West Web view5/3/2012 · The Public Forum topic for Nationals 2012 is “ Resolved:...

West Coast 2012Nationals PF

West Coast Public Forum

Nationals 2012Self-Defense Topic

West Coast..............................................................................................................................................1

Topic Analysis 1/2................................................................................................................................2

Topic Analysis 2/2................................................................................................................................3

Topic Definitions..................................................................................................................................4

Pro...........................................................................................................................................................5

SYG Laws Are Legitimate.....................................................................................................................6

SYG Laws Protect Innocent People......................................................................................................7

SYG Laws Do Not Encourage Vigilantism.............................................................................................8

SYG Does Not Apply To Trayvon Martin..............................................................................................9

George Zimmerman Is Innocent........................................................................................................10

Duty To Retreat Is Worse Than SYG...................................................................................................11

Anti-SYG Evidence Is Misinformed.....................................................................................................12

Anti-SYG Arguments Are Media Hype................................................................................................13

SYG Laws Are Not Racist....................................................................................................................14

Con........................................................................................................................................................15

SYG Laws Are Not Justified................................................................................................................16

SYG Laws Are Inherently Racist..........................................................................................................17

SYG Causes Racist Homicides.............................................................................................................18

SYG Laws Cause More Killings............................................................................................................19

SYG Laws Are Unfair..........................................................................................................................20

SYG Laws Cause Vigilantism...............................................................................................................21

SYG Laws Are Shoot First Ask Questions Later...................................................................................22

George Zimmerman Is Guilty.............................................................................................................23

SYG Laws Undermine Respect For Human Life..................................................................................24


Topic Analysis 1/2

The Public Forum topic for Nationals 2012 is “Resolved: Stand Your Ground laws are a legitimate expansion of the doctrine of self defense.” The Pro side of this resolution will argue that laws such as Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, which makes it legal to kill someone in self-defense if you feel threatened, is ethically acceptable. The Con side will argue that laws such as these encourage vigilante killing and unnecessarily expand the doctrine of self defense to include homicide. This months Public Forum Briefs are intended to give you a set of evidence to prepare and debate these questions.

TOPIC OVERVIEW

Almost everyone is familiar with the legal concept of self-defense. In summary, it says that it is legally permissible to use otherwise illegal force against someone if you are defending yourself against death or imminent harm. For example, if someone starts shooting at you, it is considered permissible to shoot back, even if you kill them. Like most legal concepts, however, the exact margins of what constitutes legitimate self-defense are very controversial. In the real world, knowing who was the aggressor and who was the defender is not always clear – much less whether someone truly intended harm. Many laws have been passed which attempt to provide the courts with clearer direction on what constitutes “legitimate” self-defense. This includes so-called “Stand Your Ground” (SYG) laws.

SYG laws have been passed in approximately half of the US states, and in brief, they specify that it is acceptable to use lethal force against someone when you feel “reasonably threatened.” In particular, these laws run counter to another legal doctrine called the “Duty to Retreat” which says that you are under obligation to try and avoid confrontation with someone to the greatest degree possible. Put another way, SYG laws say that you don’t have to run away from someone if you expect them to attempt to hurt you – you are instead allowed to “stand your ground” even if it means killing your assailant. SYG laws are the extension of a long-recognized legal right called the “castle doctrine” which authorizes the use of lethal force against someone who has invaded your home, even if they haven’t directly attacked you yet.

While Stand Your Ground laws have always engendered debate and controversy, they have recently been brought to the forefront of public consciousness due to a high-profile killing in Florida involving a white Hispanic man, George Zimmerman, who shot and killed an unarmed black teenager, Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman successfully avoided arrest for months, after invoking Florida’s Stand Your Ground statute to the police.

As of this writing, Zimmerman has been taken into police custody and charged with murder after a nationwide public outcry about the case. He had pleaded not-guilty, but it will likely be months before there is any legal resolution to the case. The facts of the case are still under some dispute, but the basic outline is that Zimmerman, acting as a member of the neighborhood watch, pursued and shot the much smaller and unarmed Martin, against the advice of 911 operators. He was released by police after claiming that Martin had attacked him. Other than the obvious racial undertones to the case, it has also served as a vehicle for both supporters and critics to discuss Stand Your Ground laws and whether or not they allow for legitimate self-defense. This has been the case despite questions as to whether Stand Your Ground laws even apply in the case at all.

While the topic itself doesn’t deal explicitly with the Trayvon Martin killing, it does provide the backdrop for most of the articles discussing SYG laws in recent months – so it is valuable for you to get up to speed on the specifics of the case, if for no other reason that being able to understand the literature.


Topic Analysis 2/2

DEBATING THE PRO SIDE

The Pro should start by deciding how they want to define “legitimate.” The topic could be read to ask whether SYG laws are morally or ethically permissible, or whether SYG should be considered a legally reasonable extension of things like the Castle doctrine. Either way, the pro will need to be ready to offer both theoretical and pragmatic defenses of SYG laws.

The Pro should begin by explaining why SYG laws are crucial to protecting innocent victims, who would otherwise have no legal recourse when legitimately defending themselves. It would be unreasonable, the Pro should argue, for someone to have to wait until they are physically harmed to exercise their right to self-defense. Similarly, it is not practical for people to make the decision to run away when they feel threatened – especially if the threat is imminent. The alternative to SYG laws is worse, the Pro should argue – because it allows a miscarriage of justice, simply in the opposite direction of SYG critics.

One attack the Pro should be ready for is that SYG laws are inherently racist, since they rely on a “reasonable fear” standard which begs the question of what “reasonable” means – is it reasonable for a white person to fear a black teenager wearing a hoodie, even if there are no signs they’re armed? Societal prejudice will inevitably play into application of laws like SYG, critics say – so the Pro should be prepared to defend that the laws can be fairly applied, or that as long as they are written in a race-neutral way, it shouldn’t be a concern.

One of the most important angles the Pro should take against criticisms of SYG is to argue that the problem is not the laws themselves, but that any problems which exist (such as the Trayvon Martin case) are isolated examples, and reflect societal racism, incompetent police, and the like. This will help the Pro only need to defend themselves against SYG laws in theory, not as they are exercised in practice.

DEBATING THE CON SIDE

The Con should start by arguing that SYG laws are racist, as discussed above. They can argue both that the laws themselves are racist, because they play on racial stereotypes about what a legitimate “fear” is, but also that the laws are enforced in an unequal and discriminatory way. They should then argue that no legal principle can be considered “legitimate” if it results in racism.

The Con can also argue that SYG laws result in an increase in vigilantism, and encourage a “Wild West” mentality which authorizes killing people in cold blood. There are some statistics to back this up – since Florida introduced the SYG law, the incidence of homicides that have been considered “justifiable” by the court have shot up – including such dubious cases as gang wars and drug dealer shootouts. The Con should argue that SYG laws send a signal to society that it is legitimate to settle ones differences with lethal force – even in the absent of a direct attack on oneself.

The Con should also make sure to take issue with the Pro’s characterization of what “legitimate” means – if the Pro only has to prove that SYG laws are analogous to the Castle Doctrine, and hence are legally reasonable, they would have a much easier time winning. The Con should try and focus the debate on the outcomes of the SYG law, and should play on the rhetorical power of the SYG critics in describing the Trayvon Martin case – it is a very prominent example of how justice might be mis-served by SYG laws.


Topic Definitions

Stand Your Ground laws are laws which allow you to defend yourself if you believe you are in dangerThe Week, 4-27-2012, “Stand Your Ground laws,” http://theweek.com/article/index/227159/stand-your-ground-laws-do-they-offer-a-license-to-killWhat are Stand Your Ground laws? Statutes that expand a person's right to use deadly force in self-defense, which have been adopted by 25 states in the last decade. An established legal principle, the Castle Doctrine, has long allowed people to use reasonable, and sometimes deadly, force to protect themselves from an assailant inside their homes. But on public property outside the home, a person who could safely retreat from a threat generally has a legal duty to do so. Stand Your Ground laws remove that requirement to retreat, and authorize the use of deadly force if a person reasonably feels at risk of death or great bodily harm. In the Trayvon Martin case, police in Sanford, Fla., said they didn't initially arrest the shooter, neighborhood-watch volunteer George Zimmerman, because they couldn't refute his claim that he'd fired in self-defense — even though Martin, 17, was unarmed when killed.

Legitimate means in accordance with the lawRandom House, 2012, “legitimate,” Dictionary.Com, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/legitimate?s=tadjective 1. according to law; lawful: the property's legitimate owner. 2. in accordance with established rules, principles, or standards. 3. born in wedlock or of legally married parents: legitimate children. 4. in accordance with the laws of reasoning; logically inferable; logical: a legitimate conclusion. 5. resting on or ruling by the principle of hereditary right: a legitimate sovereign.

Expansion means something that has been expandedMerriam-Websters, 2012, “expansion,” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/expansion1 : expanse 2 : the act or process of expanding <territorial expansion> <economic expansion> <expansion of the universe> 3 : the quality or state of being expanded 4 : the increase in volume of working fluid (as steam) in an engine cylinder after cutoff or in an internal combustion engine after explosion 5 a : an expanded part b : something that results from an act of expanding <the book is an expansion of a lecture series> 6 : the result of carrying out an indicated mathematical operation : the expression of a function in the form of a series

Expand means to increaseMerriam-Websters, 2012, “expansion,” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/expand?show=0&t=13366879191: to open up : unfold 2 : to increase the extent, number, volume, or scope of : enlarge Doctrine of self defense

Doctrine of self defense is preemptive use of forceBusiness Dictionary, 2012, “self-defense,” http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/self-defense.htmlUse of reasonable force (as compared with the attacker's force) in protection of one's person, family, property, or anyone else against attempted or threatened attack. Legal doctrine of self defense justifies a preemptive action taken in the reasonable belief of immediate danger, without making any retreat, and may (specially in case of provocation) condone killing of the perpetrator of a murderous attack.


Pro


SYG Laws Are Legitimate

SYG laws are a legitimate codification of common law of self defenseRusty Workman, lawyer, 4-17-2012, “Stand Your Ground,” Chasing Jefferson, http://chasingjefferson.blogspot.com/2012/04/stand-your-ground.htmlDionne nevertheless argues, paradoxically, that on the one hand these statutes somehow create confusion for prosecutors and cops, and on the other hand that they weren’t necessary because the common law—i.e., the proclamations of judges—already long recognized the doctrine of self defense. Of course, if all the statute does is codify existing common law (which is basically true), how could there be any added confusion? More to the point, why should any of us faced with defending ourselves in a life-or-death situation have to rely for our defense on a doctrine that exists only because a judge somewhere said so, and will continue only so long as future judges adhere to it? It is common for legislatures to enact statutes that take the common law developed over time in the courts and convert it into a firm statute.

Stand your Ground is legitimate – it just expands self-defense outside the homeGustavo Frances, P.A. lawyer, 2012, “Self-Defense,” http://www.lauderdaledefense.com/PracticeAreas/Self-Defense.aspUnder an expansion of the Castle Doctrine, Florida changed its self-defense laws in 2005 to what is now known as Florida's "stand your ground" law. Prior to this change, if a person attacked you, you only had a legal right to defend yourself with the use of force if you were in your home (hence, the older "castle" doctrine). However, under Florida's new law, you are now able to defend yourself with force outside your home. (Please visit my article on Florida's "Stand Your Ground" Law for more information). One of the major benefits of Florida's "stand your ground" law is that you now have a right to file a motion to have a hearing on your immunity from prosecution before trial. Hiring an attorney early on can ensure pitfalls of a trial. Instead, you can have a judge grant you immunity prior to ever having a trial date set. The standard for this is showing by a preponderance of the evidence that you were legally justified to defend yourself, you were in fear and the person was going to attack you. There is a huge difference between self-defense and defense using lethal force. The only time deadly force is considered self-defense is if a person reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm.

Supreme court has already supported the stand your ground principleKen Blackwell, 4-12-2012, “The Truth About ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws,” Town Hall, http://townhall.com/columnists/kenblackwell/2012/04/12/the_truth_about_stand_your_ground_laws/page/full/Some states did not impose this absurd rule. To the contrary, other states took a common-sense approach to self-defense, which the U.S. Supreme Court in Beard v. U.S. endorsed as early as 1895, when the Court unanimously declared that an innocent person under attack was, “not obliged to retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground, and meet any attack upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force as … [he] honestly believed, and had reasonable grounds to believe, was necessary to save his own life, or to protect himself from great bodily injury.” In states that rejected this common-sense principle, one legislative response to the wrongheaded duty to retreat was the Castle Doctrine. The duty to retreat in some states required you to abandon your own home if confronted with an invader, leaving all your possessions to the invader and possibly endangering others.


SYG Laws Protect Innocent People

SYG are net good, despite problems – protect innocent peopleDara Kam, 3-20-2012, “’Stand Your Ground’ self-defense gun law draws protests,” Palm Beach Post, http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/stand-your-ground-self-defense-gun-law-draws-2250337.htmlThe racial tension surrounding the Sanford shooting should not take away from the positive results the law has had by allowing potential victims to protect themselves, Baxley said. "It has stopped a lot of victimization from occurring. And that's what I get thanked for every week almost from someone. I think it defends those people. It defends everyone. If they're under violent attack they have the authority to stop that," he said. NRA lobbyist Marion Hammer, who pushed for the law, agreed. She said the call for action is premature, because the law allows an arrest to take place after an investigation. "So for law enforcement to rush to judgment just because they are being stampeded by emotionalism would be a violation of law," she said. "This law is not about one incident. It's about protecting the right of law-abiding people to protect themselves when they are attacked. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the law. And if the governor wants to waste time looking at it he can knock himself out.

SYG laws allow legitimate self-defenseMarc Millican, 5-6-2012, “Georgia to keep ‘Stand Your Ground’ law?” Dalton Daily Citizen, http://daltondailycitizen.com/local/x1378311688/Georgia-to-keep-Stand-Your-Ground-lawA spokesman for a grassroots organization who believes citizens should have a right to defend themselves in public said Georgia — like Florida with its “Stand Your Ground” law that has been used as a defense in a racially charged shooting case — should not repeal its own Stand Your Ground measure under political pressure. “If you’re taking your family to a football game or to a party downtown or whatever, and you have no control over what neighborhood you’re in, you should still be able to protect yourself,” said Jerry Henry, executive director of GeorgiaCarry.Org. “In my opinion, the Stand Your Ground law places the criminality where it belongs — and that’s on the aggressor and not on the victim.” The case in Florida, where a man named George Zimmerman who was on a neighborhood watch patrol and shot and killed a black teenager named Trayvon Martin, has thrown the spotlight on Stand Your Ground laws.

SYG laws still require you to prove legitimate self-defenseRusty Workman, lawyer, 4-17-2012, “Stand Your Ground,” Chasing Jefferson, http://chasingjefferson.blogspot.com/2012/04/stand-your-ground.htmlThis statute does not turn citizens into cops, and it doesn’t permit you to walk around town gunning down everyone who gives you the evil eye. It does two things. The first is to create a legal presumption that you have a reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or bodily harm if the person you shoot has broken into (or is in the process of breaking into) your home. This is the “Castle Doctrine” that says if the bad guy is in your house, we’re going to assume you acted in legitimate self defense; you’re not required to wait for him to shoot first, take the chance of asking him a bunch of questions to see why he’s there, or turn your back and try to crawl out a window, and we’re not going to second-guess you. For my life I can't imagine how this is in the least bit controversial. The second thing this law does is clarify that anyplace outside the home, if you are attacked you are not required to attempt to retreat before you may defend yourself. Importantly, however, this second aspect does not extend the Castle Doctrine’s legal presumption of reasonable belief in imminent danger. Outside the home, while you are not required to run before you can use deadly force to defend yourself, you will still bear the burden to prove your self-defense defense.


SYG Laws Do Not Encourage Vigilantism

SYG laws don’t allow vigilantism – they misunderstand the lawRusty Workman, lawyer, 4-17-2012, “Stand Your Ground,” Chasing Jefferson, http://chasingjefferson.blogspot.com/2012/04/stand-your-ground.htmlThe essence of Dionne’s position is clear in his recitation of the line so often repeated throughout the liberal media since the Trayvon Martin case broke: “Stand Your Ground” laws authorize the use of deadly force simply whenever a person “feels threatened.” And it is this misunderstanding—or deliberate misstatement—of what these laws actually say that fuels the argument from the Left. “Stand Your Ground” laws do NOT authorize vigilantism, and they do not come into play simply because a person feels threatened.

SYG laws don’t allow you to kill people just because you feel threatenedRusty Workman, lawyer, 4-17-2012, “Stand Your Ground,” Chasing Jefferson, http://chasingjefferson.blogspot.com/2012/04/stand-your-ground.htmlThis is significant, and it’s a point that rabidly anti-gun people like Dionne miss or deliberately gloss over. “Feeling threatened” won’t get you there—in fact, even “being threatened” isn’t enough. To make a self-defense case, you have to prove three things. First, that your fear was reasonable under the circumstances; hyper-paranoia, or naked racist stereotyping, isn’t going to be enough. Second, your fear must have been of death or serious injury. A fear that the other guy was merely going to hit you, or even attack you with a non-lethal weapon such as a taser or pepper spray, is almost certainly not sufficient to support the defense; the guy has to be about to kill you dead. And third, that peril must be imminent. That is, the guy has to have the means, ability, and proximity to kill you right now. Having a knife in his boot 30 yards away from you probably doesn’t put you at imminent risk of death, whereas a knife in his hand 5 feet away probably does. If he’s not armed, he’d better be physically capable and in the process of beating you to death with his bare hands, or your use of deadly force will be a difficult defense to make.

SYG isn’t a license to kill at will – it’s justifiedMarc Millican, 5-6-2012, “Georgia to keep ‘Stand Your Ground’ law?” Dalton Daily Citizen, http://daltondailycitizen.com/local/x1378311688/Georgia-to-keep-Stand-Your-Ground-lawHenry said what happened in Sanford, Fla., with the Trayvon Martin shooting is “a tragedy.” “Our prayers go out to the families of those involved,” he said. “However, the Florida incident has no bearing on any Stand Your Ground laws in Georgia or 23 other states.” Henry reported the Violence Prevention Center called Stand Your Ground a “kill at will law.” “Nothing could be further from the truth,” he said. “It’s the only thing that gives the law-abiding citizen any measure to defend themselves ... Even if the statute that was passed in 2006 were repealed — which we don’t expect it will be — case law still says Georgia is a Stand Your Ground state. “It’s better to have it and not need it ... than not to have it at all.”


SYG Does Not Apply To Trayvon Martin

SYG laws don’t apply to the Trayvon Martin caseKen Blackwell, 4-12-2012, “The Truth About ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws,” Town Hall, http://townhall.com/columnists/kenblackwell/2012/04/12/the_truth_about_stand_your_ground_laws/page/full/Under any version of the facts, Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law did not apply in the Trayvon Martin incident. If Zimmerman pursued a confrontation with Martin, then Zimmerman was an attacker and cannot claim SYG. If Zimmerman’s account is true that he was on the ground and Martin was on top of him, then retreat was impossible, so there would be no duty to retreat anyway. A victim in such a situation can use deadly force, but only if he reasonably believes he is being attacked with deadly force. To our knowledge, that is the law in all fifty states. It was the law before SYG statutes were ever passed, and SYG did nothing to change it.

SYG wouldn’t apply to the Martin-Zimmerman caseRusty Workman, lawyer, 4-17-2012, “Stand Your Ground,” Chasing Jefferson, http://chasingjefferson.blogspot.com/2012/04/stand-your-ground.htmlThere is no doubt that regardless of how it really went down—and we may never know that with complete certainty—Trayvon Martin’s death is a tragedy. I am not here to defend George Zimmerman, and if he can’t make out his defense, I hope the State of Florida rings him up. But much as people like E.J. Dionne and Jesse Jackson would like to use this incident as fodder to crucify the NRA or even seek federal anti-defense legislation, Trayvon Martin isn’t dead because of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, and repealing that statute wouldn’t have changed that outcome. George Zimmerman would, in all likelihood, have been carrying his weapon that night with or without that statute, and there’s no reason to think he wouldn’t have used it in exactly the manner he did—however that was—without that statute. And once the altercation began it was no longer a “Stand Your Ground” situation. If Zimmerman was, as he claims, already on his back having his head beaten against the concrete, he obviously couldn’t retreat no matter what the law said. Alternatively, if he was the guy on top, as others have suggested, his self-defense defense is no good with or without the statute. And if Zimmerman in fact pursued Martin and initiated the fight, the Stand Your Ground law won't even apply. This simply isn’t a “Stand Your Ground” case; it’s a self-defense case, and the jury is very much out at this point.

Zimmerman is innocent – no evidence to the contraryDan Linehan, managing editor, 4-10-2012, “Why Nothing Sticks To George Zimmerman,” Wagist, http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/why-nothing-sticks-to-george-zimmermanThere was initially a pretty strong assumption by most people (mainly due to the incredibly biased media reporting of the incident) that the Sanford Police Department had somehow been complicit in not charging George Zimmerman. But as time has gone on, it seems the investigation the department carried out was actually extremely by the book. Lately, people have changed tack; they don’t like the conclusions the investigation reached and feel state law must be to blame. While the police spent weeks attempting to gather evidence and press charges against Zimmerman, the facts of the case simply didn’t materialize in a way that implicated Zimmerman as having committed manslaughter. Then the case was blown up by the media, and more and more investigatory branches of the government became involved, including the Department of Justice and the FBI, but evidence against Zimmerman has still remained elusive. If there is any strong evidence against him, it hasn’t been released by the prosecutors thus far.


George Zimmerman Is Innocent

George Zimmerman is innocent – it was self defenseDoug Book, 4-19-2012, “Is George Zimmerman guilty of 2nd degree murder?” http://www.coachisright.com/is-george-zimmerman-guilty-of-2nd-degree-murder/Any individual who is NOT the aggressor in a confrontation is entitled to the use of force, including deadly force, “…if he reasonable believes that such force is necessary to protect himself from imminent use of unlawful deadly force by the other person.” Nor is it necessary that an aggressor be armed with a gun, knife or anything usually thought of as a deadly weapon. For “…‘deadly force’ is force likely to cause death or grievous bodily injury,” whether effected by a weapon OR bare hands. (3) If video, witness testimony and physical evidence clearly show Trayvon Martin the aggressor; if they reveal a violent attack by Martin sufficient to inflict “grievous bodily injury” and if it appears Zimmerman made a decision to fire based upon a reasonable fear of his life or well-being, then innocent by reason of self-defense must be the verdict delivered by a properly instructed, un-biased jury. Killing without justification is murder. Killing with the justification of self-defense is not. All George Zimmerman and Americans interested in justice can hope for is a jury of 12 honest people, unafraid to do the right thing.

Even if he made mistakes, Zimmerman isn’t guilty of second degree murderW.J. O’Reilly, 4-23-2012, “George Zimmerman Not Likely to Be Found Guilty on Murder 2,” CNN, http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-779806While a person is innocent until proven guilty in this country, we can still point the finger of blame at security guard George Zimmerman on several counts that few would defend--****that he did not desist from tracking Trayvon when the 911 operator told him to back off ****that he made a faulty judgement that Trayvon was an intruder to the neighborhood and up to no good ****that he carried a loaded weapon on a neighborhood security detail that required no more than a cell phone to call police if anything disturbing was going on Many experts, including Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School, however, believe that there is absolutely nothing in this case that would return a guilty verdict on second degree murder.

There’s no evidence Zimmerman is guiltyDan Linehan, managing editor, 4-10-2012, “Why Nothing Sticks To George Zimmerman,” Wagist, http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/why-nothing-sticks-to-george-zimmermanHad Zimmerman’s narrative and recounting of the details of that evening been any less than 100% consistent, that’s the moment when everything would have fallen apart for him — sometime right around February 27th. The police had every reason and opportunity to document and doggedly pursue any differences they saw between Zimmerman’s initial interview and his video re-enactment the following day. Rather than finding anything they could follow up with, what happened instead? The Sanford Police Department was unable to obtain any evidence that would allow them to press even involuntary manslaughter charges against Zimmerman. And no new evidence changed that, even as days and weeks passed.


Duty To Retreat Is Worse Than SYG

SYG alternative is Duty to Retreat – that’s even worseMarc Millican, 5-6-2012, “Georgia to keep ‘Stand Your Ground’ law?” Dalton Daily Citizen, http://daltondailycitizen.com/local/x1378311688/Georgia-to-keep-Stand-Your-Ground-lawDistrict Attorney Bert Poston of the Conasauga Judicial Circuit (Whitfield and Murray counties) said reporting on the recent deadly shooting in Florida using the “Stand Your Ground” statute there as a defense has not been fully accurate. “I have personally seen a good bit of misinformation — and accurate but misleading information — in the national news on the subject since the Trayvon Martin case in Florida,” he said. “The legal concept behind ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws is not a new one and has to be considered in contrast to the alternative legal principle of ‘duty to retreat.’” Poston said under the “duty to retreat” rule, a person who is attacked cannot legally defend himself or herself with equal force “unless they first attempt to retreat or avoid the attack if they are reasonably able to do so.” “The problem with that doctrine is that it is hard to tell during a time of great stress — such as when you are being attacked — whether you have a ‘reasonable’ opportunity to retreat,” he explained. “The rule puts the burden on the victim to justify his or her actions so that a person could defend themselves in a manner they found reasonable only to be second-guessed by a legal system exercising 20/20 hindsight. Stand Your Ground is thus the legal principle that you do not have to retreat if attacked — that you can defend yourself even if it might be possible to retreat and thereby avoid injury.”

Stand your ground laws are valuable – duty to retreat is much worseKen Blackwell, 4-12-2012, “The Truth About ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws,” Town Hall, http://townhall.com/columnists/kenblackwell/2012/04/12/the_truth_about_stand_your_ground_laws/page/full/Sadly, some are exploiting the Trayvon Martin shooting to target self-defense laws that protect innocent lives. These laws safeguard law-abiding and peaceable citizens, and are not to blame in the tragic Florida incident. Stand your ground laws did not apply in that situation, and statements to the contrary are irresponsible and misinformed. In some states the law imposes a duty to retreat from physical confrontations. Whether in your home or on the street, if you fought back, you might be prosecuted as a criminal. This duty was terrible law. It required you to turn your back on an assailant. Even if he doesn’t have a gun to shoot you in the back, if he’s faster he could attack you from behind, where it is extremely difficult to effectively respond.

The problem isn’t SYG laws, it’s just individual incidences of abuseDara Kam, 3-20-2012, “’Stand Your Ground’ self-defense gun law draws protests,” Palm Beach Post, http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/stand-your-ground-self-defense-gun-law-draws-2250337.htmlBut one of the sponsors of the 2005 measure defended the law, citing reports that Zimmerman ignored the advice of a 911 operator who told Zimmerman to stay away from Martin. "Invariably when there's any adverse incident, it's open season for anti-gun factions to disseminate this idea that there's something wrong with 'stand your ground,'" said Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, who sponsored the measure. "There's nothing in 'stand your ground' that authorizes anyone to pursue and confront an individual. That's the problem in this case. Let them do a bill about that."


Anti-SYG Evidence Is Misinformed

SYG laws are misunderstood by the mediaKen Blackwell, 4-12-2012, “The Truth About ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws,” Town Hall, http://townhall.com/columnists/kenblackwell/2012/04/12/the_truth_about_stand_your_ground_laws/page/full/But the law is not what you have heard reported by the media. Florida’s SYG law provides that a person under attack can use force—including deadly force—against his attacker if he, “reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm … or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.” Several keys points. First, the threat must be deadly. It’s not just that you’re under attack. You must be attacked with sufficient force to kill you or cause massive bodily harm, or rape. Second, it’s not enough that the victim believes he is under a deadly threat. His belief must also be reasonable, meaning that under the circumstances an objective observer would also conclude the victim could be killed or severely injured. Third, SYG only protects victims; it does not apply to attackers. If you’re attacking someone, you cannot claim SYG as a defense for what follows. And fourth, it doesn’t apply if you cannot retreat. If retreat is not an option, then the situation is governed by ordinary self-defense laws, not SYG laws.

Anti-gun activists are misinforming the public over Stand Your Ground lawsKen Blackwell, 4-12-2012, “The Truth About ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws,” Town Hall, http://townhall.com/columnists/kenblackwell/2012/04/12/the_truth_about_stand_your_ground_laws/page/full/So why is this not common knowledge after all the reporting on the Martin shooting? Tragically, some anti-gun activists are misinforming the public. They are aided by media commentators who failed the public trust by not researching and understanding the SYG issue before presuming to editorialize on it. The police are usually not at hand when you are attacked by a criminal. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of law-abiding people to defend themselves. And laws like Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground have restored that right in states where it had been eroded, not to take innocent life, but instead to preserve it.

SYG laws don’t apply to criminalsRusty Workman, lawyer, 4-17-2012, “Stand Your Ground,” Chasing Jefferson, http://chasingjefferson.blogspot.com/2012/04/stand-your-ground.htmlFurther, the “Stand Your Ground” aspect of the Florida statute doesn’t apply if you are in the process of committing a crime. Nor does it apply if you started it. So the bad guys can’t use the statute to defend themselves, and the statute doesn’t allow you to go around picking fights. All this statute does is allow you to defend yourself in your own home, and not require you to run if attacked in the street.


Anti-SYG Arguments Are Media Hype

SYG laws are not wrong – their evidence is hyperbole from the mediaRep. Matt Gaetz and Sen. Don Gaetz, 5-1-2012, “Standing Up For ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law,” Free Republican, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2878548/postsThe shooting death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Thankfully, our Constitution leaves it to a jury of twelve citizens, not a gaggle of cable news demagogues, to decide whether a crime was committed and, if so, who committed it. After all, our system of justice exists to resolve the tough cases – not just the easy ones. While motions are filed and trial dates are negotiated in the prosecution of George Zimmerman, the media’s obsession has shifted to Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law. Riding the extreme rhetoric of Al Sharpton and encouraged by the “concerns” of Attorney General Eric Holder, anti-gun groups have already declared that law guilty of murder and sentenced it for repeal by the state legislature. As two legislators who will vote on the issue, we want Northwest Floridians to know where we stand as we approach what is sure to be a well-orchestrated, well-financed attack on the Second Amendment. Assuredly, there are very few laws on the books so pure they can’t be improved. In fact, much of our effort in Tallahassee has been to repeal bad, unnecessary, burdensome laws. But it wasn’t the fault of Chapter 776.012, Florida Statutes, that Trayvon Martin is dead. If Zimmerman claims a “Stand Your Ground” defense, that still doesn’t make the law wrong. Claims are made in court every day. The court, not the media talking heads, decides if those claims are valid.

Don’t give in to media pressure – SYG is legitimateRep. Matt Gaetz and Sen. Don Gaetz, 5-1-2012, “Standing Up For ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law,” Free Republican, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2878548/postsWithout question, the Legislature should stand its ground and defend good law in the face of self-serving, over-hyped rhetoric from the far left. In 2005 when “Stand Your Ground” was enacted, Florida was one of only a few states that required a victim to run rather than stand his or her ground when attacked by a criminal while using deadly force. Before “Stand Your Ground,” Florida law favored the attacker. Consider an elderly woman in a dimly lit parking lot or a college girl walking to her dorm at night. If either was attacked, her duty was to turn her back and try to flee, probably be overcome and raped or killed. Prior to “Stand Your Ground,” that victim didn’t have the choice to defend herself, to meet force with force. Calls to repeal “Stand Your Ground” are anti-woman. Imposing a duty-to-flee places the safety of the rapist above a woman’s own life. In fact, until “Stand Your Ground” was passed, criminals were suing victims because victims, in protecting themselves, were allegedly using excessive force against the criminals.

Anti-SYG arguments are just exploiting tragedy for political gainRep. Matt Gaetz and Sen. Don Gaetz, 5-1-2012, “Standing Up For ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law,” Free Republican, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2878548/posts“Stand Your Ground” simply says, if you have a right to be somewhere and if you’re not breaking the law, you may defend yourself to prevent imminent death or bodily harm. You don’t have an obligation to do so. You have the right. Those who use every tragedy as an excuse to water down our right to keep and bear arms are already exploiting Trayvon Martin’s death for their own purposes. In the legislative debate that is sure to come, we will remind them that “Stand Your Ground” is not a right-wing over-reaction. It was passed by a bi-partisan majority of the Florida Legislature.


SYG Laws Are Not Racist

SYG Laws are not racist – racism is the problem, not the lawKenneth Nunn, Law Prof @ Florida, 3-21-2012, “Racism is the Problem Here,” NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/03/21/do-stand-your-ground-laws-encourage-vigilantes/racism-is-the-problem-not-the-stand-your-ground-lawsSimply eliminating Stand Your Ground would not get rid of racially disparate applications of the reasonableness test. It would not prevent young men like Trayvon Martin from getting killed and their killers getting off scot-free. Self-defense claims should be limited to cases in which they are objectively reasonable, not when they are reasonable to someone in the defendant’s shoes.

Shouldn’t reject SYG laws out of hand – wouldn’t fix the problemKenneth Nunn, Law Prof @ Florida, 3-21-2012, “Racism is the Problem Here,” NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/03/21/do-stand-your-ground-laws-encourage-vigilantes/racism-is-the-problem-not-the-stand-your-ground-lawsAdditionally, decisions regarding the reasonableness of self-defense claims should be made in court. Many Stand Your Ground statutes grant killers who claim self-defense immunity from prosecution, so they cannot be arrested if the police view their assertions of self defense to be reasonable. This is wrong. The reasonableness of a killer’s actions ought to be decided in open court by juries made up of ordinary people, and not determined prior to trial in the secrecy of the police station. Stand Your Ground statutes may be problematic for a number of reasons. But if we really want to save lives and prevent future miscarriages of justice, we will have to confront the reality of race.

SYG laws are geographically based, not racistRobert Leider, 4-18-2012, “Understanding ‘Stand Your Ground,’” WSJ, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304432704577350010609562008.htmlAlthough expanding Stand Your Ground laws has suddenly become part of the culture war, the existence of such laws traditionally depended on geography, not politics. Older states generally inherited the duty to retreat from English common law. As the United States expanded westward, the retreat requirement usually did not follow. Instead, Western states followed the "true man" doctrine, named because "true men" do not retreat when faced with danger. California became a Stand Your Ground state more than 150 years before Florida. With the prevalent use of firearms, the retreat requirement has limited application today. Individuals usually cannot know that they can retreat in complete safety when facing aggressors armed with guns. And the retreat requirement has numerous exceptions in addition to the "castle doctrine," which exempts people in their homes from the duty to retreat. For example, in states that require retreat, law-enforcement officers making arrests always may "stand their ground" when threatened.


Con


SYG Laws Are Not Justified

Valid self-defense should require force to be absolutely necessaryWiliam Covington, 5-3-2012, “Stand your ground: A law or a license to kill?” Our Weekly, http://ourweekly.com/issues-archive/stand-your-ground-law-or-license-killLaw professor Richard Daniel Klein, in an abstract for the Journal of Race and Ethnicity titled “Race and the Doctrine of Self Defense: The Role of Race in Determining the Proper Use of Force to Protect Oneself,” used the Bernard Goetz shooting as a test case for an example of deliberate race-based profiling and a race-based shooting. Klein said a valid and appropriate use of self-defense justifies the use of force against another, even when such force results in death. But the force must have been absolutely necessary in order to protect oneself; it cannot have been used as a form of self-help or a display of vindictiveness to retaliate against an individual who may be standing as a symbol for a group that has treated an individual in negative hostile ways in the past.

SYG laws do not protect victim’s rightsPatrik Jonsson, 4-12-2012, “Do Stand Your Ground laws create a legal ‘no man’s land’? Alaska Dispatch, http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/do-stand-your-ground-laws-create-legal-no-mans-landStand Your Ground laws were sold in US legislatures primarily as a victims’ rights measure, to limit what many saw as prosecutors second-guessing situations where someone had a split second to make a life-or-death decision to defend themselves with force. But in the wake of the Trayvon Martin tragedy in Sanford, Fla., as well as the racially charged rampage last week in Tulsa, Okla., some critics are now wondering whether the gutting of prosecutorial discretion in many self-defense cases has created a legal no man’s land.

SYG laws delegitimize the story of the victimAmy Zalman, 4-16-2012, “Stand your Ground,” Strategic Narrative, http://strategic-narrative.net/blog/2012/04/stand-your-ground-laws-validate-stories-of-lethal-force-silence-others/There is a direct link between Stand Your Ground laws, which permit those with access to deadly force to use it if they feel threatened, and Martin’s inability to tell his story. It is a truism when talking about narrative and public life to assert that some stories are sanctioned, and others silenced. Sometimes it is difficult to identify the mechanism through which such sanction takes place, because it lies in community tradition or social discourse. Stand Your Ground laws press into relief how law can shape which accounts will be viewed as legitimate before they are evaluated by judges and juries. Under the Stand your Ground premise, might makes right. Your ability to lethally harm someone is converted into the credible motivation for doing so, while the victim of a killing is doubly silenced, in court and in life.


SYG Laws Are Inherently Racist

SYG laws are inherently racist – prey on racial stereotypesMark P. Fancher, ACLU Attorney, 5-10-2012, “Stand-your-ground laws ignore racial bias realities,” Detroit Free Press, http://www.freep.com/article/20120510/OPINION05/205100443/Guest-commentary-Stand-your-ground-laws-ignore-racial-bias-realities?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7CsBecause of the criminal justice system's racial reality, many have asked whether police would have allowed Trayvon Martin to go home if he had managed to subdue and kill George Zimmerman. Will a white suburban woman who kills after having been accosted by a mugger in a mall parking lot be treated in precisely the same way as a black youth with a criminal record who is forced to justifiably defend against an unprovoked drive-by shooting in Detroit? These laws present the potential for white suspects to receive the benefit of the doubt, and for black suspects to become subject to racial presumptions of black criminality that are deeply rooted in stereotypes that were opportunistically created generations ago for purposes of economic advantage and the control of an oppressed population.

SYG laws result in discrimination against African Americans – cultural stereotypes of fearWiliam Covington, 5-3-2012, “Stand your ground: A law or a license to kill?” Our Weekly, http://ourweekly.com/issues-archive/stand-your-ground-law-or-license-killJody David Armour, Ph.D., a USC Law School professor, was asked his views on the law. “When one looks at self-defense laws you would think typically that you can only use legal force to avert a lethal attack, but there are stipulatory principles built into the self-defense law in different states,” he said. “Florida is one of them. “That allows you to use the self-defense law even when your life isn’t in danger, just to stand your ground. So it’s not only when your life is in danger, but also when you think that you’re threatened . . .,” he said. “This is a bombshell when you take into account how Black males are seen as a threat throughout the nation by Whites. Whether it’s a learned behavior from media or culture, the self-defense law could lead to open season on African American males, whose presence may intimidate others.”

SYG laws are inherently racist, even if not textuallyElie Mystal, lawyer, 3-20-2012, “Are ‘Stand Your Ground,’ and ‘Defense of Home’ Laws Racist?” Above the Law, http://abovethelaw.com/2012/03/are-stand-your-ground-and-defense-of-home-laws-racist/The laws are not textually racist, but you had better make sure nobody feels threatened by you if you are a minority, even other minorities. I think this is a pretty clear cut case of disparate impact. These laws turn on the question of whether the shooter reasonably believed he was in danger of his life. Sadly, that determination on the part of the shooter is not going to play out in race neutral fashion. I’d argue that “he was black” does not amount to a reasonable threat that must be confronted with deadly force; but I’d also like to be alive to argue things instead of having my family make a case after I’m dead. “Stand your ground” laws don’t make me feel safe, because who knows when the wrong person will be scared of me. But, like I said, reasonable people will disagree. People who buy, carry, and conceal handguns don’t go through all that trouble so they can retreat from conflict. And trying to explain to legislators or appellate judges that a law disproportionately disadvantages young black kids who like not getting shot at isn’t as easy as it sounds.


SYG Causes Racist Homicides

SYG laws causes racial homicidesWiliam Covington, 5-3-2012, “Stand your ground: A law or a license to kill?” Our Weekly, http://ourweekly.com/issues-archive/stand-your-ground-law-or-license-killWallace remembers arguing intensely to anyone who would listen that the Stand Your Ground law, combined with the existence of racial profiling, was a recipe for mayhem that was capable of causing legal homicide against people of color. Using such a law, an individual could easily kill someone and, with a decent attorney, get away with it. She pointed out that a Stand Your Ground law would further polarize the nation and expose flaws in the law in reference to simple cultural ethnic differences like body gestures, attire, response to questioning by an armed individual.

SYG laws allow legal subjectivity that negatively impacts people of colorMark P. Fancher, ACLU Attorney, 5-10-2012, “Stand-your-ground laws ignore racial bias realities,” Detroit Free Press, http://www.freep.com/article/20120510/OPINION05/205100443/Guest-commentary-Stand-your-ground-laws-ignore-racial-bias-realities?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7CsWhat may or may not have been considered during the adoption of these laws is the fact that whether a person's violent response to an attack was "honestly and reasonably" necessary can be purely a matter of opinion. The subjectivity of these laws poses certain hazards, given the undeniable impact of race on the criminal justice system. Somehow, decisions that are made every day by police, prosecutors, judges and others about the guilt or innocence of people of African descent have resulted in their overincarceration relative to their representation in the general population. Specifically, the Sentencing Project reported that while in 2007 there were 412 white prisoners per 100,000 white Michigan residents, there were 2,262 black prisoners for every 100,000 black residents. Nationally, about 13% of the population is of African descent, but approximately 40% of U.S. prisoners are black.

SYG laws encourage homicide, even when it would be easy to retreatElie Mystal, lawyer, 3-20-2012, “Are ‘Stand Your Ground,’ and ‘Defense of Home’ Laws Racist?” Above the Law, http://abovethelaw.com/2012/03/are-stand-your-ground-and-defense-of-home-laws-racist/I know it’s all cool in the movies when Clint Eastwood confronts the street toughs instead of running away like a bitch, but in real life, isn’t it better for some people to retreat instead of lots of people dying? The Tampa Bay Times has some stats on what’s happened in Florida since its “stand your ground” law went into effect: Since the law went into effect, reports of justifiable homicides have tripled, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. It has been used to absolve violence resulting from road rage, barroom arguments and even a gang gunfight. In 2008, two gangs in Tallahassee got into a shootout where a 15-year-old boy was killed. The charges were dismissed by a judge citing the “stand your ground” law. Have we learned nothing from Back to the Future? You don’t have to get into a fight every time Biff calls you a chicken.


SYG Laws Cause More Killings

SYG laws increase the incidence of homicideLauren Kelley, 5-8-2012, “Are Self-Defense Laws ‘Whites Only?’”, Alternet, http://www.alternet.org/rights/155316/are_self-defense_laws_%22whites_only%22_/Stand-your-ground laws are currently on the books in 25 states around the country and have been considered in several others.In particular, the case has shined light on dubious "stand your ground" laws. Fed to state lawmakers -- first in Florida, and then in dozens of states around the country -- by the right-wing American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) on behalf of the NRA, stand-your-ground laws allow citizens to use deadly force if they feel threatened, even if they have the opportunity to retreat. These pieces of legislation have been nicknamed "shoot first, ask questions later (or never)" laws, and since Florida's was passed seven years ago critics have warned that a spike in justified homicides could follow. Indeed, that is exactly what has happened.

Statistics prove – SYG laws increase homicidesBen Montgomery and Colleen Jenkins, 10-17-2010, “Five years since Florida enacted ‘stand-your-ground’ law, justified homicides are up,” Tampa Bay Times, http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1128317.eceThat's because of Florida Statute 776.013(3), which took effect five years ago this month. The old law gave you the right to protect yourself with deadly force inside your home. The 2005 law gives you the right to protect yourself in a park, outside a Chili's, on a highway — just about anywhere. You need only to "reasonably believe" that pulling the trigger or plunging the knife or swinging the bat is necessary to stop the other person from hurting you. Reports of justifiable homicides tripled after the law went into effect, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Last year, twice a week, on average, someone's killing was considered warranted. The self-defense law — known as "stand your ground" — has been invoked in at least 93 cases with 65 deaths, a St. Petersburg Times review found. In the majority of the cases, the person's use of force was excused by prosecutors and the courts.

SYG empirically results in more killingsBen Montgomery and Colleen Jenkins, 10-17-2010, “Five years since Florida enacted ‘stand-your-ground’ law, justified homicides are up,” Tampa Bay Times, http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1128317.ece"They say this law hasn't made Florida the Wild West," Hayhoe said. "But how many bodies does it take?" No other group keeps tabs — not the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association, not the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. That's problematic, because even academic studies of the effects of the law rely on anecdotes. And Hayhoe's count is incomplete. • • • The Times searched major Florida newspapers and found at least 93 cases in the past five years in which the new law was a factor. Those are just the confrontations that made the papers. In 57 of them, those who used force were either not charged with a crime or the charges were dropped by prosecutors or dismissed by a judge before trial. Seven other defendants were acquitted. Some people fought off intruders in their homes or businesses, which would have been allowed even before the "stand your ground" law. The use of force resulted in 65 deaths. Did the law empower the users of force to shoot? Could the tables have been turned on the shooters? If not for the law, would any of those 65 people still be alive? How can anyone know? What is known: Reports of justifiable homicides in Florida have spiked.


SYG Laws Are Unfair

SYG laws are enforced inconsistently and unfairlyLauren Kelley, 5-8-2012, “Are Self-Defense Laws ‘Whites Only?’”, Alternet, http://www.alternet.org/rights/155316/are_self-defense_laws_%22whites_only%22_/Stand-your-ground laws are currently on the books in 25 states around the country and have been considered in several others. In the wake of Martin's death, Americans are becoming more aware of not only the problematic nature of stand your ground laws, but also how such laws are inconsistently enforced. Stories have started to surface of individuals, notably people of color, who have genuinely acted in self-defense, but not been protected under the law the same way George Zimmerman was. And even when stand-your-ground laws aren't at play, we've started to see more clearly than ever how some members of society are legally allowed to defend themselves from harm, while others are not.

SYG laws create legal ambiguity over burden of proofPatrik Jonsson, 4-12-2012, “Do Stand Your Ground laws create a legal ‘no man’s land’? Alaska Dispatch, http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/do-stand-your-ground-laws-create-legal-no-mans-landAt the least, the cases have revealed confusion among both the police and the public over how Stand Your Ground is supposed to work. “The waters get muddied because a lot of this legislation changes the burden of proof and standard of review,” says Steven Jansen, a spokesman for the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys in Washington, which has opposed tenets of the Stand Your Ground laws. “Before, you would have an objective standard: What would a prudent person have done in a similar situation? And now, it’s more of a subjective test: You have to get inside the mind of the person that has used deadly force.”

SYG laws undermine faith in the justice systemPatrik Jonsson, 4-12-2012, “Do Stand Your Ground laws create a legal ‘no man’s land’? Alaska Dispatch, http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/do-stand-your-ground-laws-create-legal-no-mans-landBut as the Trayvon Martin case has taken twists and turns, it’s become clear to many legal experts that the Stand Your Ground concept has many inherent ambiguities, undermining faith in the justice system in the process. At a legislative task force last week on Stand Your Ground called by Florida state Sen. Chris Smith (D), it was “clear that there was lots of confusion around the statute,” even among seasoned police officers and prosecutors, says Joëlle Anne Moreno, a former federal prosecutor and now a law professor at Florida International University in Miami who is part of the task force. “The fact is, we haven’t had this law for that long, and we’re still working with it, still trying to figure it out,” she says.


SYG Laws Cause Vigilantism

SYG laws encourage vigilantismDara Kam, 3-20-2012, “’Stand Your Ground’ self-defense gun law draws protests,” Palm Beach Post, http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/stand-your-ground-self-defense-gun-law-draws-2250337.htmlSen. Chris Smith, a lawyer, said he plans to file legislation to close what he called a gray area in the law. "The language is vague so what we want to do is point out that you cannot initiate contact," said Smith, D-Fort Lauderdale, who voted against the bill while in the Florida House in 2005. Smith said justifiable homicide has increased three-fold since the "stand your grand" law went into effect seven years ago, with many of the victims black. "What it's done is, it has emboldened those who are sometimes looking for confrontation, because they realize they have the shield of this law. This is a classic case of, if it's my word against yours and you happen to be dead, there's no way of knowing," he said.

Zimmerman proves SYG allows for vigilantismMia Kouna, MA in criminal justice, 2012, “The Trayvon Martin Case,” http://miakouna.hubpages.com/hub/Is-George-Zimmerman-innocent-or-guilty-of-murderUnaware that he had been identified as a ‘suspicious’ person who was ‘up to no good’, Trayvon Martin was aware that he was being followed by an adult man. He tried to flee from the man’s view once, only to be confronted by the same man after he left the convenient store. He was confronted by George Zimmerman, and the rest has become history. George Zimmerman made the decision to become a Vigilante Killer that took the life of an unarmed, innocent teenage boy on the day of February 26, 2012. Hiding his sociopathic nature behind the Stand your ground law of 2005 has given him freedom temporarily, but hopefully this will change in the near future and provide justice for a teenager that lost his life at the hands of a Vigilante Killer.

SYG laws encourage macho vigilantismBen Montgomery and Colleen Jenkins, 10-17-2010, “Five years since Florida enacted ‘stand-your-ground’ law, justified homicides are up,” Tampa Bay Times, http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1128317.eceMaybe so. But there is no provision specifically barring someone with a permit from bringing a gun to a knife fight, let alone to a brawl that starts with fists. That's just one of the problems with the law, according to an analysis in the January 2009 University of Miami Law Review. Here's another: In many instances where deadly force is used, there are two witnesses and one of them is dead. That leaves one version of events, from a person motivated by self-interest. The Times' analysis indicates that the law has provided legal cover not just to those fending off attacks by strangers, but also to those who pull a gun in a storm of machismo and adrenaline. Fights at house parties and a pool hall. Neighbor disputes. Disagreements at a park.


SYG Laws Are Shoot First Ask Questions Later

SYG laws are the Wild West – shoot first and ask questions laterBen Montgomery and Colleen Jenkins, 10-17-2010, “Five years since Florida enacted ‘stand-your-ground’ law, justified homicides are up,” Tampa Bay Times, http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1128317.eceHayhoe says the law turns Florida into the Wild West. "What in the hell is our state government doing passing a law encouraging our citizens to solve disputes with guns?" he said. "This is the right-to-commit-murder law." Florida was the first of more than 20 states to allow people to defend themselves with deadly force anywhere they had a right to be. Credit the National Rifle Association. Backed by the influential organization, the "stand your ground" legislation won broad support from lawmakers and praise from then-Gov. Jeb Bush as "a good, common-sense, anticrime issue."

SYG encourages people to use deadly force without justificationBen Montgomery and Colleen Jenkins, 10-17-2010, “Five years since Florida enacted ‘stand-your-ground’ law, justified homicides are up,” Tampa Bay Times, http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1128317.eceMiami's police chief made a prediction shortly before the law took effect: "Whether it's trick-or-treaters or kids playing in the yard of someone who doesn't want them there or some drunk guy stumbling into the wrong house,'' Chief John Timoney told the New York Times, "you're encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn't be used.'' Four years later, Billy Kuch got drunk, so drunk that at 5 a.m. one day he stumbled to the door of the wrong house in a look-alike neighborhood and tried to open it, twice. Before the "stand your ground" law, homeowner Gregory Stewart would have been expected to hunker down in his Land O'Lakes residence, dead-bolt secure, and call police. With the law in place, he could use deadly force anywhere he had a right to be, provided he felt threatened with death or great bodily harm. He had no duty to retreat from danger.

SYG legitimize shooting first and asking questions laterElie Mystal, lawyer, 3-20-2012, “Are ‘Stand Your Ground,’ and ‘Defense of Home’ Laws Racist?” Above the Law, http://abovethelaw.com/2012/03/are-stand-your-ground-and-defense-of-home-laws-racist/And that’s really what the Castle Doctrine and “stand your ground” statutes legalize: shooting first and asking questions later. The duty to retreat (where it still exists) is not onerous. It doesn’t require you to hide under the bed or jump out of two story window to avoid a cat burglar. It’s really just common sense — if you can safely and reasonably avoid getting into a shoot-out, you should do so. If you are on the street and you can drive away before opening fire, you should do so.


George Zimmerman Is Guilty

George Zimmerman is guiltyShaka Griffith, 4-12-2012, “George ‘Datniggytb’ Zimmerman is Guilty!” Global Grind, http://globalgrind.com/news/george-zimmerman-datniggytb-myspace-guilty-blogFor the past week, George Zimmerman has been public enemy number one and for good reason. Between his former lawyers holding a bizarre news conference and dumping him as a client because they couldn’t find him, to the website he launched asking for money so he can maintain a living and collect legal funds, and now a reported MySpace page displaying his username to be "Datniggytb," Zimmerman’s use of social media has all but convicted him already. First and most troubling was the website he launched, confirmed by his former lawyers to be real, which did nothing to help his case and only reaffirmed his guilt. Using quotes from American Founding Fathers in an attempt to prove his innocence only proves that Zimmerman is trying to portray himself as an American who did the right thing and is being vilified for it. He quoted Thomas Paine: "The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion." If all mankind is your brethren, you shot and killed one of your own. Next, after Zimmerman’s lawyers announced he went AWOL, they revealed that he also talked with Fox News’ Sean Hannity and the two had a private discussion, confirmed by Hannity. If you’re trying to prove you're innocent, is Sean Hannity the first person you call?

Zimmerman is guilty – he’s a nutMia Kouna, MA in criminal justice, 2012, “The Trayvon Martin Case,” http://miakouna.hubpages.com/hub/Is-George-Zimmerman-innocent-or-guilty-of-murderIndividuals hinder the common law by introducing self-imposed ideals inconsistent with the laws that exist. Most discretionary behavior stems from the ambiguity of criminal statutes that allow individual’s the opportunity to create their own definition of the law and what is considered best for their community and themselves. George Zimmerman’s past shows a narcissistic individual who was obsessed with law enforcement practices, trying to prove to others, that he was good enough to be a police officer. He was a vigilante killer with a narcissistic personality who killed Trayvon Martin. His criminal record supports the disturbing reality which includes a criminal record for domestic violence, obstruction of justice, and resisting arrest. When Trayvon Martin was killed, George Zimmerman told the police that he acted in self-defense, under the "Stand your ground" law created in Florida

Zimmerman is a crazed sociopathMia Kouna, MA in criminal justice, 2012, “The Trayvon Martin Case,” http://miakouna.hubpages.com/hub/Is-George-Zimmerman-innocent-or-guilty-of-murderHowever, George Zimmerman’s prior history paints a different picture of a disturbed, narcissistic individual, pretending to be a police officer, but never achieving this goal. As a watchman for the neighborhood where he lived, he patrolled and monitored the neighborhood, simulating how he believed law enforcement would respond. Carrying a weapon, patrolling the streets, and confronting ‘suspicious’ individuals without the assistance of law enforcement. Over the years as a watchman, George Zimmerman reported several minor infractions, including open garage doors or suspicious individuals, pertaining to the neighborhood to 9-1-1. In George Zimmerman’s mind, he was enforcing the law. In reality, he was a sociopathic individual who thought he was untouchable to law enforcement and above following the laws that were created by the Nation.


SYG Laws Undermine Respect For Human Life

SYG laws undermine respect for human lifePatrik Jonsson, 4-12-2012, “Do Stand Your Ground laws create a legal ‘no man’s land’? Alaska Dispatch, http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/do-stand-your-ground-laws-create-legal-no-mans-landFor their part, supporters of Stand Your Ground and other gun laws say many of the reactions to the Trayvon Martin shooting smack of political opportunism. Officials should not be “stampeded by emotionalism,” Marion Hammer, an NRA lobbyist who helped write Florida’s law, told The Palm Beach Post. “This law is not about one incident. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the law.” Others are more skeptical. The problem is, “you lose faith in the legitimacy of the justice process if you feel cases are unresolved or resolved in a way that suggests a sort of unfair or biased result,” says Moreno, the former federal prosecutor. “At a very sort of basic level, [these laws] change how we view the sanctity of human life. If we’re allowed to shoot somebody for reaching into your car to grab a purse, does it mean that we don’t value human life the way we thought we did?”

SYG laws devalue human lifeBen Montgomery and Colleen Jenkins, 10-17-2010, “Five years since Florida enacted ‘stand-your-ground’ law, justified homicides are up,” Tampa Bay Times, http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1128317.eceOne of the law's biggest critics is Willie Meggs, the state attorney for six counties in the Panhandle. He says he's a strong believer in gun rights but thinks the law is just another valuable tool for killers. The old law was working just fine, he says. He petitioned the Legislature to address the law last year. Nothing. "Gangsters are using this law to have gunfights," he said. "That's exactly what this law breeds." In 2008, two gangs in Tallahassee got into a shoot-out. A 15-year-old boy was killed. A judge dismissed charges against the shooters, citing "stand your ground." "Before this law, we would have had a duty to avoid that," Meggs said. "I should not meet you in the street for a gunfight." He says it devalues human life. Is that measurable? Asks Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign: "How many killers getting off scot-free is enough to change the course of society?"

SYG laws are letting criminals kill each other with impunityWiliam Covington, 5-3-2012, “Stand your ground: A law or a license to kill?” Our Weekly, http://ourweekly.com/issues-archive/stand-your-ground-law-or-license-killAlready, Wallace stated, more killings of African Americans have been ruled justifiable homicides than the killings of members of any other ethnic group in the nation. However, most of these homicides are a result of Black-on-Black crime. Oddly, the law has been turned on its ear. Drug dealers and gang members often use the law to escape prosecution from murder on the basis of self-defense. “This [law] is being used in many, many cases,” Florida state Senator Chris Smith told the Miami Herald. “This is being used with a prostitute killing her john, this is being used in gang fights, this is being used everywhere.”

West Web view5/3/2012 · The Public Forum topic for Nationals 2012 is “ Resolved:...

Documents

Transcript of West Web view5/3/2012 · The Public Forum topic for Nationals 2012 is “ Resolved:...