Last night I was on Countdown discussing Florida’s “stand your ground law” and the recent shooting case of the Trayvon Martin case. We discussed yesterday’s ruling in the the case of Greyston Garcia and the dangerous ambiguity created by these laws. The second-degree murder charges against Garcia were thrown out by a Florida judge under the Stand Your Ground law despite the fact that he did not just stand his ground, but ran after a man who tried to steal his car radio and proceeded to stab the unarmed man to death.
As discussed previously, I have been a long critic of these laws and the earlier Castle Doctrine or “Make My Day” laws. These laws address a problem that does not exist. There are ample protections under the common law for individuals to use the privilege of self-defense, including reasonable mistaken self-defense. As I noted last night, I find it a bit maddening to hear Florida legislators now claim to have never anticipated abuses under these laws. Critics like myself have been vocal about the potential for abuse under these laws for years. Legislators have ignored those warnings because of the popularity of these laws.
The problem with both “Make My Day laws” (applying to the home) and “Stand Your Ground laws” (applying in “other places”) is that they facilitate or enable those who are inclined to use lethal force. The Horn case out of Texas is such an example where, as with Zimmerman, Joe Horn ignored instructions not to confront the suspects. Even cases that bordering on executions have been found protected under such laws.
In the latest case, Garcia, 25, saw Pedro Roteta, 26, trying to steal the radio from his truck outside Garcia’s Miami apartment. He grabbed a large knife and chased the unarmed Roteta down the street and proceeded to stab him to death. This week, the state judge threw out the charges under the state’s “stand your ground” law.
Legislators are now feigning complete shock at the potential for abuse under these laws after refusing to consider the warnings of critics in passing these laws. It is important to keep in mind however that it is not simply the “Stand Your Ground” law. That law is the latest variation of laws that began with the “Castle Doctrine” or “Make My Day” laws and then mutated into the “Make My Day Better” laws and “Stand Your Ground” laws. Each has a catchy title and popular theme — supporting people who fight off felons. Their titles capture the impulse buy nature of these laws where legislators vote without concern for the implications of injecting ambiguous standards into cases involving the use of lethal force. Consider the language of the Florida law:
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.
The law reads like a stump speech where soundbites become elements of a criminal defense. Judges as in the Garcia case are left applying a standard of “meet[ing] force with force” and “stand[ing] his or her ground.” The result is soundbite justice — lacking depth or substance.
Source: NPR
If you want to have a reason to kill someone easy to presume they want to kill you so shoot first ask questions later.
“Wielding a gun increases a person’s bias to see guns in the hands of others, new research from the University of Notre Dame shows.”
exerpt from article:
“One reason we supposed that wielding a firearm might influence object categorization stems from previous research in this area, which argues that people perceive the spatial properties of their surrounding environment in terms of their ability to perform an intended action,” Brockmole says.
For example, other research has shown that people with broader shoulders tend to perceive doorways to be narrower, and softball players with higher batting averages perceive the ball to be bigger. The blending of perception and action representations could explain, in part, why people holding a gun would tend to assume others are, too.
“In addition to the theoretical implications for event perception and object identification, these findings have practical implications for law enforcement and public safety,” Brockmole says.”
http://newsinfo.nd.edu/news/29684-holding-a-gun-makes-you-think-others-are-too-new-research-shows/
I thought I had heard this line, in maybe a civics class,, In American our law is innocent until proven guilty. Guess I misheard.
RC. great post I have started saying the repubs are the party of me, the dems the party of we.
Did Trayvon have any less right to stand his ground? Just because he is alive to give his statement shouldn’t be sufficient to get Zimmerman off the hook. Even the police don’t have an absolute right to use deadly force. Leave that to the trained professionals please. Just because you’re licensed to carry doesn’t mean you have sound judgment. Horn shot a man in the back for stealing his neighbor’s t.v. Whose ground? Don’t assume that I would want the same. I don’t. wwJd?
Mr Turley, sure looks like the judge made a mistake and stretched the law to cover something it shouldn’t.
that or someone shoots another for cutting in line.
What’s wrong with this picture? Well, why don’t we start with one of the basic premises underlying the social compact, that individuals do not retain the right to serve as prosecutors, jurors and executioners in their own case. The Florida law is one giant leap toward restoring us to the state of nature.
bettykath, I am as dense as you I suppose. Anyone explain how your eyes seeing someone fleeing can possibly be a mortal danger to your life?
“The only problem I have with Texas law is that it allows deadly force to be used if the neighborhood kids TP somebodys house at night. THAT needs to be changed.” A.R.E.
The law will only be changed when some young, blond cheerleaders are bloody and dying.
Since when is defending ones’ self a ‘privilege’?
Arthur Randolph Erb
Your attempt at reductio ad absurdum fails.
“From your comments it appears that you would disarm the cops too since they might shoot a felon whose crime does not carry the death penalty. You would also object to having armed guards around the perimeter of a prison, since escape does NOT carry the death penalty too. Then we can move on to the idea of getting rid of armoured cars and armed guards for transporting valueables since stealing such things does not carry the death penalty. So absent anything other than murder, there is no reason for guns in law enforcement or self defense.”
Cops presumably aren’t carrying guns to murder shoplifters, even for felony shoplifting. Hopefully, they’re carrying guns to protect themselves and other citizens from physical harm.
Prison guards are armed to protect themselves, and to protect the public from the escape of convicted felons. Convicted felons.
An armored car guard would face harsh scrutiny for killing an unarmed person who grabbed a bag of money and ran. The guns are for defense of the guards. Those who rob armored cars are usually heavily armed.
All of these examples involve professionals, who presumably have been trained in the justifiable use of deadly force. Of course there are abuses.
The Florida law can be interpreted to allow untrained civilians to remedy a perceived offense by killing an unarmed offender.
No connection, whatsoever, to your examples.
Very well said rc…..
Rc great post. you all lived it. can’t judge from here. good luck.
Here comes Obama, in balance.
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/03/obama-i-had-a-son-hed-look-like-trayvon-118439.html
but refrained from impeding the process or tainting it with race questions.
Glad to see it.
An excellent segment with Ben Jealous and Amy Goodman, which addresses “Stand Your Ground” laws:
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/22/naacps_ben_jealous_justice_for_trayvon
March 22, 2012
NAACP’s Ben Jealous: Justice for Trayvon Martin Begins with Killer’s Arrest, Police Chief’s Ouster
rcampbell,
Well said … as usual … and further proof that we are not completely lost, for in the climate that rcampbel describes there are still millions of us who recognize the error of our ways and accept the responsibility of working for change.
JT did some of that work on Countdown last night. Thank you.
Disgusting result in Florida. This stand your ground law is simply an excuse to kill at will.
rcampbell,
Let me echo what others have stated. Great post!
rc,
I’ll have to echo those sentiments of others; that was a damn fine post. Well played.
@ Arthur Randolph Erb
The objection is to J Random Civilian having a free pass to kill someone who is not an immediate threat to their life or physical safety.
Zimmerman appears to be a fantasist with a vigilante streak. It’s bad enough that gun laws allow morons like that to own, let alone carry, firearms. Giving them the benefit of the doubt when their crazed world view leads them to kill someone is absolute madness.
Responses should be proportionate.
rcampbell:
Good work.
“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.”
I guess I’m really dense. How is someone running away, with or without booty, a threat of death or great bodily harm? How is stealing a car radio a forcible felony? How is chasing someone down the street “standing his or her ground”? How is using a gun or a knife on someone who is unarmed “meeting force with force”?
Sorry, have to vomit.