I’m having a hard time finding statistics on how many people assert self-defense claims, but [URL=“Tally of 'stand your ground' cases rises as legislators rethink law”] indicates that 130 people did so in the last two years in Florida alone. If Bricker wants to weigh in with his personal perception that will be good enough for me.
We’d also need to know how the FBI determines what is or isn’t a justifiable homicide. Would Zimmerman count, since he was charged but acquitted and he raised self-defense? Or do only people who weren’t charged with a crime count? All it says is “The killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.”
The Florida article states:
So, of the 108 cases that have been resolved, only 29 resulted in a conviction, which is 27%. Based on that, it can’t be said that the majority of people who claim self-defense are lying.
If I’m reading [URL=“http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-5”]this](Tally of 'stand your ground' cases rises as legislators rethink law) right, Florida had 984 murders or non-negligent manslaughters in 2011. We could guess they had roughly that many again in 2012 (stats aren’t out yet). 130 out of almost 2000 is like 7%.
The FBI’s justifiable homicide data is based on state law enforcement statistics. It includes only those homicides deemed justifiable under the law of the reporting state by the investigating law enforcement agency.
All 130 were not homicides, either:
So, that’d probably be the 50 where no charges were filed, and possibly the 9 where immunity was granted. Though, not all of those were homicides.
Those are all crimes reported. The 130 only includes cases that went to trial. We only have a homicide clearance rate of about 45%, so in more than half those cases there was nobody being charged.
Here is what the FBI says:
Looks like it’s just the police investigation, which sort of makes sense since courts can take years to reach a determination. Zimmerman’s case was originally determined, by the police in Sanford, to have been justifiable homicide, so I suspect that’s how they reported it. In your example, of 108 cases, the police probably report the findings like this: 50 justifiable homicides and 56 murders (9+9+10+28), and the two unknown outcomes. What I’m driving at here is that the FBI’s UCR probably understate justifiable self-defense.
I doubt it. In those 9 cases, that immunity was granted by a judge, which means murder charges were filed, which probably means the police determined that they thought it was murder and that’s likely how they reported it to the FBI.
Also, the Times article figure of 130 cases in which Stand Your Ground was “invoked”, whatever they intend for that to mean, is for the period 2005-1Q 2012, not the last two years:
Setting aside the 22 pending cases, we are left with 108 cases. 70% of the 130 involved a fatality, assuming the pending cases aren’t disproportionately ones with fatalities, that leaves 76 cases with a fatality that have been resolved one way or another, in the period 2005-1Q 2012.
So, we need to compare 76 self-defense claims against all homicides in that time period, and the clearance rate, to have some idea of what percentage of homicides involved a self-defense claim, right? Statistics are not my strong suit.
Not necessarily, remember that there is civil immunity as well. Someone whom the police declined to charge might still pursue the immunity hearing, to fend of a wrongful death suit, or in case a change in the local police department’s leadership or local pressure led them to change their minds and charge a crime later on.
I think we’re getting a bit sidetracked here. I’m not married to the “most self defense claims are lies” theory, and it seems that even if I was right it’s a close thing. Either way, I don’t think that detracts from the point I was making to jtgain, which is that there are certainly lots of false self-defense assertions.
This standard of “if to do so would increase his own danger of death or great bodily harm” isn’t clearly fleshed out. Bricker stated that it has to be preponderance (>50%). What if I legitimately believe that retreating will increase my chance of death by 1%, am I required to flee under the standard set in Bobbitt? In other words, the evaluation of that chance of successful retreat is the determining factor in whether or not I’m guilty of a crime, correct? That is precisely what SYG is supposed to mitigate, the second guessing of both the person defending themself and later the jury tasked to do the same.
A couple points -
SYG doesn’t just protect those who kill, it protects anyone who defends themself. The comparison to FBI justifiable homicide statistic is not inclusive of that. In addition I would not assume that the majority of people who kill actually claim self defense - is there a basis for that assumption?
Given the quantity of defensive gun use I question your assumption that the majority of those people do so not in self defense.
There aren’t none, but neither do they appear to be the majority, more like 1-in-4, going by the Florida data. The law shouldn’t assume that all are truthful, or that all are false.
I sympathize with jtgain’s point that the aggressor can choose not to be aggressive just as readily as the threatened can choose to retreat, but the law should promote the ideal outcome, in which no one’s dead in the street.
I find the outcome of bad guys who try to kill me dead in the street to be an ideal outcome in a bad situation. I’m opposed to the death penalty because I think the criminal justice system is fallible. However if someone is actively breaking into my home and I shoot and kill them as they come through the window there is no doubt whatsoever as to their guilt and I would feel zero remorse.
I do not deny that with SYG there would and are people who claim defense and are actually lying. There are definitley tradeoffs here. As I stated earlier, I’m comfortable with the concept that guilty men must go free to ensure innocent men do not get imprisoned, executed, or otherwise financially ruined. SYG puts into practice the concept of the whole 10 guilty go free rather than 1 innocent go to prison and all that.
Really? Even if you could safely remove yourself from the situation and leave everyone alive?
[QUOTE=Bone]
I’m opposed to the death penalty because I think the criminal justice system is fallible. However if someone is actively breaking into my home and I shoot and kill them as they come through the window there is no doubt whatsoever as to their guilt and I would feel zero remorse.
[/quote]
In your home, sure. Keep the Castle Doctrine exceptions, you shouldn’t have to retreat from your home.
[QUOTE=Bone]
I do not deny that with SYG there would and are people who claim defense and are actually lying. There are definitley tradeoffs here. As I stated earlier, I’m comfortable with the concept that guilty men must go free to ensure innocent men do not get imprisoned, executed, or otherwise financially ruined. SYG puts into practice the concept of the whole 10 guilty go free rather than 1 innocent go to prison and all that.
[/QUOTE]
To some degree, but it also encourages the outcomes that lead to a trial in the first place. If no one gets wounded or killed, no one has to worry about being convicted, do they?
The preponderance standard he is talking about is the burden of proof. It refers to the weight of evidence, not the chances of successfully retreating.
Of course they do. See the case of Marrisa Alexander for an example.
You wouldn’t need as many instances if letting the guilty go free if you disincentivized the use of deadly force in the first place.
Even a cursory look at the Alexander case reveals it had nothing to with self-defense. She went back into the house after retrieving a gun and her “warning shot” hit the wall six inches from her ex’s head.
Fair point. Rephrase: “If no one uses force, no one has to worry about being convicted, do they?”