Why "stand your ground" is good law

[Carl N. Brown]

"Detached reflection cannot be expected in the presence of an upraised knife." ~Oliver Wendall Holmes

Assessing ones retreat options in the face of a sudden lethal assault is very difficult.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by oneounceload: FL has amended their SYG law to include the potential of a threat as a legal excuse to use deadly force. Yeah FL

No, not even close. A legislative subcommittee has approved for consideration by the legislature a measure that would modify the provision for a mandatory penalty for threatening deadly force under some circumstances, but the amendment has not become law.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...The language can be tweaked,...

Of course, and in so doing one can change it's meaning.

So when you:

...rephrase it using the language you used...

you're basically twisting my words to suit your purposes.

I said what I said, and my statements speak for themselves. Your adapting some of the words I used to your statements doesn't do anything to square your statements with mine.

It's simply you playing word games.

You've said what you said on the record.

And indeed your claim that:

...Without question, stand your ground expands when violence/aggression is justified by removing barriers (duty to flee)...

remains as ludicrous as ever.

First, of course, nothing is without question.

And second, it is merely your conjecture that SYG laws in any real sense remove a barrier to the use of force. And your conjecture ignores the reality of violent encounters in which one might reasonably perceive the need to use force to prevent his death or grave injury.

You admitted that the so called support you cited in post 66 didn't not include consideration of SYG laws. Indeed, the links you provided were to only the most superficial recitations of conclusions with no real analysis or discussion of methodology.

You are thus merely assuming that SYG laws operate as a removal of a barrier to an act. And to the contrary, the notion of barriers to action or the removal of a barrier to action or any other sorts of implied cost-benefit consideration suggested by your sources, suggest an opportunity for reflective decision making.

But one does not have that luxury in a violent, tumultuous, dangerous situation. One must assess, decide and act in an instant.

Again, your words are on record, and I submit that they reflect both a prejudiced outlook and a resort to junk science to support it. Others reading this thread may form their own conclusions.

 

[tomrkba]

Pizzapinochle,

1) Read this first:

http://www.volokh.com/2012/04/03/th...to-comply-with-demands-necessity-and-liberty/

2) The majority of states have removed the duty to retreat from their code.

http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/17/duty-to-retreat/

As best I can tell, the current rule is that 19 states (plus D.C.) fall in the duty to retreat category, with the states being bunched up quite a bit geographically:

Northeast/Mid-Atlantic: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island.
Midwest/Plains: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Wisconsin.
West: Hawaii, Wyoming.

All the other states do not impose a duty to retreat. The rule in federal cases seems to be ambiguous.

3) I am not sure you even understand what you are asking people to do. You are asking them to accept being attacked with lethal force without returning that same level of force. I am not fond of giving anyone trying to kill me a few free shots.

Initiative is exceptionally important. As I stated before, people die in the moments they are fleeing because the bad guy maintains the initiative. Flight means there is nothing stopping the attacker from continuing the attack or disrupting his initiative. The best defense is to get off the line of attack WHILE drawing a weapon (or countering armed or unarmed if they're too close--nine feet or less) and return fire as soon as possible. Once the defender is shot, he or she may no longer have enough capacity to fight to stop the attack or is incapacitated. Relying upon the mercy of someone like that is not a good survival strategy.

 

[DT Guy]

The 'duty to retreat' reminds me of people who ask (rhetorically or not) if there is a 'smoking gun' when they demand proof, oblivious to the fact that requiring a 'smoking gun' means you've already been shot at once.

Larry

 

[torqem]

You are either on the side of the angels and believe that the world is much better off when violent attacker are put into wheelchairs by their intended victims, or you are wimp who would surrender everything, all the time, to anyone who wants it, and you want everyone else to be a sheep, like you are. Dead ones don't provide constant examples, like the spine-shot ones do.

 

[slumlord44]

The right to stand your ground and the duty to retreat are both interesting statements. From a practical standpoint I have always found that the best way to not get myself hurt or killed is to do whatever I can to get myself away from any possible harm to myself as quickly as possible. To avoid a fight if there is any way to do it. If not, take the other guy out before he hurts me. The duty to retreat is different from the idea that retreat from a threat is usually the best option. That should be a personal decision.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Frank, you are completely misunderstanding what that quote meant. You are arguing a point that I am not contending and have not been contending for several posts. I am not trying to be difficult, but I also pride myself on approaching things from a reasoned standpoint and I want you to understand that you are essentially attacking me for a statement I never made.

You are talking about the decision being made in a violent situation. That is the part of the discussion that I dropped in post 96. The quote in question was ONLY about "when violence/aggression is justified," meaning after a shooting has occurred, which set of laws (SYG or duty to retreat) requires more stringent elements to prove a shooting was justified.

So, your quote:

it is merely your conjecture that SYG laws in any real sense remove a barrier to the use of force.

YES, absolutely, I agree with you, that portion of my argument is conjecture. I think there is research to back it up and it would be interesting to discuss, but it is not a black and white definitive issue. That has NOTHING to do with the quote that you are attacking me for.

I would never say...

"Without question, stand your ground makes someone decide to shoot in a violent situation"

Even if I believe that statement in general, there is no way I would make that black and white a statement about something that is a very very complex topic that I am not an expert on (decision making in violent situations).

But, I am not, and never was, trying to make that statement. I am simply saying that in a legal setting, when a shooting is reviewed to determine if it was a justified self-defense shooting, under SYG there are less requirements for a shooting to be ruled justified than under Duty to Retreat.

My quote is referring to the legal justification for use of violence, NOT the decision being made in the moment. I realize that other parts of my posts DID refer to the decision being made in a violent situation, but that quote is talking about the requirements for justification, not the decision making process.

And, as you said, following a shooting (crime on its face), once a case reaches court, there are certain elements that must be proved for a shooting to be ruled "justified."

Under SYG, the elements required do not include a duty to retreat. Under Duty to Retreat, the elements require DO include a duty to retreat. So, it is easier under SYG to rule a shooting justified, because one of the required elements is removed.

That's it. Nothing to do with the decision, nothing to do with a barrier to ACT, the quote was about justification. I've repeated this in my last several posts, never once talking about the decision to act, and you keep returning to it.

Maybe a question would work better.

In your opinion, following a shooting, once under examination by a court, which requires more elements to prove the shooting was justified, SYG or Duty to Retreat?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Maybe a question would work better.

In your opinion, following a shooting, once under examination by a court, which requires more elements to prove the shooting was justified, SYG or Duty to Retreat?

Phooey. The question is preposterous. it's irrelevant and assumes facts not in evidence.

Your premise is that the duty to retreat moderates behavior, so a SYG law removes that moderating element and thus changes behavior. And your question assume that premise is true.

But you've provided no evidence that your premise is true, and in fact I reject it.

More importantly, Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at UCLA, rejects it and discusses his analyses here and here.

And consider that Professor Volokh publishes his opinions under his name -- staking his professional position on those opinions -- and backs up those opinions with both his background and authority. On the other hand you publish your conjectures anonymously without supporting authority.

...Nothing to do with the decision, nothing to do with a barrier to ACT,...

Phooey again. What you in fact said, in post 91, was:

...But, there has been a lot of research (I think I reference it earlier in this thread) that people who perceive violence or aggression to be justified or allowable are more likely to act aggressively or violently.

Without question, stand your ground expands when violence/aggression is justified by removing barriers (duty to flee)...

That has everything to do with the decision to act.