I’d encourage any lurkers to read the article. It explains the issue pretty well.
"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.
Whatever it is, it’s contagious.
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).
That’s precisely why I have an issue with the law. It legalizes dueling.
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.
SYG defense generally doesn’t apply when engaged in criminal activity. This scenario wouldn’t fall under the auspices of SYG.
Since I don’t threaten others or inflict grave bodily harm against others, yes.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Do not overlook his far more important point, “These laws try to fix something that was never broken.”
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.
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.