"Stand your Ground" still standing

[Ahriman238]

A committee of Florida lawmakers rejected a proposal to repeal the ''stand your ground'' self-defense law Thursday, following an hours-long hearing.

The Florida House of Representatives Criminal Justice Subcommittee held a five-hour hearing starting at 3 p.m. to vote on a bill repealing the law granting individuals to use deadly force when they believe their life is in jeopardy.

"Today, our state is a safer place and has the lowest crime rate in 42 years," Rep. Marti Coley, a Marianna Republican, said, according to the Tampa Bay Times. "Florida's 'stand your ground' law is solid. It's good and should not be changed."

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Alan Williams (D-Tallahassee), would have specifically repealed the statute allowing individuals the right to “stand their ground” and use deadly force against another instead of retreating under fear of death or great bodily harm.

The hearing followed protests in July sparked by the acquittal of George Zimmerman for the shooting and death of Trayvon Martin. Protesters, many of whom were students calling themselves the “Dream Defenders,” held a 31-day sit-in at the Florida Capitol calling for Gov. Rick Scott to call a special session to debate the self-defense law.

While the stand your ground” law did not play a role in Zimmerman being found not guilty by a jury, the law did delay police from arresting and charging Zimmerman in Martin’s death.

While the governor refused the protesters' demands, House Speaker Will Weatherford agreed to a hearing on the law during the fall.

Last month, two Florida mothers whose sons were shot to death, including Trayvon Martin's mother Sybrina Fulton, gave emotional testimony at a Florida Senate panel calling on states to alter their laws granting use of deadly force.

At least 22 states currently have stand-your-ground laws.

The House committee also considered a separate measure at the hearing involving deadly force -- eliminating punishment for defensively displaying a weapon and firing warning shots.

The panel approved the expansion of the ''stand your ground'' immunity to people who fire a warning shot.

Under the measure, individuals are exempt from Florida’s mandatory minimum sentencing provisions for discharging a firearm when used only as a warning.

The “warning shot” measure comes after Marissa Alexander was sentenced to 20 years in prison by the state’s mandatory sentencing law for firing a shot at a wall during an August 2010 fight with her husband in which she said she feared for her life. Alexander won a new trial following an appeal in September.

Shame.

I have mixed feelings on allowing warning shots. On the one hand, it's likely to defuse situations like nothing short of actually shooting someone, and save lives. On the other hand, I have a vision of someone pumping warning shots into a wall, like Ms. Alexander, heedless of anyone who might be on the other side.

[Zwinmar]

Personal feeling, probably institutional bias from the Marine Corps, is that there is no such thing as a warning shot. Besides, how the hell do you know if anyone is behind the wall: The warning comes from never pointing your weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot.

Finger on trigger, weapon off safe, pointed at me...means they are trying to kill me.

[Borgholio]

Personal feeling, probably institutional bias from the Marine Corps,

Basic gun safety actually.

1. The weapon is always loaded.

2. Only point the weapon at something you want to die.

3. Only put your finger on the trigger if you plan to pull it.

4. If you know for sure the weapon is not loaded, refer to rule number 1.

Never been in the military but I take the handling of my firearms seriously.

[Simon_Jester]

I kind of disagree, because the intent of a 'warning shot' is to shock another party who doesn't actually believe you would fire a weapon at them. Now you, a fellow trained in fighting with guns, would understand this- any gun pointed at you may be fired and should be treated accordingly. But other people are ignorant of this, and do not understand it, and assume that the people they are dealing with are too indecisive or cowardly to fire a weapon. Because they get their idea of how standoffs with guns work from action movies.*

A warning shot can, in principle, be a rational way of dispelling this ignorance, hopefully without killing or hurting anyone, for a person who is in real danger from the ignoramus.

*For it is written, that the stupidest last words are "you don't have the guts to pull that trigger."
_____________

Honestly, "stand your ground" should provide MORE protection for warning shots than for directly shooting someone, because warning shots prove that you were sincerely trying to avoid killing someone.

The real test for "self-defense" is: did you take all the steps a reasonable person should take to avoid violence resulting in injury or death, before engaging in said violence? This is why in many cases, even the 'defender' in a fight cannot use "self-defense." Because they failed to take a reasonable step to avoid violence, such as just walking away from the confrontation, such as deciding NOT to insult the other party,* such as complying with a reasonable request like "get off my property."

A warning shot that hurts some unknown person would be a case of manslaughter or reckless endangerment; a warning shot that hurts no one (say, because the shooter was careful and responsible about lining up their shot, or used a firearm which does not penetrate walls) should be justifiable on self-defense grounds.

*For it is written, that the word "motherfucker" has no role in de-escalating a conflict.

[Metahive]

The real test for "self-defense" is: did you take all the steps a reasonable person should take to avoid violence resulting in injury or death, before engaging in said violence? This is why in many cases, even the 'defender' in a fight cannot use "self-defense." Because they failed to take a reasonable step to avoid violence, such as just walking away from the confrontation, such as deciding NOT to insult the other party,* such as complying with a reasonable request like "get off my property."

But isn't the problem of Stand Your Ground that it legally allows people to escalate the violence before they've taken all necessary steps to avoid it? Bringing out guns also means the situation turned potentially lethal. If I drew a gun first one some creepy guy, wouldn't that mean he now is perfectly justified to draw a gun as well because I'm directly threatening his life? This is why I just don't see any reason in this.

[TheFeniX]

But isn't the problem of Stand Your Ground that it legally allows people to escalate the violence before they've taken all necessary steps to avoid it?

Stand your ground assumes imminent deadly threat. As in the person reasonably believes another is about to kill or seriously injure them in the next few moments. That isn't escalation, that's meeting force with equivalent force. Even Florida's SYG law doesn't let me draw down on anyone that looks at me funny. It doesn't even let me pepper spray or punch them.

Before that, a prosecutor could literally ask "why didn't the defendant jump out his second story window instead of shoot the home invader?" (that was a verbatim comment from a Texas officer I spoke with years ago during an IDPA match, asked of him during an examination, but it is anecdotal). The problem was and still is, "what is a reasonable amount of withdrawl or avoidance before lethal force applies?" And the defender was forced to justify (proving innocence) rather than the prosecutor being forced to prove he was acting maliciously. Basically, people who defended their lives were forced to prove their innocence which is not how the law is supposed to work in the US.

I don't know if prosecutors have just become lazy WRT prosecuting self-defense cases or what. But it seems that if they don't have a rock solid case against a suspect now, they let it go and claim "SYG tied our hands." Even in the case of Zimmerman, they didn't exactly go the whole 9 yards to get a conviction and couldn't even get a one when SYG wasn't applicable.

If the application of the law is at fault, then that's another problem. Such as times when felons have successfully argued shooting back, and killing, other felons trying to kill them. That is self-defense, however the new laws designed to protect law abiding citizens are being used to protect criminals from other criminals.

Bringing out guns also means the situation turned potentially lethal. If I drew a gun first one some creepy guy, wouldn't that mean he now is perfectly justified to draw a gun as well because I'm directly threatening his life? This is why I just don't see any reason in this.

Why the fuck are you drawing a gun on "some creepy guy?" Yes, if you pointed a gun at some random person with the only justification that "he's creepy looking," getting shot yourself would be a certain possibility. Getting your rounds off first is going to get you jail time, even in Florida.

Zimmerman didn't get off because "that kid looked suspicious" or because Martin was black and Zimmerman was "white." He got off because the jury bought his story that he was attacked, knocked to the ground and pummeled, and his only recourse was deadly force.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Zimmerman didn't get off because "that kid looked suspicious" or because Martin was black and Zimmerman was "white." He got off because the jury bought his story that he was attacked, knocked to the ground and pummeled, and his only recourse was deadly force.

And a jury is statistically more likely to believe this when a white dude shoots a black dude.



Caption: The zero line is the baseline chance that if a white person shoots a white person and claims self defense. Black On WHite is when the black guys claims self defense, white on black is when the white guy does.

You will notice the 250% increased likelihood that a jury will acquit with standard self defense, and a whopping 350% increase with SYG. While when the opposite happens, a black dude has about a 25% of acquittal compared to baseline.

It is in fact highly statistically likely that the Jury believed Zimmerman because he is whiteish. Had the positions been reversed, Martin would likely have been convicted.

[Beowulf]

Zimmerman didn't get off because "that kid looked suspicious" or because Martin was black and Zimmerman was "white." He got off because the jury bought his story that he was attacked, knocked to the ground and pummeled, and his only recourse was deadly force.

And a jury is statistically more likely to believe this when a white dude shoots a black dude.



Caption: The zero line is the baseline chance that if a white person shoots a white person and claims self defense. Black On WHite is when the black guys claims self defense, white on black is when the white guy does.

You will notice the 250% increased likelihood that a jury will acquit with standard self defense, and a whopping 350% increase with SYG. While when the opposite happens, a black dude has about a 25% of acquittal compared to baseline.

It is in fact highly statistically likely that the Jury believed Zimmerman because he is whiteish. Had the positions been reversed, Martin would likely have been convicted.

If I'm reading that graph correctly, however, a black dude shooting a dude and claiming stand your ground (when applicable) is still more likely to get off than if he didn't. Also, Zimmerman is obviously Latino in appearance, not "white". I'm not sure if that graph is applicable, as there's no source on the data to be able to say whether they include Latinos in "whites" or not.

[Kitsune]

Stand your ground laws are less fucked up than allowing you to shoot a whore with your money (Texas)

[Beowulf]

Stand your ground laws are less fucked up than allowing you to shoot a whore with your money (Texas)

That one's worse. She was just accused of being a whore. She took the money for being an escort, but didn't put out, because she wasn't a whore.

[Kitsune]

Stand your ground laws are less fucked up than allowing you to shoot a whore with your money (Texas)

That one's worse. She was just accused of being a whore. She took the money for being an escort, but didn't put out, because she wasn't a whore.

I meant how I think the court looked at it . . . .

[Alyrium Denryle]

If I'm reading that graph correctly, however, a black dude shooting a dude and claiming stand your ground (when applicable) is still more likely to get off than if he didn't. Also, Zimmerman is obviously Latino in appearance, not "white". I'm not sure if that graph is applicable, as there's no source on the data to be able to say whether they include Latinos in "whites" or not.

As a general rule, white hispanics are listed under white (read: hispanics of white and native american ancestry), black hispanics (those of african and african/euro ancestry) are considered black. Not definite, but that is how I typically read things. Especially given that most race listing is Black Hispanic, Black Not-Hispanic, White Hispanic, White Not-Hispanic etc.

As for being more likely to get off from SYG, that presumes they SHOULD. SYG can readily be expected to bias trial proceedings toward type II error.

[Simon_Jester]

On the other hand, "why didn't you jump out a window rather than shoot the guy barging into your house" will tend to bias trial proceedings toward type I error, unless you do a lot of jury nullification. And widespread use of jury nullification presents its own serious problems in murder trials.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

Firing warning shots is a really bad idea, the only people who get to do it are the Navy and Coast Guard, while at sea. Bullets don't just disappear, you know, you could very easily kill someone blocks away from whatever altercation lead you to fire your shot.

[Formless]

I do believe that is why warning shots are properly fired directly into the air, not in the general vicinity of the target. But idiots and clever lawyers will probably use a "warning shots" clause to try and excuse getting into a gunfight unnecessarily by rationalizing the opening shots post hoc. That's a better argument against them, IMO, given Simon's argument for them based on the supposition that people won't always take the very brandishing of a weapon seriously.

[Grumman]

And a jury is statistically more likely to believe this when a white dude shoots a black dude.

Given that a black dude is four times more likely than a white dude to be killing someone with a gun in the first place, it's worth considering that they might be right. Hell, according to this, Blacks were responsible for 43% of justifiable homicides by a private citizen between 2000 and 2010, despite only making up 13% of the population.

[Alyrium Denryle]

And a jury is statistically more likely to believe this when a white dude shoots a black dude.

Given that a black dude is four times more likely than a white dude to be killing someone with a gun in the first place, it's worth considering that they might be right. Hell, according to this, Blacks were responsible for 43% of justifiable homicides by a private citizen between 2000 and 2010, despite only making up 13% of the population.

Go fuck yourself, you racist shitbag.

That said: The above chart is about probability. So any numerical issues (like black people committing more violent crime) are canceled out by the fact that a percentage is used rather than raw numbers.

Oh, and you know what else you need to do? Learn to read. 43% of Justifiable homicides. In other words, killing people in self defense. Guess what that means? It means that on statistical average, a black person is more likely than a white person to kill defending themselves, which puts the fact that, when they bring up that defense in court juries refuse to believe them in, stark relief.

[Alyrium Denryle]

On the other hand, "why didn't you jump out a window rather than shoot the guy barging into your house" will tend to bias trial proceedings toward type I error, unless you do a lot of jury nullification. And widespread use of jury nullification presents its own serious problems in murder trials.

Bluntly, no. That "why didnt you jump out the window" thing is almost an old wives tale. Self defense is a legal defense to murder in every state, and it relies on the common-law notion of the reasonable person standard, even when there is a duty to retreat. Homicide is justified if the person reasonably believes their life is in danger or they risk serious injury, and they have taken or had denied to them by circumstance reasonable and safe modes of escape, and the risk is not gone. Even in states that do not apply the castle doctrine as part of its legal code, the home is the final refuge as a matter of caselaw and in the minds of every juror. A person is never required to flee their own home, risk injury by jumping out a window, bull-rush past an attacker in an alley, ford river rapids or anything insane like that. If a prosecutor tried to convict because the defendant failed to do these things, no jury would ever need to nullify, because their conclusion of "not guilty" is legally correct, because of the reasonable person standard.

[Grumman]

Hell, according to this, Blacks were responsible for 43% of justifiable homicides by a private citizen between 2000 and 2010, despite only making up 13% of the population.

Oh, and you know what else you need to do? Learn to read. 43% of Justifiable homicides. In other words, killing people in self defense.

Are you really this fucking stupid? I told you that this is the statistic I was giving you.

[Zwinmar]

I do believe that is why warning shots are properly fired directly into the air, not in the general vicinity of the target. But idiots and clever lawyers will probably use a "warning shots" clause to try and excuse getting into a gunfight unnecessarily by rationalizing the opening shots post hoc. That's a better argument against them, IMO, given Simon's argument for them based on the supposition that people won't always take the very brandishing of a weapon seriously.

What goes up must come down. Only this time you have to clue where it will come down.

[Formless]

Um... duh? I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

Edit: oh, wait, I just realized you probably mistyped and intended to write "no" when you wrote "to".

Look, do you think that it is more likely that a bullet traveling in a straight line is just as likely to hit something or someone as a bullet that lands on one point on the ground?


If you answer "no" you obviously haven't thought about it for more than the two seconds it took to write that pithy crap. You don't know where the bullet is going either way, but you know how much area it effectively covers during its flight.

[Ahriman238]

That a bullet fired into the sky will eventually fall from the sky, who knows where, which enough force to injure and possibly kill someone.

[Formless]

So, you are a dumbass?

If you fire it horizontal to the ground, it covers all that distance and STILL ends up god knows where. The difference is that it can hit anything that happens to intersect that line. The bullet going straight up can only hit something or someone that is standing on that one point on the ground. What part of that is hard to understand? Is it a good idea? Debatable. But people are implying that all warning shots are necessarily over the heads of the target like the Coast Guard, when they don't have to be. Police in other countries fire warning shots, and my understanding is that this is how they do it safer.

edit: by the way, I obviously wrote the previous post too quickly to realize that my sentence makes no sense. I think that might be obvious, but I'm just confirming that it wasn't my best writing ever.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Isn't a way better solution than arguing over how dangerous a bullet fired into the air is to just fire warning shots into the ground? Or am I missing something due to not having much firearms experience?

[The Vortex Empire]

Isn't a way better solution than arguing over how dangerous a bullet fired into the air is to just fire warning shots into the ground? Or am I missing something due to not having much firearms experience?

I was thinking the same thing, but it's certainly possible for the bullet to deflect off the ground and hit someone.