.
When awful incidents like that of the Trayvon Williams killing occur, good outcomes are the attention they draw to existent social conditions, such as the continuing role of race in our relations and the advent of “stand your ground” laws in so many states. A characteristic bad outcome is how the discussion of these conditions is so predetermined by a kind of prejudice – the prejudgment founded in our ideological dispositions. So there are many conservatives who will constitutionally oppose any position that liberals take – now against stand your ground laws – and who will gladly attempt to destroy a black teen’s or a liberal woman’s reputation if doing so is necessary to wage the ongoing political war. For many liberals, it is enough that the NRA and ALEC have been behind the wave of state laws establishing stand your ground principles in place of the “duty to retreat.” Any law they promote simply must be wrong.
Part of the problem is thinking about the issues is in getting past the simplification of the doctrine labels. For many people – I don’t think they need be American, though American it is – there will a natural inclination to think,
Why shouldn’t I be able to stand my ground when I am attacked? I’m being attacked – why would I not be legally allowed to stand up for myself? Why would I have a duty to retreat when attacked? The best defense is often a good offense, and shouldn’t the fair and reasonable principle be – when I am attacked – that whatever best protects me, including standing my ground, is clearly defensible?
It all sounds reasonable to me. But most of us are not lawyers. There are legal intricacies we will not know as well as variations in state law that vary the considerations. Still, if we do not want to be political hacks masquerading as citizens, we need to think and not merely position ourselves. Here are some questions that occur to me to consider in thinking it through.
Where am I standing my ground?
What am I standing my ground against?
What does it mean to refer, as I do above, to “whatever best protects me”?
In relation to Trayvon Martin, in Florida, are there any particular legal conditions that are separable from stand your ground laws in general?
It is very much to the point, too, to ask if these laws, when passed, were responsive to an identifiable problem they were seeking to address or if they were passed in order to gain ideological ground – in order to create the conditions of a different social order, preferred by proponents, than the one that currently existed.
The “Castle Doctrine” provides much traditional support for standing one’s ground when one’s rightful walls, so to speak, have been unlawfully breached. Even so, standing that ground is not beyond question. As one common example, the West Virginia Code states the condition of whether
the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder or attacker may kill or inflict serious bodily harm upon the occupant or others in the home or residence or if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder or attacker intends to commit a felony in the home or residence and the occupant reasonably believes deadly force is necessary.
The reasonableness of an individual’s actions is always subject to review, but even under duty to retreat principles, not unreasonably. Oliver Wendell Holmes stated in Brown v. United States that
Rationally, the failure to retreat is a circumstance to be considered with all the others in order to determine whether the defendant went farther than he was justified in doing, not a categorical proof of guilt. The law has grown, and even if historical mistakes have contributed to its growth, it has tended in the direction of rules consistent with human nature. Many respectable writers agree that, if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant, he may stand his ground, and that, if he kills him, he has not succeeded the bounds of lawful self-defense. That has been the decision of this Court. Beard v. United States, 158 U. S. 550, 158 U. S. 559. Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.
The existence of firearms refines the consideration of the issue further.
The doctrine of ‘retreat to the wall‘ had its origin before the general introduction of guns. Justice demands that its application have due regard to the present general use and to the type of firearms. It would be good sense for the law to require, in many cases, an attempt to escape from a hand to hand encounter with fists, clubs, and even knives, as a condition or justification for killing in self-defense; while it would be rank folly to so require when experienced men, armed with repeating rifles, face each other in an open space, removed from shelter, with intent to kill or to do great bodily harm. What might be a reasonable chance for escape in the one situation might in the other be certain death. Self-defense has not, by statute nor by judicial opinion, been distorted, by an unreasonable requirement of the duty to retreat, into self-destruction.
What are you standing your ground against? An unprovoked attack? A more aggressive action in response to your own less aggressive act? A response to your own pursuit of another person?
Are you standing your ground against a firearm? The “uplifted knife” Holmes invokes? A fist?
Here is another elucidating discussion.
The standard for use of deadly force is, predictably, higher. The general criminal law allows for the use of deadly force anytime a faultless victim reasonably believes that unlawful force which will cause death or grievous bodily harm is about to be used on him. Again, Pennsylvania law is generally consistent with this standard.
The faultlessness requirement does not mean that the victim must be pure of heart and without sin. It does mean that the right of self-defense will not be available to one who has substantially encouraged or provoked an attack. The general rule is that words alone are not enough to be considered a provocation under this standard, but there are exceptions. For example, saying ‘I am about to shoot you’ might well constitute sufficient provocation.
One of the circumstances which helps to determine the level of threat encountered by the victim is the nature of the assailant’s weapon (if any). As a general rule, anything which might be used to kill a person, no matter how odd, is considered a deadly weapon. Thus, a chair, a lamp or a screwdriver may all be considered deadly weapons. In some instances, the law will treat a trained fighters hands as a deadly weapon, but in order to trigger the right to self-defense using lethal force against such a person, the victim must, of course, know of the attacker’s special training.
U.S. courts are split with respect to an additional factor in the lawfulness of the use of deadly force in self-defense. A minority of jurisdictions require a victim to retreat to the wall if it is safe to do so, before using deadly force. ‘Retreat to the wall’ is generally construed to mean taking any reasonable and apparent avenue of exit. However, even minority jurisdictions do not require retreat under three circumstances. There is no duty to retreat from one’s own home, if one is being or has been robbed or raped, or if the victim is a police-officer making a lawful arrest. In 1996 the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that “although a person is afforded discretion in determining necessity, level and manner of force to defend one’s self, the right to use force in self defense is a qualified, not an absolute right.” Pennsylvania is a retreat jurisdiction.
Even an initial aggressor may be given the right to self-defense under certain circumstances. If the initial aggressor withdraws from the confrontation, and communicates this withdrawal to the other party, he regains the right to self-defense. Also, if the victim of relatively minor aggression ‘suddenly escalates’ the confrontation to one involving deadly force, without providing adequate space for withdrawal, the initial aggressor may still invoke the right to self-defense.
Properly understood, the duty to retreat does not call for a retreat from one’s own adequate self-defense, but only for withdrawal when possible from further inciting the conditions of conflict.
Is the point of standing one’s ground to provide for oneself the most assured self-defense against harm – whatever best protects – or is it to assert right of refusal to back down, a cock’s pride of place?
Stand your ground laws appear an ideologically-based attempt, absent any identified problem they actually seek to address, to change the social order. Or where are the studies indicating any kind of murder trend traceable to the reluctance of threatened individuals adequately to defend themselves based on fear of violating the duty to retreat?
Duty to retreat laws, perhaps poorly labeled, appear more than adequate to support an individual’s decision under conditions of genuine threat and fear, without easy flight from conflict, to make a lethal self-defense.
To render the Florida law even more an abomination of law and police practice, it differs from most stand your ground laws in these respects.
The “Stand Your Ground” Law introduced two (2) conclusive presumptions that favor a criminal defendant who is making a self-defense claim:
- The presumption that the defendant had a reasonable fear that deadly force was necessary; and
- The presumption that the intruder intended to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
These two presumptions protect the defender from both civil and criminal prosecution for unlawful use of deadly or non-deadly force in self-defense. In addition, the defender/gun owner has no duty to retreat, regardless of where he is attacked, so long as he is in a place where he is lawfully entitled to be when the danger occurs
The first presumption is the reason given for why George Zimmerman was not even arrested. Standing one’s ground in self-defense under this law is not, reasonably, a defense against charges – it is accepted in Florida as a stay-out-of-jail simple claim card. In the absence of eyewitness or other empirical evidence to the contrary, it offers protection against even arrest for perhaps wanton killing, as, the evidence shows, the rate of homicides in Florida justified by stand your ground self-defense has nearly tripled since the law was enacted in 2005.
AJA
Related articles
- Repeal the ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws (themoderatevoice.com)
- Florida Not The Only State That Has ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law (inquisitr.com)
- The 23 States That Have Sweeping Self-Defense Laws Just Like Florida’s (propublica.org)
- ‘Stand Your Ground’ May Have Nothing to Do With the Trayvon Martin Case (reason.com)
- Florida Court Dismisses Stabbing Case Under The “Stand Your Ground” Law (jonathanturley.org)
- The Libertarian Delusion (sadredearth.com)
- Freedom from Religion (sadredearth.com)
A. Jay Adler is that not what all editorials do, distort the truth to push ones agenda. The fact that “Reilly” chooses to attack “Winghunter” instead of addressing his comments to your article is called an “Ad hominem.” And the fact that people try to discredit the founding fathers to justify their own agendas only establishes a weak attempt at narcissism at best. I am just glad that it takes firearms to insure our security in America. And as a veteran of 23 years in the military, I am glad you can enjoy the freedoms provided to you, not by you, by the use of firearms. And remember the next time a family member or friend or for heaven’s forbid you, are robbed, it is not the robbers fault he was in their or your house.
Brad, first, I sincerely honor your years of service. Second, Reilly is more than capable of responding for himself, so I won’t. Third, there is much in what you write to rebut, but I’ll focus on only one comment, “the freedoms provided to you, not by you, by the use of firearms,” and it is not even the “you” (me) that interests me. Our freedoms are not provided by firearms. The American Revolution purchased independence from England. Independence isn’t freedom. The nation that followed could have been like Russia (was, in part: slaves=serfs). It could have been England with the King merely born in Virginia instead. There were people who wanted that. Freedom was and is provided, not by guns, but by people who understand the idea of it. It is the product of intellect, not firearms, which can protect and defend freedom- and steal it, too – but not provide it. You make the gun into a godhead. You get it all wrong.
When the number of shootings deemed righteous is only 35 per year but, you use percentages instead of that tiny number, it’s obvious to me you’re attempting to deceive and/or confuse. Florida’s total population in 2010 was near 19 Million and their violent crime rate dropped by a whopping 22%! The good guys are clearly arming themselves and the bad guys can’t get OSHA to accept their hazardous work complaints so they’re finding something else to do and that’s a good thing!
When law enforcement deems a shooting to be righteous, that’s one more bad guy not hurting anyone else ever again and that’s a cause to celebrate the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, our inalienable right to self-defense and the defeat of traitors.
One thing the Founding Fathers could do was make and respond to arguments. I offer one, but all the Winghunter does is focus on the final paragraph and call me deceptive because of how I represent the numbers of stand your ground shooting deaths. Would he be more honest in his own representation if, rather than suggest I manipulated my presentation, he acknowledged that I merely duplicate, in fact, the very headline of the news source to which I link? Are those at CBS News Miami traitors unmindful of the Founding Fathers? For the Winghunter, perhaps so. Is the Winghunter being deceptive when he cites a 22% drop in violent crime in Florida without noting a start date to the calculation, and that it is, in fact, 2000, and roughly half of it occured before enactment of Florida’s stand your ground law? Maybe he just forgot.
As to total numbers, the 35 represent 23 people, per year, who might otherwise not be dead – among them, clearly Trayvon Martin, who was pursued to his death. In a nation like the U.S., with over 10,000 gun deaths a year compared to 7 in Japan in 2009, with 63 in the UK and 381 in Germany – and over two score nations having lower gun death rates than the U.S. – it is clearly easier for the Winghunter to be so dismissive of 23 lives. And what is one more?
Jay,
No doubt you picked up on Winghunter’s phraseology of righteous, which finds the legal and common terms “self-defense” and/or “justifiable”, while perhaps adequate in their determination, lacking in the greater need of valuation, of elevating from not-misdeed to quite a deed, indeed — a righteous deed!
“Righteous” is the elevator insert gun nuts slide into their boots to make themselves a little taller, a little straighter, rather than slouching out of the courtroom after the decidedly un-mythic pronouncement “not guilty by reason of self-defense”.
And speaking of self-mythology Jay, I believe this is the Winghunter who advertises himself thus on Twitter:
Evidently Thighhunter had the watch until the end of ’05, when he woke up Winghunter and said, It’s your watch. I’m gettin’ some shut-eye. Don’t lose America.
Righteous, I’m telling you.
Reilly, yes I did note the “righteous” kill invocation, as well as the OSHA reference. (That has to be a personal clue: why not the usual workers comp gripe?) They’re all just malingerers anyway – weren’t quick enough to get away – better off with them dead. I chose to limit the focus of my response. And really, it is all just for the record with people who “wake up,” have a “watch,” and can’t talk about a potential local homicide without calling on the Founders and warning of traitors.
You fail to adequately address his accusation that you’re being deceptive. Your argument was literally “well, the news source said this” and “but you said this”.
The first point does not demonstrate that Winghunter’s claim on the veracity of the information is false. If anything, it demonstrates that you don’t actually know whether the information is actually correct at all (otherwise you would have referred to the sources used by the journalist), in which case “deceptive” perhaps isn’t necessarily right adjective (although it’s a possibility), rather, “incompetent at extracting information from news sources”. Winghunter’s mistake in calling you deceptive was assuming that you were actually trying to be competent. The second point is a simple whataboutism and avoids addressing his assertion that the information is innacurate, equivalent to “well, YOU don’t present information succinctly and honestly, so I don’t have to either!”
Of course, given the contents of the post, I’m inclined to believe Winghunter’s implication that your work is a waste of time:
1. You mix journalist opinions in with actual relevant law and case law quotes, and block quote journalists. It’s obnoxious at a minimum; at a maximum you simply don’t know how to write down your own opinion and need other people’s work to supplement yours.
2. The case law you cite (especially Brown v. US), nay, THE VERY QUOTE you cite points that, although the conditions of a case of a case are subject to review, standing your ground is a reasonable expectation, citing Beard v. US, where it was found unreasonable that a person should ever have to retreat “being where he had a right to be”, which in this case included being not only in his home, but even on his property. This is directly in contrast with your point on “withdrawal when possible from further inciting the conditions of conflict”. It didn’t matter whether Beard could have avoided conflict by withdrawing from where he was standing. He had a right to be there, and any use of force in an attempt to remove him from that spot could lawfully be responded to with similar force.
3. You use moronic statistics to attempt to justify your position. The number of “deaths due to self-defense” has tripled? Why do we care? Who’s dying? Are the attackers dying? Would people who would have gotten involved in one of these new deaths gotten robbed/raped/murdered otherwise? Has the rate of murder gone down to compensate? Fundamentally, saying “people can legally use force to defend themselves OH NO now they’re defending themselves” is asinine and does nothing to support your position.
Not to mention, in this post, you use the nonsensical “firearms related deaths” comparison. Nobody cares whether a murder was caused by a firearm, and of COURSE countries with less firearms will have less firearm-related deaths. The only thing anyone cares about death-wise is whether a change in policy causes a change in the total number of murders. The fact that you’re bringing up anything firearm-related about Japan without considering that the murder weapon of choice in Japan is a knife, not a firearm, shows that A.) you’re ignorant of the topic of violence in Japan with respect to its firearm policy, or B.) you’re being, as Winghunter put it, “deceptive”.
tldr; I’m glad this blog is dead, fucking hell.