<p>Do you think that story is relevant to any of the three laws I just mentioned? <em>no sarcasm</em></p>
<p>The grandfather initially claimed self-defense against his grandson’s father. What about collateral damage in SYG or self-defense cases?</p>
<p>This is a great example that shows that you can’t just claim self defense and get away with murder like SYG opponents throw around. It wasn’t listed in the article because none of those laws come into play, and the only thing that situation has to do with SYG is that the grandfather tried to claim it. </p>
<p>Collateral damage in an actual self defense/SYG/castle doctrine situation would of course be awful, but I’ve never seen anyone even claim statistics high enough to outweigh those who benefit from those laws.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So what’s the difference? The grandfather “thought” he was operating under an existing SD/SYG/CD law. And a little kid is dead. Who is benefiting from these laws? And do you actually believe people are thinking about them in the heat of the moment or, rather, are they using them after the fact to excuse their careless actions?</p>
<p>@newhope33 “so ignorant of Oklahoma’s SJG law they probably would have avoided arrest! … Worked for GZ”</p>
<p>You may want to understand the GZ case a bit more. That was not a SYG case.</p>
<p>^the judge’s jury instructions clearly referenced SYG</p>
<p>“he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force”</p>
<p>[“Stand</a> Your Ground” Did Indeed Play a Role in the Zimmerman Trial | Mother Jones](<a href=“http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/07/stand-your-ground-did-indeed-play-role-zimmerman-trial]"Stand”>“Stand Your Ground” Did Indeed Play a Role in the Zimmerman Trial – Mother Jones)</p>
<p>[Juror:</a> We talked Stand Your Ground before not-guilty Zimmerman verdict - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com](<a href=“http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/16/3502481/juror-we-talked-stand-your-ground.html]Juror:”>http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/16/3502481/juror-we-talked-stand-your-ground.html)</p>
<p>Also raiders an increase in homicides outweighs benefits in my view…
“Our study finds that, that homicides go up by 7 to 9 percent in states that pass the laws, relative to states that didn’t pass the laws over the same time period,” he says.</p>
<p>[‘Stand</a> Your Ground’ Linked To Increase In Homicides : NPR](<a href=“'Stand Your Ground' Linked To Increase In Homicides : NPR”>'Stand Your Ground' Linked To Increase In Homicides : NPR)</p>
<p>You are supposed to be so well trained and know the laws so well that you can quickly make a decision, every concealed carry trainer will tell people they HAVE to do this. Yes, you are supposed to accurately assess the situation correctly. The difference is that George Zimmerman was attacked by a drug addict who had aggression and paranoia as a result of using lean, and the other was a little man trying to claim self defense after he shot someone because of an argument. Night and day. The man in that story seems to have acted out of rage, and TRIED to get away with it by claiming syg I think. </p>
<p>If I get jumped and beat within an inch of my life with a bat, and then the perp decides to drop the bat and turn away from me. If I shoot him while he is taking a step away from me, and a jury decides that he was done beating me, it’s murder. It’s not as pro-murder as some of you believe it to be. </p>
<p>Lindz, both of those articles contradict the claims you quoted in them. </p>
<p>“UPDATE: Hmmm. I’m getting some pushback from lawyer types who say that the judge’s instructions are based on common law, not SYG. Maybe. But Judge Nelson had to know that SYG had been the subject of enormous public scrutiny over the past year. It’s hard to believe she’d use the phrase without clarification if she was basing her instructions solely on common law.” I like how he says lawyer types, like they aren’t really viable sources on this, lol. The judge in that case was more concerned about protecting TM’s reputation than making sure an innocent man didn’t go to jail. </p>
<p>The second article is full of the guy you quoted speculating about what could be the cause of a rise in homicides. He lists several other possibilities, and then at the end a Stanford Professor agrees with the assessment and then makes a silly claim in the last paragraph that shows he doesn’t understand SYG. Here’s his quote:</p>
<p>"I’ve been hearing from defense lawyers around the country that if they happen to have a criminal defendant in a stand your ground jurisdiction, pretty much no matter what happens, you can say, ‘Well, I shot the guy, but I felt threatened and had a reasonable basis for fearing injury to myself,’ " he said.</p>
<p>No matter what happens, all you have to is claim you were threatened? Lol, this is their expert who’s been studying crime for 20 years. This is not even close to true, in most states you have to prove that it was self defense/syg. If Zimmerman was in another syg state
he would have been guilty because there wasn’t enough evidence to prove anything either way. </p>
<p>Most of the stats I’ve seen on how many crimes are deterred by armed citizens are from 500k-2 million a year. If only a small fraction of those stats are life saving situations, they are going to outweigh collateral damage. It ends up saving more lives. You should read several articles from both sides, different sources, and even try to find some independent sites that compare stats too. It’s hard to get a good understanding of the argument without all viewpoints.</p>
<p>I find it ironic that you suggest that others examine different viewpoints but of course you have no problem throwing out bogus stats. It is also telling that you didn’t document any of them. 500k-2 million crimes stopped a year? Please. </p>
<p>Also, Trayvon Martin was not a “drug addict.” Again, your information is wrong and your gross exaggerations make that pretty obvious.</p>
<p>Before SYG, I don’t recall there was a huge problem with persons being beaten to death while a pistol was left holstered on their hip. And before SYG, I don’t recall there was a huge problem with persons who were being beaten to death drawing their pistol and shooting their attacker. And before SYG, I don’t recall a huge problem with persons being sent to prison because the jury and public disagreed with an affirmative self-defense claim. And we already knew that every shooter feels justified when pulling the trigger.</p>
<p>So exactly what unaddressed issue did SYG laws address? More importantly, what would be the PRACTICAL effect if all SYG laws were repealed? I suspect the answer to the latter is “None.” Which begs the question, why are SYG advocates adamant about keeping the laws?</p>
<p>Because they provide legal cover for trigger-happy cowards who don’t actually know how to use their guns to keep a crime from occurring (if, in fact, there is even one about to take place). Because they are backed by the NRA, ALEC, and other groups that have financial and political interests in keeping them.</p>
<p>[?Stand</a> Your Ground? laws coincide with jump in justifiable-homicide cases - The Washington Post](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/stand-your-ground-laws-coincide-with-jump-in-justifiable-homicide-cases/2012/04/07/gIQAS2v51S_print.html]?Stand”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/stand-your-ground-laws-coincide-with-jump-in-justifiable-homicide-cases/2012/04/07/gIQAS2v51S_print.html)</p>
<p>Here’s a case that happened in Wisconsin last year–an unarmed black teenager hiding on a porch after a party. Really? The owner had to KILL him??</p>
<p>[Bo</a> Morrison Shot And Killed Under Stand Your Ground Law (DETAILS) | Global Grind](<a href=“http://globalgrind.com/2012/04/18/bo-morrison-shot-killed-wisconsin-law-stand-your-ground-trayvon-martin-details/]Bo”>Bo Morrison Shot And Killed Under Stand Your Ground Law (DETAILS))</p>
<p>Here’s another one set to go to trial next month. Drunk white guy feels the need to “stand his ground” after asking a car full of black teens to turn down their music at a gas station. Of course instead of just driving off, he decides to go back to his car, get his gun out of the glove compartment, and shoot 8 or 9 shots into the teens’ vehicle. One boy was killed and the others were injured. The shooter just drove off.</p>
<p>[Jordan</a> Davis update: Michael Dunn charged with first-degree murder, trial scheduled for September 23](<a href=“http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/state/jordan-davis-update-michael-dunn-charged-with-first-degree-murder-trial-scheduled-for-september-23]Jordan”>http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/state/jordan-davis-update-michael-dunn-charged-with-first-degree-murder-trial-scheduled-for-september-23)</p>
<p>22 year old black guy pulls a gun and gut shoots a 29 year old out walking his dog because walking down the sidewalk he stepped in front of him as he pulld out to the Taco Bell drive thru. The dog walker was mentally disabled, unarmed and the shooter told police he did not think the guy would have killed he and the girl in the car.
[‘Stand</a> your ground’ law at center of Phoenix shooting | azfamily.com Phoenix](<a href=“Arizona's Family | Phoenix News”>Arizona's Family | Phoenix News)</p>
<p>SYG laws enacted by state legislatures do not actually change the common law rules in many states. </p>
<p>[How</a> will ‘stand your ground’ affect concealed carry? - Chicago Tribune](<a href=“How will concealed carry affect 'stand your ground'?”>How will concealed carry affect 'stand your ground'?)</p>
<p>RAIDERS stated “The difference is that George Zimmerman was attacked by a drug addict who had aggression and paranoia as a result of using lean”</p>
<p>GZ was acquitted, not found innocent, there is a big difference. I find it abhorrent that you malign a deceased teen who belonged in that neighborhood, was NOT a criminal, was NOT a drug addict, there was no paranoia, and used lean??? so you are also referencing the ridiculous unfounded claim, based on zero fact, that TM was going to use his skittles and iced tea to make lean. wow. the assumption that TM attacked is based on GZ, as TM could no longer speak his truth, which is why SYG laws are dangerous. The tone and lack of fact in your statement is concerning. </p>
<p>heck, my 17 y.o. son buys skittles and iced tea from the corner store and comes home into our gated community in Florida and…yep, drinks the tea, and eats the skittles without anyone following him with a loaded gun. no one would ever accuse him of “using lean” either. white privilege you see…</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/24/us-usa-zimmerman-gun-idUSBRE97N0CT20130824[/url]”>http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/24/us-usa-zimmerman-gun-idUSBRE97N0CT20130824</a></p>
<p>07DAD, that Phoenix story is awful. This article also describes how his dog stayed by his side after he died. Heartbreaking.</p>
<p>[Unstable</a> ground: The fine line between self-defense and murder - CNN.com](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/29/us/stand-your-ground]Unstable”>http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/29/us/stand-your-ground)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[‘Stand</a> your ground’ law at center of Phoenix shooting | azfamily.com Phoenix](<a href=“Arizona News”>Arizona News)</p>
<p>Unless you are in a convertible, I don’t see how you can claim self defense or stand your ground if someone is hitting your car.</p>
<p>I have been on both sides of this debate. First vehemently against SYG but after moving to OK, taking care of assaulted patients, and hearing stories from colleagues who were victims of home invasions, I am so glad I live in a state with SYG and CC permit laws. I don’t think SYG should protect you against an incident that you’ve provoked. But you should be able to defend your life and not have to turn your back to flee from someone who is trying to harm you. This is an argument I don’t have to worry about in my state. It is settled. As for Zimmerman, he should have never provoked the confrontation. In OK and Texas, there have been convictions against people who claimed SYG when they provoked the confrontation.</p>
<p>46 states don’t require retreat in your home. </p>
<p>The change SYG implements is more in two areas: the process of justice and the definition of conduct. I don’t want to get into the former, which is about how charges are brought and proved in court. The latter is the real issue: SYG substitutes or at least seems to substitute a person’s subjective beliefs for the long-time standards of greater objectivity. So for example you can claim you were afraid for your life or claim you think you saw a weapon and kill someone even if there was no weapon. It’s also opened the door, perhaps, to lots of lying, but … </p>
<p>It’s actually unclear what the effect has been because studies of this sort are really hard to do and it’s very difficult to isolate the effects of this one law from other trends. We know some famous cases, but that SYG is cited doesn’t mean the police or courts have applied it. Example is the case at a gas station where a white guy shot into a car of black men because he says he saw a shotgun (which wasn’t there). He was indicted and awaits trial. Or the white guy who shot into a car that was pulling out of his driveway because he feared these people - who were leaving and were simply lost - were home invaders. He was indicted and awaits trial. These were cited as SYG and discussed in the papers but they’re being treated by the authorities as unlawful killings. </p>
<p>I’ve seen numbers from Florida about increases in gun deaths attributed to SYG. Problem is they have seen a rise in gun deaths generally and I can’t see how the study isolated the issue. </p>
<p>BTW, people have cited a study about gun use deterrence of crimes. That study is a POS. The humorous thing to me is it takes small slices of data that’s often dubious and essentially scales up the numbers in a non-statistical way to get a big number of crimes deterred. By dubious information, I mean they take answers to questions like “have you ever” that don’t even directly refer to showing a weapon and attribute those to a slice of time. That then allows them to come up with a number for that time period which they can then scale up. It’s like asking if you’ve ever had a cold, taking the answer yes and saying that applies for this 3 month period so therefore there are 17 billion colds. That and much of the rest of the work are incredibly shoddy. I would bet 99.99% of the people who cite this work have never looked at it.</p>
<p>“We are, as a nation, the cumulative being of our laws. Of the people, for the people, by the people.
We, as a nation, can overcome anything.”
-Used to be able, not anymore and by very far not at all " Of the people, for the people, by the people." - this has been collapsed.</p>
<p>
Most studies are guilty of one, more, or all of these things. Yet, they continue to drive legislative policy all day long. I do agree that the research of pros/cons of gun use is a difficult thing and not least due to all the motivated interests involved in it.</p>
<p>
Didn’t read the body but that headline’s a gift to every SYG legislative architect.</p>
<p>You can look at it that way. I see “justifiable homicides” in many SYG cases as “getting away with murder.”</p>