Stand Your Ground (licence to kill)?

[RobDegraves]

@PetersCreek

I too was quite impressed with your post. It was thoughtful and shows you have considered your position. Having been in the military myself, I can understand your viewpoint.

However... I hope you will let me add an additional question. One that I think most of the other posters should also ask of themselves.


Is there any circumstance where you might become that "low life"?

Would you rob someone's house if...

You were starving?
Your family was starving?
You needed the money for someone you love?

 

[crimresearch]

@PetersCreek

I too was quite impressed with your post. It was thoughtful and shows you have considered your position. Having been in the military myself, I can understand your viewpoint.

However... I hope you will let me add an additional question. One that I think most of the other posters should also ask of themselves.


Is there any circumstance where you might become that "low life"?

Would you rob someone's house if...

You were starving?
Your family was starving?
You needed the money for someone you love?

What evidence do you have that any other posters don't already know the answers better than you, given that you've been unable to comprehend their answers correctly?

 

[RobDegraves]

What evidence do you have that any other posters don't already know the answers better than you, given that you've been unable to comprehend their answers correctly?

I don't, that is why I ask.

The ad hominem was pretty pointless though.

 

[leftysergeant]

What if the force presented is not deadly in nature?

Speaking for myself, since I am disabled and likely to suffer very serious harm if I let someone get the first punch, he has the right to desist the instant he sees my weapon.

 

[crimresearch]

I don't, that is why I ask.

The ad hominem was pretty pointless though.

Then why did you make it?

 

[TeapotCavalry]

@PetersCreek

I too was quite impressed with your post. It was thoughtful and shows you have considered your position. Having been in the military myself, I can understand your viewpoint.

However... I hope you will let me add an additional question. One that I think most of the other posters should also ask of themselves.

1. Is there any circumstance where you might become that "low life"?
   
   Would you rob someone's house if...
   
2. You were starving?
3. Your family was starving?
4. You needed the money for someone you love?

1. Sure, a series of really unfortunate and unlikely events.
2. Maybe. Depending on the circumstances.
3. Maybe. Depending on the circumstances.
4. Maybe. Depending on the circumstances.

Would I be drugged out of my mind? That would increase the likelihood of me doing something stupid (besides drugs), and there's no one I can blame for it except me. I take the risk of getting injured or dead when I break in to someone's house. If I was clean of addictions, I would probably finds dozens of other legal and/or less risky opportunities to keep myself or my family alive. This scenario needs more details.

 

[Resume]

Is there any circumstance where you might become that "low life"?

Would you rob someone's house if...

You were starving?
Your family was starving?
You needed the money for someone you love?

Why should my misfortune mean others must suffer? I know myriad ways to feed myself or my "starving" family without having to resort to robbing. One such way would be to ring the doorbell and ask for charity rather than break in. I have a local year-round population of Canada geese; it would be poaching and the family would tire of geese but there you go. Having worked with PADS and other organizations like it, I know where to get a hot meal for me and mine if the geese get spooky. If push came to shove, I could always dumpster dive behind restaurants.

If I need money, again there are avenues . . . but if you corner me with some sort of post-apocalyptic scenario where I'm forced to rob, as a rational adult I'd understand there'd be consequences which might include my death.

 

[Cylinder]

Why should my misfortune mean others must suffer? I know myriad ways to feed myself or my "starving" family without having to resort to robbing. One such way would be to ring the doorbell and ask for charity rather than break in. I have a local year-round population of Canada geese; it would be poaching and the family would tire of geese but there you go. Having worked with PADS and other organizations like it, I know where to get a hot meal for me and mine if the geese get spooky. If push came to shove, I could always dumpster dive behind restaurants.

If I need money, again there are avenues . . . but if you corner me with some sort of post-apocalyptic scenario where I'm forced to rob, as a rational adult I'd understand there'd be consequences which might include my death.

Exactly that...

 

[Kestrel]

Sorry, I should have specified that my post was only in regards to Florida.

So, let's look at Florida's statute.



So, how that reads is simple. If I am in my home or car, and someone forcibly and illegally enters my home, I am presumed by law to be in fear of my life, and can use deadly force.

I could then legally shoot that person dead, and would never face any charges, and could not be sued for wrongful death.

Other states have similar laws, but which ones, I don't know. Texas does, and IIRC, so does Arizona, but I could be wrong on AZ.

It's called the "Castle Doctrine" and most states do in fact have such a thing. Some may have stipulations, but what ones do or don't, and what they are, I honestly don't know.

The "Castle Doctrine" has it's roots in common law. Using deadly force in self defense was permitted under common law to avoid death or serious injury when retreat was not an option. The "Castle Doctrine" was a presumption that inside ones own home, there was no duty to retreat.

Florida's law goes way beyond this. It presumes that someone illegally entering your home has deadly intent. You no longer have to prove that your fear of death or serious injury was reasonable. It also removes the duty to retreat in places outside your home where you have a right to be when reasonable fear was present.

If two rival gang leaders met on a public sidewalk, the SYG law could be invoked by either one. Both have a right to be on the sidewalk and both have reasonable fear that the other intends to do serious harm.

See Deadly Combinations: How Self Defense Laws Pairing Immunity with a Presumption of Fear Allow Criminals to “Get Away with Murder” by Elizabeth B. Megale for a detailed look at Florida's SYG law.

 

[Cylinder]

If two rival gang leaders met on a public sidewalk, the SYG law could be invoked by either one. Both have a right to be on the sidewalk and both have reasonable fear that the other intends to do serious harm.

If their actually being gangs, then no. SYG requires clean hands going in to the altercation.

 

[crimresearch]

The "Castle Doctrine" has it's roots in common law. Using deadly force in self defense was permitted under common law to avoid death or serious injury when retreat was not an option. The "Castle Doctrine" was a presumption that inside ones own home, there was no duty to retreat.

Florida's law goes way beyond this. It presumes that someone illegally entering your home has deadly intent. You no longer have to prove that your fear of death or serious injury was reasonable. It also removes the duty to retreat in places outside your home where you have a right to be when reasonable fear was present.

If two rival gang leaders met on a public sidewalk, the SYG law could be invoked by either one. Both have a right to be on the sidewalk and both have reasonable fear that the other intends to do serious harm.

See Deadly Combinations: How Self Defense Laws Pairing Immunity with a Presumption of Fear Allow Criminals to “Get Away with Murder” by Elizabeth B. Megale for a detailed look at Florida's SYG law.

You are making the assumption that merely claiming to think that another person might use force on a public street is a free pass to open fire on sight.

That leaves out the underlying legal fact that 'reasonableness' in law is not 'anything I can think of no matter how extreme'.

The legal standard from the Supreme Court has already been given repeatedly, TOTC has been explicated repeatedly, and as with most things in the legal realm, the overarching legal axiom is Eppur si dipende

 

[RobDegraves]

Best answer to my question so far is Resume..

If I need money, again there are avenues . . . but if you corner me with some sort of post-apocalyptic scenario where I'm forced to rob, as a rational adult I'd understand there'd be consequences which might include my death.

I think this is pretty well a rational position close to my own. I tend to think that the traditional way of rationalizing our decision to kill someone by dehumanizing them... ie calling them "low life", "scum", etc... was artificial and weak. Though it's a time honored technique, something you often see in war where the enemy becomes a sub human monster, it's still not accurate.

An accurate statement is that when you are prepared to take a life, you should be prepared for your life to be taken.

If you break into someone's home, there might be consequences including death. Most of the time people don't think that will happen but that does not protect them.

This, of course, also applies to the person defending his property. You can chose to run, give up or fight. In all cases there are possible consequences. When people say "I bet on me" or "I will always be a better shot than some low life", it's simply a case of not facing the possible consequences.


What I usually tell my students is...

As a society we have all agreed to settle our differences in a legal and non violent way. When someone decides to do you harm, they have removed themselves from that agreement. At this point, you cannot know what they are willing to do or where they will stop. In that case you do whatever you need to do to resolve the situation with as little harm to yourself as possible. While it is often wise to use the minimum amount of force needed, you should use all the force needed and never less.

Do it fast, effectively and do not stop until you can be certain that you are no longer in danger.

If there are consequences, they can be dealt with later.

 

[WildCat]

Would you rob someone's house if...

You were starving?
Your family was starving?
You needed the money for someone you love?

What if you or your family didn't like bread, and wanted meth instead?

 

[WildCat]

If their actually being gangs, then no. SYG requires clean hands going in to the altercation.

It's not illegal to just be a member of a gang.

 

[RobDegraves]

the overarching legal axiom is Eppur si dipende

What is eppur si dipende?

Sounds more like Italian than Latin... which would mean it's not legal terminology.

What if you or your family didn't like bread, and wanted meth instead?

What if we were shape shifting aliens with a taste for human flesh?

Or Care Bears genetically spliced with Chtulhu?

sigh...

 

[Cylinder]

It's not illegal to just be a member of a gang.

I used inexact language. Read acting as a criminal gang. I'm guessing it's not going to be as contraversial if it's the AARP going against Pleasant High Chess Club.

 

[GeeMack]

This, of course, also applies to the person defending his property. You can chose to run, give up or fight. In all cases there are possible consequences. When people say "I bet on me" or "I will always be a better shot than some low life", it's simply a case of not facing the possible consequences.

Although choosing to fight may have more obvious risks, choosing to run or give up is still "betting on me" since the antagonist may decide to do you harm in any event.

As a society we have all agreed to settle our differences in a legal and non violent way. When someone decides to do you harm breach your property barriers, they have removed themselves from that agreement. At this point, you cannot know what they are willing to do or where they will stop. In that case you do whatever you need to do to resolve the situation with as little harm to yourself as possible. While it is often wise to use the minimum amount of force needed, you should use all the force needed and never less.

Fixed your comment. I think part of the concept behind Stand-Your-Ground and Castle-Doctrine type laws is that you only really know someone has decided to do you harm when they have done that harm. One shouldn't have to wait until that point to decide that an appropriate course of action is...

Do it fast, effectively and do not stop until you can be certain that you are no longer in danger.

 

[RobDegraves]

@GeeMack

It's nice to get some actual thought out responses.

Although choosing to fight may have more obvious risks, choosing to run or give up is still "betting on me" since the antagonist may decide to do you harm in any event.

I agree.

Running is not always the best bet, sometimes it can be the worst bet. I teach knife defense, amongst other things, and I often use my kid as a demo. He's 19 and can run about twice as fast as I can. If he has a knife and I run... I would die.

Personally I would never choose giving up... but that is a personal decision. Either decision carries potential danger.

Quote:
As a society we have all agreed to settle our differences in a legal and non violent way. When someone decides to do you harm breach your property barriers, they have removed themselves from that agreement. At this point, you cannot know what they are willing to do or where they will stop. In that case you do whatever you need to do to resolve the situation with as little harm to yourself as possible. While it is often wise to use the minimum amount of force needed, you should use all the force needed and never less.


________________________________________________________________


Fixed your comment. I think part of the concept behind Stand-Your-Ground and Castle-Doctrine type laws is that you only really know someone has decided to do you harm when they have done that harm. One shouldn't have to wait until that point to decide that an appropriate course of action is...

Again I agree with you, though only partially.

You should never wait and let the other guy throw the first punch, or bullet, or whatever. If you have reasonable grounds to believe you are in danger, then I think it behooves you to make your decisions based on that assessment.

The reason I didn't include "breach your property barriers" is that you might not be there at the time. Therefore it does not always endanger you directly.

Let's say I come home and someone is burglarizing my home but I have not entered yet. It does not endanger me at this time. Then I can decide whether to risk myself by defending my property. IF I do decide to defend my property (personally I would), I have to assume... 1. I am risking my life. 2. So is the burglar.

 

[Xulld]

Normally, no...but under certain extreme circumstances, yes.



Being a retired veteran, I'd have to say yes.



Yes. The law in my locale (and I think many/most others) provides that the use of deadly force is justified not only when a deadly threat is reasonably perceived but also when there is a threat of grave bodily harm.



In service to my country. For the exigent protection of myself and others.



Yes.



See #1...and being a bit of a space geek, I'd risk it for the opportunity to explore another planet.



I recall the average self defense situation being described as taking place at a distance of 21 feet, across which 2-3 shots are fired. That's hardly conducive to getting to know someone on a whole-person basis, so I wouldn't be able to say that a perpetrator on the wrong end of a SD shooting deserved to die. However, I will say that if it ever becomes necessary for me to use deadly force, and the perpetrator dies as a result, that person would have brought it upon himself.

I don't like the "blow 'em away" attitude, either but in my experience it doesn't always equate to a desire to kill someone. Sometimes it's just an inelegant expression of their intent to act decisively and effectively in stopping a threat. Still, just as if it were expressed that way by hot-headed Rambo wannabe, it does a disservice to responsible gun owners and practitioners of CCW.

Fortunately, I haven't yet had to point a weapon at another human being...other than military training...and I would be quite content to never have to do so. The closest I've come is to shoot a dog in defense of livestock.

Well said!

 

[luchog]

It's not a false dichotomy because it doesn't exclude the middle. Some options are binary.

This one isn't, despite your attempts to portray it as such. And looking at other posts, I'm clearly not the only one who recognizes this.

Reductio ad absurdum is only a fallacy when used to exclude the middle.

Which is exactly what you are doing. You're excluding a huge chunk of the middle in your constant attempt to portray people who don't think it's always necessary, or even the best option, to run from burglars as "killing to protect property". It's not, not matter how many hypotheticals you can dream up.

BS. Asserting that it is doesn't make it so.

The fact that it is, does. And I'm far from the only one who has recognized that and commented on it. And with that, I'm done with this, since you're clearly not going to accept the fact that real life is far more ambiguous, and rarely, if ever, as clear-cut as you're trying to portray it.