Would murder charges be filed in this case.

[safeinOhio]

I'm not a fan of revenge films, but I did like Grand Torino with Clint Eastwood. I'm sure most of you saw the film. He played a retired Detroit auto worker like me. In the end, don't read this if you have not seen the film, he is killed by the gang members. He reached in his coat pocket for what turned out to be a zippo lighter. The gang members riddled him with bullets. They thought he was reaching for a gun. Under most SYG laws, it would be very hard to try them on capital murder, perhaps impossible. Gun charges, a couple of years, but not murder.
Could SYG laws be re written to cover this? Or, if they had a duty to retreat, could they have been charged?

[Glaug-Eldare]

1. Would depend on the statute

If I remember correctly, Clint sought them out and brought violence into it. He threatened them, not the other way around, and they responded with deadly force. Many statutes require the use of force to be "reasonable," which probably would not cover the, uh, amount of lead that was dispensed.

I don't know of any law that would grant a private citizen a "right to pursue" and confront anybody, even known felons, with deadly force. (Unless they were deputized on the spot, I suppose)

[safeinOhio]

2. I don't recall him bringing violence into it.

He only reached for his lighter. He didn't use any deadly force, wasn't even armed. That was the beauty of the scene and the story, he let them use violence to hang themselves.

Even told them it was a light.

[Glaug-Eldare]

3. Ah, I did remember it wrong

Thanks for the clip!

Yeah, deffo a murder case. Though, if they hadn't already drawn on him, they'd have a fighting chance to beat at least a murder charge. (Though, they'd still have to explain the extreme use of force.) They had good reason to believe he was reaching for a gun, regardless of what he might have said. They'd still have (presumably) numerous possession charges to deal with.

[safeinOhio]

4. But, like I said, under

the SYG law they could not be charged with capital murder, and the guys family could not sue them.
On the other hand, they had the option of ducking back in the house. With "duty to retreat" they may well have had a murder case. Especially with the number of witness that saw the crime.

[Glaug-Eldare]

7. Two things:

1. SYG laws don't grant any protection whatsoever to the party that threatens first, draws first, and fires first, when no actual threat of bodily harm was presented. Clint appears to have remained in a public place the entire time, and did not present a threat until after the gangsters had already drawn on him. If anything, a SYG statute would have protected Clint if he had chosen to use force to defend himself at that point.

2. Even disregarding 1, it's a movie. Proper application of criminal justice doesn't always result in a happy ending or a satisfied audience. Sometimes, you must convict people who acted with good intentions. Sometimes, you must acquit people who acted with bad intentions. The law doesn't care what color hat you wear, it cares what your actions were, in a particular case.

[safeinOhio]

9. See Michael Moore clip I posted.

A wallet in the hand of a black man looks like a 357.

SYG laws allow a reasonable white person the right to defend himself if he feels his life is threatened or of great bodily harm. Police across the country prove that they felt their life was at risk from wallets, kitchen tools and candy bars in the hand of a black person and have escaped prosecution.

[Glaug-Eldare]

14. Is this a racism thread now?

Racism is a persistent evil, and it will express itself no matter how you write the law. Bigots have manipulated the criminal justice system for centuries in order to satisfy their own racial fear and hatred, and that's going to continue to continue for years to come. SYG statutes, in theory, applies to blacks as much as it does to whites. In reality, any self-defense law whatsoever will be abused by racists. The only way to stop that is to say that it's illegal to ever fight back.

[safeinOhio]

10. Yes, the law doesn't care, only

police, judges and juries care about the color of your skin. Case in point is the death penalty.

Amnesty Report Finds Racial Injustice in Death Penalty - According to a new report issued by Amnesty International, race continues to play a strong role in U.S. death penalty cases. In "US: Death by Discrimination - The Continuing Role of Race in Capital Cases," Amnesty states that:

Even though blacks and whites are murder victims in nearly equal numbers of crimes, 80% of people executed since the death penalty was reinstated have been executed for murders involving white victims.

More than 20% of black defendants who have been executed were convicted by all-white juries.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/race-and-death-penalty

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

18. IMHO...

...with or without SYG they committed murder.
Walt (Eastwood) did not aim or brandish a weapon (other than his finger). He, in fact, did not have a weapon.

[GreenStormCloud]

5. It takes more than reaching into you pocket.

For you to claim self-defense there has to be intent, ability, and opportunity. Merely reaching into one's pocket does not establish any of those. Self-defense can apply even if the other guy is unarmed, if the disparity of force is great enough. SYG merely deals with removing the duty to retreat if you are there legally.

I haven't seen the movie so I can't comment on it.

[safeinOhio]

6. Not according to the police,

Every case was deemed justified.

[Rittermeister]

13. Two different sets of rules

The police have more leeway as to who they can shoot.

[safeinOhio]

23. As I recall, the only difference is they are allowed

to shoot a fleeing felon if they believe the person to be a danger to the public. In self defense they are only allowed to meet force with the same force in self defense as any other citizen. Deadly force can only be use by a LEO if they believe they are in danger of death or great bodily harm.

[gejohnston]

24. I don't think that is what he said

cops are held to a lower standard than a non LE.

[safeinOhio]

27. Yes , by the courts and judges,

not by the law.

[Rittermeister]

33. It's been a while since I looked into it

But don't most police officers have unions, union reps, union-appointed lawyers, etc, and immunity from civil litigation being brought against them personally? These are things the rest of us don't have. You shoot a guy, and the police think it's questionable, it's down to you to defend yourself against charges and the wrongful death suit sure to follow.

By the way, don't take this as me supporting SYG laws. In NC a person who shoots has to demonstrate that a reasonable person would have feared death or serious injury under the same circumstances, not just that they felt it, which I think is how it ought to be.

[GreenStormCloud]

25. Totality of circumstances.

Read what I said, NOT what you want me to have said.

I said, "It takes more than merely reaching into your pocket." It takes the context of the situation. In some situations reaching into your pocket would be sufficient, in others it would not. But reaching, in and of itself, is not enough.

[safeinOhio]

12. SYG in Florida

An examination of 130 Stand Your Ground cases by The Tampa Bay Times found that a majority of shooters who used the law to claim self-defense did not stand trial. These include drug war shootings, bar fights and road rage where there’s no rebuttal possible by slain victims.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/26/opinion/gov-rick-scott-rounds-up-the-usual-zealots.html

[aikoaiko]

17. Even in those cases that involved so called "bar brawls, gang shootouts and road-rage incidents"

the paper didn't say who started the violence, escalated the violence to life threatening levels, or enough details to know whether SYG was applied correctly.

Isn't it interesting how the editorial changed the original article's description of gang shootouts to drug war shootings?

[gejohnston]

20. I read the article in question

In all cases there was a hearing by a judge using the same burden as proof as a civil suit. In some cases under DTR, there is no trial.
Justifiable shooting by police are also up.
The other part of the issue is: how many innocent people are in prison because of Duty to Retreat? Have there been more claims of justifiable homicides or just more ruled as justifiable?

[aikoaiko]

8. You're taking that scene out of context.

There was already escalating acts of violence (initiated by the gang).

I can't really say that SYG would protect the gang members given the totality of their interactions with Walt and his friends. The gang members were vile.

But yes, a good defense lawyer would make a case that Walt had severely beaten one of the gang members and had pulled a gun and threatened him if he hurt his friends (which the gang members did).

[safeinOhio]

11. Out of context or not.

Under SYG laws they would not be successfully prosecuted for capital murder. They felt there life was in danger, they had the right to shoot first.

Already, bar fights and road rage case where the shooter started the fight and later felt threatened have claimed SYG.

see post #12

[aikoaiko]

15. I have never seen a SYG law that referred to feelings. Show me what SYG law you know that does.

[Glaug-Eldare]

16. That applies to pursuits, not the original threat

SYG may protect the original attacker if he has withdrawn, attempted to withdraw, or has otherwise ended their attack, and the original defender began a new attack.

For instance, suppose I attack you on the street with deadly force. By law, you can legally use deadly force to stop me. Suppose that, at that point, I break off my attack and run from you. If you pursue me and fire at me as I'm fleeing, I can legally use deadly force to stop your new threat. I was the original bad guy, but you became the subsequent bad guy when you used offensive (instead of defensive) force against me.

The gangsters in Gran Torino were actively threatening Walt with deadly force from the moment the first gun was drawn. IIRC, they were committing assault with a deadly weapon for almost the entirety of that scene. They never withdrew, so Walt was, at all times, the defender.

[safeinOhio]

19. Only if the guy on the porch had an illegal gun.

By Florida law one has the right to protect himself if legally in a resident from a threat of death.
2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[22]
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.


Now the man with the gun on his porch has the right to have a gun drawn on his perception that the man was a threat standing in his yard and calling him names. Rather than retreat if he reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm..... under Florida law.....

The law is a can of worms. Under "duty to retreat" it would be clear.

[gejohnston]

21. actually no

I doubt it would reach the "reasonable man" standard under Florida law. Also, they were engaged in unlawful activity since some of them had unregistered/untaxed SMGs. (at least I heard automatic fire coming from the house). Since they were in a house, it would not be a SYG case. Castle doctrine maybe.

[safeinOhio]

28. Then those with legal guns would skate?

The law quoted is under Florida SYG law. At least that is where I found it in Wiki...

[gejohnston]

30. no because of the

"reasonable man" standard, I don't think the pistols were legal for them either.

[Glaug-Eldare]

22. Could they have demonstrated that

Walt presented an imminent, deadly threat to them before they pulled their guns on him? That's important. He yelled at them, but made no aggressive move until long after the gangsters had already committed assault with illegally-possessed weapons. He was standing far from the house, had no weapon, had no history of violent crime, and was not physically powerful. I don't think the kids would have walked.

[Glaug-Eldare]

26. Don't get me wrong, retreat is often the most prudent decision

but I am not going to cede my home to a criminal, and I'm glad I'm not required to. If I am forbidden from controlling access to my own home and defending it, it doesn't belong to me anymore. As for outside the home, retreat, or even a limited level of appeasement, is almost always preferable to confrontation. That said, I don't want the possible necessity of standing my ground to be illegal. If I am physically unable to retreat, I want the option to use force. If I don't know of a safe avenue of retreat, I want the option to use force. If I am confronted by too many assailants to safely retreat, I want the option to use force. I should be required to explain myself in court and demonstrate that I acted lawfully, but I should not have to stand there on the street, weighing the legality or lethality of my options. Every legitimate defensive option should be a lawful one. (Legitimate options would not include "you look fine, here's another," or shooting somebody for a dirty look)

[safeinOhio]

29. I'm pretty much with you.

However, what you said about in the street is about what DTR says. I don't think everyone has the same attitude you and I have. There are many that would shoot first.

[Glaug-Eldare]

31. I feel smarter when I read Massad Ayoob

I think where we differ is that I would prefer that reasonable defensive force be lawful, regardless of whether I could have retreated or not. I should only have to demonstrate that I used force defensively, not that I had no other choice. Unfortunately, I don't know what our self-defense laws are, since we don't have any. They're buried in a $220 book of jury instructions. Hopefully they'll be codified next year, after Woollard wins.

[GreenStormCloud]

32. In Florida (and probably most states) SYG doesn't apply if you are committing a crime.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/05/2784881/judge-self-defense-doesnt-apply.html

TAMPA, Fla. -- A Tampa Bay-area judge says Florida's so-called "stand your ground" law doesn't apply to a teenager charged with attempted murder for shooting his drug dealer after a botched sale.

Gerald Terrell Jones, 18, argued Friday in Hillsborough County Circuit Court that he feared for his life while fighting with Daniel Drake in January after trying to buy marijuana. Jones shot Drake in the face. Each man says the other tried to rob him.

Florida's self-defense law doesn't protect people committing crimes. The Tampa Bay Times reports ( http://bit.ly/KB66fH) that Jones' attorney said the law applied because the drug sale was over before the shooting.

Judge Gregory Holder ruled that Jones was committing a crime at the time of the shooting and failed to show he was in mortal danger

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

34. Rewritten to cover what?

SYG doesn't cover anyone in this scenario. (IMHO)

[Callisto32]

35. A fictional film..

where a dying man essentially commits suicide by gang is not a basis for public policy.

But, it is a hell of a film.