Shooting of Trayvon Martin

[EmperorNorton]

There's been a similar incident in Flagler Beach, a town nearby where I used to live.

http://flaglerlive.com/35683/miller-mulhall-murder
http://flaglerlive.com/35712/mulhall-shooting-murder
http://flaglerlive.com/35859/paul-miller-911-call

[Enoch the Red]

Sorry, but a law should take into account how it will be enforced by the police and juries. Any kind of law that regularly leads to these kind of outcomes is incredibly flawed. Why would anyone think that the proper first response to being threatened is be to escalate the dispute by pulling a weapon?

I'm not sure that it's the law itself that are leading to these outcomes. People carrying weapons on and off their property is nothing new, likewise, the misuse, (either accidental or intentional) of firearms is also not new. I personally have no problems with laws that codifies legitimate self defense, but I would want it constructed in such a way where flagrant violations/provocations are not covered. This isn't a question in my mind of whether or not it is just to be able to defend yourself beyond the walls of your home, rather how best to design a law that will allow that without legalizing incidents like this.

[Ominous Gamer]

Sorry, but a law should take into account how it will be enforced by the police and juries. Any kind of law that regularly leads to these kind of outcomes is incredibly flawed. Why would anyone think that the proper first response to being threatened is to escalate the dispute by pulling a weapon?

the entire idea behind syg encourages brute force over rational thought, and as we can see in this case, further encourages use of deadly force to remove a possible conflicting story

there are already laws and guidelines that protect the use of self defense, syg laws are unneeded, how did anyone not see these cases coming?

[Enoch the Red]

the entire idea behind syg encourages brute force over rational thought, and as we can see in this case, further encourages use of deadly force to remove a possible conflicting story

there are already laws and guidelines that protect the use of self defense, syg laws are unneeded, how did anyone not see these cases coming?

Those guidelines are far from perfect, and it's my understanding that they often rely more on the discretion of the local DA than the letter of the law.

[Loki]

Those guidelines are far from perfect, and it's my understanding that they often rely more on the descretion of the local DA than the letter of the law.

Again, something that was predictable ahead of time. Please tell me why you think it's a good idea in principle (forget the implementation) to make it legal for someone to respond to a threat by pulling a weapon instead of first trying to flee.

[Aimless]

Being a law-n00b I can't help but wonder if this law basically means that both parties in a violentish conflict can go for the kill and then the winner can justifiably claim that it was in self defense, ie. the law only affords protection to the one who gets to live so if Trayvon had killed Zimmermann by running away at him then Trayvon would have gotten off the hook. Or something. Bizarre that if you remove the duty to run you end up somehow justifying the non-duty to run after.

[RandBlade]

Again, something that was predictable ahead of time. Please tell me why you think it's a good idea in principle (forget the implementation) to make it legal for someone to respond to a threat by pulling a weapon instead of first trying to flee.

Because you turn your back to someone and try and flee and you are in immense danger. How many get murdered/raped etc trying to do just that.

Not saying that this law is right (I believe in gun control). But I can see the logic of the law.

[Loki]

Because you turn your back to someone and try and flee and you are in immense danger. How many get murdered/raped etc trying to do just that.

Not saying that this law is right (I believe in gun control). But I can see the logic of the law.

Actually, you have a far higher chance of being murdered/raped if you stay and fight instead of running for it. Even when you take martial arts, you're told that if you're getting robbed, your first response should be to give the robber whatever they ask for, and if you're getting attacked, to run away. Only if your escape path is blocked should you try to fight.

[RandBlade]

Actually, you have a far higher chance of being murdered/raped if you stay and fight instead of running for it. Even when you take martial arts, you're told that if you're getting robbed, your first response should be to give the robber whatever they ask for, and if you're getting attacked, to run away. Only if your escape path is blocked should you try to fight.

And who defines if the escape path is blocked?

I can see the logic in wanting to give the victim that choice.

[Aimless]

Er if the scene of the crime is still on earth then, through careful investigation and a detailed account of the event, my baby sisters can help decide if the escape path was blocked or not

[Loki]

And who defines if the escape path is blocked?

I can see the logic in wanting to give the victim that choice.

The courts, using the standard of a "reasonable person". It's common sense in most cases. If you have one or two guys in front of you and they want more than money, you make a run for it. If they're catching up, then take out your weapon. If they continue chasing you, shoot them. Shooting shouldn't be the first response unless the other party already has a weapon out and pointed at you.

[Ominous Gamer]

they often rely more on the descretion of the local DA than the letter of the law.

Source? especially curious compared to syg laws

[CitizenCain]

Those guidelines are far from perfect, and it's my understanding that they often rely more on the descretion of the local DA than the letter of the law.

And more to the point, they've resulted in people being sent to jail for legitimate cases of self-defense, which is where the public support for SYG and castle doctrine and all that shit come from in the first place.

So, really, the reason this law exists is all the moron hippies who've previously tried (with some "success") to create and enforce unreasonable limitations on the use of physical force in self-defense.

Even with that in mind, on this specific case, it almost seems like the cops are deliberately sabotaging the case to try to score points against a law they don't like. Based on his 911 call, a retarded ape could make a chargeable case against the guy for 1st degree murder, so even a Florida police department should be able to as well, especially now that they've got the feds helping out.

[LittleFuzzy]

and it's my understanding that they often rely more on the discretion of the local DA than the letter of the law.

That's something I like. I grant I'm not thrilled about it being the decision of the DA's, whose judgement is warped by the need to get elected and who consequently are always running campaigns "against crime," but human elements moderating the application of law, which by its nature has little to no flexibility in the face of context, are an absolutely necessary part of the system, IMO. And the sooner they get involved in the process the better.

[Aimless]

Cain brings up an important point, namely that through this law dozens of people are avoiding serious jail time (not to mention all the stuff leading up to the jail time). The social benefits must be enormous

[Wraith]

Better an innocent man go to jail than a guilty man go free.

[Aimless]

Better an innocent man go to jail than a guilty man go free.

I'm serious though. Of course my informal calculations (= nonexistant) may be off, but I get the impression that it's cheaper to let these people off the hook.

Btw, I take it this law doesn't apply to burglars and toothpaste-thieves?

[Ominous Gamer]

Btw, I take it this law doesn't apply to burglars and toothpaste-thieves?

AFAIK, the wording of the law doesn't include context in this matter, so if you chase down a thief and he fights back, you are clear to murder said thief; and if you chase down a thief and the thief fears for his life because of the beatdown you are delivering, he would be cleared as well.
Thats why these syg laws are so flawed, its winner take all.

[Wraith]

I'm serious though. Of course my informal calculations (= nonexistant) may be off, but I get the impression that it's cheaper to let these people off the hook.

Btw, I take it this law doesn't apply to burglars and toothpaste-thieves?

I'm in Ghost's camp on this law. I don't disagree with the principle, but if this is consistently being used as an effective shield in cases like Zimmerman's, then the implementation is flawed. You shouldn't be allowed to start a conflict, and then shoot the guy because you think he might fight back.

Also, I'm still not fully convinced that the law is really to blame here. I know that's the popular scapegoat on the internet, but with all the allegations that the police department are suppressing evidence, with the department claiming there were no witnesses when there are recorded 9/11 calls of witnesses being close enough to the scene that you can hear what's happening in the background while they're giving a play-by-play, this looks more like a problem with the police department than anything else.

[earthJoker]

Better an innocent man go to jail than a guilty man go free.

in dubio contra reo?

[Loki]

I'm in Ghost's camp on this law. I don't disagree with the principle, but if this is consistently being used as an effective shield in cases like Zimmerman's, then the implementation is flawed. You shouldn't be allowed to start a conflict, and then shoot the guy because you think he might fight back.

Also, I'm still not fully convinced that the law is really to blame here. I know that's the popular scapegoat on the internet, but with all the allegations that the police department are suppressing evidence, with the department claiming there were no witnesses when there are recorded 9/11 calls of witnesses being close enough to the scene that you can hear what's happening in the background while they're giving a play-by-play, this looks more like a problem with the police department than anything else.

You think it's a coincidence that the number of killings that don't lead to charges tripled since the law was passed?

[Aimless]

You think it's a coincidence that the number of killings that don't lead to charges tripled since the law was passed?

Hang on, did the number of killings also triple or are we just talking about killings being relabeled?

[Loki]

Hang on, did the number of killings also triple or are we just talking about killings being relabeled?

No, the murder rate is about the same. The amount of homicides that are considered justified tripled (from 13 to 39 a year).

[Steely Glint]

I'm in Ghost's camp on this law. I don't disagree with the principle, but if this is consistently being used as an effective shield in cases like Zimmerman's, then the implementation is flawed. You shouldn't be allowed to start a conflict, and then shoot the guy because you think he might fight back.

Also, I'm still not fully convinced that the law is really to blame here. I know that's the popular scapegoat on the internet, but with all the allegations that the police department are suppressing evidence, with the department claiming there were no witnesses when there are recorded 9/11 calls of witnesses being close enough to the scene that you can hear what's happening in the background while they're giving a play-by-play, this looks more like a problem with the police department than anything else.

There are other cases (marginally) less outrageous than this that highlight the flaws in this law, like that skateboard one.

I don't really know what principle is represented by stand your ground laws that couldn't equally well be fulfilled by adequate self-defense laws. If the current laws are as flawed as Cain said - and he didn't provide any examples - then the answer is in fact to have better self-defense laws, not a law that apprantly gives you carte blanche to blast away at anyone who looks at you funny.

[Khendraja'aro]

I'll be giving Florida a wide berth should I visit the US. Don't want to get shot on a whim.

[Wraith]

There are other cases (marginally) less outrageous than this that highlight the flaws in this law, like that skateboard one.

The skateboard one isn't an example yet. Trying to use it as a defense doesn't count, it has to succeed before it does. The defense will always claim anything they can.

I don't really know what principle is represented by stand your ground laws that couldn't equally well be fulfilled by adequate self-defense laws. If the current laws are as flawed as Cain said - and he didn't provide any examples - then the answer is in fact to have better self-defense laws, not a law that apprantly gives you carte blanche to blast away at anyone who looks at you funny.

I don't think we're really in disagreement. SYG laws are supposed to simply be adequate self-defense laws. It's only supposed to allow self-defense in situations where it's necessary without being required to go through a checklist of actions that could get you killed. If the law winds up granting carte blanche to blast away at anyone who looks at you funny, that's an implementation problem. They're not supposed to do that, and the law needs to be fixed if it does.

[Loki]

Except any stand your ground law lets you blast away the second you feel threatened, regardless of the options available to you.

[Steely Glint]

The skateboard one isn't an example yet. Trying to use it as a defense doesn't count, it has to succeed before it does. The defense will always claim anything they can.

Not necessarily- if the skateboard guy felt emboldened to act as he did because of the Stand your Ground law, then that's a problem irregardless of how the case eventually turns out.

[Khendraja'aro]

I'm not quite sure why you even need a SYG law in the first place. The "normal" self-defense laws pretty much cover all the reasonable bases.

And if you think that those self-defense laws require you to go through a "check list" then I'm not quite sure if you're thinking straight there, Wraith.

Or has the US sunk that far into anarchy and barbarism already that you cannot enforce the law through the usual means anymore? In that case, there's far more things wrong with your country than this SYG law - that's just a symptom.

[RandBlade]

Er if the scene of the crime is still on earth then, through careful investigation and a detailed account of the event, my baby sisters can help decide if the escape path was blocked or not

Because in a snap judgement, flight or fight scenario, a "thorough careful investigation and a detailed account of the event" is what happens before deciding.