry. Yes, but it is necessary for the victim to not be punished for using his CC weapon after the fact. I know a lot of people who carry every day. They do so regardless of what the law says about SYG. They go by the maxim “Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.” In Florida, of course, the saying goes “Better to be judged by six than carried by six.” > [@](#): > > The concealed weapon should always be a last resort. Why? This is the issue at hand. This thinking is what leads to detailed examinations of every step of a situation that is extremely tense and filled with adrenaline. It’s how obviously innocent people like Zimmerman end up nearly in prison. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2013, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/289 "2013-07-25T18:36:11Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Yes, but it is necessary for the victim to not be punished for using his CC weapon after the fact. Only if they could have retreated but chose not to do so. That’s not much of a burden. > [@Debaser](#): > > I know a lot of people who carry every day. They do so regardless of what the law says about SYG. They go by the maxim “Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.” > > In Florida, of course, the saying goes “Better to be judged by six than carried by six.” I carry most days. My maxim is “Shooting someone will make your life substantially worse, so don’t do it unless you have no other choice”. > [@Debaser](#): > > Why? This is the issue at hand. Several reasons. 1. As a humanist, I start from the notion that anyone being killed is bad thing, unless it was absolutely necessary to save someone else’s life or prevent great bodily harm. 2. I see no benefit from a person who could have retreated refusing to do, and instead using force. I don’t have a “some people need killing” mentality. Shooting someone is a no-win scenario. The absolute best case scenario is that you escape with your life and don’t face criminal charges or a civil suit or crippling PTSD. If you can escape with your life without shooting, you get all those “benefits” and face none of the costs. 3. If you can only fire if you couldn’t have retreated, it makes it much harder to get away with murder, without making it easier to convict an innocent person\*. > [@Debaser](#): > > This thinking is what leads to detailed examinations of every step of a situation that is extremely tense and filled with adrenaline. It’s how obviously innocent people like Zimmerman end up nearly in prison. - This is my sticking point. As expressed earlier in the thread, if the standard for retreat is what a perfectly calm observer with all the time in the world and in no danger could have done, that’s unacceptable. If it’s what a reasonable person could have none under the circumstances, that’s fine. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2013, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/290 "2013-07-25T18:41:59Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Yes, but it is necessary for the victim to not be punished for using his CC weapon after the fact. Did you read the first three pages of this thread? There is no evidence at all - not even a study from a source like the Society For Blowing Every Motherfucker Away - that wrongful conviction of people who use force in self-defense is a societal problem. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2013, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/291 "2013-07-25T18:42:24Z")
I personally would retreat and not engage if possible. If I am in the unfortunate situation where I believe it is not possible to retreat and I defend myself, I sure as fuck don’t want a jury getting to decide that I could have tried a little harder and then my life is ruined. I want the law to reflect that and with SYG it does. Edit: to RNATB - it’s not just wrongful conviction, but defense of criminal prosecution (even successfully) and defense of civil suit (even successfully) is very expensive, ruinous for many. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2013, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/292 "2013-07-25T18:46:24Z")
And yet you’re okay with the idea of a jury weighing all your other legal obligations. You don’t find that a little inconsistent? ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2013, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/293 "2013-07-25T19:04:18Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Did you read the first three pages of this thread? There is no evidence at all - not even a study from a source like the Society For Blowing Every Motherfucker Away - that wrongful conviction of people who use force in self-defense is a societal problem. Tell that to George Zimmerman. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2013, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/294 "2013-07-25T19:05:22Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I carry most days. My maxim is “Shooting someone will make your life substantially worse, so don’t do it unless you have no other choice”. > > Several reasons. > > 1. As a humanist, I start from the notion that anyone being killed is bad thing, unless it was absolutely necessary to save someone else’s life or prevent great bodily harm. > > 2. I see no benefit from a person who could have retreated refusing to do, and instead using force. I don’t have a “some people need killing” mentality. Shooting someone is a no-win scenario. The absolute best case scenario is that you escape with your life and don’t face criminal charges or a civil suit or crippling PTSD. If you can escape with your life without shooting, you get all those “benefits” and face none of the costs. > > 3. If you can only fire if you couldn’t have retreated, it makes it much harder to get away with murder, without making it easier to convict an innocent person\*. I agree with all of that… > [@](#): > > - This is my sticking point. As expressed earlier in the thread, if the standard for retreat is what a perfectly calm observer with all the time in the world and in no danger could have done, that’s unacceptable. If it’s what a reasonable person could have none under the circumstances, that’s fine. But I agree with this even more. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2013, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/295 "2013-07-25T19:09:02Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Edit: to RNATB - it’s not just wrongful conviction, but defense of criminal prosecution (even successfully) and defense of civil suit (even successfully) is very expensive, ruinous for many. Right, I get that. You’ve said it several times. What you haven’t explained is how that differs from any other dispute we trust the civil or criminal process to handle. > [@Debaser](#): > > Tell that to George Zimmerman. Zimmerman made his bed. Pretty much everyone agrees what he did was stupid. He put himself in harm’s way, and was partly responsible for creating the situation he ended up in. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2013, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/296 "2013-07-25T19:11:01Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > And yet you’re okay with the idea of a jury weighing all your other legal obligations. You don’t find that a little inconsistent? I’m fine with the concept of the jury as a finder of fact. I think the question of whether or not a person should or could have retreated should be beyond the scope of the jury. SYG tells the jury, a person doesn’t need to retreat so that is outside your purview. And yes, I’m fine with that. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2013, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/297 "2013-07-25T19:13:19Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Zimmerman made his bed. Pretty much everyone agrees what he did was stupid. He put himself in harm’s way, and was partly responsible for creating the situation he ended up in. I don’t think we know that. He followed a guy that looked suspicious (to him) and was attacked (so he says). If that is true, he was responsible for the situation in the same way a rape victim is for dressing provocatively. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2013, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/298 "2013-07-25T19:30:54Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I don’t think we know that. He followed a guy that looked suspicious (to him) and was attacked (so he says). If that is true, he was responsible for the situation in the same way a rape victim is for dressing provocatively. Following the guy was not a wise choice. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2013, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/299 "2013-07-25T19:44:35Z")
Only in hindsight. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2013, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/300 "2013-07-25T20:01:29Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I’m fine with the concept of the jury as a finder of fact. I think the question of whether or not a person should or could have retreated should be beyond the scope of the jury. How is the availability of retreat not a question of fact? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459.md?page=16)