Popcorn killer tries using stand your ground argument

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Then it would be a death that was unnecessary in the strict sense (especially if he was just a drunkard). But, truth be told, anything with an instinct of self-preservation would rather not take this risk.

And that is why laws exist to reign in our behavior and instincts to ensure we act civilized and at least go through the motions of assessing if we really, really need to kill someone.

Obviously. But at the same time, the law itself specifies that in some cases it cannot fault you for following your instincts.

[Purple]

Then it would be a death that was unnecessary in the strict sense (especially if he was just a drunkard). But, truth be told, anything with an instinct of self-preservation would rather not take this risk.

And that is why laws exist to reign in our behavior and instincts to ensure we act civilized and at least go through the motions of assessing if we really, really need to kill someone.

Obviously. But at the same time, the law itself specifies that in some cases it cannot fault you for following your instincts.

Which is fine and well. I am against SYG and only SYG.

[energiewende]

People are equal but their actions are not. The death of someone who woke up one morning and decided to be a predator on his fellow man is not as much a tragedy as the death of a peaceable neighbour.

But it is a much greater tragedy than that same neighbor ending up with a few stitches or a broken arm.

If the worst possible outcome of a home invasion were that, shooting would not be a proportionate response.

And we humans tend to have rather strong self preservation instincts and rather crappy judgment. That is why laws exist to ensure you only kill someone when the point of "no choice" has been reached rather than when ever you feel any danger and hyperventilate because of it.

SYG still requires imminent fear for life and limb, it just does not require the person try to leave a place they have a lawful right to be in addition.

To give an example, I am not saying that you should not shoot someone who breaks into your house with a shotgun and points it at your chest but at the same time I can not condone shooting someone who broke into your house unarmed and tried to take your TV.

What about a person who is breaking into my house with unknown intentions, and who in 10 seconds may be in a position to take my gun from me? You propose to force the innocent victim to bear the risk rather than the criminal.

[Purple]

If the worst possible outcome of a home invasion were that, shooting would not be a proportionate response.

Worst possible maybe not, but worst probable? I find it unlikely that every home invasion, or even the majority of them are committed by people who willingly enter occupied houses and are fully prepared to fight or kill you.

SYG still requires imminent fear for life and limb, it just does not require the person try to leave a place they have a lawful right to be in addition.

It's far too open ended in doing it thou which lends it self to abuse. It is better to err on the side of running away than on the side of death.

What about a person who is breaking into my house with unknown intentions, and who in 10 seconds may be in a position to take my gun from me? You propose to force the innocent victim to bear the risk rather than the criminal.

Yes, I would rather have you be at risk than him certainly being dead. And I would most definitively rather have you be at risk than having you abuse an open ended law to get away with murder.

[Terralthra]

The problem is that this hole in self-defense gets abused sometimes. I've heard of a case where the prosecution argued that the defendant had a "duty to retreat" by jumping out a second-story window. There are plenty of cases of people being threatened in their own homes; in such a case you might theoretically be able to 'retreat' and let the burglar steal whatever he wants and hope he doesn't hurt any of your family. But it goes against the grain that the law should require you to do so.

I've "heard of" that case, too, in that I keep hearing people bring it up when defending Castle Doctrines, SYG, etc. No one seems to know what state it was, the name of the case, the year. It's like the boogey-case. I've been unable to find any citation or reference to such a case from any legitimate source.

[aerius]

There are a few things to note here:
1) Stand your ground does not apply in this case
2) Stand your ground laws are not carte blanche to shoot people
3) Stand your ground does not mean there is never a duty to retreat

Let's look at Florida's laws here, starting with the definition of manslaughter.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... /0782.html

782.07 Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a child; aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic.—
(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(2) A person who causes the death of any elderly person or disabled adult by culpable negligence under s. 825.102(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(2)(b) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) A person who causes the death, through culpable negligence, of an officer as defined in s. 943.10(14), a firefighter as defined in s. 112.191, an emergency medical technician as defined in s. 401.23, or a paramedic as defined in s. 401.23, while the officer, firefighter, emergency medical technician, or paramedic is performing duties that are within the course of his or her employment, commits aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Part 1 is what's of interest to us, let's see what chapter 776 says

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... 6.012.html

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

So it only applies if a person reasonably believes imminent death, great bodily harm, or a forcible felony is at stake, or 776.013 is on the table, so let's see what that one says.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... 6.013.html

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

Well there's those words again, reasonably believes it's needed to prevent death, great bodily harm, or a forcible felony.

And finally, there 776.041
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... 6.041.html

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

So let's summarize things here. The jackass instigated the encounter and made no attempt to withdraw. He did not exhaust all reasonable means of escaping the danger or conflict as defined in Chapter 776.041. Therefore he has forfeited his rights to justifiable self-defence as provided for under Florida's laws. This is an easy manslaughter or murder 2 conviction unless the jury is bought off.

[Simon_Jester]

That's correct, both legally and morally. If he honestly believed that the popcorn placed his life in danger. Do you see the problem?

As noted, anyone daft enough to believe this shouldn't be carrying lethal weapons in public.

Note however that duty to retreat does not exist even in all common law jurisdictions. In England, for instance, there is no duty to retreat and you could lawfully kill someone if you believed that popcorn being thrown at you placed your life in imminent danger. The difficulty is proving such an implausible claim. Stand your ground-like law has not produced strange outcomes in those jurisdictions. I think these sorts of laws are unfairly criticised by people whose real objection is to private gun ownership. They may or may not be right about private gun ownership but stand your ground is not the key issue in these cases.

The problem is partly how "stand your ground" interacts with easy private gun ownership, and more to the point with concealed carry permits. We've got this entire subcategory of killings where two men get into an argument, one of them commits an act of low order 'violence' like throwing popcorn, and the other pulls out a gun and kills him.

It is not hard to see the practical problem with a situation where I can legally start an argument, escalate an argument, continue the argument until the other person gets violent, and then pull out a gun and shoot them dead.

Now making it difficult to defend oneself with guns seems to be the unstated objective of the anti-SYG faction, but even if they are right about guns I don't think that is the best way to resolve the issue. Duty to retreat creates perverse incentives and has a lot of potential to harm innocent people.

On the other hand, it also reduces the number of people who get away with murder in a fight, an honest-to-God fight where both parties were willing participants.

In a lot of fights, if you interview Party A and Party B afterwards, both parties will claim they were defending themselves, or that they "had to" fight to protect themselves. This is because when humans get into violent confrontations, our inner gibbering monkey tends to take over. We say stupid things, we make stupid posturing threats, we unthinkingly cut off other people's lines of retreat, or unthinkingly ignore instructions like "get out of here or I will shoot you" with bullshit like "you haven't got the guts."

People DO that. And this results in a lot of situations where when you interview the killer after the fact he says he was defending himself, when in fact the security camera footage will show that the knife-wielding killer deliberately closed the distance to get closer to his opponent, then stabbed him twenty-seven times or whatever.

So there is this tendency for humans to delude themselves into thinking they must defend themselves with violence. When in fact what's happening is that someone has pissed them off enough with threat displays and shit-flinging that they went into "fight or flight" mode and randomly chose "fight."

And this happens so often in exactly the sort of random killings that society has an interest in preventing (i.e. armed confrontations over texting in a movie theater). So there's a very obvious interest in creating some kind of law that blocks this, that prevents you from provoking a confrontation, merrily escalating that confrontation over and over, and then killing the guy when your last round of escalation puts it just a little outside your control and suddenly you're not comfortable.

Otherwise, we live our lives wondering which 71-year-old busybody is going to start berating us for what he sees as impolite conduct, and having to meekly submit to verbal abuse because if we do anything else there's a real risk he'll decide we are 'threatening' and that he is therefore legally entitled to kill us.

That's the downside of the old saw "an armed society is a polite society." Polite to whom, and to what cost?

Not enough cases, in my opinion. If someone is actually trying to murder you, rape you, mug you or whatever, the onus should be on them to cease their attempt. I don't think the innocent victim should have any obligation to bet their life on the fact that they can run faster than their aggressor.

Of course, if the "aggressor" isn't doing any of these things, like in this case, then throw the fucking book at the guy.

Well, I'm also referring to things like the stereotypical bar fight- which happens between two men who are too drunk and stupid to realize that there isn't any real need for a fight in the first place. Those can and do end in killings sometimes.

But it is a much greater tragedy than that same neighbor ending up with a few stitches or a broken arm. And we humans tend to have rather strong self preservation instincts and rather crappy judgment. That is why laws exist to ensure you only kill someone when the point of "no choice" has been reached rather than when ever you feel any danger and hyperventilate because of it.

To give an example, I am not saying that you should not shoot someone who breaks into your house with a shotgun and points it at your chest but at the same time I can not condone shooting someone who broke into your house unarmed and tried to take your TV.

By the time someone has a shotgun leveled at your chest it's too late.

If you were actually trying to win this argument, you'd start with cases like [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Yoshihiro_Hattori]foreign exchange students being shot[url] and killed because a homeowner concluded that they were trespassing with criminal intent.

The problem is that this hole in self-defense gets abused sometimes. I've heard of a case where the prosecution argued that the defendant had a "duty to retreat" by jumping out a second-story window. There are plenty of cases of people being threatened in their own homes; in such a case you might theoretically be able to 'retreat' and let the burglar steal whatever he wants and hope he doesn't hurt any of your family. But it goes against the grain that the law should require you to do so.

I've "heard of" that case, too, in that I keep hearing people bring it up when defending Castle Doctrines, SYG, etc. No one seems to know what state it was, the name of the case, the year. It's like the boogey-case. I've been unable to find any citation or reference to such a case from any legitimate source.

Unfortunately I don't know either; it may never have happened. On the other hand, it may just represent some idiot prosecutor trying to win a case he had a poor chance of winning otherwise; lawyers sometimes present a crappy or inadequate argument when it's the only thing they've got to use.

I don't remember being told that the killer got convicted in the second-story case, after all.

Honestly, I can see the logic of the castle doctrine when applied intelligently. 'Stand your ground' runs into problems mostly because it heartens trigger-happy morons to provoke fights, then end them by killing the antagonist. Even if the juries (usually) convict afterwards.

[Broomstick]

The main problem with duty to retreat is that it forces victims to take actions that can place them in greater danger, eg. if someone breaks into my house and I have a duty to run away until I hit the locked back door and am forced to turn and face my assailant, he now has control of the situation and if I am using a gun I probably do not have much distance on him. If I were able to shoot him as he came in through the front door then the positioning is much better for me.

Much better for you, but definitively not much better overall. If someone just broke into your house how can you be sure that he would have killed you? What if he was a burglar that only planed to tie you up, take your stuff and leave? Or what if he was merely trying to rob you and would have surrendered or fled in panic if confronted? Or if he was a drunk that got the wrong house? You don't know and you newer will because he is dead.

Speaking as someone who actually lives in a castle law state, your ability to use force, lethal or non-lethal, is not unlimited. For example, if someone is retreating from the premises you are not allowed to shoot them in the back. Shooting a fleeing person is not self-defense. You can't put landmines in your front yard or booby-trap your property. The one time we used force against a thief we were still subjected to police questioning and investigation of the circumstances to make sure our actions were within the law. Castle law does not require you to kill anyone, or even resist - it gives you the option. If you feel it is morally better to let the thief take your stuff and leave without you threatening him that's your prerogative.

Of course, this also requires a rationally drafted law, one that is not too broad. It may be that the Florida statute is poorly constructed. Or it may be the old fart who shot a man over texting woke up to the fact he'd just killed a human being and is now flailing for any plea that will get him off the hook. Remember, it's his lawyer's duty to argue on his behalf and try to get him the best outcome of a trial. The fact that "the popcorn was threatening me" is the best they can come up with is pretty sad.

[mr friendly guy]

That's correct, both legally and morally. If he honestly believed that the popcorn placed his life in danger. Do you see the problem?

Please tell me you are trolling. Because you know, if a person honestly believes any tiny thing is a threat to them, they shouldn't be allowed to carry guns because of will happen when they are threatened. Like this case (according to defence lawyers anyway).

[Mr. Coffee]

So basically a retired police officer shot another cinema goer after a dispute started when the now deceased patron was texting (before the movie had started). Apparently a popcorn was thrown at him, and his lawyer is arguing that its irrelevant whether its popcorn.

That's correct, both legally and morally. If he honestly believed that the popcorn placed his life in danger. Do you see the problem?

Wrong. Everyone gets hung up on the whole "imminent danger" part of stand your ground, but they constantly fail to remember "reasonable". It is unreasonable to respond to someone tossing popcorn at you with deadly force.

[aerius]

It is unreasonable to respond to someone tossing popcorn at you with deadly force.

Maybe it was a bag of Assault Popcorntm, I hear that stuff is a deadly weapon.

[Mr. Coffee]

It is unreasonable to respond to someone tossing popcorn at you with deadly force.

Maybe it was a bag of Assault Popcorntm, I hear that stuff is a deadly weapon.

Could he be charged with a salt and buttery?

[Flagg]

It is unreasonable to respond to someone tossing popcorn at you with deadly force.

Maybe it was a bag of Assault Popcorntm, I hear that stuff is a deadly weapon.

Could he be charged with a salt and buttery?

I'm standing my ground and shooting you in the face for attacking me with a deadly pun.

[Broomstick]

Dilbert did that one first.

[Mr. Coffee]

Was Dilbert ever funny?

[Broomstick]

To some people, yes.

[Atlan]

It is unreasonable to respond to someone tossing popcorn at you with deadly force.

Maybe it was a bag of Assault Popcorntm, I hear that stuff is a deadly weapon.

Maybe the old nutter mistook the bag of popcorn for a bag of Skittles?

[aerius]

Getting back on topic here, Mr. Coffee brings up a key point here which many people don't seem to understand

Everyone gets hung up on the whole "imminent danger" part of stand your ground, but they constantly fail to remember "reasonable".

It's important enough that they write it into all the key parts of Florida's stand your ground and self-defence laws, everyone go take a look at the parts I quoted a few posts up and count how many times "reasonable" and its variations appear.

Let's go to some examples:

1) You're walking down the street in broad daylight when some nerd starts wailing on you with a Nerf Lightsaber. You draw your gun and blow him away. No reasonable person will believe that you were in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, you are going to jail for manslaughter. Guaranteed.

2) You're walking through a dark parking lot at night when some nerd runs out from behind a car and starts taking a swing at you with a Nerf Lightsaber. Once again, you draw your gun and shoot. Now it gets fun. It's dark so there was no way to tell if the Nerf Lightsaber was a foam sword or a baseball bat, at night they both look like bat shaped objects. You can reasonably claim that you thought you were about to get whacked with a ball bat, and with a good lawyer you will likely walk free.

3) Same as 1, except the guy is taking a swing at you with a crowbar, so you blow him away. Any reasonable person will believe that you were about to get beaten senseless, if it goes to trial you'll walk free, assuming they even bother filing charges.

So let's go back to the bag of popcorn. Would a reasonable person believe that it's a weapon which is capable of causing death or serious harm? Even in Florida where they're dumber than a box of rocks, the answer is still no. Stand your ground does not give you blanket immunity to kill people who piss you off. Don't believe the media hysterics, always go back to the actual laws and read what they actually say.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Reasonable may be in the law, but as we've seen juries don't necessarily pay proper attention to that part, and trigger-happy cretins lack the capacity to understand what reasonable means. Laws should take into account the fact that US juries tend to be populated by idiots who don't know how the law works.

Of course, as has been stated, the victim was white so Stand Your Ground won't be successful here.

[aerius]

Reasonable may be in the law, but as we've seen juries don't necessarily pay proper attention to that part, and trigger-happy cretins lack the capacity to understand what reasonable means. Laws should take into account the fact that US juries tend to be populated by idiots who don't know how the law works.

I know that most jurors are dumb as a box of rocks, but I'm still going to ask you to cite some cases where this led to a gross miscarriage of justice with regards to self-defence shootings. Just don't say "Zimmerman" or you're going to have a very bad day, because that one was completely by the book and to the letter of the law.

Of course, as has been stated, the victim was white so Stand Your Ground won't be successful here.

Anyone who thinks this case hinges solely upon the race of the victim is about as dumb as those jurors I mentioned.

[Mr. Coffee]

Reasonable may be in the law, but as we've seen juries don't necessarily pay proper attention to that part, and trigger-happy cretins lack the capacity to understand what reasonable means. Laws should take into account the fact that US juries tend to be populated by idiots who don't know how the law works.

That's the fault of three things, none of which have anything to do with how Florida's SYG law works.

1. Juror selection is a shitty process and it turns out grabbing randos off the street that have no idea how the law works either is a dumb idea.

2. Prosecutors that try to go for charges that no reasonable jury would come back with a guilty verdict for. For example, the recent Zimmerman case where the prosecution went for second degree murder despite the evidence not fitting that charge at all.

3. Lack of training standards for concealed carry permit holders. People simply aren't being taught there state's laws on use of force or SYG or castle doctrines. For example, everyone latches on to Florida's SYG law's "imminent danger" and completely ignore the term "reasonable".

Of course, as has been stated, the victim was white so Stand Your Ground won't be successful here.

No, it won't apply in this case because having popcorn tossed at you isn't an "imminent threat" by any reasonable standard imaginable.

[Simon_Jester]

I suspect some people are just plain untrainable- the violent whiners.

These people aren't looking for a definition of self-defense, they're looking for an excuse to harass, harm, or maybe even kill people and get away with it. And they will always, always say they are defending themselves. Often they even believe it, even if that means some kind of contorted nonsense like "it all started when he hit me back!"

This retired cop sounds like he fit the profile I have in mind here- he was, essentially, harassing and bullying people over a behavior he found obnoxious. When someone else initiated very low-level violence (thrown popcorn), he seems to have responded immediately with deadly force. Were his actions reasonable? Obviously not. Will a jury think his actions were reasonable? Almost certainly not.

But will people like him continue to think it's reasonable to overreact? To assume that they can harass others while being perfectly secure. And that it's appropriate for them to kill anyone who threatens their security as they continue to harass? Probably.

[mr friendly guy]

I know that most jurors are dumb as a box of rocks, but I'm still going to ask you to cite some cases where this led to a gross miscarriage of justice with regards to self-defence shootings. Just don't say "Zimmerman" or you're going to have a very bad day, because that one was completely by the book and to the letter of the law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Yoshihiro_Hattori

Summary - Japanese exchange student went to a Halloween party. Got the wrong address and no one answered the door on ringing bell. So he started walking away. Owner came out and shot him. Owner was 6 foot 2, Japanese exchange student weighed 130 pounds. Owner claimed he was afraid when the student walked towards him after he had called out and the student turned around. Owner was still afraid even though people who ring the doorbell aren't trying to break in as a rule.

Defense lawyers claimed any "reasonable" person would find the way the exchange student walk "scary". Owner acquitted by jury.

[Mr. Coffee]

And now you see why trial by jury is part of the fucking problem. Choosing a dosen random assholes, none of which are likely to know anything about the law or how it works, and then asking them to decide on those laws if fucking stupid. It's no longer about deciding if someone broke a law, it's all about which lawyer can win over a handful of dumbasses.

[mr friendly guy]

And now you see why trial by jury is part of the fucking problem. Choosing a dosen random assholes, none of which are likely to know anything about the law or how it works, and then asking them to decide on those laws if fucking stupid. It's no longer about deciding if someone broke a law, it's all about which lawyer can win over a handful of dumbasses.

True in this case. The question then becomes is it easier for lawmakers to get rid of laws which make it easier for dumb juries to give these ridiculous sentences in "self defense" cases, or for lawmakers to change the jury system. I personally lean towards the former being easier.