This opinion piece comes to us by way of hyper-lefty E.J.Dionne, who’s writing exactly what Lefties thing and proposing what they want. Well, want for Everyone Else. The minute they themselves need Stand Your Ground, they’ll scream to the high heavens for protection
Repeal stand-your-ground lawsThe law is supposed to solve problems, not create them. Laws should provide as much clarity as possible, not expand the realms of ambiguity and subjectivity. Laws ought to bring about the practical results their promoters claim they’ll achieve. And at its best, the law can help us to live together more harmoniously.
By all these measures, “stand your ground†laws are a failure. These statutes make the already difficult task of jurors even harder. They aggravate mistrust across racial lines. They appear to increase, rather than decrease, crime.
OK, so a few issues here and there mean the entire concept of the law has failed? Perhaps E.J. could provide a link to some study to back his assertion of mistrust across racial lines.
Dionne goes on to discuss the Dunn trial, and mentions George Zimmerman, in relation to SYG.
We shouldn’t fault the Dunn jury, which seemed to struggle to reach a just outcome. Unlike Zimmerman, the 47-year-old Dunn was not acquitted and could spend the rest of his life in prison. The jury clearly saw no justification for his firing at a fleeing car. But the stand-your-ground law undoubtedly sowed confusion on the murder count.
Actually, we should fault the jury, and prosecutor. The defense attempted to make a valid point in order to sow confusion in order to get his client off, despite it not being about SYG. And did to a degree, regarding the 1st degree murder charge, which I personally thought was a big stretch. In the Zimmerman case, the did not bring up SYG.
Florida’s statute allows someone to use force if he or she “reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.†The “reasonable belief†standard is not unique to stand-your-ground laws, but it opens a vast loophole for extreme subjectivity when it is applied in conjunction with them. This has created problems that even the law’s supporters should acknowledge.
Which is apparently Bad. Say, I wonder if Dionne has armed protection at the NY Times building? Yes, there are armed security guards. How about that? As far as “reasonable belief” goes, no, that is not perfect. Liberals would probably prefer that people who carry weapons, since they can’t get those dratted carry laws repealed, have a long list of conditions they must read through before defending themselves.
Stand-your-ground laws shift the balance of power on the streets to those who carry weapons. They thus provide an incentive for everyone to be armed, which is why the National Rifle Association has pressured legislatures in some two dozen states to enact them. We shouldn’t have to wait for another death and controversial trial to recognize that this is a poor reason for laws that cause such palpable harm. It’s time to repeal them.
Actually, they shift power into the hands of the law abiding citizens over the criminal elements. Like this mom, whose home had been broken into just a mere 2 weeks prior to the second criminal act
As three teenagers rushed into the house, Mom “didn’t have time to get scared,†she told WXYZ-TV in Detroit.
She warned the intruders she had a gun. Upon hearing their “no you don’t†reply, Mom figured they needed some convincing….and opened fire.
The teens’ entrance — and mighty swift exit — was all caught on the newly installed security cameras.
One of the teens picked his gun back up and attempted to go back inside. Another scary blast from mom’s shotgun sent him fleeing. This would be a case of SYG under Michigan law.
Will people misuse SYG? Sure. Welcome to life, where people are not perfect, and there are always jerks. And lest you think this is just cranky E.J. Dionne yapping, the Michael Dunn defense successfully bringing up SYG to avoid the 1st degree murder charge has sent the liberal nags wagging, such as at US News and World Report, CNN, and Al Jazeera. Liberals would prefer that no one is allowed to defend themselves, especially with scary guns, from the crime that liberal policies create in the first place.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
“Florida’s statute allows someone to use force if he or she “reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.†The “reasonable belief†standard is not unique to stand-your-ground laws, but it opens a vast loophole for extreme subjectivity when it is applied in conjunction with them. This has created problems that even the law’s supporters should acknowledge.”
SYG merely provides that IF YOU ARE OTHERWISE ACTING IN LAWFUL SELF-DEFENSE you need not first retreat before using force in self-defense. That is the ONLY thing that SYG does.
Thus SYG has NOTHING to do with the reasonableness element of Florida’s self-defense law. This is also true for each of the other 33 states that are effectively stand-your-ground jurisdictions (e.g., they lack a legal duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense).
The passage of SYG made NO change to the reasonableness standard of self-defense.
Further, that reasonableness standard includes BOTH a subjective AND an objective components.
The Progressive fascists who wish to leave women helpless against rapists, the weak, infirm, and elderly defenseless against aggravated assault, and school children defenseless against leftists psychopaths who slaughter them en masse would have the public believe that a mere subjective fear is sufficient to justify the use of deadly force against another. As always, they lie.
While it is true that one must possess a genuine good faith belief of harm in order for your use of defensive force to be reasonable, that perception must ALSO be OBJECTIVELY reasonable. That is, a reasonable and prudent person in the same or similar circumstances and possessing the same knowledge and capabilities as the use of force, would also have reasonably perceived the necessity of force.
If there is a lack of either subjective or objective reasonableness, the claim of self-defense claims. And this is true whether that use of force takes place in a SYG state or a duty-to-retreat state.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Teach you talk the talk but do you walk the walk? Do you either openly carry at all times? Would you even consider working at a place that would not allow all its workers to carry guns?
Guitarcarver already beat the snot out of you on that strawman previously. Do you want another beating?
Young negro boys are scary. Plus they can be uppity and talk back to patriotic white men like Mr. Dunn. In TV shows most of them have guns and are violent. Dunn is the real victim, here, as he was just putting those uppity boys in their place; just trying to bring a little order to the chaos. Now he will die in prison, about 30 years early, too.
If they hadn’t been playing their negro music so loud, or if they had just complied with Mr. Dunn’s orders he wouldn’t have been forced to shoot. I bet the next time a patriot tells them to turn down their negro music, those boys will comply!
Unfortunately for patriot Dunn there were witnesses. He should have been smart like George Killerman and shot the boy without witnesses.
Of course there were other variables as well such as physical evidence, but you don’t want to mention those factors.
After all,your racism comes through loud and clear in that you believe all shootings between people of different ethnicities must be because racism. That is the problem with liberals like you. You claim to be against racism but actually promote and believe in it.
There is a difference between the Zimmerman case and the Dunn case. Reasonably intelligent people can see that difference in the facts of the cases. Why you cannot see that difference is clear to most people.
Or maybe you just like perpetuating lies.
There have been several incidents of blacks driving into gas stations and beating whites, sometimes to death. They do this to women and children as well. A simple Google search is all that is needed for confirmation. Then we have the “knock out game” and other occasions of unprovoked black violence. Google again and you will find the world wide, blacks are 7 times more likely to commit an act of violence than any other race. I feel that it is racist and a disservice to all not to frankly address the fact that we have a problem in the black community. They need help and do not need a pat on the back and being told that everything is ok. If this keeps up, then there will be a significant societal reaction, Dunn is only a symptom of something that is going to be much larger. As to Zimmerman, he is a jerk, but he was also a jerk that was being beaten to death. If you don’t want to get shot, don’t start a fight.
Let’s see. A woman-beating, child molesting, frustrated wannabe-cop stalks and confronts a teenager, whom the wannabe-cop thought was in the “wrong neighborhood” (i.e., black kid), the kid is getting the better of the wannabe-cop and Killerman shoots the kid in the heart. What am I missing?
Other than the facts, not much.
The Pirate can pack a lot of falsehood in a single sentence! He has a future as a conservapundit!
“Liberals would prefer that no one is allowed to defend themselves, especially with scary guns, from the crime that liberal policies create in the first place.”
Repealing SYG laws would not prevent anyone from defending themselves, even with a scary gun, but would hold shooters responsible for shooting unarmed Black teenagers. What crimes were Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis committing when they were killed by Mssrs. Zimmerman and Dunn?
Would conservatives be rallying around Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis if they had each been carrying and had shot Zimmerman and Dunn in the heart when accosted by the latter two? On that dark, rainy night, when Mr. Martin saw a scary man following him could he have reasonably stood his ground and shot George in the heart out of an understandable fear for his safety? Would you support Mr. Davis’ right to shoot Dunn in the heart? Imagine this huge, angry man screaming at you, gun at ready. Could you blame Mr. Davis if he had shot Dunn?
It appears that Davis was not committing any crime other than a noise violation. That is why conservatives have no issue with the verdict on the four counts and are wondering what happened on the murder count.
Martin, on the other hand, was committing an assault and possibly attempted murder.
It is not Teach who has their facts wrong, but you (which is not uncommon for you, is it?)
The last paragraph in Jeffery’s screed has nothing to do with “stand your ground laws,” which once again shows that Jeffery is willing to either lie or remain ignorant on an issue.
Truth is the enemy of liberals.
Oh, and by the way, despite Jeffery trying to interject race into this discussion a juror said that race had nothing to do with the jury’s view of the case. Andrew Branca has an article on Legal Insurrection on the interview with the juror.
When you see the juror, you’ll see why Jeffery is exposed as an ignorant, lying, racist.
In other words, a typical liberal.