Stand your ground laws help people with a violent history

A study of the use of "Stand your Ground" laws has found that they are most often invoked by people with a history of crime and/or violence, and as such they actually undermine public safety:

The Florida Experience

Florida’s 2005 law was invoked in nearly 200 shooting cases through 2012 – a majority of them involving fatalities. The cases were documented by the Tampa Bay Times:
•The Florida law’s chief beneficiaries were “those with records of crime and violence.” Nearly 60 percent of those making self-defense claims after killing someone had been arrested at least once before; a third had been accused of violent crimes or drug offenses; and over one-third had illegally carried guns or had threatened others with guns.
•In seven of every ten stand your ground cases, the person killed was unarmed – and in 79 percent of the cases, the assailant could have retreated to avoid the confrontation.
•Shooters who invoked stand your ground claims under Florida’s 2005 law succeeded in escaping prosecution two-thirds of the time.

more guns and a perception that you are going to "get off" if you use them unsurprisingly leads to more people using them.

And since most people have little or no training in how to defuse a violent situation, cope with the anxiety and panic of an armed confrontation (even if they are the only one armed) it is not particularly surprising (to me at least) that they make really bad decisions in such situations.

a reply to: TheWhiteKnight

You may well be right that police are also not well enough trained - but that is irrelevant.

studying the effect of changes to see how they actually work is a GOOD THING.

Ignoring the reality is a STUPID THING.

Welcome to the 2nd groups.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

The reasoning of the study that you've presented is completely in line with what I have come to expect from human behaviour.

You are absolutely correct, man.

The "stand-your-ground" bull# just makes it amateur night for any loon with violent gun fantasies.

I find that statistics are more often than not twisted to fit an angle. How many of those drug users were for MJ. How many illegal guns were due to someone carrying concealed that didn't have a permit, but in reality were just utilizing their 2nd amendment right to bear arms. A lot of laws which have eroded those rights would cause someone to be in trouble for carrying a firearm concealed when they didn't have a permit. I just think the propensity of those type of stats to be skewed for the anti gun agenda are probable if not common. I could be wrong but honestly I don't feel like I should have to cower and run or get away. If you threaten violence or attempt to attack me I should be able to stand my ground, as I am the righteous one in the situation having been the victim. Personally I don't care much about our modern standards and laws. I utilize my rights as the Constitution has spelled them out. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Maybe your knee jerk thread should consider that those that use force to DEFEND themselves are being totally true to their "sterner stuff" in not running and hiding when threatened.

As I noticed in a thread the other day, there are people, progressive liberals, I assume, that would always have you run if you are threatened--another way of submission to a threat. When a potential victim refuses to become a victim they should be honored regardless of how the situation ended, them on top or the victim as intended by the perp. Those people without a pair will object, of course.

a reply to: Aliensun

Those people without a pair will object, of course.

Love this.

Obviously if we don't agree we have no balls, great logic.
I think some people are just as easily threatened these days as people are offended.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

The Florida Experience

Florida’s 2005 law was invoked in nearly 200 shooting cases through 2012 – a majority of them involving fatalities. The cases were documented by the Tampa Bay Times:
•The Florida law’s chief beneficiaries were “those with records of crime and violence.” Nearly 60 percent of those making self-defense claims after killing someone had been arrested at least once before; a third had been accused of violent crimes or drug offenses; and over one-third had illegally carried guns or had threatened others with guns.

You can be arrested for a lot of things that don't involve violence. I also gotta say, the "violent crimes or drug offenses" seems to indicate that it's VERY likely the nonviolent drug offenses were lumped in here to elicit an emotionally manipulated "OMG, DRUG!" reaction so common in older Americans and to increase the numbers because "violent crimes" was probably pretty damn low. Same for "illegally carried guns OR threatened others with a gun." That's a pretty big leap between the two and, for what it's worth, there are a lot of situations in which you can be charged with "illegal possession of a firearm" and not all of them are even felonies.

•In seven of every ten stand your ground cases, the person killed was unarmed – and in 79 percent of the cases, the assailant could have retreated to avoid the confrontation.

Yes, "Stand your ground" usually involves actually standing your ground. If you're being threatened, and have the means to defend yourself, why should you turn and run? It's not the one carrying the firearm who is placing a value on someone else's life, it's the aggressor themself who is saying "My life is worthless enough that I'm gonna do something dumb and get shot here."

•Shooters who invoked stand your ground claims under Florida’s 2005 law succeeded in escaping prosecution two-thirds of the time.

As was the purpose of the law. Someone defending themself, their loved ones, or their possessions shouldn't have to worry about being prosecuted for it because it is their God given RIGHT to defend themselves. I think the fact that this isn't much higher than 2/3rds is a disgrace.

Your position FAILED.

I love how the ego gets bigger than common sense.

It shouldn't matter whether you have a criminal past, regardless of the crime, or not. Everyone should have the right to defend their home against any and all threats. No one should have to retreat in their home, hide, or wait to see what the intruder might do.

Your source says:

The Florida law’s chief beneficiaries were “those with records of crime and violence.”

It would seem to me that the chief beneficiaries were those who were defending their homes.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
Your position FAILED.

certainly the idea of the laws is that people get to defend themselves and "get off" - however are you not concerned that almost 4/5th of the people shot are unarmed? And that retreating from eth situation would usually result in no-one being shot??

You could offer more to this than just kneejerk "you aint' gonna take my guns" kind of thinking and response.

Is stand your ground any more unreasonable than a cop with training on how to subdue a threat that says that they feared for their life because a 90 pound kid had a knife standing more than 15 feet away or an old man that was unarmed and in his own house also many feet away from the officer? If the cops can feel in danger for their life for BS reasons then why not someone who is in their own home and has someone break in. ...if someone breaks into your home you really have no idea what else they might be capable of doing to you and your family.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
It shouldn't matter whether you have a criminal past, regardless of the crime, or not. Everyone should have the right to defend their home against any and all threats. No one should have to retreat in their home, hide, or wait to see what the intruder might do.

Your source says:

The Florida law’s chief beneficiaries were “those with records of crime and violence.”

It would seem to me that the chief beneficiaries were those who were defending their homes.

A simplistic answer - a more nuanced one would be to ask why is it that so many people who apparently "need" to be "helped" in this way are "those with records of crime and violence"??

where are the vast numbers of good righteous law abiding citizens (for the sake of argument....) using it??

a reply to: Aliensun

Those people without a pair will object, of course.

As will those with brass ones soooooooooooo big that they can stand strong and courageous even in the face of danger, with such honor for the sanctity of life -- and such respect for everyone's inalienable right to life -- that lethal force is always their last resort... never the first.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

This doesn't surprise me.

My greatest concern and objection to Stand Your Ground laws is that these laws basically nullify our inalienable right to life. Our privilege to exist is now dependent on the fear level of those with guns.

Prior to Stand Your Ground, self-defense claims required an affirmative defense. If someone takes a life, they have by law and by definition of violated that person's right to life. Consequently, it is up to that person to provide an affirmative defense -- in other words, provide proof that they had reason to fear for and therefore defend their life.

But, sadly, this is just one of many ways people find to justify taking the lives of others.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

A simplified answer because it's the only one that's needed.

If you want to get into the behavioral aspects of why people commit crime, or why people feel the need to protect themselves, then you should start another thread with a topic that asks about the "why" of those particular matters.

The reasons behind anything doesn't negate the right to protect and defend one's home.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
certainly the idea of the laws is that people get to defend themselves and "get off" - however are you not concerned that almost 4/5th of the people shot are unarmed? And that retreating from eth situation would usually result in no-one being shot??

A CCW is not for show. If you pack it, you intend to use it. I see no reason why an armed man should ever run away from another individual. As I said above, if the unarmed person is the aggressor then they must be pretty damn stupid, huh?

Dead people tend to have a zero percent recidivism rate.

a reply to: EternalSolace

that is exactly the point I made in my comments in the OP!

Thanks for your input.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

CCW is irrelevant.

Police are trained to try to de-escalate so that people do not get killed - some better than others obviously.

"Private" individuals do not get any training at all - and the result is people being killed when there is no need for them to be - why do you think that is a good thing?

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

and the result is people being killed when there is no need for them to be

If they don't want to risk being killed, then they shouldn't be breaking into people's homes.

It would seem to me that your solution is rather people should just shut up and take having people break into their homes with who knows what objective. Sorry, that just doesn't work.