# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![PBear42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/81 "2013-07-17T16:34:09Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Maybe because blacks are … you know … more likely to … ummm … commit violent felonies that give rise to deadly force in self defense? I’d encourage any lurkers to read the article. It explains the issue pretty well. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/82 "2013-07-17T16:37:44Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > The Attorney General’s take on this question: "Mr. Holder drew sustained applause when he declared, “We must stand our ground to ensure that our laws reduce violence and take a hard look at laws that contribute to more violence than they prevent.” Bingo. The classic self-defense claim, at common law, included a requirement to retreat. That makes sense: we value a human life (or should) more than the benefit of occupying some given public space – _even if yours was the better claim to being there._ To elevate prideful stubborness against retreat over human life is madness. ---
**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 17, 2013, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/83 "2013-07-17T16:44:38Z")
Whatever it is, it’s contagious. ---
**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 17, 2013, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/84 "2013-07-17T17:49:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > "Mr. Holder drew sustained applause when he declared, “We must stand our ground to ensure that our laws reduce violence and take a hard look at laws that contribute to more violence than they prevent.” > > Bingo. > > The classic self-defense claim, at common law, included a requirement to retreat. That makes sense: we value a human life (or should) more than the benefit of occupying some given public space – _even if yours was the better claim to being there._ > > To elevate prideful stubborness against retreat over human life is madness. Is it stubborness to decide in a split second judgment that you are at greater risk to retreat then to confront? And if we impose a duty to retreat, aren’t we asking the jury to second guess the person in that moment? Take the hypothetical - you are being confronted with what a reasonable person would deem grave bodily harm. You may be able to retreat to safety or may not, but you are not certain. What if you have a 90% chance to retreat without harm, and 10% chance that it will fail and you will die. Would a duty to retreat criminalize your failure to do so? What if you had a 55% chance to retreat without harm, and a 45% chance to die. And so on down the line. What must your chance of safe retreat be for it to be required and have the force of law? Look at Holder’s statement, “We must stand our ground to ensure that our laws reduce violence and take a hard look at laws that contribute to more violence than they prevent.” He is implying that SYG laws contribute more to violence than they prevent. In the US, I think we have a fairly broad cross section of states that both have a duty to retreat and SYG. 31 states are SYG, and 19 are duty to retreat. Surely there would be evidence that Holder could present. He’s making a leap that hasn’t been supported. I disagree with your contention that we value human life greater than the benefit of occupying a certain space. That isn’t the proposition that SYG makes. SYG means the person initiating the threat to life has given up their claim to their own. What SYG really needs to do is immunize the defender against both criminal prosecution and civil claims of wrongful death. The fact that I can be perfectly justified in defending myself but then held liable for the death of the bad guy is preposterous. But it’s not like someone is going to make that evaluation in the heat of the moment. That’s basically the genesis of the saying, better to be judged by twelve than carried by six. (Or in FL’s case, judged by six also apparently). ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/85 "2013-07-17T17:58:15Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > The problem that I see with Stand your Ground laws is that there are many cases like the Zimmerman case where both people involved have a legitimate claim to feeling threatened by the other party. Imagine two rival gangbangers with a blood feud meeting on the street each knowing the other is armed. Without the requirement to retreat it is in both parties best interest to kill the other because there is no negative consequences for doing so. Further they know that the other party has no negative consequences for killing them so if they fail to act they’re a dead man. Thus the only sensible action is to escalate as quickly as possible before the other party does so. It just comes down to who is the quickest draw. That’s precisely why I have an issue with the law. It legalizes dueling. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/86 "2013-07-17T18:05:12Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > What SYG really needs to do is immunize the defender against both criminal prosecution and civil claims of wrongful death. I’m guessing you consider yourself much more likely to be the beneficiary of SYG rights than the unfortunate victim of someone else exercising theirs. Hope you’re quick on the draw, pardner. First one to “feel threatened” wins, and the stakes are high. ---
**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 17, 2013, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/87 "2013-07-17T18:06:23Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > The problem that I see with Stand your Ground laws is that there are many cases like the Zimmerman case where both people involved have a legitimate claim to feeling threatened by the other party. Imagine two rival gangbangers with a blood feud meeting on the street each knowing the other is armed. Without the requirement to retreat it is in both parties best interest to kill the other because there is no negative consequences for doing so. Further they know that the other party has no negative consequences for killing them so if they fail to act they’re a dead man. Thus the only sensible action is to escalate as quickly as possible before the other party does so. It just comes down to who is the quickest draw. SYG defense generally doesn’t apply when engaged in criminal activity. This scenario wouldn’t fall under the auspices of SYG. ---
**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 17, 2013, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/88 "2013-07-17T18:11:47Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > I’m guessing you consider yourself much more likely to be the beneficiary of SYG rights than the unfortunate victim of someone else exercising theirs. Since I don’t threaten others or inflict grave bodily harm against others, yes. ---
**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 17, 2013, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/89 "2013-07-17T18:16:12Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > He’s making a leap that hasn’t been supported. Purported defensive firearm discharge has gone up by 31% since the Florida SYG law was passed. ---
**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 17, 2013, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/90 "2013-07-17T18:28:07Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Purported defensive firearm discharge has gone up by 31% since the Florida SYG law was passed. Holder made two claims. The first was that SYG contributes to violence. The second was that SYG associated violence exceeds the violence that would have occurred in the absence of SYG. I think there is also the implicit claim that those two types of violence are equally bad which is just not so. Surely if you were a bad guy in FL, you know that your risk of being shot in the commission of a crime is acute and you should act accordingly. Do you believe there is a non-zero deterrent effect on crime? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/91 "2013-07-17T18:52:50Z")
[John Nichols writes in _The Nation:_](http://www.thenation.com/blog/175312/outrage-rising-florida-and-nationally-against-stand-your-ground#axzz2ZKU7qssr) > [@](#): > > \*\*Outrage Is Rising Against Stand Your Ground > > John Nichols on July 16, 2013 - 11:01 PM ET\*\* > > When Florida Circuit Court Judge Debra Nelson issued the jury instructions in the second-degree murder trial of George Zimmerman, those instructions declared, > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. > > Though Zimmerman’s lawyers chose to mount a traditional self-defense argument on their client’s behalf—eschewing a defense specifically based on the controversial Florida law that permits individuals who feel threatened to use deadly force even when they could retreat to safety—the role played in the case by the “stand your ground” law, and the theory that underpins it, has come into stark relief in the days since Zimmerman was acquitted. > > \ > > Now, despite attempts by casual commentators to suggest that “stand your ground” was not a factor in this case, serious observers are coming to recognize the significance of this week’s observation by The Miami Herald that “Zimmerman waived his right to the Stand Your Ground immunity hearing, a pre-trial event that’s not spelled out in statute. But he was afforded the protections of Stand Your Ground, which is embedded in Florida’s self-defense laws. Its language, found in statute 766.012, was tailored to the Zimmerman trial’s jury instructions.” > > \ > > Responding to a question about how the jurors reached their “not guilty” verdict—despite concerns regarding Zimmerman’s actions prior to the killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin —the juror justified her decision by telling CNN’s Anderson Cooper, “Well, because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.” > > More than a year ago, initial protests over the killing of Trayvon Martin brought national attention to Florida’s “stand your ground” law, which was enacted in 2005—and to similar laws that the Center for Media and Democracy explains have been enacted in twenty-six states over the past decade, with prodding from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the National Rifle Association. > > Amid the controversy over the Florida shooting, ALEC announced in April, 2012, that it would no longer advocate for “stand your ground” laws as part of a broader refocusing on economic issues. But the laws remain on the books. “Florida’s dangerous ‘shoot first’ law allowed Trayvon’s killer to walk free without charges for more than a month. ‘Shoot First’ legalizes vigilante homicide, has demonstrated racial bias in its application, and has led to an increase in gun-related deaths in the more than two dozen states where it has been passed into law,” argued Color of Change, as part of its campaign to strike down “stand your ground” laws in states across the country. “These laws give individual gun owners a greater right to shoot and kill than the rules of engagement for our military during times of war grant to soldiers in war zones. ‘Shoot First’ must be repealed now to protect families and communities and prevent senseless deaths.” > > \ > > Attorney General Holder picked up on that theme in his remarks to the NAACP Tuesday, saying, > > > [@](#): > > > > Separate and apart from the case that has drawn the nation’s attention, it’s time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods. These laws try to fix something that was never broken. There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force if—and the “if” is important—if no safe retreat is available. > > > > But we must examine laws that take this further by eliminating the common-sense and age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat, outside their home, if they can do so safely. By allowing and perhaps encouraging violent situations to escalate in public, such laws undermine public safety. > > > > The list of resulting tragedies is long and, unfortunately, has victimized too many who are innocent. It is our collective obligation; we must stand OUR ground to ensure—we must stand our ground to ensure that our laws reduce violence, and take a hard look at laws that contribute to more violence than they prevent. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/92 "2013-07-17T18:55:35Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Surely if you were a bad guy in FL, you know that your risk of being shot in the commission of a crime is acute and you should act accordingly. Do you believe there is a non-zero deterrent effect on crime? No, probably not. Because this verdict, or the SYG law, or the general proliferation of guns in this state, does **not** really increase your risk of being shot while committing a crime, that is what it is, and career criminals allow for that risk and plan for it; it only increases your friend’s risk of getting shot while not committing one. Furthermore, some (more) criminals soon will figure out that **they** can carry guns **too.** ---
**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 17, 2013, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/93 "2013-07-17T19:35:49Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Surely if you were a bad guy in FL, you know that your risk of being shot in the commission of a crime is acute and you should act accordingly. Do you believe there is a non-zero deterrent effect on crime? Certainly no greater than the enticement effect. Violent criminals can now invoke the SYG law as a shield, too - as long as they are in a public place. ---
**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 17, 2013, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/94 "2013-07-17T20:00:00Z")
> [@Really Not Allenticement ht](#): > > Certainly no greater than the enticement effect. Violent criminals can now invoke the SYG law, too - as long as they are in a public place. There is probably an enticement effect but I couldn’t quantify it. Holder hasn’t either and that was my point. His claim is unsupported. I personally weigh the value of the life of a bad guy much differently than the person defending g themslef against the bad guy. apply that to Holder’s statement and it is even more rediculous. ---
**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 17, 2013, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/95 "2013-07-17T20:02:25Z")
The number of people claiming self-defense has gone up. I don’t think it’s Holder’s job to prove that the extra claimants are all fine, upstanding citizens exercising their rights. ---
**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 17, 2013, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/96 "2013-07-17T20:29:36Z")
Holder said, “[we need to] take a hard look at laws that contribute to more violence than they prevent.” I interpret that to mean that he is asserting that SYG laws have a net increase in violence, that they contribute more to violence than they do to prevent it. Is that a fair interpretation of his statement? For that to be true, he would have to demonstrate that the deterrent effect of SYG is overwhelmed by and causing increased levels of violence that would not otherwise have occurred. The mere increases in claims of self defense, even in claiming defense under the provisions of SYG, is not sufficient to say that SYG caused that violence. So first he would have to show a causal relationship between violence and SYG. That hasn’t happened yet. Then, he would have to compare that increase, to any decrease caused by the deterrent of SYG. That hasn’t happened yet. Then, even if the numbers were equal on both sides, he would have to make an evaluation that each tally on both sides is worth the same. That will never happen (IMO). Paraphrased from [Volokh](http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/14/burden-and-quantum-of-proof-on-self-defense/): > [@](#): > > “Better that 10 guilty killers go free than one person who killed in proper self-defense go to prison for a long time (or be executed).” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2013, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/97 "2013-07-17T20:44:39Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Holder said, “[we need to] take a hard look at laws that contribute to more violence than they prevent.” Do not overlook his far more important point, “These laws try to fix something that was never broken.” ---
**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 17, 2013, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/98 "2013-07-17T20:52:00Z")
Says you [or him]? If you agree with the status quo, then you would believe it was never broken. That would be true for any change in law you disagree with. It’s not persuasive and 31 states disagree with you. I understand there are other opinions on the matter. ---
**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 17, 2013, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/99 "2013-07-17T22:00:59Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Says you [or him]? If you agree with the status quo, then you would believe it was never broken. That would be true for any change in law you disagree with. It’s not persuasive and 31 states disagree with you. I understand there are other opinions on the matter. “31 states disagree with you” is a rather odd reformulation of “the NRA has spent a great deal of money having similar legislation quietly passed in 31 states with no organized opposition.” I think you’ll find the vast majority of the electorates in all 31 of those states had never even heard of SYG laws prior to the Martin case. ---
**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 17, 2013, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/100 "2013-07-17T23:10:46Z")
I’m can’t speak to the primary supporters of the laws that were passed in each of the states. I’m relying on a Volokh cite for the 31 state figure. If you have polling data that show that the vast majority of the electorates in all of the 31 states that have those laws have never heard of SYG prior to the Martin case, that’s fine, I don’t know what point that would make. BG’s point was that the laws were trying to fix something that wasn’t broken. My point is, you can make that claim about any law that you agree with that is changing but it’s merely an opinion not supported in reality. Lawmakers for those states thought it was “broken” and they fixed it. Either way it’s rather worthless quibble. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459.md?page=6)