‘Stand Your Ground Laws’: An Unfortunate Necessity
For many years, there has been a presumption in most states that if you are outside your home, you should retreat rather than use deadly force. I understand why most states have this requirement. The concern was that two hotheads might escalate what should have been harsh words into something far more tragic. It has happened before. It will happen again.
The NRA has been persuading states to pass what is popularly called a “stand your ground” law, which changes this presumption. You are not obligated to retreat rather than use deadly force if you are obeying the law, minding your own business, and attacked.
I confess that while I like the theory on this, I still cringe. In a reasonably civilized society (like America used to be, before it became sophisticated and liberated from its narrow-minded Christian roots), if you have to retreat once or twice in a lifetime from some obnoxious jerk, it’s not that big of a deal. The fabric of the society isn’t going to collapse because you had to put up with some harsh language or even some shoving.
Taking away the obligation to retreat in public when you have that option pretty well guarantees that someone is going to get shot and killed. Likely as not, it is going to be some testosterone-poisoned teenage or young adult male. There’s a chance that he will remain an obnoxious punk and get himself killed in a bar fight. There’s also a good chance that in a few more years this obnoxious punk will get married, settle down, raise a family, and turn into a responsible adult. As Clint Eastwood says in Unforgiven: “It’s a helluva’ thing when you kill a man. You take away everything he’s got … and everything he’s ever gonna have.” If you have to kill someone in self-defense against death, great bodily injury, or the threat of either, that’s unfortunate, but your attacker made the decision that your life is worth less than your wallet or the joy of beating you to a pulp. The aggressor thus forfeits his own life by the standard that he applied to yours.
In a civilized society, it should not be a common event that you have to retreat in a public place to avoid using deadly force. In America today, that is not the situation. Once bullies and thugs become common, requiring peaceable people to retreat empowers the bullies — and most of them don’t need encouragement. There’s a social cost that regrettably makes it necessary to change the rules — and put some fear into the bullies. And sometimes, it means that someone who might grow up into a decent adult ends up dead.
There was just an incident in Florida where, under the old standard, the shooter might well have had to defend himself against manslaughter charges. But because Florida has adopted a “stand your ground” law, he won’t be going to trial. This seems to be almost exactly the set of facts that I would want to see in every “stand your ground” case.
A 49-year-old man named Charles Podany had been concerned about speeders in his residential neighborhood. He was out bicycling and asked a man in a pickup truck to slow down. The driver, Evin Aguayo, took the request well. Someone else did not:
The encounter turned deadly after the driver’s drunken friend began beating Podany, 49. As Casey Landes, 24, landed on top of Podany and readied his fist to strike again, Podany shot him in the head with a .40-caliber Glock.
Startlingly, Aguayo’s statement guaranteed that Podany would not be tried for the death of Landes, Aguayo’s best friend.
Aguayo, 21, told investigators that Landes was the aggressor in the confrontation and that Podany never hit back.
“You never saw (Mr. Podany) take a swing at him?” a sheriff’s detective asked Aguayo.
“Never,” Aguayo responded, adding, “Not one time. Not one single swing.”
There was a large discrepancy in size and strength. Landes was 24 years old, 6’1” and 192 pounds; Podany was 49, 5’8” and 180 pounds. Even better for Podany, Aguayo described Landes’ stated goal: “Aguayo told deputies his friend thought it was ‘cool to beat up an old man.’” Landes was also very drunk (0.28 percent blood alcohol level) and had a prior conviction for aggravated battery three years ago, as well as other arrests that had not led to convictions. (I wish that I could say that Podany has a little halo and angel wings, but the article reports that Podany pleaded no contest to an aggravated assault with a weapon charge in 1999.) Still, at least as this story is reported, Landes is the sort of bully who needs to be afraid, not just for the benefit of Podany, but for others who might cross a bully like this.
I’m not happy about situations like this. I wish that Podany had the halo and angel wings that I want every gun owner to have. I wish that bullies like Landes could get some sense knocked into them by the age of 24, so that they didn’t think it was “cool to beat up an old man.” But in a society that has largely abandoned any effort to encourage civilized behavior, “stand your ground” laws seem to be an ugly but unavoidable necessity.
There have always been bullies but they were checked by others who would stand up to them. But the timidness and lack of discipline when they grew up have led to this thuggish nehavior.
More and more think because they are strong that they can impose their will and will beat the crap out of anyone who challenges them.
If this bully was willing to beat up an old man, he was willing to beat up a woman or his kids that challenge him.
I think that the Texas standard holds, “he need killing”.
Everyone has the right to defend themself,even with deadly force.
Ainsi soit-il, as the frogs would have it.
This pertains to the likes of Putin and Ahmadinajad on a larger scale.
Good luck widdat, America.
I think your last paragraph, second sentence, refers to Podany where it should say Landes.
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6
Lets rewind and start from the beginning. What is wrong with hotheads killing each other? Everybody dies. You don’t get out of life alive.
Hopefully those hot heads will kill one another before they breed. Eventually the genetic traits that lend themselves to ‘hotheadism’ will breed out.
If you are just looking to reduce violence levels in society, restore dueling. Creating a legal outlet for anything will reduce the illegal outlets for that thing. Whatever it is.
How sick is a society that murders unborn children yet won’t allow adults to settle their difference thru trial by combat? Murder has been mostly illegal for thousands of years. Doesn’t seem to have stopped it.
It is a fantasy shared by both liberal and conservative that passing a law will change something. It doesn’t, it just gives the Police another reason to arrest someone and the Judge another reason to incarcerate them.
The law does not go where enforcement cannot reach. When elected representatives pass law based on what fattens their offshore accounts as opposed to what their constituent desires, the Law becomes a matter of might makes right. Law must be just for it to be Law.
You write: I wish that bullies like Podany could get some sense knocked into them by the age of 24, so that they didn’t think it was “cool to beat up an old man.”
Shouldn’t this be Landes, not Podany?
When I was a kid in the 40′s adults counseled kids to stand up to bullies even if it meant a bloody nose. It was deemed the best way to deter bullying. Not ideal but no one has come up with a better way.
At this rate, we’ll bring back the Code Duello within a decade….
Oh, well, a dueling society is a polite society, and I did get my first rifle at 6 and my first pistol at 10….
“I wish that bullies like Podany could get some sense knocked into them by the age of 24, so that they didn’t think it was “cool to beat up an old man.”
Don’t you mean, “… bullies like Landes…”?
Gun advocates have been making the case for years that the mere sight of a firearm stops crime before it happens. On a geopolitical level the same concept is known as deterrence. The proper response to unprovoked aggression is a vigorous and overwhelming counter-response.
Contrast the above with the situation in Britain today where the victim is not allowed to strike back even in self-defense. The result has been a crime wave most especially in burglaries while the resident is still in the home. The Brits would have us believe this makes them more civilized. No, it’s merely decadent.
History tells us that when the Vandals arrived before Rome, the men of the city refused to man the walls. The populace was sold into slavery, the city looted and burned. It’s what you get every time when citizens refuse their basic obligation for self-defense. A man can stand on his feet or live under the boot. It’s a choice.
One does not need to take this to the extreme of deadly force to make the point. It starts long before that.
The author’s sheepish tentativeness in approaching this subject seems part of the problem. He is correct in defending basic common sense, but seems bit embarrassed to step forward and stand up for what is right.
This strikes me as the difference between males and men. America used to produce a lot more men. Nowadays, society seems to produce more males than men – males that in hiding behind notions of being ‘civilized’ or ‘enlightened’ or ‘tolerant’ are actually enabling a far more barbaric society.
In actuality, the code held up until the current generation makes for a far more civil society. Act like jerk – get your lights punched out. Actions should have consequences.
It’s when actions stop having tangible consequences that we open the door to chaos.
An armed society is a polite society. Check the FBI statistics- the possession of a gun by an intended victim, even if the victim merely shows the weapon, has prevented over a million crimes a year. The states/cities with the most restrictive gun laws have the most crimes. . . If the “o” has his way, we will all be victims if he is able to lead the antigun squealers to victory. They must be stopped. . . .
I will repost, what is offensive about the truth?Why cant I say obama must be stopped? What are you people afraid of ?! The political process will remove him if he continues on his present path. . . He and his gun grabbers will be voted out of office.Restrictive gun laws aid criminals!
One thing that I find interesting in its omission in these discussions involves the average Joe’s belief that the police will protect them. It is always used as a primary argument as to why the average Joe should not use deadly force. The omission I refer to is a supreme court ruling that specifically states that the local police have no responsibility to protect any individual citizen. That essentially makes police after crime investigators who merely unzip body bags to clean up the mess and catch the perp.
Hence, the need for every citizen to take upon themselves the responsibility to protect themselves. Retreat if you can, but sometimes you can’t.
Clayton’s never had to defend himself, unless it was against the sharp, rapier-like wit of an uber-liberal in the library whilst doing research on his book!
Unfotunately I have…had to use an old HS wrestling move on a crazed bully who drew a loaded piece on a neighboring couple in a public restaurant. Three of us “John Q’s” ended up sitting on the guy for EIGHT FRIGGIN’ MINUTES, wrestling away both the gun and a razor-sharp 6-inch toad-sticker, before the local “donut afficianados” in blue showed up to cuff the poor bastahd!
You really cannot recognize the meaning of: “When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away!” unless you’ve been there! So its real easy for Clayton to pull his “intellectual unease” schtick!
I will retreat only so far.
Some places I retreat not at all.
Really get me going and I’ll go tactical and attack.
I don’t need a gun, I have my opposable thumbs, frontal lobes and knowledge.
I feel that as long as the assaulting people know that somewhere in this country plain citizens can go bugshit crazy and fight back, HARD.
I still have to wonder if it was necessary to kill the man. If the victim had shot him in the gut, it would have put him on the ground, neutralizing any threat he posed. He may have died anyway, but the chance of surviving a gunshot wound to the stomach is much higher than surviving one to the head.
Mr Cramer:
WHAT DOES THE FOLLOWING MEAN?:
“Taking away the obligation to retreat in public when you have that option pretty well guarantees that someone is going to get shot and killed.”
How does “taking away the obligation to retreat” equate into “when you have that option”? That’s the whole point Mr. Cramer. If you are required by law to retreat, then there is NO OPTION for you.
Look, to many of us have become overly soft and simply scared. I’ve walked away from confrontations, and I have certainly stood my ground. It’s not the governments place to tell me to stay put or retreat. And what logic dictates that by standing one’s ground there will be more shootings? Forgive me, but your whole article is ill-thought and plain silly.
Mr. Cramer is a historian? Here in Arizona, where defending yourself is legal, there is a rich tradition of standing one’s ground. This goes back to the pre-liberated civilized days when Arizona was a wild territory and hot heads shot each other on a daily basis. Mr. Cramer must be an eastern dude.
Kimo at 14 is right.
The police response time, even on a good day, is not usually fast enough to stop a robbery, a burglary, or rape in progress, and the cops usually only arrive “after the fact” to take witness statements and clean up—that is–in many cities–if the cops even show at all; the FBI reports that for 2008 that the national clearance rate for violent crimes is only 45.1%, for murder 63.6 %, and in some cities—I venture to say—that violent crimes/murder clearance rate is far lower than the national average (http://www.fbi.gov/page2/sept09/crimestats_091409.html).
Thus, it is up to citizens—who are on the front lines in this constant battle and are the victims here—to protect themselves and their families, since the cops can’t and won’t. That is why I advocate universal “concealed carry,” universal “stand your ground” and “castle” laws as a form of RAID against human cockroaches.
And in advance, spare me the hand wringing, the sociological defense of criminals and human predators—that they can’t help it, they are the helpless, powerless victims of the system, discriminated against, and are “depraved because they are deprived,” and spare me, too, comments about how cruel and barbaric such laws are, about unintended consequences, about the loss of a precious human life, about redemption, etc. etc because, somehow, we never hear such concern expressed for the victims who are dead, dead, dead or maimed and traumatized for life.
Kliff K. Klaven, you are brilliant. If something happens to one person in Florida, it proves your point on a societal level.
#14. kimo: The usual motto is “when seconds count, the police are only minutes away”.
I’m a disabled veteran, and not able to physically defend myself against an attacker anymore, so I have a concealed handgun license. I’m not particularly blood-thirsty, and do not look forward to maiming or killing some jerk just because he chose to attack me. I recently installed a laser aiming device on my carry pistol. (The bullet goes where the red dot is.) I’m hoping this might act as a psychological deterrent in any future confrontation, so that the bad guy cools off when he sees the red dot on some vital piece of his anatomy.
Many parts of America are like a 3rd world country. And increasingly even the more civilized parts of America are beiing invaded by 3rd world legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. My best friend who was basically a very laid back music loving modern day hippy who wouldn’t hurt a fly was murdered by 5 illegal aliens from Mexico in the middle of the day outside of the autoshop he was temporarily working at 2 years ago when he was only 20 years old. They just drove up to the autoshop, poured out of the vehicle and shot him with handguns bought off the street on the black market. Wanna know why? Because he was white and his girlfriend was hispanic. It was just one of many acts of barbaric hate crime committed by hostile 3rd world immigrants. We later found out that one of the MANY illegal alien gangs here requires members to rape or murder a white person in order to join. They’re literally trying to ethnically cleanse white people from our area. And I don’t even live anywhere near the Mexican border. I live in freaking Northern Virginia in Fairfax County. It’s the richest county in the whole country. It used to be picture perfect area to raise kids in and grow up. Crime was extremely low. But starting in the late 1990s our area has literally been invaded by 3rd world illegal aliens from Mexico. Now our own once beautiful area looks like a Mexican slum. And yet our government isn’t doing ANYTHING to deport these douchebags. At the very least they should give the people living here the right to defend themseilves from these barbarians. If you think where you live is immune from this immigration problem then you’re fooling yourself. If it can happen here it can happen where you live as well.
#17
MB seems to be clueless about fighting and using a gun. Two interesting achievements.
Pathetic, Clayton. Truly pathetic.
What the commenter at #11 said.
It’s never too late to learn how to be a man, Clayton.
I am no expert but I have learned before from those who are, that there is no shame in avoiding, retreating, or relying on police whenever possible.
Our finest warriors do so all the time calling in for air support, reinforcements, or a better plan. Bullets without brains just gets you killed and gives the enemy the advantage.
It bothers me that this guy seems to have set himself up for this. I can understand the problem of idiots speeding through your neighborhood where there are kids, joggers, people walking their dogs… I got that problem here too.
Yet this guy seems to live somewhere where he feels the need to carry a pistol and then set himself up as the neighborhood enforcer. Bad idea. The guys in blue sitting in a squad car at the top of the street would have stopped that problem without even looking up from their coffee. Nobody speeds past a squad car on purpose.
But they are not always there, I agree with that. I also think we should not need to see the weapon in this sort of sitiuation. He had cause to fear for his life and fired. He clearly had no way to retreat and did what he had to do.
A pro would not have got himself into that situation. Most of us are honest with ourselves I think. If you are an a gun owner with basic training, as I am, just accept the limitations of that. Knowing how to operate a 9mm does not make me a SWAT member.
It does make it very dangerous if you try and break into my house. Everyone except the dogs can shoot, and my attack beagle can, well…smell you coming from a long way off and bark loudly…or something.
We can keep our gun rights. We have them, but let us keep law enforcement to the professionals. That is what they do and train for.
Spindok
In Texas a law like this was passed a little while back. Overall it has worked well and is popular.
spindok – the very best place for the law is in our own hands. We are the first responders in every situation. We must be prepared to uphold and enforce the law. Delegating that responsibility to someone else with a shiny badge is both cowardice and stupidity.
The fella had every right to shoot that bastard. Good result.
The chick-a-fication of America has caused men to not help others but stand aside. Just watch what happens in New York City.
Sounds like the thug got what he started finished. Beating up old people is a Florida sport industry. I doubt a day passes in our area without reports of such activity.
What’s to stop a hypothetical sociopath from using this law to protect himself when he started a confrontation in the first place? In the absence of reliable witnesses it would be one man’s word against another’s as to which one started the fight, and that’s assuming the victim survives. The law doesn’t always protect the innocent.
Spindock, you believe everyone should be afraid to say something so simple as “slow it down please”? That is not a world I want to live in.
I am not a cop but I have worked with police most of my working life. 90% of the time they are there to pick up the pieces because it is rare they can be on the spot when “it hits the fan”. The moral is that you can be a citizen or you can be a victim.
You can stand up for yourself and your family or you can support your local criminal.
Yes, several people noticed that Podany appears where Landes should have.
Clayton’s never had to defend himself, unless it was against the sharp, rapier-like wit of an uber-liberal in the library whilst doing research on his book!
Actually, I have had to defend myself on several occasions; with a shovel against a mentally ill person; with a handgun from what might have been an armed robbery–or might have been some drunken college students thinking that they were being funny. Maybe I’m weird, but the prospect of killing someone makes my blood run cold.
Mr. Cramer is a historian? Here in Arizona, where defending yourself is legal, there is a rich tradition of standing one’s ground. This goes back to the pre-liberated civilized days when Arizona was a wild territory and hot heads shot each other on a daily basis. Mr. Cramer must be an eastern dude.
There’s actually considerable argument about this. Richard Maxwell Brown’s No Duty to Retreat: Violence and Values in American Society (Oxford University Press, 1991) argues that English law required one to retreat until backed up to a wall before using deadly force, and the “no duty to retreat” concept developed on the American frontier. I think Brown overstates the case, but as late as Henry VIII, a person who engaged in justifiable homicide could be prosecuted for murder, and typically lost all his property. The king would usually pardon such a person–but not return his property. Parliament ended up creating a statutory right to use deadly force.
Kliff K. Klaven, you are brilliant. If something happens to one person in Florida, it proves your point on a societal level.
There being no one in this comment thread by this name, I guess Moho thinks that he is being clever by suggesting that I am some sort of secret Klansmen.
1. I never suggested that one such incident proves my point. I pointed to it as an example.
2. Your implication with the Kliff K. Klaven dig that there is some racial element to this matter is quite interesting. Moho, are you saying that bullies are black and their victims are white? I wouldn’t say such a thing, nor do I think that. But you seem to think that. Why?
Years ago well-meaning meddlers decided it was “civilized” to require the innocent to retreat when oppressed. No wallet, dignity, sense of right or right to enjoy the city you support was worth a confrontation.
Cast aside were the effects:
–the fear of the onlookers when Kitty Genovese was atatcked: “what if I am sued for intervening? What if the police [now on the look out for people that stand their ground] think I did it? What if I am hurt or worse, if I hurt someone and am arrested?”).
–the fear of everyone to assist anyone after an Illinois taxi driver tried to help an old man being beaten by thugs; he was threatened by the thugs and fired at one killing him. The cabdriver was arrested and prosecuted for manslaughter. “He could have driven away,” insisted the prosecutor, “he didn’t need to fire at them.” (The cabdriver was vidicated on appeal, years and thousands of dollars later).
A San Francisco cab driver drove after a mugger who ahd stolen a purse and shoved the woman to the ground: the cabdriver pinned the mnugger against the wall, injuring his leg–and lost $25,000 to the mugger in a trial.
Innocent people were deprived of THEIR right to enjoy the city they paid for–to benefit some thug with a foul temper.
The well-intentioned wrung their hands and moaned when Kitty Geneovese was stabbed repeatedly and spent the lasts econd of her twenties in a pool of blood in New York: “What has happened to us?” they wailed. Your silly laws happened, that’s what.
Mr. Cramer I don’t wish to sacrifice my enjoyment of life, my children’s innocent belief that they can walk a street or the enjoyment of life earned by the sweat of tired trauma nurses, road workers or lawyers to some buffoon who relishes the idea of “beating up” someone, or assaulting a woman. And I shouldn’t have to.
Nor do I want to promote a society that values a swinish pig’s abstract “right to grow up” for some lout over my real right to live now.
Frankly, my right to live now is really not something you or anyone else has the right to bargain away. It was a mistake to do so.
If I wanted to make it really inflammatory, I could say that its a pity the shopowners on Kristallnacht weren’t backed by a “no retreat” law, but I would be totally insensitive if I did so suggest: one never knows how many of the bullies that night grew up into decent adults.
What’s to stop a hypothetical sociopath from using this law to protect himself when he started a confrontation in the first place? In the absence of reliable witnesses it would be one man’s word against another’s as to which one started the fight, and that’s assuming the victim survives. The law doesn’t always protect the innocent.
There is often physical evidence that helps to resolve such disputes. Still, it is one of the arguments for requiring you to retreat. As I said, in a society where such bullies are rare, “no duty to retreat” may make sense. But not in this society.
spindok – the very best place for the law is in our own hands. We are the first responders in every situation. We must be prepared to uphold and enforce the law. Delegating that responsibility to someone else with a shiny badge is both cowardice and stupidity.
The fella had every right to shoot that bastard. Good result.
A police officer probably wouldn’t use a gun in those circumstances, either. He would likely use pepper spray, then a baton, for fear of shooting the victim.
Zero @ #30 – Welcome to the imperfect world.
Yes, malevolent people will try to take whatever advantage they can. Ridding decent people of life-saving options is not an intelligent solution.
Clayton @ #32 – you’re skirting dangerously close to the ‘appeal to antiquity’ fallacy there.
Our modern philosophical approach to deadly force is to be celebrated. It enshrines our respect for life and liberty. It is enlightened and virtuous. The rest of the world needs to play catch-up.
trying to beat up, an old person (with a gun), doesn’t sound to bright, but it sounds premeditated to me. it seems he planned to shoot some one, he just needed a confrontation, and the drunk provided one.
“A police officer probably wouldn’t use a gun in those circumstances, either. He would likely use pepper spray, then a baton, for fear of shooting the victim.”
You have absolutely no basis for this presumption.
Although police can have better physical combat training than most (to repel and restrain the assailant), given a disparity of physical force and an actual CQB assault, any officer would be justified in a “per se weapon” defense of utilizing deadly force.
And in advance, spare me the hand wringing, the sociological defense of criminals and human predators—that they can’t help it, they are the helpless, powerless victims of the system, discriminated against, and are “depraved because they are deprived,”
I’m not going to defend predators. But I will point out that there are lots of teens and young adults who do stupid things (usually while drunk or stoned), and outgrow those stupid years. Some do not.
Clayton @ #32 – you’re skirting dangerously close to the ‘appeal to antiquity’ fallacy there.
No, I’m pointing out that what people think about the past is often not accurate.
Bob #37
My understanding is that this is less about life-saving options and more about the idea that innocent law-abiding people shouldn’t have to kowtow to sociopathic jerks. This is a noble sentiment but if the law makes it harder to tell the two apart then it doesn’t serve us very well.
You have absolutely no basis for this presumption.
Although police can have better physical combat training than most (to repel and restrain the assailant), given a disparity of physical force and an actual CQB assault, any officer would be justified in a “per se weapon” defense of utilizing deadly force.
Justified, yes. But police departments put an increasing emphasis on use of deadly force as a last resort.
The author’s sheepish tentativeness in approaching this subject seems part of the problem. He is correct in defending basic common sense, but seems bit embarrassed to step forward and stand up for what is right.
No, I’m pointing out that there are consequences to both situations. A duty to retreat before using deadly force in public means that some drunken, stupid bullies will live long enough to perhaps mature into responsible adults–although at the cost of humiliating their victims. A small amount of humiliation is a small price to pay for letting some idiots grow up. But there’s a social cost when the bullies are no longer afraid, even slightly.
My understanding is that this is less about life-saving options and more about the idea that innocent law-abiding people shouldn’t have to kowtow to sociopathic jerks.
In some cases, sociopathic jerks. In some cases, drunken idiots who might still outgrow bad behavioral traits.
In general I am in favor of having ‘no duty to retreat’, regardless of the possible negative consequences. Having said that, I want to applaud Mr Cramer for his reasoned and reasonable responses to many of the commenters here.
“In some cases, drunken idiots who might still outgrow bad behavioral traits.”
1.Why put the burden on the innocent to protect the drunken idiot and the evil lout?
Why should we assume that the innocent good guy won’t retreat (humorously or otherwise) from the drunken idiot?
“In some cases, sociopathic jerks. In some cases, drunken idiots who might still outgrow bad behavioral traits.”
It is sociopathic to demand I jeopardize my life to find out which kind of person I’m facing.
The consequences of stupidity need to be firmly impressed upon children from the outset, so that they do not engage in such stupid behavior.
Whether they are sociopaths or jerks, they are responsible for the consequences of their actions. No free person should ever be forced to bear any of the costs for their behavior.
“In some cases, drunken idiots who might still outgrow bad behavioral traits.”
1.Why put the burden on the innocent to protect the drunken idiot and the evil lout?
If the only burden we are putting on the innocent is to put up with some humiliation, abusive language, and even some pushing, that’s not a very big burden–especially compared to taking someone’s life. As I explain, when this is an infrequent situation, a little humiliation is a minor problem that we bear. It’s only when the shared values of civility cease to be widely shared that this becomes a social problem.
Why should we assume that the innocent good guy won’t retreat (humorously or otherwise) from the drunken idiot?
Sensible people do so. But as one of the cases that I linked to shows: not everyone behaves sensibly.
It is sociopathic to demand I jeopardize my life to find out which kind of person I’m facing.
The consequences of stupidity need to be firmly impressed upon children from the outset, so that they do not engage in such stupid behavior.
I agree: the consequences need to be firmly impressed upon children. But quite a number of parents do not do so. And even when you do your best, kids don’t always behave sensibly. (Spring break, for example.)
Alcohol + Testosterone + Youth is a volatile combination.
As a lone citizen, is it worth confronting such individuals for any reason unaided by fellow neighbors or police? Could a better outcome happened? Could death have been avoided by making different decisions?
“If the only burden we are putting on the innocent is to put up with some humiliation, abusive language, and even some pushing, that’s not a very big burden–especially compared to taking someone’s life”
The “stand your ground” laws do not permit the use of deadly force for such things. They reaffirm that when the use of deadly force is justifiable, you do not have an obligation to prolong you exposure to deadly risk by ‘retreating’.
“If the only burden we are putting on the innocent is to put up with some humiliation, abusive language, and even some pushing, that’s not a very big burden–especially compared to taking someone’s life”
The “stand your ground” laws do not permit the use of deadly force for such things. They reaffirm that when the use of deadly force is justifiable, you do not have an obligation to prolong you exposure to deadly risk by ‘retreating’.
Making the world safe for obnoxious jerks is the first goal of liberalism.
The second goal; is accruing power so that obnoxious jerks (liberals) can run the country.
Nowhere is the concept of precedence over ruling written law enthroned as law in the United States. Only bad habit has allowed fifty million babies to be aborted over not one state authorizing unrestricted abortion.
The people have every reason to fear a Government that will not discipline mad dog courts that make red queen rulings out of whole cloth or much worse “foreign law.”
The American Constitution was put in place to raise a Navy to defend against foreign law. ( Sharia )
Sir:
Why should we assume that the innocent good guy won’t retreat (humorously or otherwise) from the drunken idiot?
“Sensible people do so. But as one of the cases that I linked to shows: not everyone behaves sensibly.”
Granted.
But we do not normally dilute the homeowner’s right to use deadly force against an intruder because the intruder might turn out to be the neighborhood drunk that tried to enter the wrong house.
Nor do we dilute the right of a soapbox orator to speak merely because one onlooker takes offense. The courts sedulously protect the first amendment because to dilute it will “chill” the speech of the speaker and those who see him limited. People become afaid to speak out for fear of what will happen to them.
Why should we be less zealous in protecting the right of people to protect themselves?
Diluting or “balancing” rights at the expense of the innocent diminishes life for those affected wrongly by it: if you think that’s a trifle, ask anyone who has been mugged, threatened on the street. Knowing that they don’t have any absolute rights anymore, even aganst the bully, the pushing thug, the man that slaps you or pins you against a wall (“its not deadly force yet is it? I might be sued or prosecuted if I react and it gets out of hand”), you paralyze the innocent. You stain their life. You make them peasants at the whim of some bullying lout. Their life thereafter is less: old people avoid places and get in after dusk. Women avoid places and are fearful. Ask anyone who lived in new York in the 70′s.
Those “retreat” laws inhibit those who want to help: ask Kitty Genovese.
True, the consequences may be severe, but why not put the burden of caution on the bully? Why on the nice guy or woman?
We penalize drunk drivers by saying “you get drunk, we impute malice.” Why not the same to the bully? He’s the one that has forfeited any right to indulgence: if anyone is entitled to some indulgence from the law in a confrontation, its me not the thug.
Your implication with the Kliff K. Klaven dig that there is some racial element to this matter is quite interesting. Moho, are you saying that bullies are black and their victims are white? I wouldn’t say such a thing, nor do I think that. But you seem to think that. Why?
I find it interesting how quick you are to play the race card. Its obvious that my reference was to Kliff Klaven from Cheers, a know it all who is ultimately proven to be completely ignorant. If you took it another way, that is for politically correct nannies like you to worry about. Imputing motives into speech is exactly what your colleagues here seem to be railing about all the time. If calling into service a metaphor about a monkey when talking about Obama was completely innocent of racial overtones, then too was this by the same logic. That logic is–>”its not because I say it wasn’t”. In fact, I never wrote “KKK”, you did. Why are you trying to divide America? Why are you trying to deny me free speech? Is any criticism of Kliff K. Klaven automatically reverse-racism. In summary, self-pwnage is tragic, but there is help, Kliff.
Well written article. This is one of the areas that its very difficult to make laws for, as the situation can have so any variables. In the end you’re looking at whether the cop on the scene, district attorney, judge, and/or jury, agree with your assessment of whether you were in danger and acted appropriately.
Clayton,
Your description of the facts indicates this was NOT an instance of “stand your ground”. The bully was already attacking, had knocked the victim down and jumped on him. At that point running away was not possible.
Per your facts, this was self-defense pure and simple.
#17 Mythbuster,
Be sure to let us know how that works out, carefully aiming at nonlethal entry points.
It all starts on the playground, where kids are punished equally if they get into an altercation. The bully and the victim are treated the same; lots of time in with the counselors, talking about how they need to “resolve their differences.”
My daughter got in trouble because she punched a boy who was bullying her. When I came to school, the counselor earnestly told my daughter, in front of me, that “you should never use violence.”
“Of course you should use violence,” I said firmly. “If you can’t get away to tell a teacher, you punch that kid as hard as you can. You are always allowed to defend yourself.”
If more girls were told that, there would be fewer dead girls found in ditches every year.
Nothing ugly about that incident. Justice served. As we say in Texas, some people just need killing. I doubt if Casey Landes is smart enough to contribute ever to society and who might have a bunch of subliterate bastard children who are deliquents. I say good shooting, nothing difficult about it.
the “stand your ground” laws do not preclude the option of retreat, but do allow an affirmative self-defense when appropriate.
AZDude asks if Clayton is an “east-coast dude”.
IIRC, he grew up in the Peoples Republic of Santa Monica…so I guess that’s close to the east-coast.
Myth buster — it’s not like there is a shortage of people. Especially, it seems, bad people. Good people, too.
There is, perhaps, a shortage of strong, good people.
Spindok — we, law abiding citizens, are in the final analysis, the law. You wait for help. I will act. The thing about consequences is that they usually occur after the event. Rather than imagine facing the odious consequences of not acting, I choose to be around after the event. I choose to face those consequences. I choose!
Peace
The problem with “giving the bully a chance to grow up” is that it might kill the victim now. I don’t feel I owe it to an aggressor to give him a chance to change if it is at the cost of my or an innocent bystanders well being.
Often a display of a firearm to an aggressive criminal will cause them to flee. If they don’t then it’s “natural selection”.
Bonnie, what I told the school officials was that failure to reward my then 7th grade daughter for not fighting back, while letting her assailants get away with it, would give my daughter the wrong idea, and that the other girls might be seriously hurt.
You haven’t lived until a police officer comes to your door to tell you your 5th grade daughter has been beating up older (6th grade) boys. The boys had been verbally expressing some new-found masculinity traits, and she had been manually adjusting attitudes. Two at a time.
The “stand your ground” laws do not permit the use of deadly force for such things. They reaffirm that when the use of deadly force is justifiable, you do not have an obligation to prolong you exposure to deadly risk by ‘retreating’.
No, but they do encourage one to put up with some really obnoxious behavior that may well escalate to deadly force. One thing that you can count on, even if you are completely in the right–even if you retreat until your back is against the wall–shooting an aggressive bully is going to cost you tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, from both criminal and civil action. As my concealed weapons instructor many years ago pointed out, “All the family members who have avoided this creep for the last 20 years will suddenly be talking about what a wonderful brother or son they lost, and why you should pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for doing what you did.”
Stand your ground laws make sense–but only because the core values of our society have been lost.
Making the world safe for obnoxious jerks is the first goal of liberalism.
Actually, that’s a consequence. Liberalism has a hard time understanding that there are obnoxious bullies out there–it’s mostly a projection problem.
I find it interesting how quick you are to play the race card. Its obvious that my reference was to Kliff Klaven from Cheers, a know it all who is ultimately proven to be completely ignorant.
Except that his name wasn’t “Kliff K. Klaven.” It was “Cliff Claven.”
In fact, I never wrote “KKK”, you did.
Except that your decision to change the name of the Cheers character “Cliff Claven” to “Kliff K. Klaven” demonstrates exactly what you were implying. You think that failure to acronym it makes you clever.
Sounds like a fine daughter you have there, Tom
You took her out for a celebratory ice cream dinner, of course?
Your description of the facts indicates this was NOT an instance of “stand your ground”. The bully was already attacking, had knocked the victim down and jumped on him. At that point running away was not possible.
Per your facts, this was self-defense pure and simple.
Yet “stand your ground” played a part in this case, because this is the sort of situation where district attorneys frequently used to charge people, on the grounds that being armed–and their attacker not being armed–the victim should have turned and run as soon as the bully left the truck.
Part of why a number of states passed “castle” doctrine laws is because district attorneys were requiring people to leave their own homes rather than use deadly force. California passed such a law in the early 1980s–strictly speaking, a presumption that an intruder who forced entry intended you great bodily harm–because a woman in Los Angeles killed an intruder who had forced entry into her home. And the district attorney prosecuted her (unsuccessfully).
Those “retreat” laws inhibit those who want to help: ask Kitty Genovese.
Not a good example. Kitty Genovese didn’t have the option of defending herself, because of New York City’s insane laws. The problem for Kitty Genovese isn’t that her neighbors were reluctant to defend her; they were reluctant to call the police, probably because they knew who the killer was, and were afraid that if they testified, they might be the next victim–and also unable to defend themselves.
My first experience with having to make a “shoot/don’t shoot” decision in the real world involved a case somewhat similar. The victim was being dragged kicking and screaming out of her apartment by a drunk. I called the police (as did others). It all ended without gunfire, but then again, I wasn’t worried that calling the police would put me or my family at risk. New York City, on the other hand, had created exactly that situation.
“No, but they do encourage one to put up with some really obnoxious behavior that may well escalate to deadly force. ”
Again, you are making absolutely unprovable presumptions. My behavior will not change one bit when I am armed. My armed friends will behave likewise. These laws do nothing to alter our behavior, but do everything to firm the legal ground we stand on.
“…going to cost you tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, from both criminal and civil action”
Perhaps. Not a certainty by any measure. The correct response is to pass laws protecting the lawful individual from such damages.
“Stand your ground laws make sense–but only because the core values of our society have been lost.”
‘Stand your ground’ laws have always make sense – but only to those that appreciate the virtue of unapologetic steadfastness in the defense of life & liberty. “Core values” is a nonsensical fantasy.
The macro version/results of “duty to retreat” can be seen on the streets of Europe.
Islamification is running wild!
Bonnie, what I told the school officials was that failure to reward my then 7th grade daughter for not fighting back, while letting her assailants get away with it, would give my daughter the wrong idea, and that the other girls might be seriously hurt.
Absolutely. Unfortunately, middle schools are fast becoming jungles, as a generation of boys grows up watching Saw with their parents, and watching porn when their parents are away. (My daughter knows someone whose four year old’s favorite movie is Saw.)
You haven’t lived until a police officer comes to your door to tell you your 5th grade daughter has been beating up older (6th grade) boys. The boys had been verbally expressing some new-found masculinity traits, and she had been manually adjusting attitudes. Two at a time.
Except that you seem to be promoting the idea that verbal taunting deserves violent response. Yes, they’re rude and crude, but what ever happened to, “sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me”?
Except that your decision to change the name of the Cheers character “Cliff Claven” to “Kliff K. Klaven” demonstrates exactly what you were implying. You think that failure to acronym it makes you clever.
I hope you keep this up, its the best possible rebuttal to the current “race card” card you all have been playing. Its indeed true, that you can’t prove that I said what you think I was saying. And yet, here you are insisting that you know what I was saying, even though its quite clear that the “KKK” is completely your construction. You’re defending the actions of all those who impute racism in the vague statements of GOP officials and members. In fact, why shouldn’t people assume that the monkey reference was a veiled racist slander? Using your logic, they could come to no other conclusion.
What an idiot. Keep it up, I’m taking screen shots.
“No, but they do encourage one to put up with some really obnoxious behavior that may well escalate to deadly force. ”
Again, you are making absolutely unprovable presumptions. My behavior will not change one bit when I am armed. My armed friends will behave likewise. These laws do nothing to alter our behavior, but do everything to firm the legal ground we stand on.
Nor does “stand your ground” have much to do with firearms, except that D.A.s generally prosecute defensive uses of guns more than defensive use of fists.
There’s no question that the vast majority of concealed carry permitholders do exactly what they are supposed to do–backing away from trouble when they can. In this case, the victim didn’t have much choice about what happened. But there are some cases where you groan and say, “Did you really have to stick around for this argument? Would there really have been much harm from walking away before this escalated?”
“…going to cost you tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, from both criminal and civil action”
Perhaps. Not a certainty by any measure. The correct response is to pass laws protecting the lawful individual from such damages.
Care to articulate how to do that, without precluding a legitimate lawsuit? Certainly, you could create a presumption that if party X was found guilty of a felony in an attack on party Y, then lawsuits filed because of the death or injury of party X qualify as baseless suits, requiring party X to reimburse party Y’s legal expenses. But what if party X dies in the fight? There’s no conviction. What if party X, even though the bad guy, doesn’t get convicted because of the high standard of proof for criminal conviction? What if party X is dead, and party Y really isn’t the good guy?
I’m not sure about this, but didn’t the “duty to retreat” originally apply to confrontations already in progress? Basically, it didn’t apply if someone attacked you with no provocation. But if you were in a confrontation already, you had to show you tried to retreat before using deadly force. At some point, prosecutors began instructing juries they had to find the defendant guilty if there was any hypothetical chance of retreat, so stand your ground has been invented to combat that attitude.
I hope you keep this up, its the best possible rebuttal to the current “race card” card you all have been playing. Its indeed true, that you can’t prove that I said what you think I was saying. And yet, here you are insisting that you know what I was saying, even though its quite clear that the “KKK” is completely your construction.
You change the name of a character from a TV show from Clifford C. Claven to Kliff K. Klaven (which just coincidentally happens to be the initials KKK) and you claim that it wasn’t your intention to raise the race card? Is there anyone that finds this claim believable?
And yet, here you are insisting that you know what I was saying, even though its quite clear that the “KKK” is completely your construction.
You changed the name “Cliff C. Claven” to “Kliff K. Klaven.” You may be the only person in the world who doesn’t see what you were saying.
Clayton,
I just reported what the police officer told me. And I did tell my daughter, among many other things, that it was wrong to attack boys for making nasty cracks about girls.
You missed my point about my daughter having a reputation, in the public school administration, which made my statement about the attacking girls being seriously hurt if my daughter ever fought back quite credible. She never had problems with them again.
Oh, its spelled with a C? An honest mistake then.
What bothers me about your accusation, is that its quite clear to anyone not so prejudiced that I obviously meant to reference, Kuhnle, Kopp and Kausch, the German electronics firm. http://www.azom.com/news.asp?newsID=6096
Why do you insist with these hurtful accusations?
By the way Clayton, I’ve taken screenshots of this entire episode. It would behoove you to publish the remarks or later be revealed to be not only a coward, but a hypocrite.
Well, you’re not as dumb as I thought.
This article is confusing. Regardless of the existence of a “stand your ground” law, every person has always had the right to use deadly force against an assailant threatening HIM with death or great bodily harm. The example given here clearly falls into that category. So what additional benefit did a stand your ground law bestow here? Is it only useful to reinforce a jury’s ability not to screw the victim in a manner that would have been unjust even under the old criteria? If so, this is thin gruel indeed.
Your point re Genovese is a good one, and as usual, it is very civil of you to enage us in this way.
But the effect goes beyond Ms. Genovese: I still see the Genovese neighbors that might have been inclined to help-even if they had possessed a gun–as afraid to do so for fear of being prosecuted later, in addition to being afraid of the stabber. In distant times, authorities did not become overly worried about using deadly force on stabbers.
My cabdriver example is from a published Illinois case: no telling how many good samaritans it discouraged.
The possibility for abuse and error is always present, but what we inhibit goes beyond a particuar situation: surely its better to err for the good, the civil and the law abiding: I don’t want to be blown away by some armed vigilante any more than you do, but I’d take my chances with him and not the thugs. Thanks for responding.
“Yes, they’re rude and crude, but what ever happened to, “sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me”?”
It’s not an intelligent maxim for adult life, so why lie to your children? You’re just infantilizing them. Hopefully Tom’s daughter has taught some lessons so those boys don’t become adult jerks that get shot.
Many a lesson learned from a bloodied nose. Violence is perfectly amoral…it’s the specific application that colors it.
Well living in the Peoples Republic of Maryland this is something that has been widely discussed due to a burglar being killed by a samurai sword wielding collage student.
Much of the problem with bullies and thugs today stems from single issue, it is illegal for children to be beaten today. Neither parents nor their peers can beat a bad seed or bully. All the psycho-babble BS from psychologists/psychiatrists and Leftist teachers has caused the problems we have today.
When I say “beat” I don’t mean abuse, not every offense merits physical punishment but the option has to be there. Corporal punishment is the line of last resort, or sometimes first resort if the offense is bad enough. My Grandma only had to physically punish me one time in all the time which she watched me as a child, which was fairly often. She made me go get my own switch, I went and got a dry brittle one and boy was that a mistake. She went out and got one herself and proceeded to “give me a good switching”, from that day on if I was acting up the phrase “Do I have to send you out to find me a switch?” was enough to settle me down.
Many parents seem to live in fear of their own children these days, they misbehave in public and even kick, spit, hit, and bite their parents (and other people) with the parents milksop pleas to the child “Johny/Susie stop that, its not nice.” or even worse bribes that reward the bad behavior. “Johny/Susie if you stop I’ll buy you .” When I was a kid, most parents would have taken the child into a restroom and disciplined them, end of discussion. Now they merely look embarrassed and sometimes apologize to those around them. Some don’t even have the decency & self respect to look embarrassed.
Now we come to the main culprit, the Public School System and the Leftist Teachers and Administrators. They have helped teach the children that they don’t have to answer to their parents, to call 911 if their parents discipline them even at an early age. They have tried to take the raising of the child from the parent, and some have willingly and even enthusiastically allowed it. Then the teachers whine about how bad the kids behave, how rude they are, and that the parents aren’t involved. Well they’ve helped undermine parental authority and now they don’t like the results, they merely reap what they’ve sown.
Also two young children can’t seem to get into a school yard scuffle without the parents, entire school administration, the school board, cops, lawyers, and a therapist getting involved anymore. This removes powerful lessons from childhood, that you stand up to bullies, and that bullies often meet someone who’s not afraid of them and will kick their butt, both the bullies and the average kid learn from it. Now only the bullies and kids who are out of control will fight, the rest are too cowed and emasculated to stand up to them because the parents instill their fear of the police, lawyers, administration, etc. instead of teaching them to punch the bully in the nose and take your lumps if you lose.
When I was a child (less than 30 years go, man I feel old some days) you got into a fight you usually just ended up in the principals office for a lecture and your parents were notified and expected to take care of the discipline. As a teenager it was usually the same but with detention and sometimes a demerit or two tacked on. No suspensions, no expulsions, no cops, no lawyers, just minor punishments that meant more time at school not less for a average fight. Now kids can’t be kids, well I should say boys can’t be boys because girls very rarely fought back then. Girls didn’t fight, it just wasn’t something girls did back then. If they did it was very rare and usually by the, for lack of a better term, “lower class” girls. What they might refer to as “ghetto” or “trailer trash” today.
The Leftists have invaded too much of our lives and we’re reaping what they’ve been sowing for the last 80 years. Their ideologies don’t work very well as has been proven over and over during the last century.
What bothers me about your accusation, is that its quite clear to anyone not so prejudiced that I obviously meant to reference, Kuhnle, Kopp and Kausch, the German electronics firm. http://www.azom.com/news.asp?newsID=6096
Why do you insist with these hurtful accusations?
Why do you insist on making a fool of yourself?
So what additional benefit did a stand your ground law bestow here?
It discourages prosecutions where a person was in a public place, was not engaging in violence or threats, and ends up using deadly force in self-defense.
It’s not an intelligent maxim for adult life, so why lie to your children?
I’m not sure where you live, but I can’t think of any state where someone yelling crude remarks at you justifies the use of deadly force. Even threats, without some credible evidence of an ability to carry out that threat, won’t justify deadly force. A crazy person can scream “I’m going to kill you” all day at someone across the street, but until he presents some evidence that he has the ability to do that (by drawing a firearm, or something that a reasonable man would interpret as a firearm), you do not have the authority to respond violently. The police might well arrest this person for assault, or disturbing the peace, but if you even hit this person with a rock, you would be arrested.
“But there are some cases where you groan and say, “Did you really have to stick around for this argument? Would there really have been much harm from walking away before this escalated?”
I’m sure there are, and will be. That’s for the court/jury to decide in judgment of the specifics of any given case, and not a sound justification for undermining the principle of virtuous self-defense.
“Care to articulate how to do that, without precluding a legitimate lawsuit?”
I imagine something along the lines of the Defense of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (or whatever it ended up being called). A federal statute that precludes civil suits as a direct consequence of deadly force deemed lawful by a criminal court or grand jury.
When an act of deadly force is lawful and righteous, it is an injustice to injure the lawful individual concerned. It would be nice if this principle applied to the entire spectrum of criminal/civil cases, to prevent what I see as effectively “double jeopardy” (not literally).
If my actions are righteous and justified, then I am not liable for any damages – the criminal aggressor is fully responsible. This needs to be loudly established so the low-life scum that call themselves ‘the family’ of the criminal are made aware that they will not be able to go lawsuit shopping to cash in.
There should only be one price to pay – and the criminal should pay it.
There’s no such thing as a nonlethal entry point. Even when the bullet does not cause trauma to a vital organ, every gunshot wound poses the risk of bleeding to death. My concern was that it isn’t wise to go out deliberately trying to increase the probability of causing death when a lower level of lethality will suffice. Besides that, the abdomen is a much bigger target than the head, so you’re less likely to miss.
I imagine something along the lines of the Defense of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (or whatever it ended up being called). A federal statute that precludes civil suits as a direct consequence of deadly force deemed lawful by a criminal court or grand jury.
I would support such an effort–but the actual wording is a bit of a problem. There are a lot of such cases where it never gets to court. I remember a case when I lived in Irvine, back about 1984, where a service station had been broken into several times. The owner and one of his employees started sleeping inside at night, taking turns. The next time the burglar broke in, the manager drew a gun; the burglar reached into his pocket. The manager shot the burglar.
There was no indictment; the police concluded that even though the burglar was unarmed, the manager correctly assumed that the burglar was going for a gun. The burglar’s wife at first news reports described her husband as a good man who had developed a cocaine habit, and she perfectly understood the manager’s actions–that he had no real choice in the matter. And yet, a week later, she had filed suit.
Part of what makes this so difficult is that the high burden of proof requirement for criminal convictions leaves a lot of gray area between “clearly in the right” and “clearly in the wrong.”
“I’m not sure where you live, but I can’t think of any state where someone yelling crude remarks at you justifies the use of deadly force”
I never suggested that was the case, only that the “sticks & stones” is a childish and stupid maxim.
If “words never hurt” we wouldn’t need slander & libel laws, would we?
Again, you are attempting to establish something you cannot provably presume – the specifics are critical, and neither you nor I can make any assumptions about what words were spoken, coupled with what actions, that justify deadly force.
If somebody yells “I’m gonna kill you” and marches across the street at me, I am lawfully able to draw my gun, point it at them and order them to cease (if time allows). If they don’t stop their aggression, I shoot – lawfully – “per se” weapon defense.
You are also making the classic error of assuming all deadly force involves pulling a trigger – there are several phases of utilizing deadly force before a shot is fired.
Mr. Cramer is absolutely correct in stating:
Part of what makes this so difficult is that the high burden of proof requirement for criminal convictions leaves a lot of gray area between “clearly in the right” and “clearly in the wrong.”
If “words never hurt” we wouldn’t need slander & libel laws, would we?
Show me a jurisdiction where preventing slander or libel allows use of deadly force.
If somebody yells “I’m gonna kill you” and marches across the street at me, I am lawfully able to draw my gun, point it at them and order them to cease (if time allows). If they don’t stop their aggression, I shoot – lawfully – “per se” weapon defense.
This is going to depend rather dramatically on circumstances that you have not yet identified. Certainly, there are cases where this might well be true. But in most states, you are almost certainly going to have to defend your actions before a grand jury, and probably even a trial jury. Absent a weapon in your attacker’s hand, or a clear strength or size advantage by your attacker, you are going to have a heck of a time justifying that use of deadly force.
You are also making the classic error of assuming all deadly force involves pulling a trigger – there are several phases of utilizing deadly force before a shot is fired.
Actually, deadly force can involve the use of a foot or a fist. It might not involve a gun at all.
(64) Crossbow writ: “Spindok — we, law abiding citizens, are in the final analysis, the law. You wait for help. I will act. The thing about consequences is that they usually occur after the event. Rather than imagine facing the odious consequences of not acting, I choose to be around after the event. I choose to face those consequences. I choose!”
Well yeah, I agree with that. My family has defense and that includes more than just firearms and yes we have those and can use them. It also involves common sense stuff like alarm systems, knowing how to recognize and avoid dangerous situations, and so on.
I have always thought that especially for a non-professional the weapon only comes out when ready to be used and then should be without hesitation. Never bluff, you are not that good.
Few people can master the art of self-defense. Maybe we all should but we dont. Perhaps if we adapted the Swiss or Israeli model where everyone is conscripted and military trained things would be different here.
I accept personal responsibility for safety yet this is not my full-time job nor do I want it to be. Some of us have other jobs like teacher, scientist, veterinarian, electical engineer, whatever…hard enough to keep up on that without constant training in self-defense.
For me, my inner libertarian is no anarchist. I dont want that headache. I also dont want to give up my right to own a firearm nor my responsibility to ensure that me and mine are safe and comfy to the best of our ability. Yet I pay a big chunk of my earnings to professionals in this field and I want every value I can get from those dollars.
Maybe we are already there. I just got back from the supermarket with live crustacheons, wild rice pilaf, argentinian wine, and many other nice things without shots, threats or any other problems. Whew.
Cheers,
Spindok
@ Mythbuster: Unless you are armed with a Phaser
set to stun, the only way to _stop_ an attacker
is a head shot. A heart shot allows ~30 seconds
(LaVoisier’s last experiment, on the Guillotine)
any other placement allows more time for the
attacker to do damage.
Furtherandmore, once an attacker gets close
enough to deliver a “Sucker Punch” it is too late for the victim. Warning used to be fair;
“Stop or I’ll shoot” was all one had to say.
If the State does not incorporate the above into their laws on use of deadly force, they bias the law in favor of the criminal. Some States do this deliberately, for various bad reasons.
Heinlein’s Law:
No action, Civil or Criminal, may be taken by
anyone, or on behalf of anyone, injured or killed
while in commission of a Felony.
Quant. Suff.
What no one has mentioned is that one must be in fear for their life or that of an innocent party to use lethal force. The County Attorney or a jury (if it gets that far) must determine if that requirement has been met. At least that is how it is in the wild west of Arizona.
A world of dieing bullies is a GOOD world.
I’m at 136 lbs. If I’m attacked by some 250 lb. goon because he likes to beat up scrawny guys in their forties, a Glock would be nice to have. There is no doubt he could kill me with one blow to the head.
Alcohol + Testosterone + Youth is a volatile combination.
Actually, alcohol + almost anyone is potentially a volatile combination.
Alcohol takes away many of our inhibitions. For some people, that means that they laugh like an idiot.
I’ve only been drunk once, and that’s how I behaved. (Why anyone would get drunk twice eludes me completely. I was dating an alcoholic at the time, so I was joining her to see why she drank. By then, I was even more mystified.)
Other people become aggressive and obnoxious when drunk. Some become morose or depressed when drunk. And of course, as the song lyric says, “Tequila makes her clothes fall off.” “Beer: helping ugly people have since the beginning of time.”
When I worked for a certain large Texas telecom equipment company, I had a chance to fly on the corporate Gulfstream V–a very, very nice way to get around. I was told that the reason that they no longer served alcohol on the corporate jet was an embarrassing trip by several of the corporate officers to Venezula. On the way back, they got so drunk (it was a long flight) that they ended up having a food fight, and the pilot had to take away everyone’s car keys when they landed. At the time, there was talk of firing him in the morning. By morning, everyone had sobered up, and thanked the pilot for his foresight.
The ones who become aggressive and obnoxious are by far the most dangerous, and sometimes some very, very nice people become very unnice people with a little alcohol. There are times it seems like a society can have alcohol, or guns, but one that has lots of both had better teach self-discipline to the drinkers not to carry guns, or the gun owners not to drink while armed.
“Actually, deadly force can involve the use of a foot or a fist. It might not involve a gun at all.”
Correct. It can also involve mere words. However, in the context of this discussion we are necessarily focused on firearms.
“What no one has mentioned is that one must be in fear for their life or that of an innocent party to use lethal force.”
It varies. In Texas, defense of property is a justifiable use of deadly force. As it should be.
You’re a coward Clayton, we both know it now. You hide behind the low-brow constructions, worked downward for the low-carrying capacity of your audience’s brain, but you can’t defend them. For exampe, see how easily your argument turns into an attack on Roy Blunt:
Except that your decision to use the term “monkey” demonstrates exactly what you were implying. You think that claiming it is only a metaphor makes you clever.
How about:
You use a metaphor specifically likens Obama to a monkey (which just coincidentally happens to be a historical perjorative for African Americans) and you claim that it wasn’t your intention to raise the race card? Is there anyone that finds this claim believable?
These are your words, with only the topics changed. I’m glad you’ve come over to the side of reason. Its quite obvious that WE know what other people mean when they say things, just as its possible that THEY don’t know what we mean when we say things.
You know, if you just shot people in the face as soon as you saw them you wouldn’t have to worry about any of this.
“The ones who become aggressive and obnoxious are by far the most dangerous, and sometimes some very, very nice people become very unnice people with a little alcohol.”
Also the drunks who get behind the wheel of a vehicle. I hear one too many horror stories of people who get killed or kill others or both because of drinking and driving. My daughter and I would have been another ugly statistic if we hadn’t been wearing our seat-belts when a drunk driver hit our car from behind going full speed while we were idle at a stop light. The jerk had his license revoked for two previous DWI incidences.
A car can be a weapon too unfortunately.
62. Federale: “Nothing ugly about that incident. Justice served. As we say in Texas, some people just need killing. I doubt if Casey Landes is smart enough to contribute ever to society and who might have a bunch of subliterate bastard children who are deliquents. I say good shooting, nothing difficult about it.”
Spoken like a real ol’ fashion American, not “liberated” from those “narrow minded Christian roots”!
101. Sapwolf: “A world of dieing bullies is a GOOD world. I’m at 136 lbs. If I’m attacked by some 250 lb. goon because he likes to beat up scrawny guys in their forties, a Glock would be nice to have. There is no doubt he could kill me with one blow to the head.”
Not to worry. I don’t think your head contains any vital organs.
“Actually, deadly force can involve the use of a foot or a fist. It might not involve a gun at all.”
Correct. It can also involve mere words. However, in the context of this discussion we are necessarily focused on firearms.
Mere words do not ever involve deadly force. Ever.
You’re a coward Clayton, we both know it now. You hide behind the low-brow constructions, worked downward for the low-carrying capacity of your audience’s brain, but you can’t defend them. For exampe, see how easily your argument turns into an attack on Roy Blunt
I didn’t see what Roy Blunt wrote. I don’t think it was in the comments on this article, was it?
62. Federale: “Nothing ugly about that incident. Justice served. As we say in Texas, some people just need killing. I doubt if Casey Landes is smart enough to contribute ever to society and who might have a bunch of subliterate bastard children who are deliquents. I say good shooting, nothing difficult about it.”
Spoken like a real ol’ fashion American, not “liberated” from those “narrow minded Christian roots”!
Sounds like a Social Darwinist, actually. That used to be the height of liberal fashion.
101. Sapwolf: “A world of dieing bullies is a GOOD world. I’m at 136 lbs. If I’m attacked by some 250 lb. goon because he likes to beat up scrawny guys in their forties, a Glock would be nice to have. There is no doubt he could kill me with one blow to the head.”
Not to worry. I don’t think your head contains any vital organs.
I’m curious, biblio44: what’s your objection to what Sapwolf wrote? He’s describing a very real problem–especially when the 136 lb. victim is a woman, and her attacker outweighs her by 120 pounds, and has 70% more muscle mass. He’s also describing a death or great bodily injury situation, where even in the absence of a “stand your ground” law, a D.A. would likely conclude that the victim was justified in using deadly force.
I’m glad you’ve come over to the side of reason. Its quite obvious that WE know what other people mean when they say things, just as its possible that THEY don’t know what we mean when we say things.
Moho, what makes you think that I have “come over”? I’ve seen a few comments made in various threads that struck me as racist or that could be interpreted as such. Sometimes, I’ve expressed my disapproval. Often as not, I assume that they are like you, Moho–someone who lacks the sense to be educated away from ideas that are hateful and so intellectually indefensible that it’s not like anyone could take them seriously.
For me, my inner libertarian is no anarchist. I dont want that headache. I also dont want to give up my right to own a firearm nor my responsibility to ensure that me and mine are safe and comfy to the best of our ability. Yet I pay a big chunk of my earnings to professionals in this field and I want every value I can get from those dollars.
I’m not sure where you live, but I am very skeptical that you pay “a big chunk” of your earnings to professionals for protection. The majority of federal income taxes aren’t going to defense. Only a pretty small fraction of state and local taxes go to operate a criminal justice system.
I do agree with you that paying professionals to do this work for you makes a lot of sense, for the same reason you don’t smelt your own iron, and manufacture your own integrated circuits for your cell phones and PCs. Being armed for self-defense makes good sense, but it’s primarily for those situations where police aren’t successfully deterring criminal conduct.
You know, if you just shot people in the face as soon as you saw them you wouldn’t have to worry about any of this.
How liberal of you–to take a serious question–at what point is a victim entitled to use deadly force against an attacker?–and turn it into a cartoon.
The more I thought about what Spindok said about paying “a big chunk” of his income for protection, the more I mused about how much safer we would be if this were true. If a big chunk of the average American’s income was spent on national defense and criminal justice–so that spending was perhaps 3-4 times more than today–there would be enough prisons that we could afford to send third time violent offenders to prison for life without worrying about crowding. There would be many police officers walking the beat in big cities, instead of driving police cruisers, cut off the community that he is policing. Or would it look more like the beginning of The Running Man?
I’ve seen a few comments made in various threads that struck me as racist or that could be interpreted as such.
You created an elaborate story around my use of a name with three K’s in it, when in truth, there was really no good reason for it. You immediately took that here:
. Your implication with the Kliff K. Klaven dig that there is some racial element to this matter is quite interesting. Moho, are you saying that bullies are black and their victims are white? I wouldn’t say such a thing, nor do I think that. But you seem to think that. Why?
You literally imagined this. Its one thing to imagine that I was invoking the KKK, as you have. The truth is that it meant absolutely nothing–it wasn’t a way to call you racist, nor was it a comment on anything you wrote. But don’t take my word for it–I don’t actually want you to retract anything you wrote, because its a perfect example of the ethical bankruptcy consuming your movement.
Its one thing to assume that the name was a reference to the KKK (a stretch to begin with). But its quite another to create this highly specific narrative that I’ve quoted above. Some would call it projection. But taking seriously for a moment your assumption that I was being racist, from very little to work with, you are no better than the people your colleagues are currently accusing of playing the “race card”. Indeed, if you had any integrity, if this was how you really looked at the world, we would have seen a commentary from you by now about Republicans use of “obvious” loaded racial imagery and discourse. We don’t and the reason is obvious. You’re a hyper partisan hack with no real beliefs about anything and no integrity. Race for you is simply another rhetorical tool–either calling people racists when its convenient, or accusing them of playing the race card. Pitiful. It only works on the idiotic readership you’ve cultivated here.
Moho, I am surprised that you are surprised by this Kliff K. Klaven thing. First: I have never heard of anyone named Kilff instead of Cliff. Second: the KKK thing was obvious because, Third: you are well known to accuse anyone on this board of being Nazis, KKKers or worse.
It is unfortunate if you didn’t intend that but surely you must know that your reputation here would lead anyone who has read this site regularly to reason that you intended this as a slur.
People advertise themselves by the clothes they wear, the people they associate with and the words they use. That is how we judge you and I have seen how you judge us. So don’t act self righteous. It doesn’t fit you.
Michael
It is unfortunate if you didn’t intend that but surely you must know that your reputation here would lead anyone who has read this site regularly to reason that you intended this as a slur.
Again, I hope you people keep this up. One minute I’m accusing you of being racsists [yes, please post these statements where I called you Nazis or KKKers you liar]. The next, according to Kliff Klaven, I’m a racist. Whatever is convenient for you to limit discourse. In fact, I don’t care if you misunderstood as I said–I actually hope that you continue to pretend that you misunderstood me. I hope that you keep this up, because I’m taking note of it and screenshots. You people are too stupid to know what you’re saying. Luckily, only stupid people follow you, so you don’t have any worries there.
Paranoid much? Where do you send the screen shots, the White House?
You have some of the most hatefull posts here. Yet YOU get offended?
Clayton E. Cramer wrote: “Taking away the obligation to retreat in public when you have that option pretty well guarantees that someone is going to get shot and killed.”
Enforcing an obligation to retreat pretty well guarantees that the victim will get shot and killed.
Which is better? Half a chance or no chance at all?
“Even threats, without some credible evidence of an ability to carry out that threat, won’t justify deadly force.”
A threat from, oh, a Muslim Cleric isn’t a legitimate threat? If such a person issues a fatwa, that’s as good as a brandished firearm. IN MY HUMBLE OPINION any issued threat of violence is a legitimate threat of deadly force and should be dealt with accordingly.
For instance, if you issue a vocalized or written threat against POTUS Obama, you will be subject to arrest by the Secret Service… (that wasn’t true for POTUS Bush, but that’s another topic…)
In any event, if someone says “I’m going to kill you,” you should have every right to drill that person a new eye socket.
Just my opinion.
Again Michael, I didn’t say I was offended. Never said it once; what you don’t understand, and you keep showing it post after post, is that people notice when you’re inconsistent. It makes it appear as if you have no beliefs. One minute you’re accusing people of reverse-racism, inventing meanings in vague comments, then the next you’re accusing people of doing the same thing to you (and of course, unfairly, in your case). I’m laughing at your alternate pearl clutching accusations of racism and your pearl clutching accusations that you’re unfairly being painted as racists. You can guess where the screenshots go, just be aware that someone is documenting your bs, and has it to demonstrate what a bunch of hypocritical idiots you all are.
Unfairly? Hardly. But I am not surprised you can’t see the other side.
This is fun, let’s do it again tomorrow.
6: HA! wildman,
we live by the same mantra. so very true.
Its one thing to assume that the name was a reference to the KKK (a stretch to begin with).
Moho, you took the name of a real character, changed it to something that turns into the acronym KKK, and you think there’s something bizarre about interpreting this as an attack on me as a racist? I’m used to liberals calling me Klayton K. Kramer in exactly the way that you converted Clifford C. Claven into KKK. Do you all get your marching orders from George Soros on this?
It’s obvious that you were unable to criticize anything that I was writing–so you felt the need to pick a fight by implying that I am a racist. You are useless.
The next, according to Kliff Klaven, I’m a racist. Whatever is convenient for you to limit discourse.
Moho, you are the one that, rather than criticize what I wrote, engaged in the equivalent of calling Obama a monkey. Why? Because you think that all criminals are black, and therefore “stand your ground” laws are racist. That’s the most obvious explanation for your Kliff K. Klaven crack.
Enforcing an obligation to retreat pretty well guarantees that the victim will get shot and killed.
How do you figure that? If the bully has a gun, there won’t be too much question that a victim using a gun in self-defense was engaged in a lawful act–even without a “stand your ground” law. Once an attacker draws a gun, he has engaged in assault with a deadly weapon, and deadly force is authorized even in a public place. Where these “stand your ground” laws have the most impact are situations like this–where the attacker was relying on strength, youth, and personal weapons (his fists), and where the use of deadly force in response was most likely to be prosecuted under the old laws.
“Even threats, without some credible evidence of an ability to carry out that threat, won’t justify deadly force.”
A threat from, oh, a Muslim Cleric isn’t a legitimate threat? If such a person issues a fatwa, that’s as good as a brandished firearm. IN MY HUMBLE OPINION any issued threat of violence is a legitimate threat of deadly force and should be dealt with accordingly.
You better work on persuading a majority of your legislature to agree with you. Right now, you are in a very, very tiny minority. The principle that a bare threat absent some realistic and imminent ability to carry out that threat doesn’t justify use of deadly force is well established in our laws.
For instance, if you issue a vocalized or written threat against POTUS Obama, you will be subject to arrest by the Secret Service… (that wasn’t true for POTUS Bush, but that’s another topic…)
Care to cite the specific federal statute in question? There are people who get taken in for questioning and even arrested, but there’s usually a bit more to the story. Some idiot in California many years started bragging about how he was going to use his rifle to shoot President Clinton from 500 yards away. But he was bragging about this his next-door neighbor, who was married to federal law enforcement. I believe that arrest and questioning ended up with both this guy’s threat AND the rifle.
In any event, if someone says “I’m going to kill you,” you should have every right to drill that person a new eye socket.
Fortunately, few people agree with you.
Indeed, if you had any integrity, if this was how you really looked at the world, we would have seen a commentary from you by now about Republicans use of “obvious” loaded racial imagery and discourse.
I’ve seen a very, very few pieces of loaded racial imagery about Obama–and they come overwhelmingly from “I’m mad as hell” sorts who regard the Republican Party as a bunch of left-wing hacks.
I have seen a lot of material that calls Obama a socialist or a communist, and I have been critical of this as being inaccurate. Ideologically, Obama and much of the rest of the Democratic Party is closer to fascism than socialism or communism.
114. Clayton E. Cramer:
You want a cartoon? How about this – A Texas drunk sees a couple of black guys walking out of his neighbor’s house with a TV and he shoots em in the back. I call it “Joe Horn, Texas Hero.”
Yeah, deadly force, it’s not just for rednecks anymore. This column is nothing more than spoon feeding the radical right wing chickenhawks another chance to spout faux bravery. Remember that idiot who brought a gun to the Town Hall and dropped it? I didn’t until I read this column. You people should stick to the rubber knives you get at the “Real Live Injun” shows out on old Route 66.
121. moho wow thats you in a nutshell. somebodies watching us? are you stazi? plausible deniability
you accuse yourself and deny it and pass the buck all in one shot pardon the pun.
Clayton,
First, let me say I very much appreciate your civilian firearm self-defense blog. That’s fine work and very beneficial.
Second, the application of good sense to this issue should clear up most of the difficulties. Arguing about hypotheticals in this area has been too long a hallmark of the libs. “Gunshine State,” anyone?
The reality is that most people, and particularly most CCW holders, would never need any obligation to retreat. They would do it automatically. There aren’t a lot of people out there who actually WANT to kill someone even if they dislike them intensely. A loudmouthed drunk being stopped by a bullet for simply mouthing off is not something that very many people will approve.
It all changes when violence comes into play. Landes and his friend were being chastised appropriately. They SHOULD have slowed down and Podany was well within his rights to tell them to do so. That Landes chose to physically attack someone who was telling him to restrain his dangerous and presumably illegal behavior earned him a bullet. Podany was clearly justified in his actions and should suffer no civil or criminal penalty.
The commons in America have increasingly become the domain of violent bullies. If you wonder why most Americans hate mass transit and refuse to use it, you can start there. Most people now want to spend as little time in public as possible because of the thugs and the threat of violence. Home schooling is growing exponentially for exactly this same reason. The “stand your ground” laws are not only necessary, they need to be celebrated and the principle of armed self defense soberly justified. The violent thugs out there need to understand that if they use violence they can and will be subjected to deadly force and that the society as a whole will be grateful to those who neutralized the threat.
Unfortunately, this necessity just demonstrates how degenerate our diverse society has become. Setting social norms is much easier in a homogeneous society where there is more consensus about what constitutes proper behavior. In our out-of-control society, I think now the best we can hope for is for the law to explicitly reinforce the citizen’s right to self-defense in public places and leave it at that.
Unfortunately, no law can make up for a corrupted populace and I’m afraid far too many Americans now merit that appellation.
You want a cartoon? How about this – A Texas drunk sees a couple of black guys walking out of his neighbor’s house with a TV and he shoots em in the back. I call it “Joe Horn, Texas Hero.”
Yes, that’s a cartoon. The reason that Joe Horn wasn’t prosecuted was because the police had evidence that Horn believed that he was in danger from these criminals. That they were black was irrelevant. That they were illegal aliens with long criminal records and were engaged in a felony at the time–that’s relevant.
Why is it so important for you to turn every black criminal into a proxy for all blacks? Do you think that all blacks are criminals?
The reality is that most people, and particularly most CCW holders, would never need any obligation to retreat. They would do it automatically.
I agree. The record of concealed weapon permit holders across the U.S. is really quite impressive on this count. As the article makes clear, I’m not thrilled about “stand your ground” laws, but I recognize why they are necessary.
Yeah, deadly force, it’s not just for rednecks anymore. This column is nothing more than spoon feeding the radical right wing chickenhawks another chance to spout faux bravery.
It would help if you actually read the column before spouting off. The point of the column is that “stand your ground” laws mean that in some cases, people who are behaving obnoxiously (although the example of this article) are going to die before they have a chance to mature and stop behaving like bullies. If all you got out of this column is your remarks above, you should probably go back to elementary school and work on your reading comprehension.
Once you have completed sixth grade, you can then start reading the Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog, where you will see how often ordinary Americans defend themselves from criminal attack with guns.
I had an incident long ago and because I looked like I was about to draw on a guy that tried to sneak up behind me, he backed off. It saved his life and probably kept me from potential jail time. I was armed, and I would have drawn and fired, I was in Fight or Flight mode, and would have shot him, auto defensive mode, fear driven. As you may gather I was not going to flee.
MOHO: I know you are limited,and I also know that your liberal special needs teacher has spent years indoctrinating you to spew out the racism trope whenever any issue is raised.I suggest an exercise for overcoming this intellectual limitation. Wait till, say, 2am,and then try to break into the crib of your local crack dealer.When he refuses to retreat, and shoots you,if you survive,accuse him of racism.I’m sure He’ll find your argument compeling,and he’ll apologize.
CLAYTON CRAMER et al: You’ll have to show patience with little MOHO.It’s tough to play the role of a trained monkey,for the white libtards who trained him in libel.Simulating intellectual effort exhausts,all these affirmative action wonders.Look at his hero Obama.He makes himself a laughingstock whenever he strays from the libs who program his teleprompter.At least the O’hole uses surrogates like the senile Carter to defame the American people,Moho,lacks even Obama’s feeble brain.He is soooo boring!Racism this,racism that,racism here there, everywhere,and PJM racists under the bed.The guy is programmed to slander,libel and bore all his interlocutors.He is a one trick pony(jackass really)braying racism, when threatened by thought.
I lived just down the road from the trailer park where the shooting occurred at.
Thonotasassa is a pretty rough little neighborhood on the outskirts of Tampa, which is far enough off of the beaten path to be ignored by the local sheriffs deputies.
We have tried to get increased patrols in the area, due to the local county jail being a couple of miles away, but we have been repeatedly told that there weren’t enough deputies to assign to the area.
The amount of people living in the neighborhood who are on house arrest, parolees, pervert kid-touchers, and ex-felons living in the area is insanely high, thus the corresponding crime rates are also.
(Check the stats: http://www.clrsearch.com/RSS/Demographics/FL/Thonotosassa/)
Podany was no angel himself; but he was well within his rights to protect himself, and we in the local community support him.
As for Mojo’s racial angle, Casey Landes (you know, the man who was shot) was white. (Pics are here: http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2008/3/2/329234.html)
Clayton wrote,
In some cases, sociopathic jerks. In some cases, drunken idiots who might still outgrow bad behavioral traits.
…as for that second category, may I emphasize your use of the equivocal word “might”? Are you asking polite and law abiding society to step back in the face of unprovoked, unwarranted, and irrational bullying and violence? Because the perpetrator “might” get hurt or killed? Are we to allow ourselves to become ‘certain’ victims, to be comforted by the *hope* the perpetrator “might” grow out of his criminal ways, on his own, without the encouragement of consequence?
Have you considered the that unchecked criminal “might” progress to increasingly dangerous behavior, should his aggression remains unchecked? I can show you public court records of people who have lived entire lives brushing the law (and those are just the reoported cases). I can show you their Myspace pages that embrace a glamorization of violence, pitbulls, and thug-style. Yet you’re expecting some of these people, who travel in like-minded social circles, to just change… and become kinder, gentler citizens on their own accord? And meanwhile, the traumatization or causality of the victims is an acceptable trade-off for the ensured safety of such thugs?
I respect your opinion and understand the point you’re trying to make. But I think it stems from a core belief in human nature that not all of your readers share with you. I (and many other commenters, it seems) believe ‘once a bully, always a bully,’ until properly deterred. And ‘stand your ground’ legislation goes a long way to provide that deterrence.
“All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” —– California Constitution, Article I, the Declaration of Rights, Section 1. Except for “privacy” this provision has been in place since 1849.
Note that in addition to “enjoying and defending life and liberty” and “protecting property”, one may pursue and obtain safety and happiness. Is not pursuit the antithesis of retreat.
Neither New York or Texas has a similar provision, except that in 1880 the Texas Supreme Court overturned a prosecution on the grounds that “When a Texan is faced with danger, his legs turn to wood”. So stated the Texas Rule is a duty not to retreat, while the California Constitution recognizes a choice.
And all these posts and not a mention of the 1952 movie “High Noon”. I guess your idea of a sequel would be to have Will Kane brought back for indictment and trial. And for that matter, apparently in the 1930s Egypt obviously followed the Texas rule so that Indiana Jones could eschew retreat and deal with a swordsman with a pistol without consequences.
…as for that second category, may I emphasize your use of the equivocal word “might”? Are you asking polite and law abiding society to step back in the face of unprovoked, unwarranted, and irrational bullying and violence?
The point of the article above (which apparently few people read) was that in a society where such bullying is fairly rare, it was understandable that the law required you to retreat rather than use deadly force. In a post-Christian society, where such bullying is widespread, “stand your ground” is perhaps a regrettable necessity.
I (and many other commenters, it seems) believe ‘once a bully, always a bully,’ until properly deterred.
Keep in mind that some bullies outgrow it–and sometimes, it’s the alcohol talking.
And all these posts and not a mention of the 1952 movie “High Noon”. I guess your idea of a sequel would be to have Will Kane brought back for indictment and trial. And for that matter, apparently in the 1930s Egypt obviously followed the Texas rule so that Indiana Jones could eschew retreat and deal with a swordsman with a pistol without consequences.
Try not to confuse reality with movies.
Note that in addition to “enjoying and defending life and liberty” and “protecting property”, one may pursue and obtain safety and happiness. Is not pursuit the antithesis of retreat.
It depends. I would prefer not to kill anyone if I don’t need to do so. There are times when that option isn’t available. But there are times when you do have that choice–and there’s a lot to be said for that choice. Especially because some day, the tables might be turned, and someone may think you are being unreasonable and unnecessarily aggressive.
Neither New York or Texas has a similar provision, except that in 1880 the Texas Supreme Court overturned a prosecution on the grounds that “When a Texan is faced with danger, his legs turn to wood”. So stated the Texas Rule is a duty not to retreat, while the California Constitution recognizes a choice.
“No duty to retreat” is NOT the same as “a duty not to retreat.” One gives you the option of retreating or not, as you feel is appropriate; the other orders you to stay where you are, and continue the escalation until someone gets killed.
The only unfortunate necessity is having to reload.Practice,practice,practice!
I lived in West Houston for the better part of 30 years. In the last 10 years or so I had attempted break ins when we were not there (I had a Doberman in the house …Sheesh.) Our neighborhood went Hispanic and thefts skyrocketed. It got to where you could not work on your car in the driveway, and leave your tools there to go in for a drink of water inside your house without them being stolen in just a few minutes. My friend and neighbor Jim was working on his car, and showed up at my front door begging tools since he was cleaned out in 5 minutes. I hope those bastards rot in hell. He also lost a lawnmower (running) when he went to answer a phone call.
I was robbed of a Weed Eater And a high pressure Paint sprayer rig just after I completed painting the house. I was totally POed since I had planned to paint the fence too. Too many straws…that was the last. Sold it!!!
I live out in the country for a purpose now. My house is not visible from the road (we have 16.7 AC of trees and Youpon) and we get few uninvited guests. Our friends always call before coming over. That is common country courtesy. I also have a 12 GA riot gun handy as well as a few other arms. I have met a couple pushy sales? type people at the front door with the scatter gun in the past couple of years. It stays loaded, locked and safed next to my front door.
I am a Vietnam Vet, and I have been shot at and had to shoot to kill. I will not let anyone intimidate me or my family. Ever. I made my peace with myself on that issue 40 years ago. I don’t care what color they are, if they show up on my property and threaten us, I will shoot to kill.
Most of you have never been shot at. It is not a pleasant experience. I refuse to let myself be shot at or attacked ever again. If they have a weapon they are dead. I will shoot first and let the Sheriff sort it out.
BTW, 00 Buckshot is just right.
I have the same view, I am for the Legislation. I myself am more concerned about good people who respect life and others then criminals. We all make mistakes and some of us grow up to have families and be generally good people, others don’t. The point is that you make a choice when you threaten some one else’s life or well being, so you made the choice, its time for our government to start protecting the law abiding citizens over the criminals a little more, this is a good crime deterrent. The best way to prevent war is be prepared for it, The US doesn’t have a awesome military because we are bad and want to kill everyone, it is for protection and it deters an attack. God Bless Florida and common sense.