Now that George Zimmerman isn't on trial....

[LSN80]

Let's put the 'Stand Your Ground' Law on trial instead. For those not completely familiar, here's a basic synopsis, as it varies from state-to-state:

"A person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first."

Simple enough, right? However, here's where it becomes more complicated, and much murkier. For some states, this applies to home invasions only. However, other states allow it to apply to defending ones vehicle, such as a carjacking, while others allow it to be applied in situations where a person uses deadly force in a perceived threat anywhere that person is legally occupying. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

The Supreme Court in what is generally considered to be the case that set the precedent for the law, said the following in Beard v. U.S.(1895):

" A man who was on his premises when he came under attack and did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."

That's well and good, and if someone was attacking me physically, while I would hope to try and overpower first, I cant say I would for certain. For example, if someone was in my home and approaching with a knife in hand and I had my gun on me, I'd likely shoot him. It would haunt me forever, but if there's that large of a chance I wouldn't see another day, I wouldn't take the chance.

I mentioned this in the GSD thread on Zimmerman, but I want to expound on it here: I'm going to present a case that occured in Greensburg, PA., the town in which I reside, where crime is very low and murder almost never occurs, as opposed to Pittsburgh, which I'm 30 minutes out from:

A Greensburg man was not charged after being cleared under the "Stand Your Ground" Law. According to the Greensburg Police, the man heard a noise downstairs around 3am in his garage, and saw a man rifling around in his vehicle. According to the home owner, he quietly retrieved his gun, and went back to the garage, where he fired several shots, paralyzing the man.

As for the burglar, he had an extensive rap sheet, although mostly for petty crime. None were for physical violence,and while he did have a gun on him, it was firmly holstered when the man called the police after he saw the man go down and not get back up. The homeowner stated that he and his wife were asleep upstairs, and he feared for their lives, although he acknowledged he never saw the gun. The burglar later claimed that he had cased the house in advanced, believed the family to be on vacation, and never saw the homeowner before being shot.

One of the shots hit the burglar directly in the spine, and he is now paralyzed as a result, and serving 3-5 years.

Let's get the obvious out of the way: The burglar did a pretty bad job of scouting the house before the robbery. That being said, and criminals are obviously reliable in telling the truth, if he is to be believed, what justification did the homeowner have to shoot?

Pennsylvania's law in essentially identical to that of Florida's, in that deadly force can be used just in the belief that someone has the reasonable belief of a physical threat. I suppose someone breaking into their house, in possession of a gun, falls under that law, but is it right? The homeowner, perhaps disoriented and startled and in fear for his wife at 3am, did what he felt he had to do to protect his home.

I said it in the GSD in the Zimmerman spam thread, and I'll say it here again. No one should ever have to hide in fear in their own homes. Ever. But in this case, where the homeowner never saw the gun, according to his own admission, wouldn't the safer thing have been to hide and call the police? Forget the injuries the burglar sustained: What if he had missed, not altogether impossible at 3am, and the burglar had returned shots, and the home owner had been injured, or worse, killed? Suppose, in self-preservation, he had made his way upstairs, and then killed the only 'witness', the man's wife?

Forget being a tough guy and confronting the burglar head-on. Forget the notion that one is a p**** if they hide and call the police. When the law talks about reasonable, shouldn't it bend both ways? Wouldn't the reasonable thing to do have been to hide, call the police, and have the burglar arrested? I understand if the burglar overheard and began stalking the couple up the stairs, and perhaps the man didn't know that the burglar didn't see him. But that didn't seem to be the case here. And the homeowner acknowledged that he never saw a gun, so if you don't want to hide, isn't calling the police, holding the man at bay with his own gun, and having the man arrested the more reasonable thing?

Granted, the burglar took his life into his own hands by breaking into another man's home. I'm not looking at the homeowner with disgust and thinking he's some criminal here. It's pretty darn clear who that is. But that doesn't mean any human life had to be risked that night.

What parts of the 'Stand Your Ground' law are "reasonable", and what are not?

Should this particular homeowner been charged with something? Even if not, was he justified in what he did?

Discuss, and add your own thoughts as you like.

 

[Davi323]

I don't know. There was no immediate threat, unlike the Florida case, however it was on his own property, and the burglar was clearly illegally on the premises. I am bothered by the fact the home owner did not make any attempt to scare off the intruder before firing. I get that he was not under an obligation to warn him, I just don't like it. However, if the burglar had not been already breaking the law by tresspassing and thieving, he would not be paralyzed now. Ultimately, he set the wheels in motion.

 

[HBsam31]

What parts of the 'Stand Your Ground' law are "reasonable", and what are not?

I was actually unaware of this law. I was always under the impression you had to try and retreat. I thought you had to be in immediate danger to shoot someone down. I actually bought a gun when my child was born just incase. I have a carry permit, and have taken safety classes in regards to firearms. The thing is I would find it unreasonable to gun someone down in my yard, but if they are in my house I am not giving them the chance to be a better shot than me. They have no business in my house, and if they are I am just going to assume they are going to try and hurt my child. I shouldn't have to reason it out at 3am that he just wants my tv. I would like to think I would try and scare the guy off or try and call the police, but when the shit hits the fan I would rather him be dead than me and my family.

Should this particular homeowner been charged with something? Even if not, was he justified in what he did?

I have to take the homeowners side in this. Like I said, 3am is no time for reason when someone just busted into my house. Just because the owner didn't see the gun doesn't mean that the burglar would not have turned and fired if the homeowner tried to scare him away. As far as hiding and calling the police, that is something that could have been done, but like I said why take the chance? I think a lot of people would argue that it was unjustified, but if someone breaks into your home who knows what they might end up doing if they find you first.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

I'm fine with the way laws are but I would never take the route that this man did. I do own a gun but all it really does is give my wife and me peace of mind. If my home or property were ever burglarized and I caught the intruder in the act, I'd bring my gun with me but I'd use the Taser I have first. I'd have no qualms incapacitating the intruder with the Taser, and I'd let him/her firmly know that if he/she moves towards me, I'm going to use my gun.

That being said, if I were burglarized by more than one person, I would, in all likelihood, opt for the gun first.

 

[H33LTurn]

To paraphrase what judge Alex Ferrer said regarding this case, although one can disagree with the "stand your ground" law, this case was tried using basic self defense provisions applicable in most US states. SYG might not hold on its own as a justification for murdering someone, but just like in the Zimmerman case, there has to be evidence that shows the person in question was in significant danger. The injuries George suffered, especially to the back of the head, along with witness testimony that puts Trayvon on top of Zimmerman striking him "MMA style" are enough to prove that George was in danger of being killed. This is the reason this case should have never made it to the media in the first place, all the evidence points to Trayvon mounting Zimmerman and applying force that could have killed him if he hadnt shot Martin. You can come up with whatever theories you want, or you can use race as a scapegoat, but at the end of the day if you cant prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman, or anyone else using SYG as a defense, provoked the incident and intended to harm the individual, they should be let go. I'm not saying SYG is the most practical law out there, but even if it had been a regular self defense case, there is no evidence that Zimmerman provoked Martin physically, a huge contrast to the bloodied and bruised pictures of Zimmerman after the fight. In regards to the burglar case, I feel that whenever a stranger invades a person's home they have the right to use whatever force necessary to eliminate the threat. Its absolutely absurd to punish people for defending themselves against a criminal.

 

[Davi323]

It was a standard self defense case. SYG was not used as a defensive strategy by Zimmerman's attorneys. I know the two are related conceptually, but they never argued SYG in court.

 

[HBK-aholic]

I'm not a fan of guns, and don't think I'll ever want one in my house. That being said, if I wake at 3am and hear an intruder in my house, how do I know they only want my laptop? Am I having a nice chat with them? Hell no, my children are in that house and for all I know this man/woman is a murderer or a peadophile, and I would use whatever force necessary to ensure he was no where near them. I have zero sympathy for any criminal who ends up paralysed or dead after breaking into anothers home.

It's all well and good to say you should try and hide, call the police etc. but that doesn't take away the immeadiate threat to your life or your family. If you feel 100% sure that no harm will come to you by hiding or running, and want to take that option, great. But I don't ever believe it should be a criminal act to ensure your safety in your own home. In the story you show, while he never saw a gun, is it a big leap to assume someone who broke into your house is armed? A big leap from burgular to murderer? None of us can ever say for sure what we'd do until we've been in the situation but I do know I don't blame him for shooting at all, and would likely have made a similar decision.

As for places outside your home, I think if someone is stupid enough to start a conflict with another person, you have the right to use whatever force necessary to ensure your safety. If that sometimes means an instigator of violence ends up dead, well..it's not a huge loss to society, is it? I'm not one who believes all human life is equal; the attackers life should always come second to the innocent party's, even if there is only a perceived threat of death.

I agree the grey areas start when the law is used outside a home; especially when one of the 2 witnesses is dead, and it's difficult legally to prove how an altercation started. But there should always be laws to protect someone who had no other choice but to use violence against an attacker.

 

[Mustang Sally]

I am bothered by the fact the home owner did not make any attempt to scare off the intruder before firing.

We had a case like this in our neighborhood a few years ago. The homeowner shot and wound up paralyzing the burglar, and the burglar actually sued. Yes, he was busted and prosecuted for attempted burglary but he felt the homeowner's response was "excessive" and he sued for personal damages. Of course, the irony of the situation was that he wouldn't be robbing anyone elses' house from then on......and the defense attorney didn't fail to point out that the burglar wouldn't have been injured at all had he not been engaging in a criminal act in the first place.

During the trial, the burglar's attorney asked the homeowner why he didn't warn the burglar before shooting. The homeowner won his own case by explaining that he had been woken at 2:30AM by the burglar, that he was bleary with sleep and with the rush of adrenalin that accompanies the realization that your worst nightmare has come true, he wasn't thinking about the intruder's reason for being in the house. As far as the homeowner was concerned, the guy might have been there to do harm to the homeowner's 14-year-old daughter, who was sleeping in the bedroom next to his. He didn't feel compelled to ask the burglar: "Sir, are you here just to rob my house.....or did you have something else in mind?"

For once, in our often illogical legal system, reason prevailed and the burglar lost his lawsuit. Instead of "feeling sorry" for the burglar, the homeowner put the jury in his place and asked what they would do in the same situation. (in other words, empathy).

If I were the homeowner with a gun, I'd probably wind up shooting myself in the foot. But I'd at least try to protect my family first.....and worry about the welfare of the intruder......well, never. If I wind up losing the lawsuit and paying the "poor guy" for the rest of my life, at least my family and I would still be alive to do it.

 

[LSN80]

It's all well and good to say you should try and hide, call the police etc. but that doesn't take away the immeadiate threat to your life or your family. If you feel 100% sure that no harm will come to you by hiding or running, and want to take that option, great. But I don't ever believe it should be a criminal act to ensure your safety in your own home.

Nor do I, Becca, but I'll admit something: I own a gun, and used to be pretty good with it. I'm not a "gun" type of guy, but the safety of my wife has always been important, and I got it when we got maried. She hates that I have the gun, especially in a very safe town like we live in.

But I haven't shot for years, and there-in lies the major problem. I suck with the gun now. Haven't shot it but once in 3 years, and that was at a range, and the result weren't pretty. If the burglar didn't see me, and I shot and missed, he knows I'm there now! And who's to say I can get him with a second shot before he gets me with a first? And then who's left to protect my wife, who would be the only witness left to clean up? If she heard gunshots, she's not going to stay silent, she'ld scream. And a burglar, even a typically non-violent one, is going to want to eliminate any potential witness, that being my wife in this case.

In the story you show, while he never saw a gun, is it a big leap to assume someone who broke into your house is armed? A big leap from burgular to murderer? None of us can ever say for sure what we'd do until we've been in the situation but I do know I don't blame him for shooting at all, and would likely have made a similar decision.

I don't blame him whatsoever. He did what he felt was best to protect his family, and I feel no empathy for someone who loses the use of his limbs because was committing a crime in someone else's home, or even his life.

He, the burglar, took both into his own hands.

But there should always be laws to protect someone who had no other choice but to use violence against an attacker.

Which is where the true biggest question lies: When is there no other choice?

We had a case like this in our neighborhood a few years ago. The homeowner shot and wound up paralyzing the burglar, and the burglar actually sued. Yes, he was busted and prosecuted for attempted burglary but he felt the homeowner's response was "excessive" and he sued for personal damages. Of course, the irony of the situation was that he wouldn't be robbing anyone elses' house from then on......and the defense attorney didn't fail to point out that the burglar wouldn't have been injured at all had he not been engaging in a criminal act in the first place.

So was he suing for his loss of ability to make a living in his 'chosen profession'? Such a frivolous lawsuit, you would think, but I've read at least one case in a state without a "Stand Your Ground" law, where a burglar was killed, his family sued for excessive use of force....and won.

He didn't feel compelled to ask the burglar: "Sir, are you here just to rob my house.....or did you have something else in mind?"

For once, in our often illogical legal system, reason prevailed and the burglar lost his lawsuit. Instead of "feeling sorry" for the burglar, the homeowner put the jury in his place and asked what they would do in the same situation. (in other words, empathy).

I actually remember you and I discussing this case in the past, I'm not sure if it was here or by PM. And for those who think I'm somehow "feeling bad" that this happened, in either case, I don't. I wish there was another way, but the burglar here didn't deserve a single damn cent, and if in such close proximity, yeah, you take whatever means are necessary.

I'd just aim for the guys leg or groin myself, not to try and kill him. But I don't blame, I suppose, those who do. Middle of the night, a strange man in my house, and my wife asleep upstairs? Man, I'd hope I'd be able to call the police without incident, but I'd sit at the top of the steps with my gun cocked until then.

I just think, especially if you're a bad shot like me, that too many things can go wrong if you shoot at someone who doesn't know you're there. But protests from Julie or not, I am glad I have the gun.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

If someone breaks into your home with the intention of stealing your property or doing even worse, then Stand Your Ground is completely reasonable, in my opinion. Personally, I'm not exactly a major fan of guns. I'm not some gun enthusiast that gets some sort of special kick out of them. Some people are and I've got no problem with that. I've got no problem with responsible adults, and I do mean RESPONSIBLE adults, who own guns. If treated like the deadly weapons they are, guns can be enjoyable to some people and they can also provide a sense of security and safety. I personally own three guns. One of them is a .38 caliber revolver that belonged to my grandfather, and he only had it because it was given to him by a close friend he was in the military with and died in his arms on D-Day. Another one is a .357 Magnum that damn near tore my arm of the first time I fired it and the other is a 12 gauge shotgun. The only one that holds any meaning to me is the .38, though I'd be lying if I said that I didn't sleep easier at night because I have them. In the case of this home owner mentioned in the OP, it's hard to say whether he was justified or not simply because he was the only one who can give testimony to what happened. I'm saying this as an outsider but my instincts tell me that he was justified. I can understand the notion of trying to wait and ultimately see how much of a threat someone is or isn't before resorting to violence yourself. However, the problem with that is waiting for this person to make the next move could wind up costing you your life if he/she has a weapon and if he/she intends on bodily injury or death to you. When you're in a situation in which you have reason to believe that your physical safety, or even your life itself, is at risk; the reactions of your body are different than normal. Adrenaline is pumping and you body's system prime themselves for some sort of confrontation. Instincts as old as time are kicking in and, in some situations, whether or not you follow those instincts might determine if you live to see the sun come up the next day. I've been in many situations like that over the course of my job. Some say they get some kind of rush out of it but, for me, all I get is the sensation I'm about to simultaneously puke, shit & piss all over myself. After things have calmed down and everything returns to normal, I often feel like I've just run a friggin' marathon. If you're genuinely defending your life, the lives of others or your property, then Stand Your Ground seems perfectly reasonable.

In my mind, the problem with the Zimmerman case is, quite frankly, he flat out profiled Trayvon Martin on the basis of his skin color. I haven't kept up with EVERY little tidbit of the trial, but I've yet to read anything that suggests that Zimmerman had any sort of reason to believe that Martin was up to something or had done anything illegal. Laws like Stand Your Ground become unreasonable, in my mind, when it allows people to engage in certain activity that the police aren't allowed to do, such as profiling, and when people take it upon themselves to start patrolling without really knowing what they're doing. Neighborhood watches are a good thing, but not when you decide to go play cop yourself. Cops can look at someone and assume that they're up to something based on any number of circumstances, but they have to have good faith in order to act on those instincts. They can't just stop a guy and question him because of his skin color or what kind of clothes he has on or if he's walking kind of funny. Zimmerman took it upon himself to cross those boundaries and with horrible consequences. I might be wrong here, so forgive me if I'm getting some facts mixed up, but I'm guessing that it turned into a case of "self defense" when Martin begin fighting back against Zimmerman? Or, I'm guessing that's how the defense sees it. It's only natural for Martin to have reacted the way he did, most would have had a similar reaction I'm guessing.

As I said, I haven't kept up with all of it but I've overheard some people having conversations about it and one thing I heard was that Martin sorta smarted off to the guy and shouldn't have done that. Why not? Who was this guy Zimmerman to come up to him and question him or harass him about anything? He wasn't doing anything wrong, nor did Zimmerman have even the slightest shred of evidence to suggest otherwise. Zimmerman made some sort of wild assumption that led to a situation that got FAR out of control. Zimmerman took it upon himself to try and play hero, even when there was nothing illegal going on. Even though a 911 dispatcher told him repeatedly over the phone not to give chase, he did so anyway. The resulting consequences are a perfect example of what can happen when someone who really doesn't know what they're doing decides to take the law into their own hands.

 

[jacdnwarrior]

Trayvon Martin was on his way home. He was being followed, he ran and the person, Zimmerman, ran after him. Trayvon doesn't know who this guy is and what his intentions are, so based on that he didn't want this guy knowing where his home is and confronted him and a fight started. In the battle he shoots Trayvon ending his life.

Zimmerman was charged, only after public outcry, because law enforcement doesn't give a damn about Trayvon's life, do their job but make it clear they support Zimmerman.

Zimmerman should never have followed this young man. That's not his damn job. The beating he endured were , the death of Martin were the result of his lack of judgement. His life never would have been endangered if he hadn't been stalking Trayvon. We have a trial, and Zimmerman is acquitted. You hear his punk ass brother lie about every aspect of the case and is so callous, as to in one breath claim to pray for the Martin family and try to drag Trayvon's name through the mud but alleging criminal acts on Trayvon's part, none of which is the reason he died. Trayvon committed no crime that night that warranted him being followed by Zimmerman other than being black on that street and I am (I care less what any one else thinks) convinced that if a white person had been the one to walk home, wearing what ever Trayvon Martin was wearing, he would have been home safely if Zimmerman was there on that street that night.

For me, this was an avoidable outcome, which Zimmerman has no one but himself to blame for it. I have no sympathy for him or his family.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Trayvon Martin was on his way home. He was being followed, he ran and the person, Zimmerman, ran after him. Trayvon doesn't know who this guy is and what his intentions are, so based on that he didn't want this guy knowing where his home is and confronted him and a fight started. In the battle he shoots Trayvon ending his life.

Zimmerman was charged, only after public outcry, because law enforcement doesn't give a damn about Trayvon's life, do their job but make it clear they support Zimmerman.

Zimmerman should never have followed this young man. That's not his damn job. The beating he endured were , the death of Martin were the result of his lack of judgement. His life never would have been endangered if he hadn't been stalking Trayvon. We have a trial, and Zimmerman is acquitted. You hear his punk ass brother lie about every aspect of the case and is so callous, as to in one breath claim to pray for the Martin family and try to drag Trayvon's name through the mud but alleging criminal acts on Trayvon's part, none of which is the reason he died. Trayvon committed no crime that night that warranted him being followed by Zimmerman other than being black on that street and I am (I care less what any one else thinks) convinced that if a white person had been the one to walk home, wearing what ever Trayvon Martin was wearing, he would have been home safely if Zimmerman was there on that street that night.

For me, this was an avoidable outcome, which Zimmerman has no one but himself to blame for it. I have no sympathy for him or his family.

This thread isnt about the court case. Its over, get over it.

SYG has its place in entirety when it comes to home invasion. If you invade my home, with my family in it, getting shot should be the LEAST of your worries. Feel fortunate I dont break your arms and legs, and allow you to starve to death in my basement.

If you break into another persons home in order to steal, or do harm, all bets are off.

Otherwise, the law needs to be amended. You shouldn't be able to initiate a fight, then kill someone and claim self defense. ESPECIALLY in a situation were you are accusing an innocent of wrong doing. If your negligence or actions result in the unecessary death of another person, that should always be manslaughter.

 

[Davi323]

With this law you have idiots getting guns or who own guns trying to apply this law for situations that aren't self defense. This is just something that was really ill advised to leave the power of deadly force into the hands of civilians who lack any self restraint or self control when faced with a confrontation.

And if they try to apply it in situations that do not warrant it, there is nothing to stop that jury from finding them guilty. Your "sky is falling" overreaction is laughable. SYG doesn't leave the power of deadly force into the hands of civilians, the US Constitution does. Where is your basis in claiming that civilians lack self-restraint around guns? 99.9% of all gun crimes are committed by individuals who are already breaking the law. The simple fact is, LEGAL gun owners, (that is, people who purchase their firearm legally and then register it according to their local laws, obtained all relevant permits, etc) don't commit gun related crimes. Gun crimes are typically committed by criminals who are carrying illegally obtained in the commission of another crime. Legal gun owners are some of the most responsible, law abiding citizens in the nation. Legal gun owners aren't the problem.