I disagree with Acsenray and Bricker on this. Sure, looking at one instance in a vacuum it might be preferable for no one to be killed because someone retreated when they could have fought back. But as a society as a whole we’re certainly better off if criminals are afraid that some of their potential victims might fight back.
The result of this well intended thinking is that we live in a society where everyone lives in fear and hooligans freely attack people. You know, sort of like it was like before we had concealed carry laws everywhere.
Even Martin’s death, while tragic, will certainly save lives. Many young wanna be thugs will take note: If they want to attack someone it might be them who ends up dead. Even if they’re bigger and stronger, there’s no way to tell who might be carrying a gun and willing to fight back.
Relax. My point was a legitimate one, regardless of the merits of self defense in that particular case.
Not exactly. “Brandishing” a weapon can be a crime, even if you don’t do anything with it. But yes, I see the point you were making.
Here’s why I disagree with your argument that less shootings will lessen the outcomes that lead to a trial: I think if we get rid of SYG laws, concealed carry, castle doctrine, etc we would see more of these trials, except it would just be the muggers standing trial instead of the victims. That’s because overall violent crime would increase dramatically.
Actually, this is what cuts to the heart of the matter, a paranoic, misleading narrative about the society we live in. The fact is that generally we live in a generally safe society and it is relatively uncommon for the average person to face situations in which deadly force is threatened.
What might change this is the constant harping about potential danger, a type of propaganda that encourages people to carry arms and then use them with deadly effect. It makes sudden death more likely, because people are afraid that if they don’t shoot first then they’re the ones who are going to be shot.
Nobody is talking about repealing the Castle Doctrine, and Florida’s homicide rate has gone up since passage of SYG. Florida has had high rates of gun ownership and liberal concealed carry laws for pretty much ever.
I’m not sure that I agree. Just one quick example to illustrate the point: a group of armed men rob a bank. In the process, a silent alarm is triggered, which alerts the police to the fact that a robbery is taking place.
The police have a choice here: (assuming they can respond in time) they can respond in force, surround the bank, engage in a standoff which will very likely result in the eventual capture or death of the bank robbers. It has the disadvantage of greatly increasing the odds that someone ends up dead in the streets.
Their other option would be to do nothing. Sip their coffee and eat another donut. The bank robbers will get the cash and escape to safety, and it’s less likely that they’ll engage in a firefight with anyone, and thus life will likely be preserved.
Society wants the first option, not the second. We’d greatly prefer it’s done in a way that protects the innocent bank tellers and customers, and the responding officers. It’d be a nice gesture if it also preserved the lives of the bank robbers, but that is, at best, a tertiary concern.
Brandishing requires threatening force, so it’s a cousin to using force.
We’re just talking about SYG here. It’d be difficult to tease out the effect of a duty to retreat on violent crime rates, because there are so many factors that effect crime, and because the states that are SYG aren’t randomly distributed, many are Southern states with cultural factors that increase homicide relative to other areas.
Nobody in this thread? Maybe. But so what? It doesn’t matter to the simple point I was making that it’s possible for multiple factors to all influence the crime rate.
You’re not normally so pedantic.
Nationally, there is no debating the fact that overall crime rates are going down as gun laws have been decreasing. Plenty of places with the toughest gun laws in the country are seeing the largest amount of gun crime. (Chicago, DC).
This is because of the threat of force. People would commit crimes much more often if not for the police and the threat of jail. They also commit crimes less if there’s a threat that the victim will be armed and will fight back. Do you disagree with this?
This fear mongering gets trotted out every time there is discussion of more concealed carry laws. It never comes to pass. The fear that increased amounts of guns will lead to shootouts over parking spaces is the imaginary danger. That’s the propaganda. Not the threat of criminals, which is actually real (albeit rare).
This thread is for debating SYG, not gun policy generally. I asked liberal posters to stop complaining about guns earlier in the thread, and now I’m asking you to stop trying to make this a blanket gun debate.
Sure there is. Overall crime rates have been dropping since before widespread liberalization of gun laws.
Dude, put away your Logical Fallacies Guide and admit he’s got a point. A real life example of what **HurricaneDitka ** is talking about is high speed pursuits. Obviously the cops want to catch the bad guy, but sometimes it’s not worth it because of the danger that the pursuit would cause. So they struggle with when it’s worth it and when it’s not.
But the point is a good one. Avoiding violence and the death of the criminal isn’t the highest priority. It’s a secondary priority to stopping criminals.
Yes, but doesn’t that also apply to what the jury believes? For the jury then, what standard of measure or percent chance of succesful retreat must exist for an action to be deemed criminal? In other words, if there is no SYG, and there is a duty to retreat, what chance of successful retreat must the jury believe to have existed for them to say that duty was not satisfied?
They have many more options than rolling out the SWAT team or doing nothing.
That aside, though, we’re not talking about the police interdicting bank robberies. A more apt example would be two men coming into conflict in a bar over a woman, or a pool hustle, or anything like that. One becomes aggressive. If the other leaves, society has lost nothing. The aggressor isn’t a professional criminal like a bank robber, he’s just a surly asshole. If the other stays and a knife fight ensues, someone ends up losing a son or a husband or a father. And for what?
I don’t need a Logical Fallacies Guide to point out a glaring error of logic. Anyway, are we analyzing the conduct of private parties on the same basis that we analyze police activity now? It’s an interesting analogy, but hardly conclusive. We have always put the rights of the presumed-innocent individual ahead of the priorities of law enforcement. That’s what most of the Bill of Rights is about.
Uh, read up in the thread from a few minutes ago. You are the one that brought up the question of whether or not it was possible for the dropping crime rate to be due to both concealed carry or SYG.
I was responding to that.
If you don’t want people to talk about concealed carry don’t bring it up. But good luck with that, since talking about SYG without talking about concealed carry at all is impossible since they go hand in hand.
I’d rather focus on SYG specifically as RNATB mentioned. Because in concept it doesn’t have to be about guns. In practice it often is, but for the sake of discussion it could be a person armed with a ball point pen if that’s their best option. All the arguments for or against SYG should apply in those situations as well.
No probability analysis is involved. It’s a yes or no question: “would retreating have increased the danger to the defendant?”
I didn’t bring it up. You did.
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.
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