That would obviously depend on what the odds look like if you stand your ground. In a situation where everyone carries a firearm and everyone stands their ground, it’s probably somewhere in the vicinity of 5% survival, 95% death, and even the survival usually comes at the cost of the other guy’s life. I’d expect the typical situation to be something like quicker guy mortally wounding the slower guy, then the slower guy mortally wounding the quicker guy, then repeat as many times as there are bullets in both guns, then both finish bleeding out, then the emergency responders called by the neighbors arrive.
People retreating as a general policy is far preferable to that, even if it doesn’t work 100% of the time.
This thread shows gun fetishists for the sick fucks that they are. Anyone with an ounce of human feeling would see the Zimmerman case as a tragedy. You have an innocent kid who was killed and a man who will be probably be emotionally scarred the rest of life. A decent human being would conclude that maybe walking around pretending to be Rambo was not the best thing to do. This has nothing to do with legitimate self defense, it was someone who felt safe enough knowing that he had a gun that he thought it was a good idea to follow someone he thought was suspicious. There are half a dozen ways this could have ended up better. Zimmerman could have waited for the police, he could have followed him in the car but stayed inside, he could have announced that he had called the police and was armed, he could have taken a beating like a man for harassing a kid just because he was black, or better yet he could have kept his gun at home and not been pretending to be a LEO.
Martin could have been smarter too: he could have called 911 on his cell phone when he thought he was being followed. Chances are the operator would have put two and two together and told both men what the situation was.
But instead, we have people oozing pre-cum as they fantasize about being the next Dirty Harry. What the fuck is wrong with someone like Zimmerman if they let the possibility of catching someone vandalizing the neighborhood escalate into a deadly encounter.
Zimmerman was a little man with a big gun and a tiny brain. he’s not a hero or a role model you sick fucks.
You’d have to ask them, but presumably they were fixing the fact that there existed a duty to retreat. Good fix. Since many many states have SYG laws and predictions or calls back to the Old West have not materialized, I’m not sure what your point is since the Old West has not been emulated.
There are several SYG states that are shall issue where anyone who is not disqualified who wants to carry a firearm can carry a firearm. Your scenario has not played out in the slightest.
The hypothetical is to illustrate what calculus will need to be undertaken at the moment of conflict, and then how the jury will need to evaluate the situation. In any case, the vast majority of conflicts that involve firearms a duty to retreat would not apply since the duty to retreat is only applicable when you can do so safely.
Is this directed to anyone in particular, anyone even in this thread?
Sure it has. Look, this is not a gun rights issue. This is a policy issue - and when prosecutors, defense attorneys and police chiefs are all on one side of the issue, you should really ask yourself what you’re missing.
I disagree that it is not a gun rights issue. It is boh gun rights and policy. Part of expansive gun rights is the ability to exercise armed self defense. The fact that doing so can also bankrupt a person due to civil liability is something that should be changed as a matter of policy.
I think people who support gun control will in large majorities favor imposing a duty to retreat and gun rights advocates will line up on the other side. Gun control advocates have pursued many avenues towards their goals and increasing the burden on gun owners through a duty to retreat is one. Is that a point of contention or do you concede that?
And while i dont subscribe to the appeal to popularity - do you have evidence that those groups in the majority feelas you’ve stated? Does this appeal to popularity hold for other areas as well - the fact that 40 of 50 states are ahall issue or constitutional carry shed light that the others should follow suit? Those states clearly believe that is good policy - what are the others missing? I don’t think the popularity itself is compelling other than such examples can provide evidence to refute claims of he wild west.
Why? If you lose a civil trial, it’s because a jury of your peers found that you acted negligently. If the evidence shows that a case is meritless, it will be dismissed at the pleading stage. You favor these laws because you feel strongly about the Second Amendment. What have you got against the Seventh?
I’m ignorant here - what is necessary to show based on a preponderance of the evidence that a person has committed the tort of wrongful death?
In any event the defense of such a claim would be quite costly. So imagine the scenario where you have a bona fide self defense situation where you kill a bad guy. Not only do you suffer through that trauma but now the bad guy’s estate can inflict more trauma with threat of a civil suit to extort money from you? If you don’t have the means for defense that is just piling on another travesty.
Depends if the claim is brought as an intentional tort or in negligence. For our purposes, it’s enough to show that the defendant acted negligently or recklessly in shooting the victim. Self-defense is an absolute bar to recovery.
Why just negligence? There’s also the possibility that someone who didn’t commit murder still intentionally caused a wrongful death.nwuy shouldn’t that be compensable?
Huh, you think there’s nothing wrong with a guy arrested for domestic violence, slapped with a restraining order, fired as a bouncer because he was considered too rough on customers, and arrested for fighting with a police officer actually getting a concealed carry permit?
And that’s not even getting into the idea of a guy who’s so paranoid he feels the need to strap a gun to his hip before he goes shopping at Target having a license to carry a gun.
Yeah man, it was for me. I got it now. Thanks for looking out.
I want to thank everyone in this thread. This has been one of my favorite threads on the topic and it has really helped me put things into a clearer perspective and understand where I stand and why I stand where I do.
What you may be missing is that Zimmerman’s acquittal (for example) did not establish he had a valid self defense claim. It established only that the state hadn’t proved beyond a reasonable doubt he didn’t. In the criminal trial, Zimmerman didn’t have the burden of proving the defense. (This is the law in every state except Ohio, which still follows the old common law rule to the contrary.) The civil trial, though, is a level playing field. Things would be different if Zimmerman had requested an SYG hearing and won, which would have entailed a finding sustaining the defense based on preponderance of the evidence. Which is why Florida law gives a prevailing SYG defendant civil immunity. But that didn’t happen here.
Hope that helps. Not trying to be argumentative. Just trying to explain why the law generally permits a civil wrongful death action notwithstanding acquittal on the criminal charges.
Are you sure about that? I was under the impression that Florida was quite unusual in placing the burden of proof on the prosecution regarding affirmative defenses.
Not quite: when the evidence is in equipoise, the defendant prevails, at least in theory.
If you lose a civil trial, it’s because a jury of your peers found that you acted negligently. If the evidence shows that a case is meritless, it will be dismissed at the pleading stage. You favor these laws because you feel strongly about the Second Amendment. What have you got against the Seventh?