SYG laws Post-Zimmerman

[BrainGlutton]

@Human_Action

Also, for the South in particular, anything that peacefully erodes our persistent, destructive honor culture is a good thing. SYG gives people no “out” for supposed cowardice and dishonor, if retreating is the law, there’s an excuse to do it and still save face.

From Vietnam: The Necessary War, by Michael Lind:

The real reason for the persistence of sectionalism in U.S. foreign policy can be found in the ethnoregional theory of American politics, which has been developed by the historians David Hackett Fischer, Daniel Elazar, D.W. Meinig, Kevin Phillips, and others. The ethnoregional theory holds that in the United States powerful ethnic and regional subcultures are more important and enduring than political parties and ideologies. The labels “Democrat” and “Republican” differ in their meaning from generation to generation; regional subcultures such as those of New England and the Tidewater South change much more slowly.

The greatest insight of ethnoregional theorists is that immigrants in the United States do not assimilate to a uniform American national culture; rather, they assimilate to one of a small number of preexisting regional cultures. The historian Wilbur Zelinsky has defined a thesis he calls the Doctrine of Effective First Settlement that holds: “Whenever an empty territory undergoes settlement, or an earlier population is dislodged by invaders, the specific characteristics of the first group able to affect a viable, self-perpetuating society are of crucial significance for the later social and cultural geography of the area, no matter how tiny the initial band of settlers may have been.” . . .

Historians differ on the question of how many of these enduring regional cultures there are in the United States. Most agree on three: a Yankee culture that spread westward overland from New England; a Quaker culture operating in Pennsylvania; and a Cavalier culture originating in the coastal South. Most, but not all, identify a fourth regional culture, that of the Scots-Irish Highland South from Appalachia to the Ozarks and Texas. In his magisterial Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America (1989), David Hackett Fischer argues persuasively that these four “hearth cultures” originated in different regions of early modern Britain and were transplanted to North America by four waves of immigrants. In the first wave (1629-40), Puritans from the eastern counties of England settled New England. The second wave (1642-75) brought anti-Puritan, royalist Cavaliers from the south of England to Virginia. Quakers from the North Midlands of England colonized Pennsylvania and the Delaware Valley after emigrating during the third wave (1675-1715). The fourth and final major Anglo-American migration, which lasted from 1717 to 1775, transplanted so-called Scots-Irish from northern England, lowland Scotland, and the north of Ireland (Ulster).

In addition to having distinctive folkways and dialects of English, these four groups of British-American immigrants had their own unique variants of a common individualistic and liberal British political culture. Fischer describes the New England Puritan ideal as “ordered freedom,” the Quaker ideal as “reciprocal freedom,” the Scots-Irish ideal as “natural freedom,” and the coastal southern ideal as “hegemonic freedom” (deference to traditional elites). Another historian, Daniel J. Elazar, calls the New England tradition the “moralistic” culture, the midatlantic region the “individualistic” culture, and the coastal southern tradition the “traditional” culture. . . .

The ethnoregional theory provides the answer to the mystery of American sectional differences with respect to war. Regional disagreements about war are part of a larger pattern of regional disagreement about the legitimacy of all forms of violence. “Historians of Southern mores are agreed that violence as an aspect of Southern life clearly distinguished the region from the rest of the country,” writes historian Bertram Wyatt-Brown. Of the southerner, Alexis de Tocqueville observed that “the energy which his [northern] neighbor devotes to gain turns with him to a passionate love of field sports and military exercises; he delights in violent bodily exertion, he is familiar with the use of arms, and is accustomed from a very early age to expose his life in single combat.” Southern states lead the nation not only in military academies but in homicide rates and death penalty laws and in low penalties for domestic violence. Northern states have the lowest homicide rates and the greatest number of statutes requiring a citizen to retreat before attacking an assailant or intruder in his home.

These regional differences reflect the difference in moral systems between the post-Calvinist Puritanism of Greater New England, which shuns violence as a means for resolving disputes, and the cultures of honor of the Scots-Irish Highland South and the Anglo-American Tidewater South. The two southern cultures are quite different, but compared to Greater New Englanders, both Highland and Tidewater southerners look with greater approval on violent retaliation for insults. But southerners are not indiscriminately violent. The difference between northern and southern homicide rates is accounted for almost entirely by violent responses of southerners to personal offenses: arguments, insults to women, lovers’ quarrels, and disputes within the family. The researchers Richard E. Nisbet and Dov Cohen discovered that, at the same university, white southern students were more likely to respond aggressively than white northern students to the same set of insults and provocations. The same researchers have pointed out the similarities between the culture of honor of white southerners and that of inner-city black Americans, most of whom are descendants of southern migrants.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Terr

So - what was the definition of “retreat”? Was it “safely retreat”? That is, if retreating involved higher chance of serious bodily harm or death than defending yourself - would it still be counted?

No. The standard jury instructions at the time (based on prior FSC cases) established that “a person placed in a position of imminent danger of death or great bodily harm to himself by the wrongful attack of another has no duty to retreat if to do so would increase his own danger of death or great bodily harm.” State v. Bobbitt, 415 So. 2d 724, 725 (Fla. 1982).

[Human_Action]

@BrainGlutton

From Vietnam: The Necessary War, by Michael Lind:

Right, exactly. Changing these laws might help, as a very diffuse (and less effective, I admit) version of efforts like CeaseFire. The aggrieved party must have a way to save face other than violence.

Of course, the existence of the honor culture is the reason the laws are what they are, and makes them unlikely to change soon. Lousy democracy!

[UltraVires]

@Bricker

Exactly.

I’m not blind to the negative implications of policy that would force a person to back off from where they have a legal right to be – to cede to the bully the win.

But as a general principle, we live in a nation of laws. And even a bully’s life is worth more than the pride you might have standing your ground.

I think it is a false dilemma. The bully is absolutely free to quit threatening death or seriously bodily harm. He is free to walk past you and go about his business. He is free to quit committing felonies.

The taking of a life is an incidental and unfortunate side effect of a bully feloniously and unlawfully asserting authority only derived from his deranged mind against any regular citizen (could be me, you, another poster, our family members, etc.). The confrontation might result in an exchange of words, pushing and shoving, or anything else up to a taking of a life.

But the “duty to retreat” puts an onerous on the one person who’s doing nothing wrong to later prove to a judge and jury that in a moment of incredible tension that he couldn’t have ran like a gazelle.

The choice isn’t “bad guy’s life v. my swinging dick pride not to retreat.” (Even though that is a justifiable consideration). The choice is between bad guy’s many tens of choices to avoid the conflict versus my POSSIBLE ONE choice I MAY have had that I now have to hire an expensive lawyer to prove in court with a preponderance that I didn’t have that choice.

A guy doesn’t want to get killed in a SYG state? Don’t commit violent felonies against people. That’s an easier duty that a duty to retreat.

[Una_Persson]

@BrainGlutton

Here’s clear guidance: Don’t go armed.

Did you mean to post that in this thread?

[Bricker]

@jtgain

But the “duty to retreat” puts an onerous on the one person who’s doing nothing wrong to later prove to a judge and jury that in a moment of incredible tension that he couldn’t have ran like a gazelle.

In the vast majority of cases, proof that you could, or could not, retreat should be relatively easy. And again, you only have to prove it by the barest margin – preponderance of the evidence means that the evidence needs to slightly favor you. If it’s 50.1% that you could not retreat and 49.9% that you could, you still win.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@jtgain

A guy doesn’t want to get killed in a SYG state? Don’t commit violent felonies against people. That’s an easier duty that a duty to retreat.

That makes perfect sense if you assume that everyone who claims they were acting in self-defense is telling the truth. I suspect you would agree that most of them probably aren’t.

[Bone]

@Bricker

In the vast majority of cases, proof that you could, or could not, retreat should be relatively easy. And again, you only have to prove it by the barest margin – preponderance of the evidence means that the evidence needs to slightly favor you. If it’s 50.1% that you could not retreat and 49.9% that you could, you still win.

So if I think it’s 50.1% that I could not retreat, but the jury thinks it’s 49.9%, I have now committed a crime, correct? That’s the problem with a duty to retreat.

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

That makes perfect sense if you assume that everyone who claims they were acting in self-defense is telling the truth. I suspect you would agree that most of them probably aren’t.

Am I interpreting your statement correctly that you are saying you believe that most people who claim they are acting in self defense are lying?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bone

So if I think it’s 50.1% that I could not retreat, but the jury thinks it’s 49.9%, I have now committed a crime, correct? That’s the problem with a duty to retreat.

Again, no.

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

No. The standard jury instructions at the time (based on prior FSC cases) established that “a person placed in a position of imminent danger of death or great bodily harm to himself by the wrongful attack of another has no duty to retreat if to do so would increase his own danger of death or great bodily harm.” State v. Bobbitt, 415 So. 2d 724, 725 (Fla. 1982).

Am I interpreting your statement correctly that you are saying you believe that most people who claim they are acting in self defense are lying?

Of course. Don’t you?

[Human_Action]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Of course. Don’t you?

Do you mean those who claim self-defense at trial are most often lying, or are you including those who aren’t charged because their self-defense claims are so well-supported by evidence?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

I’m including everyone who claims self-defense after killing someone, period.

[Human_Action]

Alright then. I won’t say that you’re wrong, since I simply don’t know. What has convinced you that this is the case?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

I hadn’t really thought it through. It seems so obvious to me that I was really quite surprised he asked. Look at it this way. It’s fair to say that the vast majority of people who kill claim self defense, right? And the majority of people who kill are not acting in self defense? Ergo, the majority of people who claim self defense are lying.

[Human_Action]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I hadn’t really thought it through. It seems so obvious to me that I was really quite surprised he asked. Look at it this way. It’s fair to say that the vast majority of people who kill claim self defense, right?

Are you sure about that? I was under the impression that claiming to have not committed the act in question was far and away the most common criminal defense. Then there’s insanity or diminished capacity. I’ve done some searching, but haven’t found any statistics as to how commonly self-defense is raised as a defense to murder. Do you have those statistics close at hand?

[HurricaneDitka]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I hadn’t really thought it through. It seems so obvious to me that I was really quite surprised he asked. Look at it this way. It’s fair to say that the vast majority of people who kill claim self defense, right? And the majority of people who kill are not acting in self defense? Ergo, the majority of people who claim self defense are lying.

I’m not sure that’s the case. Cite?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

I’ve done some searching, but haven’t found any statistics as to how commonly self-defense is raised as a defense to murder. Do you have those statistics close at hand?

No, but if there are only 300ish justifiable homicides a year does it really matter?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Human_Action

Are you sure about that? I was under the impression that claiming to have not committed the act in question was far and away the most common criminal defense.

I was excluding those people since we don’t know if they killed anyone.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Human_Action

Right, exactly. Changing these laws might help, as a very diffuse (and less effective, I admit) version of efforts like CeaseFire. The aggrieved party must have a way to save face other than violence.

Of course, the existence of the honor culture is the reason the laws are what they are, and makes them unlikely to change soon. Lousy democracy!

Are you talking about Trayvon now? George Zimmerman didn’t shoot Trayvon because his honor had been offended, and there’s only speculation that it may have been a motive in Trayvon’s attack on George.

[Human_Action]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

No, but if there are only 300ish justifiable homicides a year does it really matter?

Sure it does. What if only 450 defendants claimed self-defense?

[Human_Action]

@HurricaneDitka

Are you talking about Trayvon now? George Zimmerman didn’t shoot Trayvon because his honor had been offended, and there’s only speculation that it may have been a motive in Trayvon’s attack on George.

Only in the vaguest terms, in that it was a preventable shooting in which the honor culture may have played a role (possibly compelling Martin to come back and confront Zimmerman). A duty to retreat wouldn’t have stopped that shooting, though, since Zimmerman was unable to retreat, and we don’t know exactly what happened in the two minutes between Zimmerman hanging up with NEN and the shooting.

It could well prevent other shootings, though, without necessarily placing an unrealistic burden on those acting in self-defense to have perfect situational awareness and reasoning in a moment of crisis.