The politics of ‘Stand your ground’ law

[SecularMotion]

When Gov. Rick Scott’s Task Force on Citizen Safety and Protection meets on Tuesday, the controversial “Stand Your Ground” law from State Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, will be in the crosshairs of public scrutiny.

And for good reason. Following passage in 2005 in Florida, similar laws were adopted in approximately two dozen states, with the help of the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the National Rifle Association (NRA). These state laws, according to The Wall Street Journal, have resulted in an average 50 percent increase in “justifiable homicides” in the years after their passage, while other states experience little or no change.

But Baxley, a task force member, is not simply a member of the Florida Legislature with expertise or interest in policies related to “citizen safety and protection.” A closer review of his relationship with the gun lobby underscores that he should be considered a representative of the National Rifle Association (NRA) on the task force, not of the voters that place him into office.

Baxley himself doesn’t make the distinction, recently telling CNN, “I feel like I’m responding to my constituents when the NRA sits at the table with me.”

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/09/2885128/the-politics-of-stand-your-ground.html#storylink=cpy

[Lizzie Poppet]

1. Did these states see an overall rise in homicide?

Or was that "50% increase in justifiable homicide" more a matter of reclassification?

[Callisto32]

2. If this is based on the study that people were widely citing for this stuff...

they fixed their numbers by only looking at five years prior to, and a single year after, a state adopted SYG laws, ignoring similar patterns in the increase/decrease of violent crimes evident if you looked at data back over decades; and then proceeding to draw a causal link between the two.

[Lizzie Poppet]

5. Thank you.

Sounds like hideously sloppy methodology, at best. I wonder if there was any sound attempt to factor for confounding influences, etc?

[DanTex]

9. Overall rise in homicide.

According to this study that came out about a month ago.

http://econweb.tamu.edu/mhoekstra/castle_doctrine.pdf

[gejohnston]

12. I remember that one, we discussed it.

So why does the FBI UCR say the opposite?

[DanTex]

13. What are you talking about?

[gejohnston]

14. short memory?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=44544

[DanTex]

15. I meant about the UCR comment. The study used UCR data.

So obviously UCR doesn't "say the opposite", whatever that means.

[gejohnston]

16. the laws intent were never

about deterring crime. I don't know of anyone who claimed that it did. They also don't know the difference between Castle Doctrine and SYG, but that is aside the point. They also mistakenly put California and Illinois as DTR states, but never mind that either. They did not include Wyoming, which is DTR, at all. They inaccurately described Wyoming law. Page 8 footnote:

We also do not classify Wyoming as having passed a castle doctrine law, though we
note that they removed civil liability and added a presumption of reasonable fear (provisions that removed the duty to
retreat were stripped out prior to passage)

Wrong. Wyoming did pass a Castle Doctrine, which is the opposite of DTR, in your home. What was stripped from the bill was SYG. Outside of your home or dwelling, you do have a duty to retreat. The only difference is you have immunity from civil suits if you prove that you acted reasonably and were "against the wall." Never mind that either.

If you look on page 34, the column that says "Removes duty to retreat
in any place one has a legal right to be". The four states that have "no" are not SYG. Castle Doctrine, yes, but not SYG.
So, are they talking about Castle Doctrine or SYG?

So, simply them claiming it, does not make it so. If they did, read it correctly and understand what they were reading? I see regional drops across the board.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/preliminary-annual-ucr-jan-dec-2011/data-tables/table-2

Fact is, out of the SYG states, all but five show drops in violent crime with Florida having the one of the greatest drops. Of course, I am not claiming SYG laws have anything to do with crime rates. Such a simplistic claims I'll leave for your side.

http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/mythsofmurder.htm

[DanTex]

17. Blah blah blah...

See the other thread. The study did a "difference-in-differences" analysis, meaning they compared the change in crime rates in SYG states versus the change in crime rates in non-SYG rates. Read the study.

[gejohnston]

18. I read the study

I read the study then too. They got many of the states wrong. I read the UCR. The difference is still net drops in SYG states. Be childish if you wish, but this paper won't be getting them the Nobel Prize.

[spin]

22. First in my opinion not all homicides are evil ...

Some homicides are justified. Perhaps you don't understand the term as "homicide" can definitely have a negative connotation while a justified homicide doesn't.

justifiable homicide n. a killing without evil or criminal intent, for which there can be no blame, such as self-defense to protect oneself or to protect another, or the shooting by a law enforcement officer in fulfilling his/her duties. This is not to be confused with a crime of passion or claim of diminished capacity which refer to defenses aimed at reducing the penalty or degree of crime. (See: homicide, self-defense)
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Justifiable+homicide

The article asserts that castle doctrine increases homicides.

Unfortunately I find that I am unable to excerpt portions of this article to copy and paste so I can merely state that in the conclusions portion of the article it is mentioned that "Our view is that this provides that at least some of the additional homicides were not legally justified ..."

That would indicate that most of the homicides were justified.

I would suggest that this argument revolves around if you are pro-criminal or pro-victim. Is it wrong that if an honest person chooses to have a firearm in his/her home or to legally carry one and is attacked by a person/persons who intend to seriously injure or kill him/her that they are able to defend himself/herself with a firearm? (That convoluted sentence was fun but might not be grammatically correct.)

Obviously allowing honest and sane citizens to own and carry firearms will result in deaths. Perhaps the majority may considered justifiable homicide but some will also be suicides or foolish tragedies caused by irresponsible people. I personally feel that banning the ownership of all firearms in the United States (while politically impossible) would increase the violent crime rate as criminals would simply ignore such a law. (I realize this might be an NRA talking point but it is unfortunately true as criminals by definition do not obey laws.)

[Lizzie Poppet]

27. Thank you for the reply and link!

I'll take a look at the methodology and analysis. Much appreciated...

[spin]

3. Justifiable homicides are those killings in which the use of lethal force was ruled as justified ...

justifiable homicide n. a killing without evil or criminal intent, for which there can be no blame, such as self-defense to protect oneself or to protect another, or the shooting by a law enforcement officer in fulfilling his/her duties. This is not to be confused with a crime of passion or claim of diminished capacity which refer to defenses aimed at reducing the penalty or degree of crime. (See: homicide, self-defense)
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Justifiable+homicide

The tone and bias of the article in the OP is revealed by this excerpt:

It’s obvious to note that there are no super PACs for victims of “justifiable homicides.” Their voices deserve to be heard just as loudly as those with money. At some point, we ought to stand our ground for that.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/09/2885128/the-politics-of-stand-your-ground.html#storylink=cpy

Does The Miami Herald seriously wish to form a super PAC to defend the rights of muggers to attack honest citizens on the street with the intention and capacity to seriously injure or kill them? If so perhaps the publication should change its name to the Miami Pro-Criminal Times.

[pipoman]

4. In states without SYG

nearly every homicide is charged with some crime regardless the circumstances. In some, potential victims aren't allowed to have the most effective means to defend themselves...maybe these 2 things alone result in less actual justifiable homicides, and more victims? I would also be interested in how many we are talking about before and after..if before there were 2 and now there are 3 it wouldn't be as shocking as if before there was 1000 and now there are 1500.

The 50% isn't as sinister as some are trying to convince us it is...some, if not most, are exactly why SYG is in place in the first place..if there wasn't an increase, the law wouldn't have been necessary..

[spin]

6. It could also be pointed out that in Florida since the SYG law passed violent crime has dropped. ...

Crime rates in Florida have dropped since 'stand your ground,' says Dennis Baxley
Dennis Baxley on Wednesday, March 21st, 2012

***snip***

Here, we’re checking whether there’s been a dramatic drop in violent crime since the law went into effect. To do that, we turned to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement’s crime statistics and various news reports about violent crime in Florida.

We found that violent crime has dropped significantly in Florida since 2005. (The law went into effect Oct. 1, 2005.) We calculated the drop in violent crime rates, to account for population growth. In 2006 and 2007, violent crime rates were up just slightly up compared with 2005. In 2008, the violent crime rate began declining. By 2010, the violent crime rate had dropped 23 percent since 2005. (See chart below.)

But that’s not the whole story. We also looked at crime rates for the five years before the "stand your ground" law started, and we found violent crime was declining during those years as well. Between 2000 and 2005, violent crime dropped 12 percent.

When we turned to news reports, we found many stories documenting drops in crime nationwide over the past decade. Experts have been surprised that the numbers have continued dropping through a historic recession.
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/mar/23/dennis-baxley/crime-rates-florida-have-dropped-stand-your-ground/

The article goes on to mention that no one knows why the violent crime rates are dropping That's fair as there are indeed many factors to consider in the violent crime rate equation. However as a single factor it is obvious that SYG did not cause the violent crime rate to skyrocket.

If my profession was a street mugger, I would seriously consider a less dangerous criminal occupation if I lived in Florida or I would move to Chicago. The work environment in the Windy City is far better for street criminals and home invaders than Florida.

[pipoman]

7. I believe it is working just as it was intended

in most cases. Anytime a law is written which decriminalizes something previously criminal, or reduces the ease of conviction by raising the burden on law enforcement, there will be instances of undesirable effects. Maybe the law needs a tweek..it is needed to keep innocent people from losing their savings and/or their freedom. I would rather error on the side of a few guilty going free than on the side of innocent people losing everything.

[bongbong]

8. Ummmm......

> However as a single factor it is obvious that SYG did not cause the violent crime rate to skyrocket.

Gun-religionists are fond of repeating this simple, yet egregious logic error. I think it's hilarious how the Talking Points of the gun-religionists are so coordinated.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

10. what is the egregious logic error? please point out the error. why is that a false statement and

what is the true statement? thanks.

[friendly_iconoclast]

26. Hah! You'll never get a real answer to *any* of your questions from that one...

[spin]

19. O.K. If SYG was such a bad idea ...

please explain why far more unjustified homicides haven't occurred.

If this law actually encouraged a large number of vigilantes to decide to actively seek our criminals and blow them away as has been suggested by the news media then surely we would see thousands of dead criminals across our nation as well as many innocent people by now. After all it's not all that difficult to attract the attention of a street criminal if you go into a bad area of a city, flash a wad of bills and act drunk as you walk down the street.

(This brings to mind a story that my father who died in 1963 told me. He worked as an insurance investigator in the Hill District of Pittsburgh, Pa. One individual that he knew or heard of apparently loved to flash money in a bar and stagger off. When attacked he simply beat the crap out of his attacker/s. The cops viewed him as a nut job but didn't interfere with his odd hobby.)

Let's look at the total effect of the Stand Your Ground" law in Florida which passed in 2005. A survey run by the Tampa Bay Times was conducted and discovered roughly 200 cases in which the "Stand Your Ground" law was invoked during that period, most of which involved a fatality and occurred outside a home. Seventy percent of the cases involving those who claimed SYG were considered justified by the legal system in Florida. Obviously it could be argued that in some cases the legal system favored the shooter and also any person who is actually involved in a criminal activity that involves his use of a weapon can also claim SYG as his defense. However that is irrelevant to my point which is that we are not dealing with a sky rocketing homicide rate, justified or not, in Florida. Roughly sixty or even one hundred questionable cases in seven years does not indicate that the sky is falling.

You can view the article at: http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1233133.ece Since the article has a definite bias against SYG it can be used to support further discussions against SYG in Florida.

I should point out that I feel that shootings similar to the Trayvon Martin incident deserve a through investigation and prosecution if there are questions that lethal force was not justified. I also support rewriting the law in Florida to eliminate any ambiguities or confusion on how it should be interpreted by the legal system.

[bongbong]

32. Yawn

Your only piece of evidence is about Florida, and yet you seem to be arguing about all the SYG laws no matter what state they're in. Of course most of your "brilliant" argument is personal anecdote, which of course is worthless except as a personal memory to you. Also plenty of rhetoric and "it's not so bad, just a few more murders!"

Keep trying, gun relgioinists! Your attempts at logical debate are starting to run at about .001% of what normal logical debate runs at. I know you can do it!

[spin]

33. If you could, you would present a reply that would show that I was wrong ...

and that would be fair.

One reason my post dealt with Florida was that I don't believe that any similar newspaper reports have been made in other states that have SYG.

I am not trying to use my anecdotal stories to prove anything but merely my own knowledge of others who have concealed weapons permits and told me of incidents in which they were able to use their weapons to stop a serious attack.

However the report published in the Tampa Bay was an article which the newspaper promoted as having been written after a considerable amount of research. It did not contain anecdotal stories and in fact had a definite bias against SYG. I wonder if you actually bothered to read it.

In the most comprehensive effort of its kind, the Tampa Bay Times has identified nearly 200 "stand your ground'' cases and their outcomes. The Times identified cases through media reports, court records and dozens of interviews with prosecutors and defense attorneys across the state.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1233133.ece

If this is your attempt at a logical debate, I would suggest that you find some data to present that will disprove my point. You have just stated an opinion without facts to support it.

[bongbong]

38. Still spinning

> I am not trying to use my anecdotal stories to prove anything but merely my own knowledge of others who have concealed weapons permits and told me of incidents in which they were able to use their weapons to stop a serious attack.

IOW, "I'm not trying to use anecdotes, but I'll use anecdotes".



You gun-relgionists create hilarious irrationality in your defense of your Precious.

[rl6214]

29. I think it's hilarious how the talking points of those on the bong are just

hilarious

[bongbong]

31. Personal attack

You're WITTY! I think I've only read "bong" jokes from gun religionists about 1,644,773 times.

Keep trying, gun religionists! If you're the 2 millionth gun religionist to make a lame "bong" joke as a "WICKED REBUTTAL!" to one of my posts, you win a lifetime supply of manly gun posters!

[rl6214]

34. Personal attack?

The juries have said no after you alerted on it. Your user name, own it. The only joke around here are your hit and run posts and your hilarious "gun religionist" BS.

[bongbong]

35. Sadly, no

The only joke around here is right-wing gun-religionists impersonating Democrats.

[rl6214]

36. You'll be sure to point them out as soon as you see them, won't you?

Or don't you have the cajones to do it?

[bongbong]

37. Cajones?

No, I'm a crummy anti-NRA Talking Point Lie person. The only people with cajones are the gun-relgionists - but they can spin on a dime & suddenly change to being extremely sensitive when I make a post they hate and they alert on it.

[rl6214]

39. Don't know what the hell you're talking about.

[bongbong]

40. Usually

If you don't understand a post, the usual response is not to reply.

I understand, however, that gun-religionists don't obey rules like this for various reasons.

[rl6214]

41. Yeah, this is a rule, written by you

Because "Usually" that's what's done.

You forgot your

[DanTex]

11. Yes, let's ask the right-wing Republican who wrote the law!

Surely he's qualified and trustworthy to analyze the statistical evidence!

[spin]

20. That's fair ...

Author of "stand your ground" law: George Zimmerman should probably be arrested for killing Trayvon Martin
March 21, 2012 12:31 PM

(CBS/AP) SANFORD, Fla. - The authors of Florida's controversial "stand your ground" self-defense law say George Zimmerman should probably be arrested for shooting Trayvon Martin, reports the Miami Herald.

"He has no protection under my law," former Sen. Durell Peaden told the newspaper.

***snip***

Rep. Dennis Baxley, Peaden's co-sponsor in the Florida House, agrees with his former colleague, telling the newspaper that the law does not license neighborhood watch or others who feel "like they have the authority to pursue and confront people. That is aggravating an incident right there."

Both co-sponsors told the newspaper, however, that they did not think the law needed to be re-examined.

"If you want to pass something, pass something that limits their ability to pursue and confront people," Baxley said. "It's about crime watch," he said. "What are the limitations of crime watch? Are you allowed to jump out and follow people and confront them? What do you think is going to happen? That's where it starts."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57401619-504083/author-of-stand-your-ground-law-george-zimmerman-should-probably-be-arrested-for-killing-trayvon-martin/

[Tuesday Afternoon]

21. Homicide. Justified. We have to take this on a case to case basis. n/t

[spin]

23. Very true as many of those who claim a "Stand Your Ground" defense ...

may be ruled as using legitimate self defense by our legal system. However many criminals who actually committed a murder and were caught might attempt to do the same.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

24. exactly my point. Let the system do its job. Let the case go to court. Present the evidence. Hear

the Testimony. If it is NOT justifiable Homicide it will come out at trial.

[spin]

25. Yup. (n/t)

[rl6214]

28. Google dump time

[SecularMotion]

30. Thanks for the kick