This is why you don't chase after the bad guy.

[JohnKSa]

Subsequent to stand your ground, you can pretty much shoot anyone who you believe is a threat (whether they actually are or are not isn't terribly relevant), and it is virtually impossible for anyone to say otherwise because no one can prove what was in your mind at the moment you pulled the trigger.

Again, that's not remotely true.

The defender must REASONABLY believe that the person is a threat to life and limb and for that to be true, the defender must reasonably believe that the attacker has the means to kill or seriously injure AND has the motive to kill or seriously injure AND has the opportunity to kill or seriously injure.

The idea that deadly force can be justified purely based on what's in a person's mind at the moment is not based on the law. A person could honestly believe that all people are space aliens and are going to kill him with the power of their brains but that would absolutely not justify shooting anyone he meets. The belief must be reasonable and whether or not it's reasonable will be decided by others (jurors and/or judge), not based solely on what the defender thinks is reasonable.

(And let's be honest, that, too, is a result of our "innocent until proven guilty" concepts and our rights to due process of law, which I hold as unassailable.)

Actually, to claim self-defense, one must admit to guilt. The idea that a person who kills someone in self-defense is innocent until proven guilty is generally incorrect.

You first have to admit to committing homicide before you can claim that it was justifiable homicide. You can't say: "I didn't shoot him and it was self-defense." That would be nonsense. So self-defense is generally a case of admitting to guilt (and therefore starting off guilty) and then having to prove innocence.

By removing the "duty to retreat", Stand Your Ground laws encourage people to use guns first without even considering or attempting to use any other recourse.

That is absolutely not true. Even in a case where a stand your ground case is properly invoked, the defender must show that there was no reasonable alternative to responding with deadly force but does not have to include retreat as one of those alternatives.

Stand your ground law=defender must prove that deadly force was justified (the attacker had means, motive & opportunity) and that no other reasonable alternatives were available to using deadly force. Does not have to consider retreat as a reasonable alternative.

Your incorrect view of stand your ground law. Defender doesn't have to prove anything at all, only has to say that he believed a threat existed.

The Stand Your Ground laws eliminate ONE requirement, the need for a defender to prove that retreat was not reasonably possible. They do not change anything else. They certainly do not justify shooting someone "without even considering or attempting to use any other recourse", or "skipping every other option and going immediately to the killing part".

Yeah, I have a problem with killing other human beings until it is absolutely necessary and ALL other options (including retreat/escape-even if you have a right to be there) have been exhausted.

Deadly force IS a last resort. Stand your ground laws were instituted because of the difficulty of proving that retreat wasn't a viable option. If you think about it for awhile, you will probably grasp the problem. How could you prove that there was absolutely no reasonable way to retreat from a situation in court? It was proving to be so difficult that people who were really justified in using self-defense were going to jail because they couldn't satisfy the requirement to prove that they really couldn't get away.

Ohhh...I think I understand the law well enough.

If you do, then your posts are deliberately disingenuous.

If your posts are a frank statement of what you believe the laws say and mean then you absolutely do not understand Stand Your Ground laws.

 

[GJSchulze]

By removing the "duty to retreat", Stand Your Ground laws encourage people to use guns first without even considering or attempting to use any other recourse.

I will always try to retreat or otherwise avoid killing someone unless given no choice. NY does not have a SYG law, but even in a state that does have it I would try to avoid shooting. The best strategy is to avoid those situations by not going where an attack might happen and being alert.

Alaskan, you seem to be stubbornly maintaining that SYG encourages bad behavior. It might in some people, but those laws are worded to clearly say that you do not have a responsibility in court to prove you had no way to escape. Such a situation can be as clear cut as being in a closed off space with literally no where to go. It could also be a situation where you just didn't see a way out, but the police can clearly see it in the calm and light of the next day.

Please explain why you maintain that SYG will encourage people to shoot first. Perhaps you are afraid that you will react that way and assume everyone else will also.

 

[cambeul41]

Alaskan —

Are you in favor of those in reasonable fear of their lives in their own homes being REQUIRED to flee? In their own driveways? Where may we stand our ground? Where can we defend ourselves without being considered guilty unless we can prove we could not escape safely?

I am very gimpy. I cannot run or escape over the back fence. May I shoot when you may not?

 

[Theohazard]

Ohhh...I think I understand the law well enough.

Well, your posts seem to indicate otherwise. Either you have no idea what you're talking about or you're deliberately misrepresenting what SYG really means. So you'd rather we think you're being disingenuous instead of ignorant on the subject?

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by The Alaskan:

Ohhh...I think I understand the law well enough.

That appears not to be the case at all.

By removing the "duty to retreat", Stand Your Ground laws encourage people to use guns first without even considering or attempting to use any other recourse.

"First"? First? No, not first.

At least with "a duty to retreat" you were required to at least try to escape.

Not true.

If escape was not an option, THEN you could resort to guns.

Nope. That's not the way it is. If retreat is not safely possible, the use of force (guns or otherwise) would be justified, if and only if the actor had had a basis for a reasonable belief that it had been immediately necessary.

I have an issue with this notion that we can shoot first and ask questions later.

Good. So do we all.

I have a problem with stand your ground because it encourages people to skip every other option and go immediately to the killing part.

That horrendously incorrect statement really underscores the fact that you most certainly do not "understand the law well enough".

 

[The Alaskan]

Even in a case where a stand your ground case is properly invoked, the defender must show that there was no reasonable alternative to responding with deadly force but does not have to include retreat as one of those alternatives.

Stand your ground law=defender must prove that deadly force was justified (the attacker had means, motive & opportunity) and that no other reasonable alternatives were available to using deadly force. Does not have to consider retreat as a reasonable alternative.

Ding ding ding ding!!!!! We have a winner. No more calls please.

You have perfectly and exactly proven my point.

Stand your ground eliminates the legal need to try to escape, which should be considered as an option prior to killing someone. If you do not try to escape, then you have not exhausted all options and you are no longer using deadly force as a last resort. But of course, that's all out the window now.

 

[The Alaskan]

The best strategy is to avoid those situations by not going where an attack might happen and being alert.

I would certainly agree with you there.

...Such a situation can be as clear cut as being in a closed off space with literally no where to go. It could also be a situation where you just didn't see a way out, but the police can clearly see it in the calm and light of the next day.

If you try to flee, but have no where to flee too, I would say that you fulfilled your duty to retreat.

Please explain why you maintain that SYG will encourage people to shoot first. Perhaps you are afraid that you will react that way and assume everyone else will also.

Because it does. If you can't or won't see it, I can't explain it to you.

 

[The Alaskan]

Alaskan —

Are you in favor of those in reasonable fear of their lives in their own homes being REQUIRED to flee? In their own driveways?

In your home is an entirely different scenario and and entirely different set of laws. Castle Domain doctrine is completely different. If you are already in your home, where are you going to flee to? As for the driveway, that's outside the home. If you're between your car and your front door, but your front door is locked, well hay, you probably have no where to run to, which satisfies "duty to retreat."

Where may we stand our ground?

You may not. You may not "stand your ground" because this isn't the Alamo. The Old West is gone forever. (Or it was, and now it's back. Yee haw.) If you kill someone, even in self defense, when you had the clear opportunity to avoid that killing, what does that make you?

 

[JohnKSa]

You have perfectly and exactly proven my point.

Not even close.

Saying that ONE alternative (the possibility of retreat) doesn't have to be proved in court to be unavailable to the defender is absolutely not the same as saying that a person can use deadly force "without even considering or attempting to use any other recourse", or "skipping every other option and going immediately to the killing part".

In fact, just because you don't have to legally prove retreat wasn't a reasonable option doesn't mean you shouldn't consider it or should "skip it".

I think you know that as well as everyone else who reads this thread and who understands English.

Stand your ground eliminates the legal need to try to escape...

That is correct, and that is what I said but it is not remotely what you stated originally.

...which should be considered as an option prior to killing someone.

Escape is definitely something that a defender should consider before using deadly force. But if escape is not a reasonable option and deadly force must be used, the defender is not placed in the position of being forced to legally justify not retreating.

If you do not try to escape, then you have not exhausted all options and you are no longer using deadly force as a last resort.

There are a couple of problems with this statement.

1. One does not need to actually TRY to escape to determine whether or not escape is a reasonable option. Even in duty to retreat states, a person is not obligated to TRY to retreat, only to be able to prove that it wasn't reasonable for them to retreat.

2. Even when there is a legal duty to retreat, a person does not have to exhaust all options, only all reasonable options.

3. Of course, deadly force should be a last resort, but it is understood by those not trying to be intentionally obtuse that "last resort" does not actually mean every possible/conceivable option should be tried/evaluated. It means that reasonable resorts are tried/evaluated. For example offering to be the attacker's personal sex slave for the rest of your life if he lets you live, or telling him that it would be fine if he raped and killed your companion as long as he lets you alone, or begging him to just shoot you in the leg instead of the torso or head, are all options that are available to you and that might save your life, but they are also options that would not be considered reasonable options by any sane person.

In some cases it would be reasonable to retreat rather than to use deadly force, and in those cases it would be the proper course of action--a person would be foolish (and it would be immoral, in my opinion) to shoot someone if it were reasonable to retreat instead. In some cases it is not reasonable to retreat or to try to retreat, and in those cases, people who live in areas with stand your ground laws will have an easier time of justifying their actions than those in areas with a duty to retreat.

If you kill someone, even in self defense, when you had the clear opportunity to avoid that killing, what does that make you?

It makes you a murderer, whether or not you can actually justify your actions under the law. I believe we're all in agreement on that point.

The disagreement is based on your outrageous initial claims based on your blatant mischaracterization of Stand Your Ground laws, not based on the idea that retreating is never a reasonable option, that people shouldn't consider retreat as an option or that it's perfectly fine/advisable/wise/moral to shoot an attacker when retreating is a reasonable option.

 

[The Alaskan]

You know guys, I was thinking about this discussion while out walking the dog just now, and I thought of it in another way.

Suppose a man kills another in self defense and invokes stand your ground. It goes to the grand jury or the jury. And I (or you) am on that jury.

Now I wasn't there. I didn't see it happen. I don't know anyone connected to the event. But somehow, I am supposed to decide what was in that man's mind and heart at the moment he pulled the trigger.

Now I could invoke jury nullification, which is of dubious legal validity, and say "hey the guy didn't try to run away but he should have so he is guilty." OR I can stick with the stand your ground law as written. If I do that, then, how am I to decide the case? There are two possibilities: a.) the use of force was legitimate and sed as a last resort or b.) the defendant simply opted to use lethal force. It's a coin toss. One man is dead and the remainder of another man's life hangs in the balance. Heads or tails?

For those of you who say you would always try to retreat before resorting to lethal force, stand your ground is irrelevant. For the others...

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by The Alaskan:

Stand your ground eliminates the legal need to try to escape, which should be considered as an option prior to killing someone. If you do not try to escape, then you have not exhausted all options and you are no longer using deadly force as a last resort. But of course, that's all out the window now.

There you go again.. You just do not understand.

There has never been a "legal need to try to escape"--ever.

The requirement has been to escape, but if and only if escape is safely possible--not to "try to escape". That goes back way before Geoffrey Chaucer penned "The Lawyer's Tale".

Let me try to explain the distinction very simply.

Imagine that you are standing on a square. You are about to fuel your car, or load your trunk, or get into the driver's seat. You just got there.

Have you imagined and considered all of the possible directions from which you might be attacked at that point?

Very unlikely, don't you think?

Well, if you haven't, and I really doubt that you will have, you cannot possibly have evaluated whether there is a safe route of escape from each of those potential directions of attack.

So, should an attack occur, giving you possibly a second and half to draw and fire and hope that your shooting would save you, do you really think that you would, or should be expected to, "try to escape"?

Come now!

The idea is ludicrous.

Now, what eliminating the duty to retreat does is eliminate your need to explain how you did know how to retreat, and that it was not safely possible, and why.

Do you understand the subject just a little better now?

 

[The Alaskan]

It makes you a murderer, whether or not you can actually justify your actions under the law. I believe we're all in agreement on that point.

If we are all agreed on that point,then stand your ground is irrelevant and unnecessary.

 

[The Alaskan]

Posted by The Alaskan:There you go again.. You just do not understand.

There has never been a "legal need to try to escape"--ever.

The requirement has been to escape, but if and only if escape is safely possible--not to "try to escape". That goes back way before Geoffrey Chaucer penned "The Lawyer's Tale".

Let me try to explain the distinction very simply.

Imagine that you are standing on a square. You are about to fuel your car, or load your trunk, or get into the driver's seat. You just got there.

Have you imagined and considered all of the possible directions from which you might be attacked at that point?

Very unlikely, don't you think?

Well, if you haven't, and I really doubt that you will have, you cannot possibly have evaluated whether there is a safe route of escape from each of those potential directions of attack.

So, should an attack occur, giving you possibly a second and half to draw and fire and hope that your shooting would save you, do you really think that you would, or should be expected to, "try to escape"?

Come now!

The idea is ludicrous.

Now, what eliminating the duty to retreat does is eliminate your need to explain how you did know how to retreat, and that it was not safely possible, and why.

Do you understand the subject just a little better now?

I have always understood it as such. If there is no reasonable way to escape then there is no way to escape. You have fulfilled the "duty to retreat." However, I don't think it's ludicrous to have to explain why you felt you couldn't retreat.

 

[JohnKSa]

But somehow, I am supposed to decide what was in that man's mind and heart at the moment he pulled the trigger.

You are supposed to decide whether or not what the person says was in his mind and heart is reasonable and whether or not it is consistent with the legal use of deadly force.

You're not required to read his mind, only to determine if his actions are consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the evidence he had at the time and if that reasonable interpretation would fit the parameters in the law that would make the use of deadly force legal.

There are two possibilities: a.) the use of force was legitimate and sed as a last resort or b.) the defendant simply opted to use lethal force. It's a coin toss.

Evidence will be presented and if the defender's actions are consistent with the legal use of deadly force given the evidence then you vote to acquit. If they are not then you vote to convict.

For those of you who say you would always try to retreat before resorting to lethal force, stand your ground is irrelevant.

If we are all agreed on that point,then stand your ground is irrelevant and unnecessary.

This is absolutely not true at all and it's hard for me to understand how you could still hold this misconception.

I would always consider the option of retreat over shooting someone in self-defense, but that doesn't mean that Stand Your Ground laws are irrelevant to me.

If I am ever forced to shoot someone in self defense, Stand Your Ground laws mean that I will not be required to prove, in court, that I could not reasonably have retreated. This is exactly why the laws were conceived. The burden of proof to show that retreat was unreasonable was heavy enough that people who DID consider retreat and found it unreasonable were sometimes still unable to prove to the court's satisfaction that they had done so.

In spite of the fact that I would never shoot someone if I had the option to simply retreat, without Stand Your Ground laws, I could STILL end up in jail if I couldn't prove that my failure to retreat was reasonable. That's a far cry from "irrelevant".

If there is no reasonable way to escape then there is no way to escape. You have fulfilled the "duty to retreat."

No, that's not enough. You have to PROVE, IN COURT, that you fulfilled the duty. If you fail to do so, nothing else matters and you go to jail.

 

[The Alaskan]

If I am ever forced to shoot someone in self defense, Stand Your Ground laws mean that I will not be required to prove, in court, that I could not reasonably have retreated.

Well...then let's just leave at this: I believe that you should have to prove in court that you could not reasonably have retreated, and that's why I oppose stand your ground.

 

[JohnKSa]

And that's the reason why this nation was formed as a collection of independent states, each with its own laws. There are states with stand your ground laws for those who believe that it's important not to impose a burden of proof that's so heavy some innocent defenders will not be able to attain it, and states where the majority feel like it's reasonable to force a defender to prove that retreat was not possible before they can claim self-defense.

The difference should highlight just how legally hazardous it is to do the opposite of retreat and actually chase after a criminal. To say nothing of the physical hazard.

 

[Theohazard]

Well...then let's just leave at this: I believe that you should have to prove in court that you could not reasonably have retreated, and that's why I oppose stand your ground.

And that's a completely valid opinion. It's an opinion that's not shared by myself and many other people on this forum, but that doesn't make it less valid.

But what bothers me is this: Your statement above comes after your previous attempts to mischaracterize and misrepresent what SYG actually means. You didn't just come out and say what I quoted above, you instead prefaced it with a series of incorrect statements that completely misstated what SYG laws actually do.

This tells me that either your understanding of SYG was completely wrong before this thread began, or you were being disingenuous throughout most of this thread. Either way, I have a hard time taking your opinion seriously because of your previous posts in this thread.

 

[Pilot]

Ohhh...I think I understand the law well enough.

By removing the "duty to retreat", Stand Your Ground laws encourage people to use guns first without even considering or attempting to use any other recourse.

At least with "a duty to retreat" you were required to at least try to escape. If escape was not an option, THEN you could resort to guns.

I don't have an issue with the right to self defense. And I don't have an issue with using a firearm for self defense. I have an issue with this notion that we can shoot first and ask questions later. I have a problem with stand your ground because it encourages people to skip every other option and go immediately to the killing part. Yeah, I have a problem with killing other human beings until it is absolutely necessary and ALL other options (including retreat/escape-even if you have a right to be there) have been exhausted.

I think your interpretation is totally wrong. I also think you are a troll or a plant here.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by The Alaskan:

I have always understood it as such. If there is no reasonable way to escape then there is no way to escape. You have fulfilled the "duty to retreat."

Flawed understanding, again.

It is not just a simple matter of whether retreat is safely possible. There is also the little issue of why you reasonably believed that it was not.

How would one know, what the attacker strikes tumultuously and without warning at close range, what one's possibilities of safe retreat might be?

However, I don't think it's ludicrous to have to explain why you felt you couldn't retreat.

It is not what you "felt"--it is your reasonable belief, and proving it would require you to produce evidence.

Well...then let's just leave at this: I believe that you should have to prove in court that you could not reasonably have retreated, and that's why I oppose stand your ground.

Unrealistic and naive at best.

Consider my example: You are attacked suddenly, out of the night--ambushed, as it were.

Having been given no inkling of the attack that was about to happen, you have obviously not mapped out potential routes of retreat,which would vary according to the direction and nature of the attack.

How would anyone explain how he or she had evaluated each of the potential routes of escape that he or she did not even know existed and explain why he or she had reasonably believed at the time that none of them were safely viable?

That is really why superior courts in some cases, and legislatures in others, have eliminated the duty to retreat. The burden of proof was not reasonable, and the requirement was not realistic.

What burden of proof do you have in mind?

 

[The Alaskan]

I think your interpretation is totally wrong. I also think you are a troll or a plant here.

your previous attempts to mischaracterize and misrepresent what SYG actually means. You didn't just come out and say what I quoted above, you instead prefaced it with a series of incorrect statements that completely misstated what SYG laws actually do.

This tells me that either your understanding of SYG was completely wrong before this thread began, or you were being disingenuous throughout most of this thread. Either way, I have a hard time taking your opinion seriously because of your previous posts in this thread.

I did not intentionally mischaracterize anything. My interpretation, what I believe SYG means, its intent, and its effect, stand as expressed in my earlier posts.

Obviously, my interpretation, my understanding, and my opinion of SYG differ dramatically from yours. But my previous statements stand as to what I believe SYG is. Nothing has changed. It is not disingenuous, nor is it designed to rile you up (as in a "troll or a plant.") We just disagree on what the law's intent and effect is.

 

[Turftech1]

A very sad story, and not too far from where I grew up. I have done quite a bit of work in that neighborhood. It is not at all ghetto, very nice, upscale neighborhood. My guess is that the dad got caught up in an adrenaline rush. Had he taken a minute or two to think, he probably would not have given chase.

In a crisis situation, the body diverts blood into the muscle tissue and into your extremities. The advantage is that you have more energy for fight or flight. The disadvantage is that you may be mentally disadvantaged during the crisis.

Look at how often when there is a police shooting (despite what we see on TV, most cops don't have a shoot-out every week), and the cop fires his weapon. When investigators first show up, they'll ask the cop how many rounds he fired, and he'll respond. IDK... maybe 2. They check his magazine, and it is like 13 rounds short of full.

My dad shot a perp when he was a cop. He has told me several times that his brain just all but shut down, and the only thing going through his mind was his training sequence for drawing and firing. Something he had practiced thousands of times. There are still portions of the event that he doesn't remember.

 

[strambo]

You are way overestimating the average gun owner's willingness to blow a ragged hole in someone's chest, end their life, and deal with the aftermath (personal, legal and civil).

Do you really believe the SYG laws make lethal force the first option? You believe that when confronted with a potential threat under SYG laws a person with a reasonable exit (a way to get away from the threat, avoid having to kill someone, avoid all the legal/civil aftermath) that they will just kill them anyway because a piece of paper in theory says they legally can?

Heck, I avoid annoying people and unpleasant (or merely uncomfortable) conversations if I can. I'm certainly going to take a "pass" on lethal combat when able, no matter what the law says, or my being armed and with a awful lot of CQB training.

Are there some morons who might exploit the SYG law, yes, but they are as rare as a lightning strike and deserve whatever aftermath they get. No matter what you think of Zimmerman or the case...he would have been a lot better off leaving if he could have, SYG be darned....(not that it was a SYG case or that SYG was even mentioned at the trial).

I like the additional protection SYG affords in that the victim won't be on trial for whether or not they could have retreated (could be impossible to prove either way in most cases, most persuasive lawyer-wins). The criminal chose to threaten someone with deadly force.

On a personal note: I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if every time an innocent person was threatened with deadly force by a criminal, they just shot them like The Alaskan says will be the result of SYG. That is a sustainable societal model IMO, there wouldn't be a whole lot of violent crime in shall issue CCW areas after a few cases.

 

[Theohazard]

I did not intentionally mischaracterize anything. My interpretation, what I believe SYG means, its intent, and its effect, stand as expressed in my earlier posts.

Obviously, my interpretation, my understanding, and my opinion of SYG differ dramatically from yours. But my previous statements stand as to what I believe SYG is. Nothing has changed. It is not disingenuous, nor is it designed to rile you up (as in a "troll or a plant.") We just disagree on what the law's intent and effect is.

OK, so your previous comments came from ignorance then? Because several of the comments you made earlier (specifically, the comments I quoted in post #19) were entirely incorrect; those were not a matter of opinion, they were straight-up mischaracterizations of what SYG is, plain and simple.

 

[Onward Allusion]

In this case, the perp had left. The homeowner followed him. Sadly stupid move.
But I can not claim shooting through a door is any less stupid.

Dunno. I sure as hell wouldn't wait for my door to be completely kicked in. Maybe a couple of shots at the bottom of the door as a deterrent with 911 on the phone. Of course, there's gonna be those here that would say run upstairs and lock yourself in the bedroom.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by The Alaskan:

My interpretation, what I believe SYG means, its intent, and its effect, stand as expressed in my earlier posts.

If you still believe what you said in your earliest posts, it is very clear indeed that your understanding is terribly flawed.

Obviously, my interpretation, my understanding, and my opinion of SYG differ dramatically from yours. But my previous statements stand as to what I believe SYG is. Nothing has changed. It is not disingenuous, nor is it designed to rile you up (as in a "troll or a plant.") We just disagree on what the law's intent and effect is.

Your interpretation and understanding of the meaning of the laws and the judicial decisions that eliminate the duty to retreat (often described as "stand your ground") are widely disparate from those of legal experts who are familiar with the subject.

You have not really touched upon the intent of the laws or relevant superior court decisions. The intent was explained in the link contained in Post 19 and 20.

Your conclusions regarding the effect of the laws are conjecture, presented without supporting data.

Several of us have attempted to explain these important issues to you. Several excellent references were provided in links in Post #23. Another excellent resource is Massad Ayoob's MAG-20 classroom session. That would provide you with the opportunity for a Q&A session on this subject with an expert.

Would these help, were you to follow up on them? Well, first, you would have to listen and consider all facets of the question with an open mind. But there is something else. I do not intend for this to sound demeaning, but I have the feeling that your understanding of what an armed defender is likely to face in a real self defense encounter does not provide you with enough background to discuss the legal subject intelligently.

Some good tactical training should help a lot. Some relevant FoF training using Airsoft equipment should help.

After having tried that, you just might have a reasonable understanding of what would really be involved in "trying to escape" when you are ambushed.

Should you be interested in reading about the skills that a defender would need to employ in armed self defense, you might want to read this.