Misinformed Attacks on ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws
The debate over violence in the name of self-defense has been going on since well before some of today’s “expert” media analysts grew out of short pants. Bernie Goetz became a household name all across America in 1984, when he opened fire on some gangsters attempting to rob him with a sharpened screwdriver. For the record, New York did not then — and does not today — have any sort of a stand your ground law. And yet, following a trial which was the biggest media spectacle of its time until O.J. Simpson, Goetz was convicted on only a charge of having an unlicensed firearm.
So have these laws helped or hurt society? On the whole, I still maintain that they act as a force for the greater good. Can they be abused by those with evil intent or incompetent, dishonest law enforcement officers? Yes, but then so can most laws which are passed with beneficial intent. And they are sometimes abused more by actual criminals than police officers or victims. Take, for example, the case of Carl England, whose son Jacob is in the news for another spree of violence in Oklahoma. When a robber entered his home, he came after the intruder with a stick. The thief responded by shooting him and was later let off on the charge based on a stand your ground type of defense, saying he felt “threatened” by England.
There will always be cases where clever people with savvy attorneys will find ways to abuse the law for their own benefit, but that doesn’t mean we should throw the handguns out with the bathwater. It’s far too cavalier to make simplistic claims about an armed society being a polite society when discussing tragic cases such as these, but a free, open society will always include some criminal elements. It’s just part of the nature of man, sadly. But free people also need to be assured of the right to defend themselves on an even playing field if they choose to do so. Our real responsibility is to ensure that law enforcement has the tools and the training to weed out the bad guys from the innocent citizens when cases such as these arise.
Also read John Lott’s “More Guns, Less Crime.” Wherever gun laws are most strict, crime rates soar. Where there are stronger 2nd Amendment rights such as concealed carry, etc., crime rates are lower, especially violent crime rates.
The facts are as obvious as Kim Kardasian’s butt in a tube dress.
But whenever there is a random shooting incident that makes headlines, the leftists scramble to get in front of a microphone in order to scream for more gun control. It’s not reducing crime, it’s about increasing government control over we, the bitter clingers.
Exactly, gun control is not about GUNS, it’s about CONTROL.
You say when discussing the “second narrative”
“Martin attacks him, pins him to the ground, punches him, and begins smashing George’s head into the turf. ”
This is not right — George fell onto the grass (or turf) in such a way that his head was on the pavement, with Martin repeatedly smashing it into the pavement. This is a crucial detail because it is the main circumstance that makes Martin’s attack life-threatening.
wondering about those guns out there and the left..and trayvon , george zimmerman case.
…there was a mom killed yesterday in texas, and her baby stolen…mom was white, killer was black..WHERE THE HELL IS THE UPROAR?
Is it only blacks that get all the coverage???? the riots that will go on?..
…Where is the outrage among blacks??..oh wait, the KILLER was black so it’s okay…go about your business whitie..
I’ve long wondered why everyone keeps referring to Trayvon as “unarmed.” Based on the reports I’ve seen it looks like Trayvon was busy trying to kill Zimmerman using the entire planet.
Another scenario, which would be based on SYG is that Zimmerman went after Martin, lost him, and was returning to his vehicle. Martin had circled around and the scuffle ensued wherin Martin was shot. A caveat to this scenario is that Martin saw Zimmerman’s gun and was going for it, leaving Zimmerman no choice but to draw and fire.
It is sad that the media is made up mostly of people who have no ability to think without letting emotion rule any rational or intelligent thought. Jazz is correct in that those either not intelligent enough or with hidden agendas are too quick to call something an epidemic or to ban it due to a perception. The media is quick to try and point out the few cases in the negative that may be due to the stand your ground laws but neglect to even mention the number of innocent lives that are saved and protected due to such self defense laws. This is analogous to wanting to ban airbags due to the limited number of deaths actually CAUSED by airbags each year. Yes, this is fact, in rare circumstances death is caused by an airbag rather than prevented. This was especially epidemic in the early years of airbag design. The death rates “skyrocketed” because there being no deaths due to airbags when there were no airbags in vehicles. Of course the death rate skyrocketed, duh. But if you let the media with an agenda spin the story I am certain they could make airbags seem evil through selective omission of information to fit their agenda just as they are doing with self defense laws.
Actually, I would like not to have to ride around with several small bombs in my car, thank you very much!
And you should have the right to choose not to! Not have someone else tell you what is good for you. As I should be able to have the option to have them in my vehicle if I so choose.
Sometimes dear friends, its not only a matter of what the law “allows” you do do, or not due…. its a matter of what common sense (should) tell you is simply not worth the risk.
Putting yourself into grave danger, for no GOOD purpose, with no possible GOOD outcome, is always a bad bet.
Zimmerman, in getting OUT of his car under those circumstances, commited an act of sheer stupidity that any reasonable, responsible, Armed Citizen would have realized, and not done.
By getting out on foot to “follow” a “suspicious” person, Zimmerman rolled a three-side dice.
They are:
Side 1- You scare the daylights out of an innocent person…who then complains to the responding police. You then have to “expain” yourself, and risk your CCW permit for being an irresponsible busy-body following people around WITH A GUN. Even worse, you might cause them to take a defensive posture out fear: You ARE dressed down in regular street clothes right? No Blue Blazer with prominant “security” embroidered on the breast right? What WOULD an innocent person think of you following them, and how MIGHT they react?
A Responsible Armed Citizen, who already has the police on the line, would consider such obvious negative consequences (and a complete lack of anythig positive to counterbalance them), and not get out of their car.
Side 2- The “Suspicious Person” you saw really IS a punk, and getting out of your car and walking on foot NOW GIVES HIM THE OPPORTUNITY to act like one. He confronts YOU, on foot, and now you cant just drive away. Instead of a soda can thrown at your car, now you are risking a punch thrown at your face…and a potential struggle over your concealed weapon.
A Responsible Armed Citizen, who already has the police on the line, would consider such obvious negative consequences (and a complete lack of anythig positive to counterbalance them), and not get out of their car.
Side 3 – You get out of the car, and nothing happens…Nothing at all…then you go home.
Getting out of the car is: Lose, Lose, or nothing.
There is no possible “win” in getting out of the car under those circumstances. Period.
Its like a child darting out into the street from between parked cars without looking. No possible GOOD can come from that act. The best you can hope for is the ABSENCE of a catastrophy. And you simply dont risk one, if the mere avoidence of one, is the only “prise” that can be won.
Which is why the dispatcher said, in a polite “I’m being recorded” sense of self censure: “you dont have to do that”
When the honest response would have been ” Jackass! Are you stooopid!”
And one more thing. Every Armed Citizen must realize, the State does not WANT you to be armed. They allow it grudgingly, under protest, and will do whatever they can to make an Armed Citizens life difficult. The State and the Police are NOT your allies. They are enemies, or they are neutral. They are never, ever, your friend.
They ARE WAITING TO ENTRAP YOU, in the slightest snafu or honest mistake.
So dont MAKE them when you can AVOID them.
Zimmermand conduct outside the vehicle was textbook, 101 “what NOT to do, when Armed”
And he is now screwed for life. They will twist whatever law they can to make him pay for being foolishly irresponsible in his “tactics”.
How any reasonably intelligent man couldnt see this comming, I’ll never understand.
My Apoligies PJM’s for spelling errors, and length.
“Prise” is Pize, and such.
I’ve been a Firearms Instructor for 30+ years.
Some things are just SO painfully obvious, they drive me nuts when they happen.
Children and wood-chippers, cigarettes and gasoline, juggling knives and “planking” on top of cell phone towers all have the same “odds of a good outcome” as what Zimmerman did.
That is to say, a tragedy might NOT occur, but….
Root83: I understand your case and I respect your experience. I’ll even agree that Zimmerman’s actions were not examples of good judgement. But I do not see how the actions that he took leading up to this incident were actually illegal.
And once he and Martin got in to an altercation, his options really did go down to self defense. Yes, he failed to leave a back door open for getting away from this situation. I’ll bet even you make mistakes like this and don’t realize it until after the fact.
We’re human and we do not always do things while thinking three steps ahead.
Just as airline pilots make mistakes, so too do those with legitimate needs for self defense. If you wish to make the case that what Zimmerman did should have been illegal, then I think an awful lot of people, including you and me, would go to prison.
No, you are right.
I never said it was illegal. Or that it should be. It was just stupid.
Like watching a friend put a gun to their head to check the safety…
Makes you re-iterate, out of frustration and anger, the fundamental basics we all should know to avoid another senseless tragedy.
He’s getting a raw deal, no doubt.
And like I said before, you just HAVE to see this kind of thing coming, when you consider chasing down a punk on foot, who is otherwise NOT threatening you.
No good could have come from that. Fair or unfair, bad was the ONLY possible outcome of getting out of your car. That you didnt “want” what happened to occur will not be forgiven by anyone who has a say in the adjudication of things.
A SMART armed citizen looks ahead at what dishonest people will most likely do…like sucker punch you…or prosecute you because they CAN…and take steps to avoid it.
If you think these things dont matter, as long as ‘your heart was in the right place”, ask George Zimmerman how well thats working out right now.
No one could gainsay anything you’ve presented. It’s common sense and reality that applies in any civilized society. However, the “rules of engagement” are about to take a drastic and ugly turn, and our formerly free civil society is about to become anything but. This spring and into the summer, we will be dealing with those who will, in effect, sweep the game pieces off the board and overturn the table.
I will defend myself, my family and my property, and that rule of self-defense extends to those who will attempt to arrest me for doing so. It has come to that.
At some point Root you have surrender your freedom to do anything but sit at home behind an unlocked door shivering in fear. George had every right to get out of his vehicle unless your saying he wasn’t allowed to exit his car in his own neighborhood. perhaps when crime happens and your being robbed or beaten it’s your fault for being there so you are the problem and you must leave while the perp. hoods and punks stay.
That’s called surrendering to the crooks. We might just as well leave our doors unlocked so the animals might have an easier time stealing from us. In that case why have anything at all since that attracts the criminals and is causing the crime.
It’s likely Turyevon would have attacked George Zimmerman even had he remained in his car, perhaps even followed him home and attacked him when he was going in his house at least treyevon would have marked the Zimmerman car and house for some burglary or vandalism all because George followed him.
So your solution is to stay at home and if crime comes your way move to some where else. That’s neat! I hope you can afford to do that as many times as it takes to be safe.
The problem is that bullies think that they are winning if you back down. And many minority youth play at being a thug (ie a bully). If you do not stand up to them, they keep coming.
Now from what I have read, Zimmerman did back off and went back to his car. Trayvon attacked him at the car. Zimmerman was not carrying a gun but had it in the car. Thus it appears that Zimmerman was not stalking Trayvon but the other way around.
This is a very well written article, which, oddly enough, is NOT about George Zimmerman, and whether or not he was justified or stupid.
It’s a very good thing that we have “stand your ground” laws. We need more of them. (New Jersey and New York come to mind.)
But it’s a sad thing that we need a specific law to prevent the cowards among us from forcing institutional cowardice on all of us.
Remember the farmer in Britain who’s life was turned into a prison sentence and otherwise turned upside-down because he shot two morons who broke into his house. The survivor subsequently sued the farmer. We don’t need to coddle criminals in the name of being more civilized. In fact it makes us more uncivilized to embolden criminals.
Today, Hitler would’ve sued everyone over the Sudetenland, while he invaded.
We’ve done it here too. At least one (possibly two) ranchers have lost their ranches to illegals who were caught trespassing on the ranchowners land. There are these kinds of cases in every western country. It seems that common sense is what has been lost over the years.
As a UK resident I remember that case well! What was even more astonishing(and outrageous!) was his being refused parole on the grounds that he was “a danger to burglars”. Thankfully, the courts in Britain are starting to be more sensible when it comes to dealing with cases of that ilk. But what was astonishing about the original case was the prosecution’s argument that since the young man who was killed was leaving the scene at the time Tony Martin was in no danger. Did that learned(?) lawyer seriously believe that the farmer had night vision capability?
Alas, whatever rights we had in that respect have been taken away just because a crazy gunman shot dead 15 kids and an unholy alliance between concerned citizents and a grubby tabloid whose stock in trade is exposing bare female breasts on its inside pages whipped up voters’ opiniion to elect a compliant government. Add to that the largely urban character of our Britsih police and their frequent ignorance about matters rural, many a gun licence holdre has been waylaid when engaged in nothing worse than pest control. No wonder a Tory MP said he now felt what it was like to be a Jew in Hitler’s Germany.
I just read somewhere that there was a “Code of ETHICS” for journalists! No doubt it has dissolved in a septic tank long ago. The same place where they are sending the Constitution.
If it weren’t for the “Stand Your Ground” statute, criminals would use “Higher Ground” ritual on their victims.
But, I can see where, a midget tourist from Sweden gets lost in the ghetto, and is approached by 5 surly black youths who are going to “give him directions”, could ABUSE the “Stand Your Ground” statute, and cause fatal wounds to these “neighborhood watch members”.
We MUST legislate against this possibility before it becomes a headline. That’s what our “lawmakers” are there for.
Up until the invention of the first firearm people have been defending themselves quite well. folks have done better at defending from assault since then.
I just read where a 97 year old Japanese man attacked someone with a Samurai sword.
In England guns are outlawed yet gun crime exists, to fix that knives were banned, yet folks keep killing each other with knives, knob kerrie have long been illegal and it’s just a walking stick. so the good folks in charge said well, now it’s against the law to defend your self. Yup, that will work.
this is where the US government is going, to make it illegal to resist rape, robbery and murder. After all if you do not defend there won’t be a crime.
How damned stupid do these security guarded bunch of assholes have to be?
I am going to use this as a forum for my case: if you are going to carry a firearm, which I do legally, carry a non- lethal backup. Pepper spray costs about $10, not much more for a taser. That way you can use deadly force only as a last resort.
Right.
Legislature in the pipeline;
1. Victim has to utter “Please; Don’t hurt me or my family.
2. Pepper spray MUST be used next.
3. A registered “taser” must be utilized next.
4. Attacker MUST be notified that the POLICE have been summoned. (They’re not really on the way yet.)
5. You must warn the attacker that you have a DEADLY WEAPON and INTEND TO USE IT ON THEM.
6. You are only permitted to use your “deadly force” in the appropriate manner commensurate with the threat from the attacker(s).
7. If you make a mess, you are responsible for the complete expense of the clean up.
8. You WILL be taxed for any incidents under this statute, plus serve a minimal jail sentence for even thinking about VIOLENCE, and WILL BE SUED BY THE RELATIVES AND ALL SURVIVORS OF THE ATTACKERS FAMILY.
God bless America, etc. etc. etc.
Bless your little heart, Cybergeezer! While you’re tiptoeing through your Rube Goldberg escalation scheme, the Bad Guy will gut shoot you, take your goodies, rape your wife, molest your kids, and, if he is quick enough, do you too, while you scream in agony and beg for death.Self defense routines hatched by amateurs are worthles because they do not conform to reality.
If someone jumps me, I have a right to protect myself and/or my property. I don’t have to retreat. I don’t have to do any of the silly things you list. In fact, the sooner I waste the worthless bastard, the better off everyone is.
Like, duh, man. (cough, snort). Like duh?
Good thinking. You have more sense than most.
One part of this discussion missing from the essay and comments:
JUDICIAL SYSTEM.
After;
The judicial system takes over. This is where the FACTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL INCIDENT ARE examined to determine if any “ABUSE” of this law has been committed.
There is STILL a JUDICIAL SYSTEM in the United States, even though it has been corrupted and denigrated by government officials, the media, and special interest groups, with the sole intent of using it for their own enrichment and agenda.
The race pimps appeal to black Americans who will never feel safe until they are on the veranda and whites are in the fields. Nothing else will suffice. Their ancestors were owned by whites and it’s only fair that whites be ‘owned’, at least figuratively, by blacks.
Eddy;
Yo!
U so crazy!