Even if he’s committed no crime? This reminds me of the prosecutor’s comment that the trial was worthwhile because ‘it put the facts out there’. As if that could ever be a legitimate reason for putting someone on trial.
But, you do not know that, until he has been tried. Even if the facts of the case were completely undisputed.
It still baffles me, fundamentally at my core, how anyone can oppose a “stand your ground” law. Maybe you’re just opposing the implementation but not the concept?
I’ve been a violent crime victim on multiple occasions, and I’m also a minority which is often targeted with physical harassment, rape, and murder for simply existing. I wonder if people opposed to SYG laws have ever been in a real, non-Hollywood life-or-death situation where a weapon was the only thing between them and death - or if this is nothing more than the latest end-run of the anti-gun movement.
In the legal training I went through in Kansas, the attorney who wrote the material for the course claimed that SYG was intended to remove the “deadly hesitation” factor for self-defense. In short, to allow someone whose life was threatened to have the confidence to act to protect themselves and other innocents, rather than wait out of fear of being a criminal themselves if an activist prosecutor or inept jury somehow decided they could have somehow escaped by impossible means.
At least that’s what they taught us. However, despite this state being both a Castle and SYG state, I certainly will try everything possible to avoid a confrontation and violent situation. I would never even think of doing what that idiot Zimmerman did. That being said, I also know I will never be raped or beaten nearly to death again without a fight and I will shoot, stab, or physically injure anyone who tries it again.
And in practice, SYG means someone can murder you out of hand and claim self defense, with an excellent chance of it working. From my viewpoint SYG is about legalizing murder, not self defense. That’s why I oppose it, because I don’t want to be murdered and I don’t want other innocent people to be murdered.
Since all states recognize self defense as a justification for homicide, SYG means I don’t have to be grilled by an over zealous prosecutor who can second-guess every single nuance of a situation and try to look for any “gotcha” they can to punish me for daring to stand up as a woman and protect myself. But it still has to be self defense, something SYG opponents purposefully fail to emphasize.
If someone wants to murder you, the absence of SYG is no more going to stop them than gun laws or stern lectures. It only makes it less likely if you presuppose hordes of people out there conspiring to stage self-defense situations so they can kill you.
I have never seen any convincing evidence as to organized individual or group criminal action based on SYG. IIRC the last research I did for Cecil showed the results of SYG were too close to call as to whether it increased or decreased homicides. Perhaps we should address that topic specifically on a future column.
That’s because nobody has asserted SYG civil immunity in a wrongful death civil action yet.
No, I oppose the concept. The duty to retreat has been a staple of our criminal jurisprudence for centuries, and it makes perfect sense. If you are attacked, your first instinct should be to run away. If you cannot run away, you don’t have to. SYG is a fix for a problem that doesn’t exist.
Let’s say if you run away, you estimate your chances of staying alive are 50%. But if you shoot the attacker, your chances of staying alive are 90%. What should you do?
Refuse to engage in an implausible hypothetical in which a person is able to calculate the odds of success for each available course of action in a split second, probably.
Substitute “more likely to survive” for the percentages. Better?
Sure, fire away. Pre-SYG law did not require mathematical precision.
Slavery was legal for centuries…precedence does not make something worth keepting.
The problem is when third parties try to second-guess what really happened in the heat of the moment when you think you’re cornered, and have no options. I specifically remember one egregious case in Leavenworth County Kansas where a man was convicted because he didn’t take a back door out of a bar to avoid an armed confrontation - his attacker had a razor. He claimed he didn’t know there was a back door and didn’t see any way out. The prosecution said that it didn’t matter, he should have showed due diligence to look around and see if there was a back door.
While someone was in front of him holding a knife and lunging at him.
The result was a lengthy and expensive trial, where he was finally acquitted - after spending his entire life savings and selling his house to stay out of prison.
The theory of “try to retreat” is sound most of the time. My weapons master has taught however that some times you simply should not retreat first, you must present a positive defense to delay or incapacitate your attacker before you retreat.
Fundamentally, “duty to retreat” puts the burden on the victim, not the bad guy. The fact that an occasional “bad guy” will game the system doesn’t invalidate SYG.
Ironically, that’s exactly what a jury does in a “duty to retreat” case. A pool of overweight, balding, middle-class Walter Mitty’s who likely have never had to fight for their life can sit in a safe and insulated courtroom months or years later, and try to decide how in a split-second their inner Rambo would have somehow found a way to just reason with the attacker, would have magically gone through a plate-glass window like in the movies, or vanished like the Flash out a back door.
I’ve had to fight for my life, against people with real weapons. How many people posting in this thread can honestly say they have done the same? I also knife fight (no jokes about “butthurt”, please) for training with rubber and blunt steel weapons. Even sparring with fake knives, it’s astonishing how blindingly fast things happen. People watching me fight say they can’t even see who did what or even who started the phrase of combat.
It’s not an appeal to authority, this is one case where experience counts. I know how fast things can go wrong, and how making that calm, logic-of-Spock judgment about how to handle the situation in accordance with proper jurisprudential precedent is laughably impossible. Ironically, the anti-gun side are the ones who keep saying firearms are so slow to use that they do no good, because the bad guys will always get the jump on you (the “ninjas from the trees” fallacy). Yet when it comes to stand your ground, somehow gun owners have acres and acres of time to make all these calm, rational decisions for escape. Come on, which is it?
My opinion is that SYG gives the victim the benefit of the doubt and that the principle is sound. If the practice is abused, then find a way to modify it which is fair to the real victims. Can you think of a suggestion?
(my bold)
Una was spot on in her assessment. The problem that you are not recognizing is one where there is legitimate self defense, and a hostile DA (with full prosecutorial immunity) can ruin your life after you successfully defend yourself. A jury that was not present will second guess your actions and it’s a roll of the dice if they do the right thing. And on top of all of that, you are now financially crippled by way of a trial. Either that or you take a lesser plea because you can’t afford a solid defense even though you are innocent.
SYG mitigates that problem. If there is no SYG, how would you address that problem?
“Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife” Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921)
No; they just have to say it’s self defense. If you “dare to stand up as a woman and defend yourself”, under SYG you’re just giving them easy ground to claim that you were going to attack them and kill you. SYG puts a big “KILL ME NOW” label on you.
That’s only true if you believe the law is totally impotent, which I don’t. Make it possible to kill people without restraint by the law, and you’ll have more killings - which is what SYG does cause.
SYG makes it possible to kill people without restraint? Either you poorly worded that sentence, or else I’m going to demand a cite on that.
That is true of any jury. The jury that decides whether you are liable for running over a child who ran into the road makes the same determination. It’s also true of the judge who determines whether SYG immunity shields you. Why isn’t he a Walter Mitty too? Your problem - at least the one you and Bone describe - isn’t with self-defense law. It’s with the criminal justice system generally. I’ve read about your experiences with criminal violence before, and sympathize. It’s hard to see why such immunity shouldn’t be available to all defendants on the basis you describe, though.
The criminal justice system already gives the victim the benefit of the doubt. That’s what the “reasonable doubt” standard is for. If the problem is overzealous prosecutors, than you should be demanding greater oversight for prosecutors or elevated standards of prosecutorial conduct.
Really Not All That Bright, I need to think about that.
Because the judge applying the SYG law presumably will be able to do so. A random jury - as evidenced by many of the posters on this board - have a well established negative view towards armed self defense. Many would be predisposed to view armed self defense negatively much more so than a child who got hit while running into the road.
There are built in incentives for prosecutors to overcharge, aggressively charge, and generally appear to be “tough on crime”. Add in prosecutorial immunity as well as the full weight and resources of the State, and an individual while retaining the presumption of innocence, has a tough road to follow. Change that system, as well as the incentives therin would be lengthy and difficult, if not impossible. SYG gets around all that and is already present in the majority of states. Much easier to pass a state or federal law that mitigates the issue without having to address each and every local DA and uneducated or biased jury.
Evaluating based on what is possible, SYG laws are. Changing the criminal justice system is a pipe dream.
Cite?