Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Dahlia Lithwick, the NPR Supreme Court reporter and journalist has an interesting opinion piece in Slate. Based on that opening line, I know a certain percentage of people won't even read the article. However, I thought it was an interesting thought experiment related to how "Stand Your Ground" laws lead to a self-fulfilling logic loop. It is like the Bush Doctrine has become personal to every individual American.

Every time we hear about a Zimmerman, a Dunn, or a Cyle Wayne Quadlin, we get a little bit closer to believing that we need to become a Zimmerman, a Dunn, or a Cyle Wayne Quadlin merely to protect ourselves. And then it gets a little bit easier for us to relate to, and to believe, the next Zimmerman, Dunn, or Cyle Wayne Quadlin. It’s a perfect loop of logic. We define the reasonableness of a lethal response by the growing number of lethal responders. “Stand your ground” laws, or at least the public conception of what they do, are changing the way the rest of us think about self-protection.

The argument is essentially, if an argument is escalating it makes logical sense to shoot first and kill the other guy. If you don' the other guy shoot you first and kill you. If you are dead, their isn;t much you can do about it. However, if the other guy is dead you stand a chance of getting off the legal hook for killing the guy because their is no longer a perceived legal duty to retreat; plus you aren't the one who is dead. Winning!

You can read the whole article here:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/02/_stand_your_ground_nation_from_trayvon_martin_to_jordan_davis_how_our_understanding.2.html

Whats awesome is that SYG had absofreakinglutely nothing to do with the Zimmerman case...


SYG and the earlier castle doctrine it sprang from was made because Yankee state courts had ruled that your duty to retreat existed so far that you had a duty to retreat out of your own house if an intruder entered, like out of a second or 3rd story window, and other family members be damned.

The article talks a lot about how Stand Your Ground had nothing to do with the case, but is still associated with it and other recent shootign cases. Some wierd Juror Instructions led to the Stand Your Ground somehow becoming embroiled in the Martin case.

They didn't actually. The charge was related to common self defense.

The Pravda/MSNBCites overlook the minor detail of the case being nothing about SYG AT ALL.

However, I'm pretty sure the subscribers to SLATE don't believe in having guns or defending yourself in the first place.

EDIT: I'm so not surprised she also works for NPR.

What florida had was a very low standard to prove a self defense justification in general.

Taken from actual Florida Jury instructions, with emphasis added:

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.

However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

This is a very high burden, because its usually pretty easy to have a reasonable doubt that person felt deadly force was necessary.

In most states, IIRC, defenses like this have to be proved by the defendent to be more likley then not.

Stand your ground, or the "american rule" is very old common law in the US. Having such an low burden to show self defense is somewhat unusual, I think.

I'm not arguing with you at all about what the legal arguments were. In fact the article calls out that Zimmeramnn's case and the Dunn case were traditional self-defense cases.

The whole point of the article is that is a SYG even exists, it changes the Jurors and citizens expectations of how you should react in a confrontation.

in Dunn’s trial took to heart the specific instruction that Dunn “had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force.” Whether or not jurors in Florida are technically instructed to apply the “stand your ground” component of self-defense law, it’s increasingly clear that they are, at minimum, confused about it (understandably) and may even be starting to apply it reflexively. Yes, Dunn's attorney argued traditional self-defense. But, as former assistant U.S. attorney David Weinstein told the Associated Press, “I think people will say that because some of the language from the stand your ground statute gets embedded into the jury instructions, that stand your ground has an effect.”

But that's the exact same language that a jury would have gotten 150 years ago regarding self defense, evidentiary standard aside.

If the broader point is that having people defend themselves frequently shows that its reasoanble to kill people in self defense, then I guess that's somewhat inevitable, although I doubt the actual numbers of successful self defense claims has gone up that much.

This is a very high burden, because its usually pretty easy to have a reasonable doubt that person felt deadly force was necessary.

In most states, IIRC, defenses like this have to be proved by the defendent to be more likley then not.

Stand your ground, or the "american rule" is very old common law in the US. Having such an low burden to show self defense is somewhat unusual, I think.

True on all counts, or at least what I was told. The burden of proving self defense lies with the Defendant. Maybe I'm wrong but thats a low standard.

 Frazzled wrote:

This is a very high burden, because its usually pretty easy to have a reasonable doubt that person felt deadly force was necessary.

In most states, IIRC, defenses like this have to be proved by the defendent to be more likley then not.

Stand your ground, or the "american rule" is very old common law in the US. Having such an low burden to show self defense is somewhat unusual, I think.

True on all counts, or at least what I was told. The burden of proving self defense lies with the Defendant. Maybe I'm wrong but thats a low standard.

Once I read that, juries in cases with almost any altercation have to acquit. I mean, is it reasonable to doubt that Zimmermen felt threatned? Of course. Is it likely that he was threatned? Well... that's a lot trickier.

But basically in any instance where a person could be found to have a lethal fear, a jury has to acquit in Florida, which is very poor policy, and is far more likely to lead to vigiliante stuff then SYG.

 Polonius wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

This is a very high burden, because its usually pretty easy to have a reasonable doubt that person felt deadly force was necessary.

In most states, IIRC, defenses like this have to be proved by the defendent to be more likley then not.

Stand your ground, or the "american rule" is very old common law in the US. Having such an low burden to show self defense is somewhat unusual, I think.

True on all counts, or at least what I was told. The burden of proving self defense lies with the Defendant. Maybe I'm wrong but thats a low standard.

Once I read that, juries in cases with almost any altercation have to acquit. I mean, is it reasonable to doubt that Zimmermen felt threatned? Of course. Is it likely that he was threatned? Well... that's a lot trickier.

Agreed, the burden SHOULD be on the defense in this, and you'll note I'm not exactly against robust self defense.

But basically in any instance where a person could be found to have a lethal fear, a jury has to acquit in Florida, which is very poor policy, and is far more likely to lead to vigiliante stuff then SYG.

Maybe I am misreading what you're saying here, but isn't that always the case? If its found that a person reasonably feared for their life or the life of another, in most states thats a righteous shoot.

 Frazzled wrote:

But basically in any instance where a person could be found to have a lethal fear, a jury has to acquit in Florida, which is very poor policy, and is far more likely to lead to vigiliante stuff then SYG.

Maybe I am misreading what you're saying here, but isn't that always the case? If its found that a person reasonably feared for their life or the life of another, in most states thats a righteous shoot.

I could be clearer, but there's a double negative. Basically, the state has to show that there is no reasonable doubt to the defendent's claim of reasonable fear.

I think in practice, rigorously applying reasonable doubt means that any situation in which a person could possibly have such a fear will need to lead to an aquittal, as long as the defendent is consistent in claiming it.

Basically, rather than showing that you actually had sucha fear, and that it was reasoanbly, you simply need to show that there's a reasonable chance that you had that fear. Or, the prosecution needs to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendent knew his life was not in danger.

I see. Correct me if I'm wrong but what you're saying is that the standard for the State should not be turned on its head. Once someone elects the defense of self defense, it should not be the State's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it WASN'T self defense.

I agree. Now I'm not willing to say what the standard should be here, but the Texas one seems to work (I'd have to look it up). Having said that, real self defense cases barely make it past being nobilled. Depending on the county its Florida esque to almost NYer like (Travis being an example of that).

1.) As someone who reads Slate now and then (Dear Prudence mostly), I do think Ms. Lithwick is not a particularly good writer.

2.) Duty to retreat is bs and I rarely find anyone who understands what this concept means who believes in it.

3.) As Polonius says, the bar is too low in Florida, IMO. I think there needs to be a reasonable understanding that you or someone else are in imminent danger of death or bodily injury. Iowa's code has it about right I think, it's got a castle doctrine clause.

704.1 Reasonable force.
“Reasonable force” is that force and no more which a reasonable person, in like circumstances, would judge to be necessary to prevent an injury or loss and can include deadly force if it is reasonable to believe that such force is necessary to avoid injury or risk to one’s life or safety or the life or safety of another, or it is reasonable to believe that such force is necessary to resist a like force or threat. Reasonable force, including deadly force, may be used even if an alternative course of action is available if the alternative entails a risk to life or safety, or the life or safety of a third party, or requires one to abandon or retreat from one’s dwelling or place of business or employment.

I disagree quite a bit with anyone that claims the Zimmerman and Dunn cases are at all similar.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

3.) As Polonius says, the bar is too low in Florida, IMO. I think there needs to be a reasonable understanding that you or someone else are in imminent danger of death or bodily injury. Iowa's code has it about right I think, it's got a castle doctrine clause.

704.1 Reasonable force.
“Reasonable force” is that force and no more which a reasonable person, in like circumstances, would judge to be necessary to prevent an injury or loss and can include deadly force if it is reasonable to believe that such force is necessary to avoid injury or risk to one’s life or safety or the life or safety of another, or it is reasonable to believe that such force is necessary to resist a like force or threat. Reasonable force, including deadly force, may be used even if an alternative course of action is available if the alternative entails a risk to life or safety, or the life or safety of a third party, or requires one to abandon or retreat from one’s dwelling or place of business or employment.

I also agree with this pretty fully.

The Dunn instance it wouldn't apply. For Zimmerman's, I think it would.

I still dont understand how America seems to have a less of a problem with the Dunn case than we did with the Zimmerman one.... Blows my mind.

I don't understand why they convict on the manslaughter equivalent for Dunn, but Polonious' discussion may be the reason. Its hard to get 12 people to agree on anything, much less when there's lawyers involved.

 cincydooley wrote:

I still dont understand how America seems to have a less of a problem with the Dunn case than we did with the Zimmerman one.... Blows my mind.

Do you mean with what Dunn and Zimmerman actually did, or with the verdict? If you mean the verdict, I'd guess the fact that Dunn is going to prison would be a pretty significant factor.

 Hordini wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

I still dont understand how America seems to have a less of a problem with the Dunn case than we did with the Zimmerman one.... Blows my mind.

Do you mean with what Dunn and Zimmerman actually did, or with the verdict? If you mean the verdict, I'd guess the fact that Dunn is going to prison would be a pretty significant factor.

I mean in response to the verdict.

In my eyes, the Zimmerman verdict is clearly the "more correct" one of the two, yet the outcry for it was HUUUUUGE.

The Dunn verdict is a farce, IMO, and there's very little said that I've noticed.

Just my 2 cents.

 cincydooley wrote:

I mean in response to the verdict.

In my eyes, the Zimmerman verdict is clearly the "more correct" one of the two, yet the outcry for it was HUUUUUGE.

The Dunn verdict is a farce, IMO, and there's very little said that I've noticed.

Just my 2 cents.

Zimmerman had a weak tea self defense claim which florida law made almost impossible to refute. The jury got the right of it, but only given the instructions they were given. In most other jurisdictions, that would have been a much, much tougher acquittal.

The Dunn case is just weird, and ended up getting sentenced for the murder he got away with, not the attempts he was convicted of.

There's been quite a bit of upset on the failure to convict for murder for Dunn, too, it's just been tempered by the fact that a.) He's going to get retried for it and b.) He's going to jail anyway.

 Ouze wrote:
There's been quite a bit of upset on the failure to convict for murder for Dunn, too, it's just been tempered by the fact that a.) He's going to get retried for it and b.) He's going to jail anyway.

there's also outrage fatigue at play.

I guess we fundamentally disagree on the "weak self defense" claim in the Zimmerman trial. That's okay.

I just don't like people comparing the two because in my eyes they're very, very different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, sometimes I wonder what the Zimmerman case would have been like had his last name been the same has his South American mother's.....

 cincydooley wrote:
I guess we fundamentally disagree on the "weak self defense" claim in the Zimmerman trial. That's okay.

I just don't like people comparing the two because in my eyes they're very, very different.

I don't think it was too weak to succeed, I just think that it wouldn't be a defense claim I'd be excited to take to a jury. I'm not a criminal defense lawyer, but if I had a client tell me he shot and killed an unarmed minor that was 50-75 pounds lighter then him, I'd be advocating a plea deal early and hard.

With his wounds and everything, I think you can make a solid case, but I think a jury is going to be naturally suspicious, given his desire to play vigilante.

 Polonius wrote:

If the broader point is that having people defend themselves frequently shows that its reasoanble to kill people in self defense, then I guess that's somewhat inevitable, although I doubt the actual numbers of successful self defense claims has gone up that much.

Well, the data in Florida Self-Defense cases tha tthe writer cites indicates that self-defense cases have been more successful since 2005 and the introduction of SYG.

Correlation does not equal causation and all those cookie crumbs {Handwavium}

 cincydooley wrote:
I guess we fundamentally disagree on the "weak self defense" claim in the Zimmerman trial. That's okay.

I just don't like people comparing the two because in my eyes they're very, very different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, sometimes I wonder what the Zimmerman case would have been like had his last name been the same has his South American mother's.....

We would have never ever heard about it and nothig would have occurred.

 Frazzled wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I guess we fundamentally disagree on the "weak self defense" claim in the Zimmerman trial. That's okay.

I just don't like people comparing the two because in my eyes they're very, very different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, sometimes I wonder what the Zimmerman case would have been like had his last name been the same has his South American mother's.....

We would have never ever heard about it and nothig would have occurred.

Tell me more of your absolute knowledge of things that didn't occur but might have.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I guess we fundamentally disagree on the "weak self defense" claim in the Zimmerman trial. That's okay.

I just don't like people comparing the two because in my eyes they're very, very different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, sometimes I wonder what the Zimmerman case would have been like had his last name been the same has his South American mother's.....

We would have never ever heard about it and nothig would have occurred.

Tell me more of your absolute knowledge of things that didn't occur but might have.

it involves chicken bones, incense, and a talking wiener dog.

In that multiverse, Battlefield: Earth was a huge blockbuster. It's not clear whether it was because of the bravura performance of Brendan Fraser in the lead role, or simply a natural consequence of Scientology being the primary religion, with 80% of the US being adherents, but what is certain is the 6 sequels were all of markedly lower quality.

 Ouze wrote:
In that multiverse, Battlefield: Earth was a huge blockbuster. It's not clear whether it was because of the bravura performance of Brendan Fraser in the lead role, or simply a natural consequence of Scientology being the primary religion, with 80% of the US being adherents, but what is certain is the 6 sequels were all of markedly lower quality.

Not sure if I should scratch my head, or clap slowly...

I don't understand how people think SYG laws are so bad when Z didn't even use it as a defense and Dunn is going away for the rest of his life.

Looks like its' working fine to me.

 cincydooley wrote:
I mean, sometimes I wonder what the Zimmerman case would have been like had his last name been the same has his South American mother's.....

In terms of outcome? Probably exactly the same.

In terms of public attention? Its hard to say. No doubt this case tapped into some of the fears in the black community, which helped make it cause celebre. Still, SYG laws were reasonably controversial even back then, and having a sympathetic victim and unlikeable defendent made it a good case to focus on.