Texas A&M Study Says Castle-Doctrine Laws Increase Homicides, Don't Deter Crime

[SecularMotion]

In news sure to inspire furious bickering inside your television, a Texas A&M study has found that the castle doctrine -- on which Florida's controversial "Stand Your Ground" law is based -- does not deter crime and, in fact, increases murder rates.

The killing of Florida teen Trayvon Martin by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in late February launched thousands of arguments about castle doctrine laws, which allow a person to use lethal force against an intruder in certain situations, provided they have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm. Lawmakers in several states, including Texas, have debated revising their own self-defense laws.

"We found a 7 to 9 percent increase in homicides," says one of the study's authors, associate economics professor Mark Hoekstra. "That's significant. That's robust.

"We did comparisons in a bunch of different ways," he goes on. "We compared states that adopt [the law] to states that don't adopt. It doesn't matter if you control for things like policing or levels of incarceration. You can compare to only other states in the same region. It doesn't matter. At the end of the day, castle doctrine increased homicides by 7 to 9 percent."

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2012/06/texas_am_study_castle_doctrine.php

[pnwmom]

1. Raul Rodriguez, birthday party shooter, is a perfect example of a man who felt empowered

by the Castle doctrine to "stand my ground" in a way that doctrine proponents and a jury said misinterpreted the law.

But when too many shooters make the same mistake, one has to ask whether the law itself is poorly written.

[GreenStormCloud]

3. It is very rare for a CCW holder to make that mistake.

In 2009, last year for which statistics have been published, in Texas, with over 402,000 Concealed Handgun License holders only one (1) was convicted of murder, none of manslaughter. During that same year there were over 600 manslaugher/murder convictions in the state. One out of almost half a million of us is very rare.

[pnwmom]

16. All that means is that a lot of people are getting away with murder.

The conviction rate doesn't prove much when we know that, in Texas, people like Joe Horn can be found "not guilty."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy

"The Joe Horn shooting controversy refers to the events of November 14, 2007, in Pasadena, Texas, United States, when local resident Joe Horn shot and killed two men burglarizing his neighbor's home. Publicized recordings of Horn's exchange with emergency dispatch indicate that he was asked repeatedly not to interfere with the burglary because the police would soon be on hand.[1] The shootings have resulted in debate regarding self-defense, Castle Doctrine laws, and Texas laws relating to use of deadly force to prevent or stop property crimes. The illegal alien status of the burglars has been highlighted because of the U.S. border controversy.[2] On June 30, 2008, Joe Horn was cleared by a grand jury in the Pasadena shootings."

Where did you get your stat, anyway? The last time you were speaking authoritatively to me on this subject, you were claiming that Raul Rodriguez's victim lived in an apartment complex. You even posted a picture you got somewhere. But the truth is that Danaher lived in a house on a two-acre property in Huffman. So forgive me if I take your stats now with a large grain of salt.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014138344#post175

[GreenStormCloud]

72. Stats here:

Compiled by the Texas Dept. of Public Safety
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm

Please prove that these stats prove that many people are getting away with murder.

[pnwmom]

76. Please prove that a finding of "not guilty" means that the person is innocent,

and not just someone who has gotten away with murder due to poorly written gun laws.

And please prove that juries in Texas are fairer than those in Florida and other states, where a black person who shoots a white person is much more likely to be convicted than in the reverse situation.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1233133.ece

Florida's "stand your ground'' law has allowed drug dealers to avoid murder charges and gang members to walk free. It has stymied prosecutors and confused judges. • It has also served its intended purpose, exonerating dozens of people who were deemed to be legitimately acting in self-defense. Among them: a woman who was choked and beaten by an irate tenant and a man who was threatened in his driveway by a felon.

Seven years since it was passed, Florida's "stand your ground" law is being invoked with unexpected frequency, in ways no one imagined, to free killers and violent attackers whose self-defense claims seem questionable at best.

Cases with similar facts show surprising — sometimes shocking — differences in outcomes. If you claim "stand your ground" as the reason you shot someone, what happens to you can depend less on the merits of the case than on who you are, whom you kill and where your case is decided.

SNIP
____________________________________________________

And still wondering about that photo of the apartment complex you posted, where you insisted the Rodriguez/Danaher murder took place. What was your source on that? The NRA?

[GreenStormCloud]

77. If you claim the official stats are wrong, YOU have to prove it.

From your own post: It has also served its intended purpose, exonerating dozens of people who were deemed to be legitimately acting in self-defense. The question is how many of each?

I am running out of time. Have to be at work soon. Will return with more on Monday. I work a 12 hr shift tonight and tomorrow night.

Regarding the other, I googled his address. In that case I will admit to error.

[gejohnston]

9. Castle doctrine and SYG are two different things

The writers of the study could not tell the difference either. They use the term Castle Doctrine but described SYG. That is very clear from the first paragraph. For example in table one, they list what they say is castle doctrine, and lists Wyoming as not having one. It does, but they actually described Wyoming's Duty to retreat law (Wyoming does not have SYG). I have not checked the other states on the list, but I'm willing to bet they made the same mistake.
So, is the study supposed to be about SYG or Castle Doctrine?

[pnwmom]

19. They're writing about Texas so that's why they referred to the Castle doctrine.

That's the label that's given to Texas's gun laws. Raul Rodriguez lived in Texas, but he loosely referred to the Castle doctrine when he said "I'm standing my ground."

The lines between the two are routinely blurred, but in Texas, the law is more-or-less-officially referred to as the Castle doctrine.

[gejohnston]

21. Rodridguez didn't know what he was talking about either

and SYG and Castle Doctrine are two different things with two entirely different histories. Castle Doctrine dates back to English common law, SYG does not. SYG does have have a stronger history in US common law from at least 1895 and is the precedent under federal law since the 1920s. California, Washington, and Utah are SYG by common law.
Castle Doctrine means you don't have the duty to retreat from your home or dwelling
SYG refers to in public.
Each state law is different. Wyoming's Castle Doctrine law is nothing like Texas'. Wyoming's Duty to Retreat law is unusual in that it has civil immunity.

[pnwmom]

25. There is a reason he was confused -- the Joe Horn decision.

Joe Horn wasn't defending his "castle" -- his own home -- when he decided to shoot at burglars who were outside someone else's property. The fact that the jury let him off has encouraged people like Rodriguez to think they don't have a duty to retreat in public.

[gejohnston]

35. That is a totally different Texas law

that has nothing to do with either, since they were not a threat to Horn either. IIRC, Texas passed a law in the 1970s that you could use deadly force to protect your or your neighbor's stuff. Horn was covered under that law.
Can't find it just yet, but I I remember the tread in DU2 talking about it.

[pnwmom]

64. There isn't any law in Texas that, on the face of it, justifies the jury's decision.

I'll be very curious to see if you can show me the law you're talking about, since I just read them last week in connection with the Rodriguez case and there was nothing that appeared to apply to a neighbor's property.

[gejohnston]

127. I'll have to find the reference

I don't know that much about the case and I am not that familiar with Texas law, since I don't live there. My longest time spent in Texas was at Lackland AFB living in rather spartan accommodations and where crime was the least of my problems. I do know that in the two states I am most familiar with, Mr. Horn would be in prison.

[Tejas]

124. Joe Horn was in his own yard when he shot those pieces of shi

YUP, don't let some pesky facts from the Grand Jury proceedings screw up your fantasy.

[pnwmom]

131. You're allowed to shoot burglars of your neighbor's property as long as you stand in your own yard?

Even though the 911 people specifically tell you to stay in your house?

Only in Texas.

[Tejas]

132. No, and that is not what happened (but you knew that).

And just so you know, instructions by "911 people" have no legal standing/power (but you knew that also).

edit: "but you knew that"

[pnwmom]

134. They didn't burglarize his property; they burglarized the neighbors.

And he went outside, after being told not to, and shot his gun at them after telling 911 he didn't want them to get away.

[GreenStormCloud]

2. Not all homicides are murders. Some are justified, some are excusable.

All self-defense killings are also homicides. They need to divide out the murders from the justifieds.

Police killings are also up. Is that also due to SYG?

BTW - Here is a link for the entire study: http://econweb.tamu.edu/mhoekstra/castle_doctrine.pdf

[ileus]

4. That doesn't help their agenda...you won't see that kind of truth revealed.

[DanTex]

6. Yeah, but the increase was almost all due to non-justifiable homicide.

The study found that the total effect of SYG nationwide was 50 extra justifiable homicides, versus to 500 to 700 extra cases of murder and manslaughter.

In contrast, we find significant evidence that the laws increase homicides.
Suggestive but inconclusive evidence indicates that castle doctrine laws increase the
narrowly defined category of justifiable homicides by private citizens by 17 to 50 percent,
which translates into as many as 50 additional justifiable homicides per year nationally due
to castle doctrine. More significantly, we find the laws increase murder and manslaughter
by a statistically significant 7 to 9 percent, which translates into an additional 500 to 700
homicides per year nationally across the states that adopted castle doctrine. Thus, by
lowering the expected costs associated with using lethal force, castle doctrine laws induce
more of it. This increase in homicides could be due either to the increased use of lethal
force in self-defense situations, or to the escalation of violence in otherwise non-lethal
conflicts. We suspect that self-defense situations are unlikely to explain all of the increase,
as we also find that murder alone is increased by a statistically significant 6 to 11 percent.
This is important because murder excludes non-negligent manslaughter classifications that
one might think are used more frequently in self-defense cases. But regardless of how one
interprets increases from various classifications, it is clear that the primary effect of
strengthening self-defense law is to increase homicide.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

5. 7 to 9 percent increases:

In Tulsa; water rates are going up 7% and sewer rates are going up 9%. This data is just as irrelevant to CD laws as the Zimmerman case is. The Zimmerman case has nothing to do with CD laws since Martin was killed outdoors in public. In other news, New Orleans hotel occupancy fell 9% for the week of 3-9 June.

"We found a 7 to 9 percent increase in homicides,"

Just one relevant question here, "How has the murder rate changed?"

[Taitertots]

7. The increase is likely due to criminals being killed, this is a good thing

Innocent people are not victims and their would be assailants are dead. Homicides are going to do up, that isn't a good reason to be opposed to these laws.

Also, these laws are NOT supposed to have much effect of overall crime rates. They are supposed to offer legal protection to people who have been victimized.

[DanTex]

8. Nope. The increase is almost all due to non-justified homicide.

Nationwide, the effects are 50 additional justifiable homicides, but also 500 to 700 extra cases of murder and manslaughter. And even those 50 "justifiable" homicides surely include a lot of people who simply got away with murder due to SYG.

[Taitertots]

10. Nope. Even the author of the study disagrees with you

"One theory is that these are in some sense legitimate self-defense killings that just don't meet the strict definition of justifiable homicide," Hoekstra

"The homicide increase also presents another issue for the researchers. How do you determine who died in a castle doctrine situation: the alleged criminal or the person allegedly defending themselves? The FBI data Hoekstra and Cheng studied doesn't show that kind of detail, and Hoekstra says it's crucial in figuring out what's driving the homicide increase. The answer, he says, is another study."

Basically you are reading something in the study that simply isn't there. The data they are using doesn't show who died defending themselves, only those who met the arbitrarily strict definition of justified homicide.

[DanTex]

12. You're not quoting the authors of the study. You're quoting the blogger.

Here's what the actual authors have to say:

In contrast, we find significant evidence that the laws increase homicides.
Suggestive but inconclusive evidence indicates that castle doctrine laws increase the
narrowly defined category of justifiable homicides by private citizens by 17 to 50 percent,
which translates into as many as 50 additional justifiable homicides per year nationally due
to castle doctrine. More significantly, we find the laws increase murder and manslaughter
by a statistically significant 7 to 9 percent, which translates into an additional 500 to 700
homicides per year nationally across the states that adopted castle doctrine. Thus, by
lowering the expected costs associated with using lethal force, castle doctrine laws induce
more of it. This increase in homicides could be due either to the increased use of lethal
force in self-defense situations, or to the escalation of violence in otherwise non-lethal
conflicts. We suspect that self-defense situations are unlikely to explain all of the increase,
as we also find that murder alone is increased by a statistically significant 6 to 11 percent.
This is important because murder excludes non-negligent manslaughter classifications that
one might think are used more frequently in self-defense cases. But regardless of how one
interprets increases from various classifications, it is clear that the primary effect of
strengthening self-defense law is to increase homicide.

Here's a tip. The word "likely" means the opposite of the word "unlikely". So when you say "The increase is likely due to criminals being killed" and the authors say this "self-defense situations are unlikely to explain all of the increase", that means that the authors of the study don't agree with you.

It's always funny the lengths that pro-gunners will go to to deny any piece of empirical evidence that stands between them and their devotion to the almighty gun...

[Taitertots]

13. The FBI classification system they are using classifies almost all self defense shootings as murder

The increase in "Murder" includes self defense shootings. The FBI doesn't consider most self defense shootings "non-negligent manslaughter" or "Justifiable homicide".


Also, the Blogger is directly citing Hoekstra for the first quote. The second quote only included the blogger to put Hoekstra's statement into context. "is another study" doesn't make sense without providing context.

[DanTex]

14. Is that what the NRA press release is saying about this study? LOL.

Let's try this again:

You: "The increase is likely due to criminals being killed"
Authors of study: "self-defense situations are unlikely to explain all of the increase"

Yes, we get that the NRA crowd believes that shooting a teenager who gives you a dirty look should qualify as "self-defense", but, as the authors of the study point out, "self-defense situations are unlikely to explain all of the increase".

[Taitertots]

31. I see how this goes, you find out that self-defense isn't in the data set so...

You have to spew out some non-sense about the NRA.

The fact of the matter is that the study doesn't take self-defense killings into account. AND they admit that the increase can be partially attributed to self-defense killings.

[DanTex]

32. Wrong again! I like that you are changing your story, though.

Now it looks like this:

You: "The increase is likely due to criminals being killed"
Authors of study: "self-defense situations are unlikely to explain all of the increase"
You: "they admit that the increase can be partially attributed to self-defense killings"

Getting closer!

What the authors actually say is that, only a very small fraction of the increase in homicides were classified as justifiable. If you expand the definition as the NRA crowd would like to, and include shooting teenagers with skittles as "self-defense", then it's possible (not likely, but possible) that some of the increase would be due to justifiable self-defense. But, it's unlikely to account for all of it, because actual murders (which are highly unlikely to be classified as self-defense) increased at about the same rate as manslaughters (which might be classified as self-defense).

[Taitertots]

38. As much as you want to whine, self-defense isn't in the data set.

The authors have already acknowledged this. Whine as much as you want about the NRA, self-defense is categorized as murder and manslaughter in the data set.

Even the authors have acknowledged that legal self-defense is partially responsible for the increase. But don't let the facts stop you from intentionally misrepresenting the study and it's conclusions to justify your ideology.

[DanTex]

42. Sorry, you're wrong.

They measured self-defense using the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting's standard on justifiable homicides:

We use these data to test whether strengthening state self-defense laws does any of
three things. First, we ask whether these laws result in differential response on the part of
the civilians. To do so, we use data on justifiable homicide by private citizens, which is
defined as “the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen”
(Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook, 2004). A natural concern is whether reporting a
homicide as “justifiable” depends in part on the self-defense laws in the state at the time.
The FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook makes it clear this should not be the case.
For example, the handbook emphasizes that “law enforcement agencies must report the
willful (nonnegligent) killing of one individual by another, not the criminal liability of the
person or persons involved” (Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook, 2004).

It is true that some of the increase in homicide is due to self-defense. But most of it is not. To be precise, the authors found that SYG resulted in 500-700 extra homicides, and only 50 extra justifiable homicides. They go on to point out that, even if you expand the definition of "self-defense" beyond the FBI classification, it is still unlikely that this would account for all of the increase, because killings classified as "murder" increased significantly, as well as those classified as manslaughter.

In the end, there is zero evidence to back your original claim that "it is likely" that the increase is due to criminals being killed.

[Taitertots]

44. The author's have already admitted that the FBI counts self-defense as murder or manslaughter

The authors have already acknowledged this. Why you are so desperate to cling to this to justify your ideology is something I don't understand.

[DanTex]

50. LOL. OK, now you're just being thick. Are you even reading my posts?

Did you even read the study? I've seen head-in-the-sand before, but I have to admit, I don't come across your variety that often.

[Taitertots]

53. I've read your posts, they are the same misrepresentations of fact repeated over and over...

Despite the fact that the authors disagree with you. I read the study and nothing you are trying to claim is support by it.

I'm thoroughly convinced that you don't care what the facts of the situation say when they disagree with your preconceived notions. Have a good day, I'm done talking to people who refuse to hear anything that doesn't fit their ideology.

[DanTex]

56. Actually, most of my posts have been excerpts from the actual study.

You see, I keep citing the actual words the authors of the study have said, whereas you keep insisting that they agree with you without providing any evidence. In case you've forgotten...

You: "The increase is likely due to criminals being killed"
Authors of study: "self-defense situations are unlikely to explain all of the increase"

Did you miss that. Let's try it again.

You: "The increase is likely due to criminals being killed"
Authors of study: "self-defense situations are unlikely to explain all of the increase"

Am I getting through to you yet? Or do I need to explain to you that the prefix "un-" actually reverses the meaning of the word it modifies...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

18. But SYG is...

...irrelevant. This is about CD laws.

[DanTex]

20. Actually, the study is about different kinds of laws that make it easier to use lethal force...

...in self-defense. The authors use "Castle Doctrine" as a general term to refer to these kinds of laws, but they explain in more detail in the text exactly the kinds of laws they are referring to:

U.S. self-defense law, which stems from English common law, has long favored
the principle of “retreat to the wall”, which means that only after no longer being able to
retreat safely could one respond to an attacker with deadly force (Vilos and Vilos, 2010).
The exception to this rule is if the attack is inside one’s home, or “castle”, in which case
there is no longer a duty to retreat. In 2005, states began removing the duty to retreat
from places outside the home, as well as strengthening self-defense laws in several other
ways. For example, most laws added language that explicitly states individuals are
justified in using deadly force in certain circumstances when they reasonably believe that
they face a serious risk of imminent death or serious bodily harm. In addition, the laws
did up to three other things: i) remove the duty to retreat in a list of special places such as
one’s vehicle, place of work or, in some cases, any place one has a legal right to be; ii) add
a presumption of reasonable fear of imminent serious injury or death, which shifts the
burden of proof to the prosecutor to show someone acted unreasonably;
iii) grant immunity from civil liability when using defensive force in a way justified under law.
Collectively, these laws lower the cost of using lethal force to protect oneself, though they
also lower the cost of escalating violence in other conflicts.

[gejohnston]

23. they are describing SYG, not Castle Doctrine.

SYG laws existed before 2005. SYG does have a history in US common law, like California and Washington, which is much older. SYG is also federal case law since the 1920s.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

28. Thanks for the info :)

For example, most laws added language that explicitly states individuals are justified in using deadly force in certain circumstances when they reasonably believe that they face a serious risk of imminent death or serious bodily harm. In addition, the laws did up to three other things:
i) remove the duty to retreat in a list of special places such as one’s vehicle, place of work or, in some cases, any place one has a legal right to be;
ii) add a presumption of reasonable fear of imminent serious injury or death, which shifts the burden of proof to the prosecutor to show someone acted unreasonably;
iii) grant immunity from civil liability when using defensive force in a way justified under law. Collectively, these laws lower the cost of using lethal force to protect oneself, though they also lower the cost of escalating violence in other conflicts.

I mostly agree with these.

[spin]

74. Your excerpt says that the principle of "retreat to the wall" has a long history ...

in U.S. self-defense law.

From your excerpt:

U.S. self-defense law, which stems from English common law, has long favored
the principle of “retreat to the wall”, which means that only after no longer being able to
retreat safely could one respond to an attacker with deadly force (Vilos and Vilos, 2010).

Are you aware of Runyan v. State?

Runyan v. State (1877) 57 Ind. 80, 20 Am.Rep. 52, is one of the earliest cases to strongly support and establish in U.S. law an individual's right to initiate self-defense actions up to and including the justifiable use of lethal force against an aggressor.

In Runyan, the court stated "When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable."emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_%28United_States%29

The ruling sounds like "Stand Your Ground" law to me.

[Starboard Tack]

22. SYG is called Castle Doctrine in Texas

It varies somewhat from state to state, but once it applies outside one's home, I think SYG is a more applicable term, unless your castle has a very wide moat. For example, SYG and Texas CD allow you to go shoot people in your neighbor's castle or moat. That's when it's time for some boiling oil.

[gejohnston]

26. two different legal concepts

with different histories. Some states have one without the other. For example, Wyoming has Castle Doctrine, but not SYG.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

SYG applies outside the home. I have to question the input data if these guys don't know what they are trying to measure.
But then we are talking about Texas A&M, not Harvard.

[DanTex]

29. They are two related concepts.

The study is about various legal changes that facilitate lethal self-defense claims, not just SYG of CD. If you bothered to read beyond the title of the study, you would realize that they describe in detail the kinds of change in law that they were measuring.

You question the input data, as usual, because you don't like the conclusions. Quibbling about terminology is just your excuse for continued denialism.

[gejohnston]

34. Actually I did

No, the point about input data was valid. If they described one state incorrectly, good chance they did the rest. It really appears they don't know what they are measuring. The conclusions are actually pointless, since I don't know of anyone who claimed the goal of the laws were to deter crime. The goal was to not send people innocent of a crime
(justifiable homicide is not a crime) to prison or put an undue burden on someone defending themselves.

[DanTex]

36. What data problems? You are quibbling about terminology.

Whether you call something SYG versus CD doesn't matter as long as you describe exactly what laws you are referring to, as the authors did.

Also, the conclusions are extremely important -- SYG laws have resulted in 500 to 700 extra homicides every year -- and only 50 extra "justifiable" homicides. How is that pointless?

The fact that SYG was not intended to deter crime is irrelevant. That's a complete non-sequitur...

Study: SYG laws have resulted in a significant increase in murder and non-negligent manslaughter
You: That doesn't matter, because SYG laws weren't intended to deter crime...
Me:

[gejohnston]

47. for one thing

are they measuring all SYG states, or only those past since 2005? If the latter, it leaves out Illinois which passed its SYG law in 1961. It also would leave out SYG by court precedent in places like California and anyplace under federal jurisdiction.
If you look under Table one, it describes Wyoming's DTR law, but not its castle doctrine. The title is Castle doctrine. How do they define that state?
Those homicides would have likely happened anyway. If you look at figure one, the spike began in 2005. It peaked in 2007 and is now lower than 2000 level. Since those laws have not been repealed, why the drop instead of a continued climb or at least a plateau? Yes there are different factors in the drop, but there could also be the same various factors to the climb. Since SYG has been in the news, people are going to try to use it as a defense when it would not apply anyway.
I don't think they made a strong argument that those extra homicides are because of SYG. I would be better to go though the trials of each one and do a analysis based on that. Why do you put "justifiable" in quotations?

[DanTex]

51. Yeah, umm, that's not a "data problem".

That's just a stream-of-consciousness brain dump of whatever excuses you can conjure up to try and deny the study. Like I said before, whether they use the term "Castle Doctrine" or "Stand Your Ground" doesn't matter as long as they describe what exact laws they are talking about, which they do.

[gejohnston]

52. they do?

not trying to deny the study at all. They describe SYG but not really Castle doctrine correctly. You ignored the other points.

[DanTex]

57. LOL. "You ignored the other points".

You mean all those brilliant arguments you made, like "Those homicides would have likely happened anyway."

For once, gej, you are right about something. I did ignore those other "points".

[gejohnston]

59. umm no, but

that was hardly a worthwhile counter. Typical.

[Starboard Tack]

46. CD was extended to outside the home in Texas and PA among other states

That makes it same as SYG. Any place the actor has a legal right to be. Bad law.

[gejohnston]

48. I disagree

I think DTR is bad law. SYG is the law in any federal jurisdiction.

[Starboard Tack]

62. Well, as human beings, I think we have a duty to not kill others

except as an absolute last resort. Killing others over personal property is bullshit. Using a gun outside the home, as a preparedness tool for possible self defense against other humans, is way over the top and anyone who engages in such a practice should be held to a higher standard when it comes to justification for shooting someone.

[gejohnston]

67. I'm not disagreeing with you as far as stuff goes.

and that does not seem to be the law in Florida, and certainly not Wyoming, who's narrow and specific Castle Doctrine would only be disagreeable to only the most extreme anti. Remember, Castle Doctrine is from English common law, and is the standard in Canada as well. I'm guessing you don't have to retreat from your home in the UK yet.

Using a gun outside the home, as a preparedness tool for possible self defense against other humans, is way over the top and anyone who engages in such a practice should be held to a higher standard when it comes to justification for shooting someone.

Depends on the situation. If there is an identified and credible threat, not so much. But if I find my self in a situation, I would have a problem with having some progressives on my jury regardless of how reasonable my actions or how hard I tried to retreat. Most seem to be against SYG or Castle Doctrine seem to be less about shooting the wrong person, but more about philosophically opposed to resisting violent crime.

[Starboard Tack]

70. I don't think it is a question of being opposed to resisting violent crime.

More like acting in a way that escalates the violence, like shooting a purse snatcher. The castle doctrine is fine in essence, but not the way it has been distorted in TX and FLA (SYG), where both laws take it outside the castle and into the marketplace. Very bad laws, which I think will be changed after not too much more scrutiny.
I don't advocate for restrictive laws, but I oppose laws that promote violence.

[gejohnston]

71. Yes it is

I remember specific treads about the college student who was on his porch and was shot for simply saying no. Many on your side attacked his resisting at that point. He did not fire until after he was shot. Don't feed the that shit. SYG is different than Castle Doctrine. SYG is precedent under federal law and in many states including California. Florida does not allow shooting purse snatchers. TX, so much. I'm opposed to laws that coddle sociopaths and send innocent people to prison or financial ruin.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=462071&mesg_id=462071

Interesting thing is there was a racist block captain there too, who had a problem with college students sitting on the porch at 3AM enough to call the cops on them for no apparent reason.

[crayfish]

92. I'll wager that virtually all those philosophically opposed to resisting violent crime

have never witnessed any. I can't even begin to understand why some people are far more supportive of criminals and thugs than of their victims.

[Starboard Tack]

98. Who would be philosophically opposed to resisting violent crime?

Gandhi wasn't and I'm sure nobody here is opposed. Maybe you are confused. Firstly, all criminals are not thugs. Secondly, the only people who support thugs are those who hire them.
At times, a gun may be the best option when dealing with thugs. I prefer not to deal with them.

[gejohnston]

100. Just take a look back at the Robert Eels thread

It seemed pretty clear to me that some current and former members confuse resisting with "macho valor". Oh yeah, LBJ's attorney general who viewed even defending yourself in your home an "insult to the government".

[crayfish]

91. If that's your position, you should be advocating for disarming cops. Their reasons for carrying

guns aren't even up to the 'standard' (self defense, which you appear to despise) you've described.

[Starboard Tack]

95. I have advocated for disarming cops many times

If cops were unarmed, then nobody else would have an excuse, including criminals. I much prefer the UK model, which is definitely more violent, but far less deadly. I do not despise self defense. I am a strong believer in SD, but I do not consider handguns to be good tools for it. In fact, I think they are the worst. I support gun ownership and defense of the home. I do not support carrying guns in public by anyone, unless they have a damn good reason.
Welcome to the gungeon, btw.

[crayfish]

111. Fine. You can employ whatever tools you think will work for you for self defense. Do not dictate

to others what they might choose to use. It's a kind of MYOFB situation.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

30. moat? boiling oil?

I'm missing your point.

[Starboard Tack]

39. Castles? Moats? Boiling oil? It'll come.

Don't worry if it doesn't, it's just my shoddy attempt at some Saturday morning humor.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

45. Saturday morning humor

sounds like a sadly under popular endeavor
more folks should go with that

[ladjf]

11. From the standpoint of many right wingers, the homicide are simply

good riddance. nt

[JDPriestly]

15. When I read the responses to this study, I think of my father's generation.

They ate bacon and eggs for breakfast every morning, and, of course, topped it off with coffee and lots of cream. The side was toast and a big hunk of butter.

That was just breakfast. Lunch was a cheese sandwich with mayonnaise, lots of mayonnaise. And supper was a one-inch steak for those who could afford it or mashed potatoes and either butter or gravy for those who couldn't. Every dish was, of course, well salted.

Of course, they also smoked a pack of cigarettes a day.

And then they wondered why they developed heart disease -- well before their time.

Nothing wrong with an occasional dish of bacon and eggs, some butter, a steak or mashed potatoes and gravy. But that generation overdid it.

They were asking for trouble.

So are gun owners who carry their guns even when they aren't hunting or planning to use it to defend themselves against an animal.

It's easy to point to others and say they are criminals, but as far as I am concerned, if you carry a gun and use it to harm someone who is not carrying a gun, you are a criminal.

There are very, very, very few situations in which there can be any excuse for using a gun against someone who is not a criminal. And using guns against criminals is what we hire and train the police for. That is not our job as plain citizens. You really don't want that sweet old 80-year-old neighbor who gets just a little confused (but isn't senile) every once in a while to carry a gun to the supermarket do you? It's bad enough when that person drives to and from the market, much less does it with a gun in the car.

In addition, as these SYG laws proliferate (not talking about defense of hearth and home), we will see an increase in homicides by people who mix guns and alcohol. That is a very explosive mix.

People who use good judgment about where and when to carry and use guns don't worry about these statistics because they know they are most likely true. If you think about all the people who are alcoholics, you can be sure that you will have just as large of percentage of gun owners abusing guns as drinkers abusing alcohol.

It's human nature. These gun laws invite fools to act, well, like fools. Unfortunately, when a gun is involved, someone is likely to get hurt or die.

Nobody is going to take anyone's guns away, but insuring that every one is safe in the supermarket or on their way home from the supermarket is the job of the police, not private citizens who do not answer to the citizenry as a whole.

[Starboard Tack]

24. Well said!

[gejohnston]

27. One question

It's easy to point to others and say they are criminals, but as far as I am concerned, if you carry a gun and use it to harm someone who is not carrying a gun, you are a criminal.

What about disparity of force? Weapons other than a gun?

There are very, very, very few situations in which there can be any excuse for using a gun against someone who is not a criminal. And using guns against criminals is what we hire and train the police for. That is not our job as plain citizens. You really don't want that sweet old 80-year-old neighbor who gets just a little confused (but isn't senile) every once in a while to carry a gun to the supermarket do you? It's bad enough when that person drives to and from the market, much less does it with a gun in the car.

But the police are not there at the time when the criminal is attacking you, that is the point. Also, SCOTUS precedent dating back to the 1960s say protecting you is not the police's job. Protecting public order and general safety is.

[JDPriestly]

78. If some DUer has a gun and I don't, that is disparity of force.

I would rather the DUer would not carry the gun.

I've lived a pretty long life and never carried a gun or needed to carry a gun.

If I lived out in the boondocks with the bears, wolves and other predator animals, maybe I would need a gun. If I wanted to hunt deer (and I love venison), I would want to carry a gun for hunting.

But only the police and citizens with permits should carry guns on Los Angeles' city streets, and the permits should be handed out very carefully.

There have been a couple of gang shootings within a few blocks of my house recently. If only gang members carry guns, then you know if there is a shooting, chances are very great that a gang member did it. Makes solving the murder much easier.

If "good guys" carry guns on the streets of a city like LA, it makes the work of the police much tougher.

My perspective is definitely colored by the proximity of gang activity to my house. People who live in the country do not understand what it is like to live in a city like L.A.

When more guns are legal, more guns are on the streets, and more criminals have them.

The Republicans are criticizing A.G. Holder for the guns that were shipped to Mexico and ended up in the hands of criminals who used them to kill a lot of people.

But Republicans don't connect the dots.

The same principle that applied in Mexico applies here. The more guns you have in private hands, the more likely they will land, whether intentionally or not, in the hands of murderers, of criminals.

I support ownership of guns for sport and hunting but not for carrying to your local bar or on the streets in my neighborhood.

[gejohnston]

81. you missed the point.

I would rather the DUer would not carry the gun.

A body builder or average gang banger vs a middle aged fat guy or a smaller woman is also disparity of force. If one chooses to be a predator for what ever reason, I fail to see why the intended victim should care morally or legally about such force.

I've lived a pretty long life and never carried a gun or needed to carry a gun.

So have I. I only carry backpacking to scare off coyotes and fire grilled rabbit tastes good. That is a choice I make. If I land up wrong place wrong time and regret that decision, until the cops hopefully show up, that was still my choice. Telling some else what they should or should not do without knowing their situation, anything about those issues just to satisfy my ideology is wrong.

If I lived out in the boondocks with the bears, wolves and other predator animals, maybe I would need a gun. If I wanted to hunt deer (and I love venison), I would want to carry a gun for hunting.

Black Bears and wolves attacking humans are non existent. Grizzles or Kodiak on the other hand... I would be more concerned with mt. lions.

But only the police and citizens with permits should carry guns on Los Angeles' city streets, and the permits should be handed out very carefully.

In LA county, only rich people have permits. Like NYC, rich people with no valid need get them, while the rest of us regardless of clean record or need do not. If you look at CA's shall issue, I seriously doubt very many minorities are approved. Permits should be shall issue or no issue, giving the an agency arbitrary authority has no place in a liberal democracy.

There have been a couple of gang shootings within a few blocks of my house recently. If only gang members carry guns, then you know if there is a shooting, chances are very great that a gang member did it. Makes solving the murder much easier.

How so? A permit holder would call the cops on himself if it is self defense.

If "good guys" carry guns on the streets of a city like LA, it makes the work of the police much tougher.

How so? See above. How can LA or Chicago be much worse?

My perspective is definitely colored by the proximity of gang activity to my house. People who live in the country do not understand what it is like to live in a city like L.A.

I never understood why it is harder to get a permit where you would actually need them than in places like Vermont which requires no permit and is safer than Europe.

When more guns are legal, more guns are on the streets, and more criminals have them.

Not really logical.

The Republicans are criticizing A.G. Holder for the guns that were shipped to Mexico and ended up in the hands of criminals who used them to kill a lot of people.

No shit, and we should be too. If ATF was still under Treasury, Timmy G would be on the hot seat. Wide Receiver was half baked, then they took out what did make sense and created FF. The ATF agents responsible were not disciplined, fired etc. That is before you get back to ATF's other problems dating back when it was part of the IRS. From the 1930s until 1972, that is where the IRS sent their undesirables with EEOC violations and dim wits. When ATF became a separate agency, that was the initial cadre and management. They still are a collection of racists, sexists, and idiots.

But Republicans don't connect the dots.

Actually they kind of do for the wrong reason. If it were DEA, Issa wouldn't give a shit. It works like this, Republicans hate ATF, Dems hate DEA. But, if ATF commits crimes violates rights, Republicans are all over it but Dems ignore and have no problem with it. If it is DEA, Dems are all over it, and Republicans are cool with their crimes and civil rights violations.

The same principle that applied in Mexico applies here. The more guns you have in private hands, the more likely they will land, whether intentionally or not, in the hands of murderers, of criminals.

but the gangs are not getting their machine guns and rocket launchers from here. So, that is absurd. Private gun ownership is almost almost, legally, non existent in Mexico. Also, UK has more machine gun crimes than we do.

I support ownership of guns for sport and hunting but not for carrying to your local bar or on the streets in my neighborhood.

I support for whatever purpose one needs.

[GreenStormCloud]

88. In most shall-issue states an FBI background investigation is required of the applicant.

I would suggest that requiring the applicant to pass such an investigation meets the requirement of being selective in who gets a permit.

Good guys having permits and carrying guns isn't a problem for police in Dallas, Atlanta, New Orleans, Omaha, Kansas City, Detroit and many other major and minor cities and towns. Why would it be a problem for Los Angeles. What makes them different? El Paso, TX has more guns than people and had only three murders in 2010.

Good guys very rarely commit murder. In 2009 Texas had over 402,000+ permits and only one (1) conviction of a permit holder for murder and none for manslaughter. There were a bit over 600 convictions for murder/manslaughter that year. Good guys carrying guns just isn't a problem.

[JDPriestly]

101. People who need gun permits (for example judges) can get them in L.A.

It's people who don't need them (like my neighbor whose sons were constantly being searched for by the police and who had a bumper sticker reading, "God made men. Smith & Weston keeps them equal&quot but get them that worry me.

[gejohnston]

102. guilt by association?

I doubt he could. Certainly not LA or Orange counties. If he contributes enough to the Sheriff's campaign he can. That is the problem with may issue. Orange County had a scandal like that. I think LA County did too. Does he have a clean record and a decent guy but the sons came out not quite right? If he doesn't have a criminal record now, odds are he won't develop one. Is the problem his bumper sticker or his kids? Did the sticker come with the car? You think because he is giving Smith and Wesson free advertising, he might be a nut case?

[GreenStormCloud]

104. You trust a government to determine "need"?

I don't. "Need" too often gets determined by such criteria a campaign donations, etc. Let the individual determine his own need and let there be objective criteria that he must meet.

Should a person be denied a right based on what political causes they support and who their relatives are?

[PavePusher]

106. What makes judges "more equal" than other Citizens...

in the area of exercising Constitutional Rights?

[JDPriestly]

130. They sentence criminals and are vulnerable to revenge attacks.

The First Amendment grants rights in more absolute language than the Second grants any right to carry guns. The First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

The Second Amendment:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment

Yet, the Supreme Court upholds regulations that abridge our freedom of speech all the time. The "right to bear arms" can be infringed by reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. And in big cities, "reasonable" means something very different than in rural areas.

I disagree with the Supreme Court's permitting so much regulation of speech. I think the Constitution does not permit it, but obviously I am not heard. So, no matter what you think, if speech can be limited, certainly owning arms can. In L.A. you have to have a permit to hold a march -- and the security costs an arm and a leg so for many groups those made up of ordinary people, holding a march or demonstration in the street is pretty impossible -- too expensive.

That is why judge's probably can get gun permits. I don't know that it is easier for them than for others.

[PavePusher]

133. Does this pricipal apply also to the Thirteenth and Twenty-sixth Amendments? n/t

Also, this: "if speech can be limited, certainly owning arms can" is faulty. The equivalent First Amendment restriction for firearms would be on the location/manner of carry, not solely on ownership.

[PavePusher]

105. So much wrong with your statements....

If some DUer has a gun and I don't, that is disparity of force.

Are you claiming that DUers are intending to harm you? I really don't see any other way to read that.

I would rather the DUer would not carry the gun.

Any other Constitutional Rights you "would rather... <not have us exercise>". And by what reason should your preferences, unsupported by evidence, carry any weight at all?

I've lived a pretty long life and never carried a gun or needed to carry a gun.

And your experiences are the base-line for everyone else? Statistics say not.

If I lived out in the boondocks with the bears, wolves and other predator animals, maybe I would need a gun. If I wanted to hunt deer (and I love venison), I would want to carry a gun for hunting.

The Second Amendment isn't about hunting. Kill that meme, it's DOA.

But only the police and citizens with permits should carry guns on Los Angeles' city streets, and the permits should be handed out very carefully.

May I see your First, Fourth, Thirteenth and Twenty-Sixth Amendment permits, vetted by the government? Otherwise, only government agents really should be using those priviliges.... But really, you want to focus on the people not causing the problems. Why is that?

There have been a couple of gang shootings within a few blocks of my house recently. If only gang members carry guns, then you know if there is a shooting, chances are very great that a gang member did it. Makes solving the murder much easier.

Right, curtailing the ability of innocent people to defend themselves is the obvious answer the gang violence. And the resulting deaths are merely acceptable collateral damage for a more ordely society. Holy Shit. Also, when did we decide that Constitutional Rights should be predicated on "mak(ing) solving the murder much easier"?

If "good guys" carry guns on the streets of a city like LA, it makes the work of the police much tougher.

Really? How so? If they aren't the ones criminally shooting people, they do not affect the job of LE at all. And in what other cities has your claim been true? Cites, please.

My perspective is definitely colored by the proximity of gang activity to my house. People who live in the country do not understand what it is like to live in a city like L.A.

This has nothing to do with non-criminals, yet that is who you propose to target. Your aim is Teh Phale. And Civil Rights are equal everywhere in the U.S., at least in theory.

When more guns are legal, more guns are on the streets, and more criminals have them.

Cite to evidence, please. Also, please differentiate between legally carried and illegally carried firearms, because they are not the same.

The Republicans are criticizing A.G. Holder for the guns that were shipped to Mexico and ended up in the hands of criminals who used them to kill a lot of people.

Good. Why aren't more Democrats doing the same?

But Republicans don't connect the dots.

]

What "dots"? Specify, please.

The same principle that applied in Mexico applies here. The more guns you have in private hands, the more likely they will land, whether intentionally or not, in the hands of murderers, of criminals.

And again you promote attacking lawful persons instead of criminals. Why is that?

I support ownership of guns for sport and hunting but not for carrying to your local bar or on the streets in my neighborhood.

Feel free to Amend the Constitution. The mechanism to do so is stated very clearly, and it is quite simple. Have at it.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

33. ???

"...as far as I am concerned, if you carry a gun and use it to harm someone who is not carrying a gun, you are a criminal."

If only...

[ellisonz]

99. This post is full of win. n/t

[Clames]

103. So much fail in this post it's hard to choose where to start.

There are very, very, very few situations in which there can be any excuse for using a gun against someone who is not a criminal.

Really? Hope you didn't lose sleep pondering this one. Using a gun against someone not involved in a criminal act is murder. Police can't do that either btw. Please name one of these situations...

In addition, as these SYG laws proliferate (not talking about defense of hearth and home), we will see an increase in homicides by people who mix guns and alcohol. That is a very explosive mix.

SYG laws will have absolutely zero impact here. People who mix guns and alcohol are going to cause problems regardless of that law or any other.

If you think about all the people who are alcoholics, you can be sure that you will have just as large of percentage of gun owners abusing guns as drinkers abusing alcohol.

Nonsense. Utter nonsense. Can't you even show a study to half way support this? Didn't think so.

Nobody is going to take anyone's guns away, but insuring that every one is safe in the supermarket or on their way home from the supermarket is the job of the police, not private citizens who do not answer to the citizenry as a whole.

Your ignorance of what the duty of the police actually is and your rather dim view of your fellow citizens is very telling. If the citizens did more to police themselves and those around them then everyone would be much better off.

[PavePusher]

107. "...if you carry a gun and use it to harm someone who is not carrying a gun, you are a criminal."

So criminals do not ever do criminal things without using a gun?

FBI stats indicate that only 8% of violent crime involves firearms use by a criminal.

Are you insisting that no-one needs or should use a gun for defense aginst a criminal who is not using one? Should they be forced to rely on basic muscle-power and whatever hand-tohand combat skills they may have aquired?

[PavePusher]

108. "That is not our job as plain citizens."

Your immediate self-defense is ALWAYS your own job.

What in the name of the FSM would make you think otherwise?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

17. SYG & CD are not designed to deter crime. And it follows logically that homicides increase. So what?

At least I can't imagine why they would be expected to deter crime. They are in place to protect a victim AFTER he defends herself/himself. Nothing in SYG or CD enables victims to be able to shoot an attacker - people who carry guns were already allowed to carry and/or use the gun in self defense. SYG/CD are not enablers of an behavior. Nothing in SYG or CD changes the attacker's likelihood of success or defeat - so it logically follows that the presence of SYG or CD is not a determining factor in the decision to assault someone else. Therefore it can have no deterrent effect nor be expected to have a deterrent effect.

To address the other point about increased homicides, murder is homicide but not all homicides are murders. Homicide is merely the killing of another human being - as evidenced by the etymology of the word. Murder is wrongful unjustified homicide. Not all assaults and/or robberies will end with the victim being murdered. However, given such an assault/robbery event where no one would have been murdered, if the victim kills the attacker in self defense... you now have a homicide that would have otherwise been avoided. However it is important to note that these instances are justified homicide and the people killed are criminals being purged from society. These new self defense instances, combined with the already steady statistic of truly life threatening events where either the victim and/or attacker will be killed, will of course increase the overall homicide metric. Again, the important thing to remember here is that most of the increase in general homicides is merely criminals being purged from society. So what?

[Starboard Tack]

37. I think you might need a few more decimal points to identify with your SN

"Again, the important thing to remember here is that most of the increase in general homicides is merely criminals being purged from society. So what?"

"merely criminals being purged from society. So what?"
I guess it's time to close the prisons and courts, lay off the cops and shut down the entire criminal justice system. Think of all the money we'll save by purging society.

Any other types, besides "criminals", you want purging, while we're at it?

[gejohnston]

58. but there isn't

the FBI UCR says they continue to drop. So, which is it?

[Starboard Tack]

61. There isn't what? I'm missing your point.

[gejohnston]

68. rise in homicide

Where are the rise in homicides that theoretically are supposed to be there?

[Starboard Tack]

69. How do you know? Have you read their report on the states they studied?

[gejohnston]

73. Yeah but

I read the report, mostly confused by their lack of knowledge between Castle Doctrine and SYG. They also missed SYG states like California and Illinois.

[Starboard Tack]

75. This isn't about SYG versus CD

It is about how either is defined in any particular state. In TX and FLA, it extends to any place the shooter is legally allowed to be and the shooter determines the threat level and justification in terms of "I was really in fear of my life!" Sorry, but reasonable minds need a little more than just the shooter's word.
I haven't studied each state, but I know there are many variations on these laws, whether they are labeled SYG or CD.
We have inquests to determine cause of death. Maybe not a perfect system, but preferable to taking the word of the killer at face value.

[gejohnston]

79. they are too different things

CD is inside the home and dates back to English common law
SYG is outside the home and does not, but has precedents in US common law. Those are the definitions. Texas and Florida has both by statute. California has both by common law. Canada has CD by common law. Wyoming has CD and DTR by statute.

[Starboard Tack]

82. I am aware of that.

The problem I have with Texas is the following

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against
whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity
at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before
using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether
an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the
use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider
whether the actor failed to retreat.

and with Florida, the following

(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.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

They both look good on the surface, but give way too much leeway for a get-out-of-jail-free card

[gejohnston]

83. No, they keep DAs from sending innocent people to prison.

I fail to see how a duty to retreat makes a better or just society. Again, Oliver Wendall Holmes had it right that "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife". Brown v. United States (256 U.S. 335, 343 (16 May 1921)) set the federal standard for SYG.

[Starboard Tack]

84. I doubt any jury would convict a true self defense killing.

DTR only applies if there is a way to retreat. Outside one's home, I see no problem with that.

[gejohnston]

85. So, race bias in SYG, but you don't think there would be one

in DTR. Righhhhhhhhhhhhhhht. That is not the point. The point is the burden is on the state to prove that you committed a crime. Justifiable homicide is not a crime.
In DTR, you have to prove that you acted reasonably and that you did not murder the person. There is also the civil issue. It all depends on reasonable. As far as I can tell Robert Eells acted reasonably. As you read from some of the threads, some would hang him because he told some sociopath "no" and he should have handed over the wallet. So, no I don't buy it.
Here is a case where the defender tried to retreat, in Florida, and there were still people bitching about "getting away with murder".

A judge’s ruling, made public Tuesday, granted a motion to dismiss the second-degree murder charge against Jorge Saavedra in the death of 16-year-old Dylan Nuno on the grounds that he acted in self-defense under Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law. The State Attorney’s Office has indicated that it will not appeal the ruling.

Since Jorge tried to retreat and act reasonable by any standard, SYG is not relevant. Plus he was on trial for murder in juvenile court. There was no immunity hearing about SYG. It went straight to murder.

n a nine-page document released Tuesday by the State Attorney’s Office, Brodie stated that by getting off the bus several stops before the location where the fight was to happen, Saavedra “demonstrated that, with or without a knife, (he) had no desire to fight with Dylan Nuno.”

Accompanied by several students, Dylan Nuno, a junior, followed Saavedra, a freshman, off the bus. He then punched him in the back of the head, according to court documents and testimony.

Saavedra attempted to get away once, witnesses said. He then stabbed Dylan Nuno 12 times in the chest and abdomen. Two of the blows caused fatal wounds, including one that nicked his heart.

After two days of witnesses describing what an asshole bully Dylan was, how Jorge tried to get away without using any force, Dylan's mommy thinks they are covering for her baby being murdered. Utter bullshit. This is an example of why I don't have time for "poor innocent person murdered in cold blood by redneck" or fill in your own slur. Did Dylan deserve to die? No, but he brought it on himself. If he wasn't a bully, he would still be alive. Did Jorge murder him? No. Based on the evidence did Jorge act reasonable? Yes, much more than what the law required.

[Starboard Tack]

86. Looks to me like the judge ruled correctly under SYG

There will always be those who complain about a ruling, but the point is that the system worked well in this case. No SYG applied IMO, just a case of self defense, though I can understand a prosecution with 12 stab wounds. I think cases such as this should go to trial and let a jury decide if it was legitimate SD or over-the-top.

[gejohnston]

89. Juvie court

don't have juries. The number of stab wounds are irrelevant. The type of ammo used is irrelevant. That was the number it took to end the attack. It would be only over the top if the bully backed off and Jorge counter attacked. That is why DAs should not be have the ability to try to make murder cases out of nothing. As Oliver Wendal Holmes pointed out in the case that made SYG, simply meaning no duty to retreat, the federal standard, one does not think calmly when being attacked.
The problem with DAs who want to push the issue is that they can focus on irrelevant issues like the number of stab wounds or what type of knife he had.
Based on reading their posts, I would bet Iverglas would certainly vote to convict the kid.

[Starboard Tack]

93. What former members might do is irrelevant.

The fact that he used a knife against an unarmed assailant and stabbed him 12 times is highly relevant. I assume the judge, not jury, in this case took all factors into consideration and made the correct decision. The point is, that it went through the process, and wasn't just rubber stamped as SYG based on Jorge's version of the facts.

[gejohnston]

96. no.

The fact that he was defending his life or safety is relevant. How he defended himself should not. The idea that the attacker was "unarmed" is absurd. Jorge was out numbered, and the deceased was larger and more muscular than Jorge. Bare hands are lethal weapons. They kill more people than so called "assault weapons" and twice as many than all rifles and shotguns combined in the US. That disparity of force, makes the weapons an equalizing factor. Jorge would be either in the hospital or dead without it.
I find the idea that a defender would be required to say "gee this guy is trying to put me in the hospital or kill me, but I should be civilized enough to treat this as a sporting match." is totally absurd bullshit. That is how innocent people go to prison. The goal is to survive, with survival instinct. Jorge or anyone else has no and should have no moral obligation to the attacker. There should be no legal obligation to benefit the attacker. The legal and moral obligation of the bully should be to keep his fucking hands to himself. If you can't keep your hands to yourself and you get your ass kicked via martial arts, or dead from a knife wound, or in jail, don't come crying to me. His parent's obligation to society was to teach Dylan that bullying is not cool.
Him being a minor, and being tried as a minor does not get a jury trial.
Florida has a hearing system, in Texas it goes to a grand jury, there is no "simply taking their word for it."

I take it you did not understand Justice's Holmes' point in US v Brown? You either ignored his point or you are saying that one of the most progressive justices is a reactionary nut.

[crayfish]

94. Why do you like criminals so much?

It's really very disturbing...

[Starboard Tack]

97. What makes you think I like criminals?

Because I am opposed to shooting people in the street? Because I prefer to use the criminal justice system rather than vigilante justice? I worked for years within the system, preventing crime and arresting criminals. Did it all without a gun. I find resorting to a gun very disturbing and wearing one as a fashion accessory even more disturbing. Let's hear a little about you and what you are doing here.

[GreenStormCloud]

109. Because you want many citizens to be defenseless against violent criminals.

That is why you come across as pro-criminal.

[Starboard Tack]

110. Bullshit! I don't want anyone to be defenseless against anything or anyone.

I am a huge proponent of self defense, just not resorting to a firearm as a tool of self defense, except in the most extreme situations.

[crayfish]

112. What is your own personal limit as to what tools can be morally employed?

Baseball bat? Knife? Poisonous toads?

And where exactly is the demarcation line between "critical" and "extreme" situations? We need some guidance here.

[GreenStormCloud]

113. Bullshit yourself! You want to deny firearms to people.

Guns are absolutely the most effective self-defense tool You want citizens disarmed. Criminals will then more often have the upper hand. Since the result of your wish is that criminals become stronger, then you are pro-criminal, no matter how much you deny it. Results are what counts, not wishes.

[Starboard Tack]

114. Show me one post where I say I want to deny firearms to people.

Not me. I have no interest in denying firearms to anyone. Calling gun carriers foolish and deluded is very different from wanting to deny them their guns. Hey, it's your life, your gun and your choice. Good luck with it. Your pro-criminal accusation is garbage. I actually thought you were genuine, being from Texas and all, but you keep coming out with this RW pro-criminal crap. Now I'm having second thoughts.

[GreenStormCloud]

117. You oppose private citizens legally carrying concealed.

Therefore you want us disarmed if a criminal attacks. That is pro-criminal.

[Starboard Tack]

118. I oppose anyone carrying a gun unless they are under a credible threat

That includes cops and criminals. I don't discriminate. I am not pro or anti groups of people because of labels, bu because of their action. Smoking marijuana is a criminal offense still in America. I support those criminals. I do not support bank robbers or gun carriers. Carrying a gun is a criminal offense in most civilized nations. Your activities would be criminal in the UK and you would be living in a jail cell and I would not support you.
We are in the US and you can carry legally in Texas. It's your choice.

[GreenStormCloud]

119. The real-world result of your policies would be armed criminals and helpless citizens.

Intentions don't count, results do. Your results would be strongly pro-criminal. The UK's violent crime rate is the worst of Europe and is worse than the U.S. or even South Africa. That doesn't sound very civilized to me.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

[Starboard Tack]

120. Don't believe everything you read in RW tabloids like the Daily Mail.

The real world result of your policy can be found by asking yourself how many of these "criminals" you have had to shoot so far.
All these guys here who claim to carry guns and the best I've heard yet was from 2 of our members who claim to have brandished weapons to protect shit, not their lives. That sounds more like the real world to me.

[gejohnston]

121. you missed a couple

one was his wife protecting her person twice and another's daughter protecting her person. If the "shit" is in the house and so are you, it is a wash.
UK does have the highest violent crime in Europe.

[Starboard Tack]

122. No, I didn't miss those. I remember them well.

Last edited Tue Jun 19, 2012, 07:01 PM - Edit history (1)

GSC's wife and I think Spin's daughter. I'm waiting for someone who is a member and posts here, not stories about their wives and daughters and cousins and babysitters. I want to know if any of these upstanding, gun carrying MEN have ever used their guns, besides waving them at potential, would be, possible, might exist somewhere in the universe "thugs". How many have been attacked?

I had an electrical fire yesterday, btw, almost lost my home. I'm glad I had a fire extinguisher. First time I've ever used one. What a bloody mess.

[GreenStormCloud]

135. I drew my .45 against a burglar.

It happened about seven years ago. I had accompanied my wife to work, first to arrive. We stumbled onto a burglary in progress. I drew my gun on the guy. He dropped the stuff he was stealing, raised his hands, turned around and walked away. Since he was now no threat, I did nothing. Gave statement to police when they got there. He was never caught.

[GreenStormCloud]

129. Was there anything factually incorrect in the article?

I have been lucky so far and not needed my gun - so far. Past good luck is no guarantee of future good luck.

[Starboard Tack]

123. Opposing is not denying. It's not my business if people want to act foolishly.

Actually I have stated that if you were attacked, then I would not oppose you being armed. What I oppose is spending all your time carrying because you think you are about to be attacked. You have never mentioned ever being attacked. Your wife had a couple of situations, but wasn't actually attacked. And I can understand her wanting to be armed, but your reasons are not so clear. What are you afraid of? Have you been threatened or followed? Do you live in a shitty neighborhood? Do you carry a lot of valuables around, besides your guns? What makes you a target?

[GreenStormCloud]

128. My reason is: "Just in case."

We live in a good neighborhood. Did you notice the other thread I started about the 13 yr old armed robber? That happened in a gated community. Those are usually very safe communities.

If I wait until I am actually attacked to arm myself, then I have waited too late. So I am prepared, just in case. I hope my good luck continues and that I never need the gun.

[ileus]

41. Well Said...

[Starboard Tack]

63. Which part was well said?

The "So what" part, that doesn't give a damn about facts or empirical data?
Or was it the "purge society" part? That's some pretty extreme shit you're applauding there.

[spin]

40. I suspect that the authors are uncertain of the conclusions they are drawing ...

In contrast, we find significant evidence that the laws increase homicides.
Suggestive but inconclusive evidence indicates that castle doctrine laws increase the
narrowly defined category of justifiable homicides by private citizens by 17 to 50 percent,
which translates into as many as 50 additional justifiable homicides per year nationally due
to castle doctrine. More significantly, we find the laws increase murder and manslaughter
by a statistically significant 7 to 9 percent, which translates into an additional 500 to 700
homicides per year nationally across the states that adopted castle doctrine. Thus, by
lowering the expected costs associated with using lethal force, castle doctrine laws induce
more of it. This increase in homicides could be due either to the increased use of lethal
force in self-defense situations, or to the escalation of violence in otherwise non-lethal
conflicts. We suspect that self-defense situations are unlikely to explain all of the increase,
as we also find that murder alone is increased by a statistically significant 6 to 11 percent.
This is important because murder excludes non-negligent manslaughter classifications that
one might think are used more frequently in self-defense cases. But regardless of how one
interprets increases from various classifications, it is clear that the primary effect of
strengthening self-defense law is to increase homicide. emphasis added

***snip***

The homicide increase also presents another issue for the researchers. How do you determine who died in a castle doctrine situation: the alleged criminal or the person allegedly defending themselves? The FBI data Hoekstra and Cheng studied doesn't show that kind of detail, and Hoekstra says it's crucial in figuring out what's driving the homicide increase. The answer, he says, is another study.

"The best idea I've come up with is to try to figure out if the people getting killed have criminal backgrounds," he says. "If you see an increase in people getting killed without criminal backgrounds then at least part of what it suggests is escalation."But, he concedes, "It's going to be difficult. I don't know how optimistic I am."
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2012/06/texas_am_study_castle_doctrine.php

But I have to admit that I am apprehensive that my conclusion about the uncertainty of the authors might be incorrect. However it does appear that there might be a possibly significant percentage of likelihood that I could be right.

[ileus]

43. If only we could quiz the "authors" on their opinion of the 2A...then we'd see their true agenda.

[Starboard Tack]

49. Good post. Really no surprise there.

A few more studies and the bell will eventually ring. The great debate will be between the right of the individual to carry his SD tool of choice and public safety.

[DanTex]

54. Unfortunately, studies and empirical evidence are not going to change the minds of the NRA crowd.

One of the reasons that the vast majority of pro-gun extremists come from the right wing is that in order to believe the NRA line you basically have to take an extreme head-in-the-sand stance towards empirical data and reject decades of studies and statistics about gun violence.

The response from the NRA crowd to this study is typical: try and find whatever excuse they can to ignore or explain away the results. On top of that, a lot of them believe that academia is conspiring to take away their guns, similar to the belief that global warming is just an ivory tower conspiracy to derail capitalism.

I'm hoping the bell will eventually ring, but ideology and ignorance run very strong in certain segments of the US population.

[Starboard Tack]

60. Couldn't agree more. Empirical data tends to burst bubbles.

And as we can see from our friend OneTenth..., even when presented with such evidence, the party line is "So what! As long as we are purging society of criminals blah, blah..". I'm sure there are many who would love a return to a posse/lynch mob mentality and do away with any attempt at justice. Denial sells better than anything, as long as it doesn't impede the selling of guns and snake oil.

[GreenStormCloud]

116. Then here is some empirical data to burst your bublble.

Legal concealed carry saves more innocent lives than it takes.

In Texas the detailed statistics are compiled annually by the Department of Public Safety and published on the internet. It is likely that the Texas experience with Concealed Handgun Licenses would be about the same in other states. The last year for which statistics are published is 2009 for convictions. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/index.htm

In 2009 there were 402,914 people who had CHLs. Out of those people there was exactly one (1) murder conviction and no manslaughter convictions. Out of the general population there were 600+ convictions for murder in its various forms and manslaughter.
So very, very few CHL holders go bad, but some do.

The DPS also publishes an annual Crime in Texas Report. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/crimereports/09/citCh3.pdf
From that report, page 15:
Statistics on murder circumstances, victims, and
victim/offender relationships on the next page
include justifiable homicides. Justifiable homicide
is the killing of a felon by a peace officer in the
line of duty or the killing (during the commission
of a felony) of a felon by a private citizen. In
2009, there were 106 justifiable homicides, of
which, 52 were felons killed by private citizens,
and 54 were felons killed by police.

In Texas all homicides, even those that are clearly self-defense, have to go before a grand jury which will rule if the killing was justified or not. So those 52 justified private citizen homicides were ones in which the defender legitimately feared for his life. Since most shooting are merely woundings there would be a much larger number of justified woundings in which the defender genuinely feared for his life, but that number is not kept. Obviously there are dozens of cases each year in which a CHL holder uses their gun to save themselves.

Dozens of innocent lives saved versus one innocent killed shows the concealed carry is working in Texas. As already stated, there is no reason to believe that other CCW states have a different experience.

Legal concealed carry saves innocent lives.

[TPaine7]

87. How many decades have passed since 2004, exactly?!

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=10881

That's what the state of the evidence was then.

And I know that a published statement by a CDC official--the CDC that holds the pursestrings for medical research on guns to back up the official's agenda--that he wants to make guns like cigaretes, "banned" among other things, bears no weight at all.

Of course. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along. The published intentions of the organization holding the pursestrings for researchers has no bearing on the likely findings. Even thinking that it might is paranoid lunacy. Why it's just like disbelief in global warming!

Yeah, that's the ticket. And there have been several decades since 2004. Step out of your capsules, time travelers!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

65. Did the Aggies just conflate Castle Doctrine for SYG?

confused.

[gejohnston]

66. Yes they did

and I'm glad I'm not the only one that noticed.

[Tejas]

126. math profs are good at that.

[ileus]

80. Who gave them the idea SYG and CD laws are supposed to deter crime? ID10Ts

[crayfish]

90. They apparently don't even grasp the differences between CD and SYG. By the way, Zimmerman has not

invoked either, he is claiming plain old self-defense so far, a valid argument as far as I can see.

[GreenStormCloud]

115. Using the FBI justifiable homicide numbers is a mistake.

The FBI greatly understates the number of civilian legal self defense homicides. If the homicide is decided immediately but perhaps months later as justified, the FBI rarely updates their files. Often the local police don't give the FBI the updated information.

Plus some self defense situations are not listed as justifiable by the FBI. For instance, if you are in a poker game, there is an argument, the other guy comes at you with a weapon, you defend with a gun, the FBI does not consider that as justifiable. They still classify it as a murder, even if the state lets you go.

There are likely about three times as many CLSD (civilian legal self defense) shootings as the FBI acknowledges. However I will readily admit that the 3X figure is somewhat of a guess. It comes from an old Time article back in 1989. In an anti-gun article Time listed all gun deaths in America for one week. 14 of them were justified. A year later Time did an update on the same shootings. The number now listed as justifed was about double.

[Tejas]

125. associate economics professors suck at math so they do social studies now?

WTF?