Capitol Hill Blue Forums Hot Topics & Breaking News News US airman stands his ground in Florida, sentenced to 25 years

Thx for your thought cj

I appreciate the detailed and reasoned approach you've taken to the question, CJ,even if I find several of your conclusions/assertions fundamentally erroneous. I tend to agree with PiA's conclusion that 'stand your ground' laws are legally and logically flawed and based upon untenable premises.

One of the assertions, that the Airman was not permitted to possess the firearm where he was when he fired is not borne out by the available information. He was in the parking lot when he was attacked, not in the bar. There is no indication that he was, in any way, the 'aggressor' - as Zimmerman clearly was.

Further, you asserted that Blacks disproportionately use the stand your ground law in Florida, and disproportionately effectively. I am not aware of any factual basis to make that assertion, so some evidence would be appreciated. I admit that my initial flippant response was based upon anecdotal evidence, too. I don't think there has been any study on the topic, and when I can, I'll look into it.

Finally, I think the assertion that Florida's law is not a gun law is disingenuous. If you were aware of how it came to pass (as NRA sponsored legislation) it cannot be made in good faith. Crafty wording does not change its application, which is - to my knowledge exclusively applied to firearms, although you are correct that it applies to 'deadly force' generally, that definition - overwhelmingly - means 'firearms' not clubs, knives, sticks or stones.

CJ I feel like you are evading this point....
do guns in the schools make schools safer?
do guns in theaters make theaters safer?

And most importantly, do guns in bars make bars safer?
given the prevalence of fights in bars, I would think that a bar would be exactly the place where a person might need a gun to protect themselves... you don't so much need a gun in church, but in a bar fight, it can come in pretty handy

But this did not take place inside the bar.... No alcohol was being served in the parking lot????

Or if he was 25 feet over on the sidewalk, it would have been ok?

He was surrounded by a mob of hostile people, one of whom launched himself in attack. If I were in that situation, I would feel greatly threatened. Apparently he felt the situation was threatening enough to get his gun.... after which the danger became real. I am not sure how he is supposed to identify that line of danger?

I am not defending what he did, But I can see how he would feel at every stage what he did was within the intent of the SYG law. And that is the point. these laws nurture a situation where a person can easily think he is following the law, and wind up shooting someone.

which again paradoxically seems to me to be a problem with these laws.... you are better off killing someone than shooting to wound or firing a warning shot?

Zimmerman also had lots of opportunity to consider his action... The dispatcher told him not to pursue, the program he was working for trained him not to do what he did.

The guy in the parking lot was not in the midst of emotion, but he was concerned for the safety of a friend. He went to help a friend... which he was entitled to do. He was surrounded by a mob and attacked, and he defended himself with non lethal force.

when you say 46 states, that sounds to me suspiciously like a talking point imported from someone else

stetes with SYG laws

It seems to me that you are using distorted facts here. Unless you hang your hat on the weasel word "variant" oNCE YOU INCLUDE THAT WORD, i GUESS YOU CAN INCLUDE A LOT of really diverse laws with significant variation. Sort of like Sort of like saying the Democratic people's republic of xyz is a variant of democracy because it includes the word democracy in its national name.

'Stand your ground' laws are not like other 'self defense' laws. In the past, in common law - almost universally - there has been a duty to retreat, if in a public place, to avoid escalation of violence to deadly force. The only exception, and also fairly common, was the 'castle doctrine' - that one is not required to retreat when in one's own home. The sense of this exception is pretty widely accepted (although not universally).

As is true of most NRA political positions, the rare exceptions were flogged as if they were common, truth and history was distorted, and pressure was brought to bear to keep sensible legislators from bolting from the party line. But reality has never been consonant with pro-gun lobbyists or apologists. Thus was born the push for stand your ground laws.

Those of you who have posted here for some time know I support gun ownership and possession. But I am also mindful of the realities such ownership and possession brings. A rational balance is necessary, and stand your ground laws are nothing of the sort - especially in application. They were and remain naked political posturing and have brought neither justice nor balance to State laws, but confusion, dissention, and as this case exemplifies, injustice.

Ardy notice I stated "some variant" of SYG laws which are a basic extension of Castle laws, as are carjacker laws etc.

Regards,
"C.J."