Explaining ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws
There's been far too much hysteria and hyperbole when it comes to 'Stand Your Ground' laws.
Ever since George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin on a rainy February night two years ago, there has been an ongoing debate about so-called “Stand Your Ground” laws, which have been adopted in some form or another in a majority of the states in the country over the past decade. Critics of the laws, who tend to be on the political left and strong proponents of gun control laws, argue that such laws essentially make it easier for people to legally justify shooting someone and later claiming that the action was done in self-defense. When Zimmerman was finally acquitted of the attempted murder and other charges against him, many national political leaders made a push to have such laws reconsidered or repealed, with their arguments often tinged with the always sensitive rhetoric of racial politics.
Throughout most of these discussions, though, it’s become apparent that many people don’t have a very good understanding of self-defense law in general and “Stand Your Ground” laws in particular. In that spirit, and in light of comments on his own blog about such laws in the light of the Supreme Court rulings on abortion clinic protesters, Eugene Volokh has put forth an excellent summary of exactly what “Stand Your Ground” laws are all about:
In all states, shooting someone who is simply impeding you, shouting at you, and moving towards you loudly and aggressively (absent more), is a crime. The crime is called, assuming you shoot and kill the person, “murder.” (It could also be attempted murder if you miss, or aggravated assault if you hit and injure the person.) Yup, same crime as if the person wasn’t impeding you, shouting at you, or moving towards you loudly and aggressively (though in some states, it’s conceivable that if the person is shouting insults at you and that is viewed as “adequate provocation” — unlikely, but conceivable — you’d get lucky and get off with a voluntary manslaughter charge).
This is because “stand your ground” simply means that, if you reasonably believe that you face imminent death, serious bodily injury, rape, kidnapping, or (in most states) robbery, you can use deadly force against the assailant, even if you have a perfectly safe avenue of retreat. In non-stand-your-ground states, when you face such threats outside your home (and, in some states, your business), you can only use deadly force against the assailant if you lack a perfectly safe avenue of retreat. In no states are you allowed to shoot someone who is simply shouting at you or moving towards you loudly and aggressively, unless you reasonably believe that you’re in danger of death, serious bodily injury, or the other harms I listed. (When the person is coming into your home, in many states you can indeed shoot, but that doesn’t apply to confrontations on the public street.)
(…)
The stand-your-ground vs. duty-to-retreat distinction comes up in the relatively unusual case in which you are faced with a threat of death, serious bodily injury, etc., but you can escape with perfect safety. If you’re facing an assailant with a gun, it generally doesn’t matter what state you’re in, because you generally can’t escape a gun with perfect safety. So if you’re in the fortunately very rare scenario in which you reasonably believe that the person outside the clinic will imminently shoot you, you can shoot him in any state (if you’ve got a gun, that is). And if you’re in the much more common scenario in which you just think the person might slap you or block your entrance or insult you, you can’t shoot him in any state. Only in the very rare scenario in which you think the person might kill or seriously injure you, but with a deadly weapon that you can flee with perfect safety would it matter whether you’re in a stand-your-ground state or a duty-to-retreat state.
These are always very fact specific situations, so it’s next to impossible to come up with a hard and fast rule that would apply to every potential situation where self-defense would potentially be a defense to murder or attempted murder. As a general rule, though, the general rule is that there has to be some reasonable fear of great bodily harm in order to justify the use of deadly force. What constitutes “reasonable” is something that ends up getting hashed out to some extent by the case law in each jurisdiction, and there are variations between jurisdictions on these issues.1 Additionally, whether or not a particular situation meets the criteria of the self-defense laws is something that will ultimately be decided by the trier of fact, either a judge or a jury. That’s why I think it’s improper to blame “Stand Your Ground” laws, or self-defense law generally for some perceived uptick in people shooting people in confrontations where “Stand Your Ground” laws might apply.
More importantly, though, the important thing to remember about “Stand Your Ground” laws is that they are really nothing more than the regular law of self-defense set forth in statutory form and often, as in Florida, with some procedural protections that give people charged with a crime the option of attempting to get charges against them dismissed before trial. Arguing against these laws is, in the end, nothing short of arguing against the idea that people ought to have a right to defend themselves to begin with, which I would argue goes against both human nature and a proper understanding of individual liberty. If the right to life includes anything it includes the right to defend that life when it is threatened. Arguing against such a right makes no sense whatsoever.2
On a final note, I will readily admit that there concerns to be raised about how these laws are applied, especially in a state like Florida and other part of the country where there are racial issues below the surface in many criminal cases. That, however, is not an argument against “Stand Your Ground” laws in particular or self-defense in general.
H/T: Jazz Shaw
1 Interestingly, some of the states with the most liberal guns laws and with cultures that are open to gun ownership and carrying weapons in public are also among the states with the most restrictive self-defense laws.
2 One area of law not addressed here that is related to both “Stand Your Ground” laws and self-defense concerns the so-called “Castle” Doctrine, which deals with the right of people to defend themselves in their homes or on their property.
Which of course simply means if the other person is black…especially if said person is wearing a hoodie…and carrying skittles.
The Georgia “get shit-faced while packing” law goes live today.
This should be fun to watch.
George Zimmerman created the circumstances that resulted in the killing of Trayvon Martin, and race was certainly a factor in that incident. It is not surprising that opponents of Stand Your Ground laws used rhetoric that referenced race – how could it (race) be ignored in this case?
My problem with the Zimmerman case (high profile cases are often singular and bad examples) is that it appeared that at times SYG is a get-out-of-jail free card, particularly if there were no witnesses to a mistaken shooting. I suppose that what it comes down to is my confidence or belief in the jury system – that is, can a jury weigh the evidence and testimony in a cases such as this and come to a just conclusion. Generally I think so, but when you add race to the equation I’m not as confident.
@C. Clavin: Good god, you’re even more of a stupid “douche-fvck” than usual.
“Stand Your Ground” was NEVER an issue in the Zimmerman case.
But in your defense, it barely makes the top ten in lies you tell about that case.
And you lie here, with your selective quoting of Mr. Shaw.
I can’t decide if you’re more pathetic or contemptible.
@al-Ameda: George Zimmerman created the circumstances that resulted in the killing of Trayvon Martin, and race was certainly a factor in that incident. It is not surprising that opponents of Stand Your Ground laws used rhetoric that referenced race – how could it (race) be ignored in this case?
One is only responsible for reasonable responses to one’s actions. “Following a suspicious person from a distance at night while talking to the cops” does NOT “reasonably” provoke a serious assault and battery.
And race was present in this case, but do you have ANY indications that it was relevant in the least?
My problem with the Zimmerman case (high profile cases are often singular and bad examples) is that it appeared that SYG is a get-out-of-jail free card if there were no witnesses to a mistaken shooting. I suppose that what it comes down to is my confidence or belief in the jury system – that is, can a jury weigh the evidence and testimony in a cases such as this and come to a just conclusion. Generally I think so, but when you add race to the equation I’m not as confident.
Once again, assertion of race being a factor here is unfounded. And SYG was NEVER a relevant factor in the case.
Jazz Shaw’s piece is an excellent primer on SYG, and Doug, I’m glad you linked to it here. The regular gang of idiots who comment here desperately need to educate themselves, and I doubt that they would ever seek it out by themselves.
Remember the progressive outrage over this:
Surveillance video shows retired Florida cop shooting man for throwing popcorn
Left out as a retired Law Enforcement he can carry Firearms and has the equivalent of “Stand Your Ground” protections in any state.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfCT0I7OUr4
@Paul L.: And in what universe does popcorn being thrown at you instill a fear of death? The guy was an asshole but he surely didn’t deserve to die because of it.
You keep using the word “reasonably”. I think it’s safe to say that the term is highly subjective because everyone’s level of reasonable is different. The apparent key to getting a successful Stand-Your-Ground defense is to make sure enough people on the jury sympathize or agree with your reason.
Remember, your average moron on the street isn’t exactly up to date on the subtleties of the law. If someone kills because their understanding of threatening was “screaming and getting in your space= Stand Your Ground”, yeah they go to jail. But someone is still dead that wouldn’t have been if the mistaken impression wasn’t there in the first place. There is a very strong common misapprehension that empowers stupid people to be ballsy the way the previous law didn’t. It gives the impression one can get away with murder… and so far, some have.
A good idea with poor execution becomes a terrible idea. The laws can be tweaked to be clearer but as they are, they are a tragedy waiting to happen again and again.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Really? Let’s see: Black kid wearing hoodie (in a light rain, go figure) walking through housing complex gets stalked by a guy with a gun? Nothing about race being a factor in this situation.
@al-Ameda: Got anything — anything at all — that Martin’s race played a factor in Zimmerman’s actions? Or since Zimmerman’s white, he’s just presumed to be racist until proven otherwise — if then?
Nice try pushing the “correlation equals causation” fallacy there, but you really have to show some work.
@beth:
Officer Safety!!!!!1!
First Rule of Policing. Make it home alive to your Family
George Zimmerman is a criminal mastermind. Like a predator, he selected and stalked his victim. But, before he committed the cold-blooded murder, he called the police and gave them his name, location, and a description of his victim. Before the police could arrive, he orchestrated a fight that left him bloodied and only then did he shoot that defenseless young, black child. But, he did it in such a way that witnesses believed he was getting pummelled by his victim.
Pure evil genius!
Foot Note #1
I think this is exactly how it should be. I have no real problems with people who want to own or carry weapons. However, should they choose to discharge their weapon in the direction of another human being, they should be subject (at a minimum) to at least as much scrutiny as a police officer is when they fire their weapons. And should a gun owner make a mistake when choosing to discharge their weapon, they should be held responsible. “I was scared” should never be a valid excuse (IMO).
@Todd: No argument there. That’s an entirely reasonable and well-thought-out statement.
Which means that you can expect to get plenty of insults and harassment from the usual gang of idiots. That was only a high probability, though; since I singled you out, now it’s a virtual certainty.
Yes, I can control them to that degree.
That ending note does a whole lot of heavy lifting. I’m more concerned with the real-world impacts of a law than in the nuances of finely-grained legal reasonings. In the real world, OF COURSE these laws are designed to provide a ‘get out of jail free’ card when shootings go bad. It’s really hard to disprove “I”m scared for my life,” especially when the person shot is dead.
I’m admittedly skeptical when I believe the real purpose of a law is to show affinity for a cause rather than solving a societal need. Doug’s minimization of the scope of SYG confirms to me the purpose of these laws is to force a loyalty vote to show the power of the gun lobby.
@KM:
We saw yesterday…when the SCOTUS took the plaintiffs word that certain contraceptives were abortifacients when the science says otherwise…that facts absolutely do not matter.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Besides the fact that he followed Martin because he was Black and wearing a hoodie? No, I have nothing.
@Todd: Which is why the Trayvon Martin case blew up as it did. The police were quite content to not investigate the shooting and take Zimmerman’s word on everything that happened. It wasn’t until Martin’s parents started contacting the press and national figures (the dreaded Al Sharpton!) that some movement was made to find out what really happened. While Martin’s parents are bitterly disappointed over the outcome, they have said that at least there was an investigation and a trial, which was what they wanted. I couldn’t agree with you more that if you shoot a gun, there should be a full investigation into the circumstances with all victims being given a right to be heard.
@al-Ameda: Besides the fact that followed Martin because he was Black? No, I have nothing.
And just what, pray tell, do you have that backs up that assertion?
Fair warning: I have a hunch what your response will be, and as soon as I hit POST, I’m going to go find the link that proves it false. Having the same arguments over and over again does get tedious, but it also has its advantages.
@Todd:
Except that is contrary to the SYG laws…which are little more than get out of jail free cards courtesy of the gun lobby and the legislators they have bought.
I have no problem with weapons.
I have a problem with people who should never be allowed to own weapons getting them far too easily. And people who have weapons and fvck up not being held accountable. SYG laws are a big part of the later. Zimmerman is a poster child for both.
WORLD TO END TONIGHT
Poor and minorities seen as most affected.
as far as the left goes, the headline never changes.
@Beth:
Absolutely. There should always be some investigation, if only for documentation. There should always be some record, some proof, something that you can hold out to the world and say “See, it’s not just my word for it.” As an owner, I’d want that for pure CYA liability purposes. As a family member, I’d want it for my loved ones to know that there would be some scrutiny and justice.
@beth:
Like many issues, I’m somewhere in the middle on this one. I generally support relatively liberal gun ownership laws, but I am in favor of things like mandatory training, registration and liability insurance. And while I do understand the motivation behind them, I think legislation such as these “stand your ground” laws are generally a bad idea, as they do too much to relieve gun owners of responsibility.
Back to footnote #1, I think it’s almost a necessity that in States with liberal laws concerning the open carrying of weapons, that self-defense laws should be more restrictive. If I see someone walking towards me, and they are openly armed, to some extent, they are automatically a potential threat to my safety. If I choose to shoot them before they shoot me, the burden of proof should be on me to prove that I was truly threatened, as opposed to irrationally frightened. To me, that seems to be the difference between “stand your ground” and traditional self-defense laws.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
We only have Zimmerman’s word, and, unless he is an idiot, he’s not going to say that the reason he followed Martin is because Martin was Black.
In this instance Zimmerman is a very fortunate person. He created the circumstances that resulted in the death of Martin, there are no witnesses, he’s found innocent of any crime by a jury. It could have been far worse.
@ Jenos
You yourself pointed out on countless occasions, that Zimmermann is hispanic. Do you simply jump back and forth between white and hispanic, depending on which you think is more advantageous at the moment?
@Todd: Plus it’s considered perfectly ok to say “I thought he had a gun in his pocket and was going to shoot me.”
Which would seem to indicate that in states which have had people killed due to pro-life nutzos, you’d have a far better argument to shoot someone running towards you screaming that you are a slut and a whore.
Doug,
You’re the lawyer here, but isn’t the biggest difference between “stand your ground” and traditional self-defense laws, that one is an affirmative defense, while with most stand your ground laws, there’s a presumption that deadly force was necessary, and the burden is on the prosecution to convince a judge otherwise?
To me that seems like a much more significant difference than simply saying that “stand your ground” is traditional self-defense in “statutory form”.
@anjin-san: (shrug) OK, you caught me. I thought you might be dumber than you apparently are. I thought you might jump on that and run with it, and then I’d bring up that Zimmerman’s ancestry is Hispanic, with a smattering of African.
Cliffy would have fallen for it, but I forget that you’re not as dumb as he is. Hell, I can only think of only one other around here as dumb as he is.
So, where’s your proof (or even evidence) that Zimmerman was motivated by racism? I’ve already got the counter lined up, just waiting to post.
@ Jenos
Martin had no way of knowing that Zimmermann had talked to the police. Florida is a SYG state. If Martin had been armed, he would have been within his rights to shoot Zimmermann dead because of the perceived threat he represented. Maybe black folks in the south need to arm themselves better.
And since Martin had no way of knowing that Zimmermann had talked to the cops, he had every reason to respond with the force that was available to him (fists) to defend himself.
I know if someone was following me in the dark while I went about my lawful business, I would be ready to rock & roll.
The moral of the story? Always let the cops handle it. Call them, tell them what you see, and go home. Pursuit is NOT part of neighborhood watch, and it is not something any intelligent adult who is not looking for trouble does.
Zimmermann was the architect of this tragedy. No ifs, ands, or buts.
@ Jenos
When you have to put words in someone’s mouth have something to say, you have nothing to say.
@Todd:
That’s my understanding as well.
Additionally, many SYG laws also include the ability to request a special hearing in which a judge is able to to make a self defense finding.
@anjin-san: When you have to put words in someone’s mouth have something to say, you have nothing to say.
Whoops, I mixed up you and Al. I put Al’s words in your mouth. My apologies.
@anjin-san: There is significant evidence that Martin had reached his destination and then turned back to confront Zimmerman. There is also evidence that Martin threw the first punch in the confrontation.
Just what in the law would grant Martin the legal right to return to a confrontation and throw the first punch? What did Zimmerman do that put Martin at a reasonable fear for his own safety?
FFS, do you guys ever get tired of rehashing Zimmerman? As soon as I saw the title, I knew what this thread was going to look like. Christ, give it up already.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Why would Martin fear Zimmerman? Zimmerman was stalking him and carrying a gun. Martin was foolish to confront a man with a gun, but Martin was a teenaged young man, not an adult. Zimmerman however, as a legal adult, is supposed to have good judgment, and not create a situation whereby he shoots an innocent person.
@al-Ameda: Why would Martin fear Zimmerman? Zimmerman was stalking him and carrying a gun. Martin was foolish to confront a man with a gun, but Martin was a teenaged young man, not an adult. Zimmerman however, as a legal adult, is supposed to have good judgment, and not create a situation whereby he shoots an innocent person.
How many wrong things here?
1) Zimmerman had stopped following Martin before the confrontation. (911 recording — Zimmerman’s breathing slows and he gives a fixed location to the operator.)
2) Zimmerman’s gun was never drawn before the confrontation (No one reported seeing Zimmerman with gun drawn, Martin would have been suicidal to approach a man with a drawn gun.)
3) Zimmerman didn’t shoot anyone until after he had been beaten severely.
@ Jenos
It’s quite clear to everyone that you have accepted your own version of events as fact. Just like a minor scalp laceration equates to “bashing his head on the concrete”
Get back to me when you actually have something to contribute.
@anjin-san: Just like a minor scalp laceration equates to “bashing his head on the concrete”
You meant to say “multiple lacerations to the back of the head, two black eyes, and a broken nose.”
At least, that’s what you would have meant to say, if you were interested in being honest.
Feel free to shut up instead of pushing more lies. On the other hand, if you have anything true to contribute, go right ahead.
And how chivalrous — instead of double-teaming me, annie and Al are politely taking turns for once.
Not that it would matter…
@ Jenos
I was discussing the injuries to the back of his head, which were minor scalp lacerations. If you know anything at all about fighting, you would know that the very superficial injuries on the back of his head disprove any “bashing of his head on the concrete”
That he had injuries to his face in not in dispute. It’s worth noting that a single punch could have caused them.
In no way did Zimmermann receive “a severe beating.” I saw schoolyard fights in jr. high school where guys were more dinged up.
If you are going to accuse me of lying, find some actual lies first. I will stand by.
@anjin-san: You said, specifically, “a minor scalp laceration.” Singular. There were two — one a quarter-inch long, the other an inch long.
And that was in response to my description of Zimmerman’s injuries as “beaten severely.” By omitting the other injuries — two black eyes and a broken nose — you are implying that the single laceration was the extent of the injuries.
Unforced errors, annie.
Why do you feel the need to rewrite facts to bolster your case? Why are facts so hostile to your statements?
@ Jenos
Given the weakness of your position, I understand why you want to go down these endless rabbit holes. Have fun – it is no doubt the high water mark in your day.
And yes, he had two minor lacerations, which is consistent with a rather garden variety fight, not a severe beating.
Again, let me sum up the Zimmerman case, as I have always seen it.
1) Zimmerman’s account of the incident does not rise to the level of murder, as he was charged.
2) There was no evidence to conclusively prove Zimmerman’s account as true.
3) There was no evidence to conclusively prove Zimmerman’s account as false.
4) A great deal of the evidence supports Zimmerman’s account as true.
5) Very little of the evidence challenges Zimmerman’s account as true.
6) Despite the protests of many of the usual idiots here, the law does NOT support “if you can’t prove your innocence, we’re going to throw out your whole story and just make up whatever we like, and if we come up with a plausible scenario where you’re guilty, we’re going to hang you.” No matter how many times you yell “RAAAAACIST!!!!!!”
I don’t have a link but what about the black lady (mentioned as race was brought up) whose ex was threatening her and she went out and got her gun and fired a warning shot and was later sentenced to 20 years, why in this case didn’t SYG apply
@anjin-san: And yes, he had two minor lacerations
Well, that’s progress. You’ve moved on from one laceration to two, although I’m wondering what your medical credentials are to call an inch-long gash “minor.”
Now if you can just bring yourself to actually acknowledge the full truth — Zimmerman had two cuts to the back of his head from having his head slammed into the pavement, and a broken nose, and two black eyes, and every reasonable expectation that the beating was going to continue — you might have something to contribute.
@ Jenos
Yes, you are a complete idiot. There, I acknowledged the truth, Got to get to a meeting now.
Wow, if a “complete idiot” can catch your lies out this easily, just what does that say about you?
@Gavrilo: @beth:
Did you by chance read the statement Zimmerman gave the police that night. He wrote it out long hand. Zimmerman’s injuries and the witness statement were consistent with Zimmerman’s statement. That is why he was not charged. The trial did not turn up anything to refute Zimmerman’s account of what happened. Zimmerman was only charged because of public pressure. The case had nothing to do with race. The dispatcher asked Zimmerman what race the fellow was, and Zimmerman told her. Had she not asked, race might not have even been mentioned.
Sorry, can’t help it if you are stupid.
@anjin-san: What happened to that meeting you had to run off to, annie? Was it that unimportant that you could blow it off? Are you so unimportant that they can hold it without you?
@ Jenos
Look, just contact Zimmermann directly and share your feelings with him. Better for everybody…
@anjin-san:
You seem to be some kind of expert on fighting injuries. You weren’t one of the expert witnesses during the trial, were you?
The purpose of stand your ground laws is to allow white people to kill black people. Period. That’s why they were passed, it’s how they will be applied.
The purpose of open carry laws is to allow white people to intimidate pretty much everyone, but especially minorities.
Gun cult freaks buy guns hoping to find an excuse to kill someone. These laws are created to serve that “need.”
@ Jenos
Wow, you’ve really hurt me. How I rue the day I tangled with you…
One thing that is rarely mentioned whenever there is debate about gun rights/gun control, is the most fundamental of rights; the right to life. I am puzzled by this. Even Doug, who says he is a Libertarian, never mentions the most fundamental of rights in this debate. Deadly force must only be legally allowed in self defence when there is certainty of grave danger such as death, rape and kidnap. When there are laws with ambiguities such as “Stand Your Ground” laws, there is inevitably going to be deadly mistakes. There’s going to be cases in which people wrongly perceive that they are in danger and use deadly force. The right to life is not fully protected when the law allows you to use deadly force in self defence when there is only a perception but not certainty of grave danger, or when you are legally allowed to use deadly force to protect property when you’re in no physical danger. I remember a case in South Africa where a man thought that someone was stealing his car in the middle of the night so he shot and killed the driver. It turned out it was his daughter sneaking out of the house. Her right to life was violated because the law allowed someone to use deadly force without certainty. I don’t know much about the law but to me, if you use deadly force in self defence and it turn out to be a mistake, that is criminal negligence. There right to life is also in danger when the law does not strictly require gun owners and others to be responsible. I remember a case in Virginia where some undercover police officers wrongly thought that a group of underage college students had bought alcohol but the students had only bought bottles of water. The police officers did not properly identify themselves or did not identify themselves at all and drew their guns when they tried to arrest the students. The students probably thought that the undercover police officers were armed assailants so they ran into their car and drove away. If the students, who thought that they were being attacked, had any ability to defend themselves, including deadly force, and had tried to use it, they would have been shot by the police and nothing would have happened to the police officers. To me, this would be criminal negligence on the part of the police but the law would say otherwise. The right to life is not fully protected when there is ambiguities regarding when to use deadly force, and when the law allows gun owners and people in law enforcement to be irresponsible when using a gun. I’ve not heard anyone talk about people’s right to life being violated during the gun rights/gun control debate.
Of course if the only other witness is dead you can say what you want and if the other party is an out group you will almost certainly get off. Pretending SYG is just like any other self defense law is absurd. Creating a moving fortress is a dangerous business.
@Jenos Idanian #13: But of course, you don’t care at all about Zimmerman, you’re just commenting on the lack of postings about the case, right?
@anjin-san: “Get back to me when you actually have something to contribute.”
But he can’t. Remember, Jenos doesn’t care at all about Zimmerman or this case. He’s explained that repeatedly, in between threads where he obsessively posts dozens of messages about it.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
False. From the transcript
He gave a fixed location then he asked them to call him when they got to the area after. That indicates that he might not be at the fixed location now doesn’t it?
Wow, that is impressive that ‘no on reported seeing Zimmerman with a gun drawn’, given that the only person that could have reported seeing that is dead.
I saw the pictures, your characterization of severe indicates you have never seen a bar fight.
Video demonstration of exactly how stand-your-ground laws work and exactly what they’re for:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YnHz9hh9ZB4
@Barfour: The right to life is the basis of almost everything. Because you have a right to life, you have a right to self-defense. Because you have a right to self-defense, you have a right to have the means to defend yourself. You are allowed to have a gun to defend your life. Your right to life, your right to self-defense, and your right to have arms were not given to you by government. Those rights existed prior to the Constitution. The Constitution merely affirms those rights and prevents government from infringing those rights.
We all have a duty to act responsibility. We have a duty to not injury other people without justification. Firearms and automobiles, just to name a couple things, can kill people. When we use those things irresponsibly, we are subject to punishment by law.
We humans are not infallible. We make mistakes even when we are doing our best to act responsibly. Many situations are ambiguous, and we have to use judgment. We cannot escape ambiguities.
As I understand the law, and I am not a lawyer, we are presumed to be innocent. We are presumed to have acted responsibility. Government must prove that that is not the case. We are to be judged by a jury of our peers, who will decide whether we acted reasonably, unreasonably, or even with malice and intent.
I think you are saying that a person has a right not to be killed without a justifiable reason. I doubt that there is even a single person who disagrees. We also agree that a police officer has no right to kill a person without the same justification as any other person would need, and should be judged the same way any other person would be, that is, in a court of law and without immunity.
I just finished reading the book “Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America”. From the blurb:
Groveland is not far from Sanford. The book recounts that northern Florida was one of the racially oppressive areas of the country in 1949, with more lynchings per capita than Alabama or Mississippi. So yes, its likely race did play a role in the case.
Remember too that northern Florida was the venue of the Jordan Davis case, in which a white man shot a black teenager dead for playing his music too loud. He invoked SYG as a defense- and was acquitted of the murder of Davis, although convicted for attempted murder of the three other teenagers in the car who fled the scene. Think race played a part there too.
Doug, you should think of SYG as akin to the death penalty. The death penalty would be defensible if it was administered and applied in a fair and impartial manner. Of course, the history of the DP in the US has been that it has been applied in a racist, classiest, and unfair manner.In the Grove land Boys case, a 16 year old boy who could prove he has miles away at the time of the “rape” pled guilty to a life sentence, since there was no possibility of the all white jury finding him not guilty and the certainty that the judge-a died in the wool racist-would sentence him to death
In the same way, SYG seems to have been applied in a racist manner to acquit whites who shoot black people. It’s the racist manner in which SYG is applied that you should look at, not how the law looks in the abstract.
@Grewgills:
That when the police arrived a few minutes later Martin and Zimmerman were not in the ‘fixed location’ given the police by Zimmerman also puts the lie to your assertion that Zimmerman was not stalking Martin.
A state legislature can pass laws making it legal to carry guns, but they can not stop it from being a terrible idea for the average person.
Zimmermann is a textbook case. A young guy bumbling through life with no real direction, except perhaps a fantasy about being in law enforcement that was never going to come true. An arrest record, a restraining order by way of a former girlfriend, and a history of anger issues, poor judgment, and obsessive 911 calls. My take is that he was desperate to impress his father, a man who has had a reasonably impressive career in the judicial system.
Based on what we know about the actual physical part of the confrontation, he sounds like, for lack of a better expression, a complete sissy, a grown man unable to deal with a skinny teenager, quickly reduced to screaming for help.
Why would someone like Zimmermann want to be out in the night, following someone he considered to be dangerous? It’s very simple. Gun fueled false courage. Take the gun out of the equation, and he would probably have called the police and headed for the safety of home. In other words, he would have done the correct thing – and Martin would be alive today.
Doug, if you ever want to be mistaken for someone offering a dispassionate and reasoned analysis, you need to learn not to insert these gratuitous emotional appeals, ad hominems, and stereotypes in your sentences. An actual analysis of Stand Your Ground laws would have said “Critics of the laws argue that […]”.
If you were to read an analysis of SYG laws that began “Advocates of the laws, who tend to be white male right-wing handgun owners, argue that […]”, would you read any farther? Would you trust the author to be presenting you all of the relevant facts and an unbiased analysis? You tipped your hand way too early here.
Others have already addressed the very real differences in presumption and burden of proof under SYG laws; I’ll leave that to them. The other thing you might want to look up is the growing literature on the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of Stand Your Ground laws in preventing violent crime and/or murder. The desirability of laws must be based on the impact they have in real life, not on an idealized view of how they ought to work. Surely prohibition taught us that, if nothing else…
Based on the war on drugs, I would say it’s a lesson we failed to learn.
@anjin-san:
It is what it is. Martin was 6’2″ and weighted 140-150, according to his parents. Zimmerman was 5’7″ and weighted 200, according to his girlfriend. So you have a tall, wiry guy vs. a short, chubby guy.
Advantage goes to Martin for the element of surprise and the willingness to fight. Zimmerman said that Martin came out of the dark from behind some houses and circled Zimmerman’s vehicle and disappeared behind some houses again as Zimmerman was talking to the dispatcher. When Zimmerman got out of the vehicle to check the street sign so he could report the correct location to the dispatcher, Martin confronted him and cold-cocked Zimmerman. My guess is that Martin had sized Zimmerman up and knew he was a little guy, and that is why he approached him when he saw him get out of the vehicle.
There was no witness, so you are free to make up a story, but I am going by Zimmerman’s written statement, which was considered by the court.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Not that it matters but …
I do not post to you based on anjin-san’s posts to you, nor does he post to you based on whether or not I did. He posts as he wants in his style, and I do likewise. Believe me, you’re not quite the victim that you portray yourself to be.
@Another Mike:
Martin was 5’11” and 158lbs and Zimmerman was 5.8″ and 200lbs, but who’s counting?
Martin was 3″ taller and Zimmerman was 42lbs heavier. That isn’t nearly enough info to claim a clear advantage in a fight. Add Zimmerman’s gun and there is a clear advantage.
Yes, it is an argument against SYG laws. How in the world can you separate how the laws are applied from opposition to these laws?
Trayvon Martin stood his ground. Now tell me, “There’s been far too much hysteria and hyperbole when it comes to ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws.”
“Stand your ground” is not a principle that endorses vigilantism, the quest to enforce the law unilaterally, but instead a principle that declares that public spaces do not belong to violent aggressors.
When the state, by contrast, mandates that citizens retreat from aggression (a concept fraught with practical difficulties and dangers), then it does not limit violence, it instead empowers unlawful aggression.
@ Another Mike
Wow. I have a bridge I want to sell you. Good terms!
So you’ve completely bought into Zimmerman’s very self-serving story. Ok, maybe you are just gullible. Now then, since when is 200 pounds “a little guy”? WTF are you talking about?
When I was 15, I was a high school football player like Martin. I was almost exactly the same size he was when he died. I was in fantastic shape. And I wanted no part of fighting a grown man, because I knew, like all the high school guys knew, even the tough ones, that when boys fight men they usually get the snot beat out of them.
You don’t know that Martin had an advantage of surprise and you don’t know that he had “the willingness to fight.” No one knows, except Zimmermann, and he is not a reliable witness, in fact, he is a proven liar. He lack of character is not in question.
This means nothing. Of course a written statement by the defendant was “considered”
What have I “made up” – be specific.
Here’s a another little chestnut you have to love. I have been driving for 40 years. I am pretty sure that I have never, ever gotten out of a vehicle to “check a street sign” – we have these gadgets called windows that are pretty handy for that.
@ OzarkHillbilly
I’m pretty sure black folks don’t get to do that.
@Jack:
Sure. You’d be surprised how many of the opponents of SYG laws agree with that principle. I do, for one. I hate bullies; I love to see them get what they deserve.
But here’s the thing — you don’t get to implement the principle. You only get to implement the law, and all of its unintended consequences. When you empower the angry, the frightened, the paranoid, and the bigoted to decide for themselves when they feel threatened, and respond to that feeling with deadly force, the results are predictable. In many (most?) of these cases, the only witnesses will be the participants. How reliably do you think you can sort out whether or not there was a ‘reasonable’ threat of serious violence in these cases?
The basic question you have to ask yourself is “How many additional unjustified shootings per legitimate act of self-defense am I OK with?”. One? Two? Ten? Fifty? Once you pick your number, ask yourself again — if you saw legitimate evidence that the ratio is worse than the one you’re OK with, would you oppose SYG laws?
@Barfour: The right to life is not mentioned explicitly in our constitution. The right to keep and bear arms is. It’s fvcked up but it’s what we’ve got.
@Another Mike:
First, let’s get some facts straight: Martin was actually only 5’11” and weighed 140-150, which makes him a skinny teenage boy. Zimmerman, at 5’7” and 200 pounds, is a very stocky and massive full grown adult man.
Second, never been in a fight, have you? Unless you’re a trained fighter, between two untrained opponents the advantage is almost always to the one with the most body mass. 200 pounds on a short frame beats 150 pounds on a wiry frame, because 200 pounds can generate more force.
Third, once again, Zimmerman was a full-grown adult man. Martin was a teenage boy. Advantage, man.
@Rafer Janders:
Make this even simpler: can a 150 pound teenage boy hold down a 200 pound full-grown man? Generally, no.
Can a 200 pound full-grown man hold down a 150 pound teenage boy? Easily.
The “castle” action is mentioned. This gives the homeowner/ tenant the right to defend themselves and family if someone is breaking in, even if the intruder doesn’t have a gun or weapon. The police around here tell people that there must be clear evidence that someone was trying to break in. Which means there had better be a broken door or window. Or if you do shoot them make sure that they are inside, even if you have to go out and drag them in.
Another situation is the store or restaurant worker who shoots a robber who has a gun. In some of these situations the misguided company administration fired the employee. Dumb move and usually results in a big public outcry. This happened a few years ago at a fast food place nearby. The manager shot a hoodlum who came in and pulled a gun. She said she had a sacred trust to protect her customers and workers. Management made some noise about trying to fire her, but the people showed up by the hundreds to support her. The police and mayor even gave her an award!! She ended up keeping her job, thank the Lord ! I feel much safer in stores where I know the worker is armed.
I once saw a sign on a house that said “This home protected by Smith and Wesson”. Great idea.
And this is not a race issue. I don’t know how some always try to make it one. Crime is wrong, no matter who does it. It is so ridiculous that crime victims often get the blame for defending themselves.
A lot of new laws were passed because people did not feel safe walking down their own streets. Used to be a time when we could leave our doors unlockec and windows open. And the only places with burglar alarms were banks and art museums. What has happened to this country?
@C. Clavin: it’s a two way street.
and despite the rhetoric, the most dangerous thing to a young black man is another young black man.
One thing that is indisputable about SYG laws: they make liberals totally lose their shit and go completely non compos mentis. Even though SYG had absolutely nothing to do with the Zimmerman case, they have to try to wedge it in there.
I’m frequently reminded of a case that had some notoriety several years ago. IIRC in New Orleans on Halloween a Japanese exchange student in a costume approached a home owner who was outside on his front lawn, and in poor English tried to ask directions. The homeowner shot him dead. The shooter’s defense was that he felt threatened. The case did not turn on whether a hypothetical reasonable person would have felt threatened, but on whether the shooter, who had a history of anxiety, felt threatened. It was not a question of the facts of the situation, but of state of mind. He was acquitted. So in Louisiana, if you could make a case that you were a fearful dweeb, you had a license to shoot anybody who stepped on your property.
Well that didn’t take long…it’s now the wild west in Georgia…only a matter of hours before someone gets killed because of this stupidity.
http://www.valdostadailytimes.com/todays-top-stories/x1736693358/First-day-of-new-gun-law-leads-to-arrest
@Rafer Janders:
How about a 185 pound man and a 130 pound teenage boy? Easily, huh? I could have used you on dozens of occasions. Maybe you think that a bit of verbal virtuosity can overcome reality.
@Todd: @Tyrell: First, it should be noted that violent crime rate and the crime rate itself is the lowest since the early 1960s, so the hysteria about violence right now is frankly weird. The country is better than it was in the 1970s and 80s as far as crime is concern, except in the minds of people listening to Faux News. Second, communities of color promote gun control because they are aware that it is the access of criminals to such firearms that causes the death of so many young people within the community. As far as race is concern, it comes up from Zimmerman himself in the descripiton he gives to the police dispatcher before he confronted Martin. See http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html There were only two persons involved in what happen next, and only one was armed. To say race has nothing to do with the outcome is kind foolish since most white people fear young black men, and therefore persuadable to the argument that responding by shooting may be a reasonable action when in a confrontation with a young black man (after all Michael Dunn was not convicted of shooting Jordan Davis, but only of attempted murder since he continued to shoot at the vehicle as Davis’s companions were attempting to escape from Dunn). http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/15/justice/florida-loud-music-trial/
I think SYG laws send a very bad single to people to seek out and continue confrontations while being armed rather than retreating and waiting for the police to arrive. I think their purpose is to give legal protections to vigilantism. And if two people are armed and begin to shoot at each other like O.K. Corral, then you get situations like this: http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2014/06/bourbon_street_gunfight_leaves.html
@anjin-san:
Your full of it. A person parked along an unknown street who noticed a street sign 20 feet away, might just walk over and look at the sign, if he were interested in knowing the name of the street. So, I been driving for 50 years, as if that is supposed to mean anything.
@C. Clavin: Inevitable. And an incredible level of stupid all around. Guys, if somebody with a drawn gun asks for your papers, show him your papers. Call the cops on him later.
Ran into a military self defense instructor years ago. Black belt karate. He explained exactly what he would do if confronted by a guy with a gun. Whatever the guy with the gun wanted him to do.
@Another Mike:
You’re a 185 pound adult man, and you can’t restrain a 130 pound teenage boy? Really? That’s just…sad, man.
@anjin-san:
Again you are full of it. You think there are no statistics for Florida showing how many times the Stand Your Ground defense was used by blacks?
@Rafer Janders:
Oh, OK. If you’ve been driving around 50 years, that makes you around 67 years old, so no, I wouldn’t expect you to get into a fight with a teenage boy. But Zimmerman was around 28, not 67. He was around what should have been the peak of his adult strength.
@Another Mike:
Could you please direct me to those?
@Rafer Janders:
And, specifically, how many times SYG laws were used by blacks against whites with no charges being brought against the black person?
@C. Clavin: Used to be when you rode into civilization you got off your horse and checked your pistol in with the law before you went about your business in town.
How times change.
@rudderpedals: That d**n socialist gun grabber, Wyatt Earp. It may be that your supposed to check your guns when you ride into civilization, but we’re talking about Florida and Georgia.
@ Another Mike
I don’t know about you, but I can see things that are 20 feet away. If you can’t, go get your eyes checked.
@Rafer Janders: Funny how you don’t take the actual circumstances of the fight into account, Rafer. What happens when the athletic younger combatant gets in the first shot and knocks the older, flabby combatant to the ground and immediately pins him down?
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Better question: What happens when a young person is – for no reason – stalked by a older paranoid guy with a gun?
@al-Ameda: What happens when a young person is – for no reason – stalked by a older paranoid guy with a gun?
Apparently, he does the sensible, reasonable, logical thing: he turns back on the guy and sucker-punches him to the ground, then pounds his head into the pavement — apparently to knock that paranoia out of his head.
But just what does this have to do with Stand Your Ground? It was never relevant to the case. Never.
Martin had successfully reached his destination without incident. He chose to go back and confront Zimmerman.
Zimmerman wasn’t in any real danger until he was flat on his back with Martin on top of him.
All this is about is you trying to pretend, yet again, that you actually know what happened that night, better than the trained investigators who were first on the scene, better than the jurors who heard all the evidence, and in clear and blatant defiance to the known facts of the case.
Just own up to it, Al. You picked the wrong side because of your prejudices and biases, then were too goddamned stubborn to admit you were wrong. And now you’re so invested in your false narrative that you have to fight like hell EVERY CHANCE YOU GET to somehow rewrite reality so you don’t like like a fool.
Well, congratulations. You don’t look like a fool. You passed that stage a long, long, long time ago.
Well, you keep saying that. There is zero evidence that Martin sucker punched Zimmermann, beyond what Zimmermann’s own word. He is a proven liar, and his lack of character and judgement has been shown on many occasions now. So basically you are making an unfounded claim and asserting it as fact.
As for the “pounding his head into the pavement”, the minor lacerations on the back Zimmerman’s head are injuries that are not consistent with having your skull repeatedly smashed into pavement by someone you claim was a remarkably powerful young man in a killing rage.
So then, who is “pretending that they know what happened that night”? Do you have a mirror handy?
The details of the confrontation between Zimmermann are unknown, and they almost certainly will never be know.
Ah, so now Zimmermann was “flabby” – I’m curious how do you know that? Did you boys used to go swimming together? Do you have topless pinups of him in your room?
And, as we have discussed pretty much ad nauseam at this point, being older was an advantage for Zimmermann in this situation. We are talking about a guy with a solid build in the prime of life, not a middle aged man with a put belly.
@anjin-san:
Depending on lighting conditions and the orientation of the sign to your line of sight, you might not be able to read the sign 20 inches from the tip of your nose. You are just mouthing off and feeding everyone a line.
According to Zimmermann, Martin was suspicious, up to no good, possibly armed, and probably on drugs. If someone like that was nearby, would you get out of your vehicle to look at a frigging street sign?
Hey, if you want to accept the self-serving story of a proven liar who has every reason to be dishonest, that’s your business. Have at it.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
To summarize for the Zimmerman Apologist Community:
Did I mention SYG? I don’t believe so.
Did I mention that Martin – a teenager – exercised poor judgment? Yes.
Did I mention that Zimmerman showed poor judgment and was the architect of the circumstances that resulted in Martin’s death? Yes.
Did I mention Zimmerman caused the death of Martin and suffered no legal consequences? Yes.
Finally, the lesson here is, if you’re going to exercise poor judgment with a gun, be sure there are no witnesses and present a vaguely plausible explanation of what occurred.
@anjin-san: Well, you keep saying that. There is zero evidence that Martin sucker punched Zimmermann, beyond what Zimmermann’s own word.
The sole injuries Martin suffered were a single gunshot wound and scraped knuckles. There is NO evidence that Zimmerman ever threw a single punch or in any way injured Martin before the gunshot.
As for the “pounding his head into the pavement”, the minor lacerations on the back Zimmerman’s head are injuries that are not consistent with having your skull repeatedly smashed into pavement by someone you claim was a remarkably powerful young man in a killing rage.
I realize that it’s awkward for your fantasy narrative, but Zimmerman’s head lacerations are consistent with having his head bashed against the pavement while he was resisting having his head bashed into the pavement. And again, I ask you — what is your source to describe an inch-long laceration on the back of the head as “minor?”
Finally, the medical examiner’s report indicates that the gunshot that killed Martin would have been virtually instantly incapacitating. That means that Zimmerman’s injuries had to have occurred before he shot. And the injuries to Martin are strongly indicative that this wasn’t a “fight” in any conventional sense, but a beating — Martin had NO bruising indicating that he had been hit, just skinned knuckles consistent with hitting someone repeatedly.
And Zimmerman had no injuries to his hands showing that he had thrown punches, no marks on his gun indicating that he had pistol-whipped Martin, no marks anywhere indicating that he at any point effectively fought back.
And calling Zimmerman a liar doesn’t necessarily mean he’s lying about everything. Hell, above you declared that Zimmerman suffered “a laceration” in your attempt to downplay Zimmerman’s injuries. So by your own standards, you’re a liar and everything you say can be assumed to be a lie, right?
And once again, this has jack squat to do with Stand Your Ground. Are you so insecure about arguing about that that you want to get your ass handed to you yet again over the Zimmerman case?
@ Jenos
You have asserted repeatedly that Martin was a powerful young man in a killing rage, and that Zimmermann was a “flabby” older man.
So let’s see. It’s almost certain that Martin got in a very good punch on Zimmermann, breaking his nose and knocking him flat. Than, according to you, Martin – who is now in a homicidal fury – jumps on him and starts slamming his head into the pavement.
Yet despite having his nose broken, being knocked flat, and having a crazy opponent on top of him bent on murder, Zimmermann, old, flabby Zimmermann, is able to “resist” Martin’s attempts to cave his head in.
Tell me, have you ever even been in a fight? Because this does not rise to the level of decent fiction. If events had unfolded as you claim, Zimmermann would almost certainly have a skull fracture(s) and moderate to severe brain trauma.
There are two young men that used to work for me that have steel plates in their heads from fights where they suffered highly aggressive blows to the head. That’s how it works in the real world.
@anjin-san:
You are forgetting that there was a trial and there was a jury, and there was a prosecutor who tried to convince the jury that Zimmerman was a dishonest, self-serving liar. How did that work out? Everybody got it wrong, but you know the truth, huh? Nice to be an Illuminati, huh?
@ Another Mike
Zimmermann got off because the prosecutor badly overreached with the murder charge. There is not really any dispute that Zimmermann is a liar. He lied to the faces of Martin’s family during his “apology”, claiming he did not realize how young Martin was. This assertion is directly contradicted by his own words on the 911 transcript.
The jury, correctly, said that Zimmermann did not commit murder (manslaughter would have been the correct charge) they did not say he was not a liar. He is.
@Rafer Janders:
Here is one link: http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/16/blacks-benefit-from-florida-stand-your-ground-law-at-disproportionate-rate/
The story refers to this link: http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/fatal-cases
@ Jenos
It’s kind of cute, in a sad way, that you can parse the ongoing shredding of your arguments and repeated public humiliations you have suffered on OTB into handing people their asses. Well, I imagine that a robust fantasy life is probably pretty important to a guy like you.
@Another Mike:
I wouldn’t cite the daily caller’s article as proof. It’s woefully out of date and its logic makes very little sense if you know anything about statistics.
First, the numbers it uses as “evidence” are woefully out of date:
The current numbers for settled cases (via the Tampa Bay Times):
Whites:
26 Convicted – 38%
41 Justified – 61%
(total: 67)
Blacks:
14 Convicted – 35%
25 Justified – 64%
(total: 39)
Given the small numbers, statistically the conviction/justified rates are essential equal based on race.
Further, its a mistake to look based on total population to see who benefits more. One needs to look at overall crime and conviction rates based on race to see if it’s disproportionately benefiting one side or the other. If *less* white folks are being arrested for assault/murder and *more* of them are claiming SYG, then it’s disproportionately beneficial to white folks even if the overall conviction/justified statistics are equal.
@gVOR08: ” He explained exactly what he would do if confronted by a guy with a gun. Whatever the guy with the gun wanted him to do.”
Yes, but what if he’s armed with a banana?
Jenos and Another Mike
SYG was not an issue raised in the trial, but it is why Zimmerman was not arrested on the night of the shooting and why it took a national outcry for there to be a trial. It is also likely why Zimmerman felt confident in initiating the confrontation that led to Martin’s death.
Zimmerman was parked in his neighborhood where he was a member of the neighborhood watch, claiming it was an unknown area is ridiculous on its face. If he really was scared and needed to be closer to the street sign there’s this thing about cars and trucks, they move.
Zimmerman’s injuries are consistent with being punched in the face and falling backwards, not with receiving a beating on the ground. I’ve seen the pictures of the back of his head. There would have been MUCH more minor scraping and more than two small lacerations if he was beaten on the ground in the way Zimmerman claimed.
That Zimmerman had not defensive or attacking type injuries indicates that his FIRST response to Martin was to draw and shoot. That doesn’t make him look better.
You have repeatedly claimed that Martin reached home with no proof of that statement. Tell me, if you were being followed by a stalker that outweighed you by 40 lbs or more would you lead them to your house?
The prosecutor overcharged and there was only one witness, that is why Zimmerman is walking free.
@Matt Bernius:
I looked over this at the time, I forget where, but they had pictures of the shooter and the shootee. The white shooters with successful SYG defenses shot whites and blacks from what I could see. The black shooters with successful SYG defenses shot black people from what I saw there. Not all of the pictures were very clear and IDing by photo is a bit tricky.
@Matt Bernius:
I believe the point being made was that Stand You Ground laws hurt black people and need to be repealed. The imagery was that white people use them to gun down black people and get away with murder.
More like Stand Your Ground laws are simply a very bad idea, period.
Years ago, a student asked the owner of the Taekwondo school I attended asked “what is the best way to avoid trouble”?
Master Kim, a fifth degree black belt who had years of experience training badass US & Korean special forces troops got up and ran out of the building.
Upon returning, he said that one of the best ways to avoid trouble was to move away from it, quickly, if possible. This is a man who could put the fear of God into you using nothing but his vocal chords. He could turn on a palpable aura of danger at will. No rational person who saw him in a fighting stance would want any part of him.
Avoid trouble whenever possible. Never go looking for it. Don’t hesitate to swallow your pride and run if there is danger. Always, always, always call the cops and let them do their job.
@Grewgills:
They now have a filter to look a cross racial cases.
In Black Shooter / White “Attacker/Victim”, the numbers are
3 convicted
4 justified
In White Shooter / Black “Attacker/Victim”, the numbers are
1 convicted
6 justified
I will note that across all racial groups, the highest conviction numbers come when — regardless of the color of the shooter — the victim was white. The highest justification rates come when — regardless of the color of the shooter – the victim was black.
The pools however, are so generally speaking low, that I’m not sure if anything can be interpred from that.
@Tyrell:
Can you possibly really be that naive? Do you really believe that we are arresting and convicting a huge proportion of the black male population because they are the only dangerous criminals in America?
Bad justice is a multiplier on bad laws. Bad laws that are practically designed to enable bad justice are even worse. SYG is way out in the tail of that distribution.
The principle behind SYG laws is that aggressors and those aggressed against do NOT have equal standing in the eyes of the law.
Those who oppose SYG laws are arguing that the lives and safety of aggressors are just as important as those being aggressed against.
@Grewgills: You have repeatedly claimed that Martin reached home with no proof of that statement. Tell me, if you were being followed by a stalker that outweighed you by 40 lbs or more would you lead them to your house?
Martin’s girlfriend/female acquaintance testified that she was on the phone with him during most of the incident. At one point, he told her that he was “almost” at the home he was visiting.
The shooting occurred, roughly, slightly over half the distance from the entrance of the development to Martin’s destination.
The only way to reconcile these two is that Martin turned back.
Zimmerman’s injuries are consistent with being punched in the face and falling backwards, not with receiving a beating on the ground. I’ve seen the pictures of the back of his head. There would have been MUCH more minor scraping and more than two small lacerations if he was beaten on the ground in the way Zimmerman claimed.
That Zimmerman had not defensive or attacking type injuries indicates that his FIRST response to Martin was to draw and shoot. That doesn’t make him look better.
The medical examiner’s report says that Martin’s gunshot wound was entirely consistent with Zimmerman being on his back and Martin straddling him. That particular angle and distance would be very hard to duplicate in any other relative positions.
Also, yes, I agree that shooting was likely Zimmerman’s first response. But I think it was also not his immediate response — I suspect that most people punched hard enough to have their nose broken and knocked down would be stunned and dazed for a brief period.
Annie’s argument is that since Zimmerman lied about some things, he must have lied about everything. I say that since he lied about some things, he can’t be taken at his word that he’s telling the truth. But the essence of his story is consistent with the physical evidence, and there’s nothing that directly contradicts what he said.
But if that’s the standard annie wants to apply, then his statement of “a laceration” means that he’s a liar, too, and everything he argues can be dismissed, too, as a probable lie.
Hell, if anyone wants, I can go back and find one of the authors literally inventing a “fact” about the case, with no justification whatsoever, and when challenged about it, saying that he “couldn’t imagine it happening any other way.”
Umm – Jenos?
You are a known serial liar. It’s really a subject you would be better off avoiding 🙂
@Jenos Idanian #13: Man, I guess Doug has really been ignoring the important new developments in this case, since that’s the only reason you ever posted about it.
I know, why don’t you tell everyone that you will stamp your feet, hold your breath till you turn blue, and get really, really mad if they don’t agree with your version of the Zimmermann story? Maybe you can threaten to tell a teacher or something too.
@anjin-san:
Lots of luck with this. Bad guys don’t give victims 911 breaks before attacking in my part of the country.
Fleeing is often the prudent thing to do, but it is not always possible to flee safely. It might be that you are better off facing the attacker. But I think this discussion misses the point about Stand Your Ground. The point is that the law must be on the side of the person in the right. How to react in any given situation is a matter of judgment. Who knows what situation they may face? You, the average Mary or Joe Citizen, deals with it as best you can. You, the victim of an attack, should be protected. The attacker should be punished. Stand Your Ground laws are meant to keep you, the victim of an attack, from being attacked again and becoming the victim of a zealous prosecutor.
The issue of the neighborhood watch organizations and laws covering them has not been discussed here, but it was a big topic then so far as Zimmerman over exceeding his authority.
Most legal experts had agreed that there just was not enough evidence at all for a murder or even most manslaughter charges. So there could have been charges of exceeding authority, excessive force, and impersonating a police officer. Those might have got a conviction.
But a bunch of charlatans, opportunists, and outsiders went in there stirring up trouble, stopping wherever a microphone or tv crew was set up. And the gullible news channels ate it up. So the state got involved and went for theese heavy charges when they knew there wasn’t a chance of a conviction on those kind of charges based on the evidence. And after the verdict went down, they cleared out of town faster than a crowd leaving a cock fight. Right behind them were the news crews who took their junk and set up at the next sensationalized story.
So in the end you wound up with some people making a lot of money selling sweatshirts.
If you had read the thread above, you would have seen that this has already been addressed. It’s not the principle behind the laws that is at issue; it is the laws themselves, and their consequences. Let me know when you succeed in enacting a principle.
Oh, please. They’re arguing that we are collectively very bad at telling which was which, or even if there was an aggressor — as you well know. I have no problem with people shooting assailants in self-defense. If I thought that was going to be the only outcome of SYG laws, I would support them.
@Another Mike:
Fair enough. How do you propose to ensure that a SYG law accomplishes that? Show your work.
@ Another Mike
My personal feeling is that citizen carry creates more danger than it mitigates, and it does so by a large margin. The Martin case is a classic example. If Zimmermann did not have a gun, the who thing never would have happened.
If someone is worried about their personal safely, I urge them to study Krav-Maga (or another form of martial arts) Half the battle of avoiding being a victim of street crime is situational awareness, observation skills, and knowing how to carry yourself in a manner that says “pick on someone else.”
@ Tyrell
Zimmermann never had any authority to exceed. None at all.
He did pretty much break all of the rules where neighborhood watch was concerned. Perhaps that is what you mean.
@anjin-san: A dweeb with 9mm of courage in his pocket.
(I didn’t check the caliber, so I expect somebody will be in here saying I’m an idiot ’cause he had a .38 or whatever.)
@Jenos Idanian #13:
You said he arrived home, not maybe almost arrived home. He was being followed by a rather large man. If I were being followed by someone 40 lbs larger than me that I didn’t know, I would not lead them to my home. Of course you may feel differently.
The medical report said the first part, you added the last. Consistent with, means that it could be not that it is. That does not change the fact that Zimmerman’s report of the alleged attack does not square with his injuries. He said Martin was bashing his head into the concrete. The back of his head would have looked MUCH different if that were the case. If someone bashes anyone’s bare head against the concrete repeatedly as Zimmerman claimed there would be massive bruising and much more blood, much more scraping and more than two small lacerations. His wounds are consistent with a solid punch to the bridge of the nose and falling backwards to the ground.
Then why do you give so much weight to his testimony?
@Another Mike:
Thus the reasonable retreat standard in all states that don’t have SYG laws. Let’s not pretend that the only two choices provided by the law are SYG and flee no matter what.
@Grewgills: Then why do you give so much weight to his testimony?
I took Zimmerman’s story as a starting point. You gotta start with something, and it’s the most complete narrative of the entire incident. So take it as a starting point.
Then go through all the evidence and see how it matches up with Zimmerman’s story. See where it supports it, where it’s not supported, and where it contradicts it.
ZImmerman says he was punched in the face. Supported.
Zimmerman says he never threw a punch at Martin, or hit him in any way. Supported.
Zimmerman says Martin knocked him to the ground and straddled him, and then he shot him. Supported.
The “hang Zimmerman” crowd says that he “stalked” Martin. Not supported.
They say that he chased after Martin, gun drawn. (Well, at least one here did.) Not supported.
They say that Zimmerman exaggerated his injuries in the fracas. Contradicted.
They say that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation that ended with the shooting. Not supported.
Other interesting details: the initial photos of the two men showed Martin at about age 12, and Zimmerman with his skin tone washed out to make him look white. Videos that would have shown Zimmerman’s injuries were edited. The 911 call was also edited to make Zimmerman look racist. There was a serious effort to make Zimmerman look as guilty as possible, up to and including outright lying and fraud. That should make anyone suspicious as hell about the case, when so many people are literally manufacturing fake evidence to present to the public.
The law says that Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty. There is no exception for “if we call him a racist and other bad words enough, he must be guilty.”
@ Jenos
Apparently you don’t understand that what people on blogs say about the case has not bearing on it, in any way. Nada. Zilch. Zero.
You’ve also neglected to mention the long string of horrible decisions that Zimmermann made that led directly to this terrible tragedy. Or his actions subsequent to the trial, which further revealed what kind of person he is – facts that are far more relevant to the affair than what a TV station that has nothing whatsoever to do with the case might or might not have done.
You have also neglected to mention the long running smear campaign the right ran against Martin who was, after all, a kid shot dead while walking home from a candy run. You yourself took place on it, repeating BS about Martin going after Zimmermann because he felt he had been “dissed.” You don’t know what was in Martin’s mind, and you do a disservice to a dead child and his family by claiming you do and making unfounded accusations against someone who is unable to defend himself.
Look, you are a Zimmermann guy. That’s ok, you are entitled to your opinion. But you are not fooling anyone but yourself by pretending to be a dispassionate observer who is only interested in justice and fair play. You are biased, your observations are biased, and you continually present your opinions as facts, which they most certainly are not.
How many times did you call Martin a “thug”? Let’s get our calculators out and start counting. You really should not whine about behavior that you yourself partake in. Well, really you should not whine at all, but one thing at a time.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Being the only living person that was there is what makes his narrative the most complete. Funny how killing the only other person with a full narrative leaves it that way.
Now let’s flesh out your supported v contradicted list:
Zimmerman also said Martin straddled him and repeatedly bashed his head into the sidewalk,. Contradicted
because rather than attempt to fight fists with fists he pulled out a gun and shot the boy.
That he knocked him to the ground was supported. That he straddled him was not contradicted, there is a difference. There was lack of contradictory evidence as the only other witness was dead.
The 911 call clearly supports that Zimmerman followed Martin. A large man following a teenage boy at night through the rain certainly looks like stalking. Are you really trying to say that being followed by a man much larger than you when you are walking home on a rainy night wouldn’t feel like stalking to you?
That is not contradicted. Again, Zimmerman claimed that he was straddled and had his head bashed into the concrete sidewalk multiple times. I have seen the photos and that does not add up. The injuries look much more like he was punched solidly on the bridge of the nose and fell backwards to the ground. From that position with Martin still standing above and in front of him the shots to Martin are also supported by the evidence.
Add to this, we know for certain from the 911 call that Zimmerman followed Martin. We know that after giving a fixed location to meet the police that he told them to instead call him for his location when they arrived. They arrived a few minutes later and Martin was dead after an altercation that took place outside of Zimmerman’s truck. We know that if Zimmerman had simply stayed in his truck like the police clearly wanted this tragic incident would not have happened and likely Martin would still be alive and Zimmerman wouldn’t have to live with having killed an unarmed teenage boy.
As to fake evidence, you have made a number of unsupported claims about this case that you claim to not care so much about. For instance you said he had arrived home then turned around and went after Zimmerman. The available evidence supports the story of Zimmerman stalking the boy and pulling a gun on him at least as well as your preferred narrative. Given the state of Florida’s law, that is not enough to convict Zimmerman. That makes him legally not guilty, it doesn’t make him innocent.
@anjin-san: Apparently you don’t understand that what people on blogs say about the case has not bearing on it, in any way. Nada. Zilch. Zero.
Twit. I wasn’t talking about blogs. Those were all things that were done by the mainstream media. CNN ran the edited police video. NBC edited the 911 call.
Besides, you’re an admitted liar here, with the singular “laceration.” So nothing you have to say has any value whatsoever. Can’t you live by your own standards, annie? Or are you a hypocrite as well as a liar? (Alinsky Rule 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”)
@Grewgills: The straddling. I said “supported,” not proved, and stand by it. The bullet that killed Martin was fired from 2-12 inches away from his chest, and traveled upward. With Martin lying on the ground when he fired, that would be entirely consistent with Martin straddling him.
And just for the sake of argument, let’s say that Martin’s multiple lacerations to the back of his head happened in that single fall. Just how hard would he have been hit to get those kind of injuries? And if a single punch was enough to break his nose AND rip up the back of his head?
Zimmerman should have never been charged with murder. He was charged with that because of a public outcry that was fueled by a mountain of lies and fraud, and those who perpetrated and perpetuated those lies and frauds were never held to account.
Had he been charged with manslaughter, things might have unfolded differently. We’ll never know. But that wouldn’t have satisfied the slavering mobs who wanted blood. So prosecutors who knew damned well that they didn’t have a shred of a case for murder pressed forward without virtually no chance of winning.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
It is also entirely consistent with Zimmerman crouching as he stood and firing up at Martin and a number of other scenarios that put Zimmerman in a less threatened state. We only have Zimmerman’s word on that and he is not a reliable witness.
It would have to be a solid punch to break his nose which would have blackened his eyes as well. If the blow knocked him back enough or dazed him enough for him to trip and fall that would explain the lacerations to the back of his head. With the injuries he had that is the most likely scenario that I can see. His injuries absolutely do not correspond to his head being bashed into a sidewalk as he said or with his head being on the sidewalk while being punched in the face.
I have seen my fair share of fights, though I have mostly avoided being directly involved and Zimmerman’s story doesn’t add up.
That and a few accessory charges would have been appropriate given the state of the evidence.
There was only a public outcry because the case was never properly investigated in the first place. Questioning the shooter for a few hours with virtually no on scene investigation is incompetence on the part of the local police. That is where the SYG laws came into play. If Florida had been a ‘reasonable retreat’ state there would have been a thorough investigation and Zimmerman would have most likely been charged with something* the night of the shooting. Murder was overreach on the part of the prosecution in a failed effort to make up for the earlier poor effort with heavy media scrutiny.
As far as people being held to account for potential exaggerations, forgive me if that is a bit hard to swallow coming from someone who was quick to tack labels on to Martin (or at the very least had no objections to him being labelled a thug and worse). Are you pushing for the people that spread those tales to be held to account? Your more recent quickness to jump on the Bergdahl was a deserter and likely traitor bandwagon also makes this concern of yours to seem motivated more by which side you are on than genuine concern for the tone of the dialogue.
* I would guess manslaughter or if the DA were particularly zealous murder two so he would have a stronger position to get a plea from.
@Grewgills: It is also entirely consistent with Zimmerman crouching as he stood and firing up at Martin and a number of other scenarios that put Zimmerman in a less threatened state.
But just when did he crouch? Your scenario has him knocked flat on his back and whacking his head. How does he get from that position to a crouch, with his gun 2-12 inches away from Martin?
There was only a public outcry because the case was never properly investigated in the first place. Questioning the shooter for a few hours with virtually no on scene investigation is incompetence on the part of the local police. That is where the SYG laws came into play.
The police didn’t end their investigation when they ended their questioning of Martin. They knew they didn’t have enough evidence at that point to press any charges. There was nothing in Zimmerman’s release that prevented any future charges.
And just where is your evidence that the case wasn’t properly investigated? They questioned the suspect, looked for witnesses, collected evidence, and waited for test results on that evidence (including Martin’s body). Just what did the police do that makes you think that they didn’t do a proper job?
(This is where certain others would say “since Zimmerman wasn’t convicted, that’s proof that they screwed up somewhere, but you seem a bit more honest than that.)
I repeat my point: a great deal of the public outrage over this case was fueled by the media and other parties deliberately engaging in fraud. So much of the coverage was nothing but lies, aimed at inciting public outrage against Zimmerman.
And when I started noticing that, I started questioning: if the case against him is so solid, why are so many of those saying so just plain making up shit to reinforce that? If the case is so solid, why wouldn’t just telling the truth be sufficient?
My conclusion was that the “Hang Zimmerman” crowd was totally intent not on justice or truth, but in convicting him — the facts be damned.
And that’s not saying he’s innocent, that’s saying that I won’t support convicting him based solely — or even largely — on the word of people who have been repeatedly been shown to perpetrate or perpetuate a series of lies about the facts of the case.
@ Jenos
Really? Because this is a fairly long thread, and you whine about what people said on blogs from one end to the other. Perhaps it’s like sucking your thumb, you do it so often you are not really aware that you are doing it.
And since you are interesting in the truth, and nothing but the truth, let’s review:
So let’s see, you lied about Zimmermann’s physical condition, got called on it, and admitted you lied. And now you are retelling the same lie on this thread:
But you are only interested in truth and fair play, right?
And while we are on the subject of mistakes, I did, incorrectly, say Zimmermann had “a laceration” (singular) earlier in the thread. And I had no problem admitting that I was wrong and there was more than one. You’ve gone on to spend an awful lot of pixels explaining how that makes me a lair. Interesting that you grant yourself a pass for the Martin Facebook smear, but don’t give me one for a somewhat more innocuous mistake that I did own up to. More of your fair play, eh?
@Barfour:
Sure, there’s a ‘right to life,’ but it goes both ways. I have the right not to be shot for giving someone the bird when he cuts me off in traffic, but I also have the right not to be killed by a criminal (as do any people I am responsible for). That’s why there is a ‘right’ to self-defense. No one is obligated to allow themselves to be victimized.
The reason the law doesn’t require a ‘certainty’ because such certainty virtually never exists (or by the time it does, it’s too late to do anything about it). If memory serves, the threshold for self-defense (regardless of SYG) is that the defender must be facing a threat that has the capability and has reasonably demonstrated the intent to cause serious and immediate harm, and the defender cannot have initiated the aggression (e.g. I can’t punch you in the face, then shoot you if you grab a rock to hit me with).
That isn’t to say that it always works out that way in practice, but it’s probably the ‘least bad’ system. The thing that is totally absent from this comments thread is any quantitative data on SYG use – how often is it invoked, how often is it successful, and how many of those instances are dubious.** These folks can re-hash Zimmerman until hell freezes over, but selective anecdotes are not valid data.
**Dubious would have to be defined using some sort of objective criteria, but places where the ‘aggressor’ had no prior criminal record might be an ok first approximation for cases where SYG is used inappropriately (to resolve road rage, noise complaints, etc).
@CET:
Actually, that’s not quite true. The Trayvon Zimmerman sideshow isn’t helping the signal-to-noise ratio, but there are hard data up there.
But we can do better. Here’s some data, with analysis.
Again, nobody is arguing against self-defense, or on behalf of criminals. What we are arguing is that if you are going to pass a law, you need to judge it on the basis of what actually happens as a result of that law, not on the basis of the idealized principle that you had in mind when you passed the law. I’ll ask you the same question I asked above — how many unjustified shootings are you willing to put up with, for each justified appropriate use of SYG in self-defense?
@Jenos Idanian #13: Say, why don’t you go away for a while and let the Jenos who never cared about this case except as an example of Doug’s perfidy come back? I think we all like him better…
One of the inherent flaws in SYG laws is that if one party is shot dead, it can be difficult to impossible to determine who was, in fact, the aggressor. I can punch someone, shoot them dead when they pick up the rock to defend themself, and simply say “the dude was crazy, I was minding my own business and he came at me with that rock” when the police arrive.
@anjin-san: YOU introduced the standard, annie. I guess it is too much to expect you to abide by the standard you demand of others. Why should you get to impose a rule on others that you flout yourself?
And back to the topic at hand… the one concrete example of the SYG law getting an actual workout was those two knuckleheads each openly carrying… and funny how that ended without a single shot fired, no one injured, and the proper party arrested and charged?
It reminds me of all the talk about how we’ll all be living in the Wild West, with idiots having shootouts in the street, innocent bystanders being gunned down wholesale… and it never seems to actually happen.
The mass shootings do happen, though… but never in places where you find a lot of people with guns. Gun shows, shooting ranges, and the like. They almost always happen in places where the guns aren’t permitted. Schools, malls, even an army base, where the troops are kept disarmed and had to be rescued by civilian cops.
Does it ever once occur to you people that if you keep predicting something and it never happens, you just might be wrong in your predictions?
@wr: Go play in traffic, “douche-fvck.”
Man, that is such a useful term Cliffy introduced around here…
@DrDaveT: That’s a very interesting link you put forth. One excerpt from the summary:
So, SYG laws results in more gun-carrying white males dying, and doesn’t affect blacks at all? Damnation, that should get The Usual Gang Of Idiots here all cheering for SYG laws!
@Jenos Idanian #13:
You keep saying these people lied. What exactly were these lies?
@ Jenos
Ah, so now you don’t want to talk about Zimmermann? Just as well, your arguments were getting a bit… flabby
@Jenos Idanian #13:
No, more white males. No data on whether the additional fatalities were packing or not.
Still waiting for someone to answer my question: how many unjustified shootings are you OK with, per justified act of self-defense?
@DrDaveT:
Interesting – thanks for the reference. I’ll see if I can score a copy at work to look at the data itself. My sense from skimming the abstract of this and some of the linked papers is that the authors conclude that SYG is associated with an increase in unjustified homicide convictions (as opposed to letting people walk for homicide after using SYG as a defense) – can you corroborate this? If so, that would be an important issue, but a rather different one than what folks usually worry about.
As for your question . . . depends, but it would be essentially the same answer regardless of the self-defense data (which is notoriously unreliable). If it’s an increase in unjustified homicides that are still convicted, I’d try public education (or a better permitting process for concealed carry that includes some range time and an explanation of the laws, followed by exams on each*) before repeal – at that point it isn’t that the law isn’t working correctly, it’s that the public doesn’t understand it. If that didn’t work over a couple of year time-span . . . revision might be in order. Also, see the ‘swimming pool deaths’ test below.
Now, If it’s an increase in unjustified homicides that aren’t leading to convictions because the killer uses SYG successfully as a defense, then I’d be interested in revising the law as long as it passes the ‘swimming pool deaths’ test – e.g. if it leads to more deaths per year than swimming pools (~450). If not, I’d still be open to revisions provided it’s more than any anecdotal (10-20) number of cases per year, but would feel less compelled to support revisions that compromise the right to self-defense.
*I’m inclined to favor this anyway though – a ‘shall issue’ for anyone who passes a moderately rigorous test to weed out the people too stupid and/or irresponsible to carry a loaded weapon in public. Of course, I’d also like 50-state reciprocity for the resulting license, and maybe a unicorn, but that’s a debate for another day.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Oh, really?
http://www.christianpost.com/news/pastor-shot-dead-by-son-in-law-outside-gun-show-in-tragic-sunday-accident-122723/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/06/30/woman-shot-at-gun-show-doesnt-blame-vendor-says-incident-is-ironic/
http://kxan.com/2014/06/28/man-shot-killed-outside-cedar-park-gun-show/
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/19/us/north-carolina-gun-show-shooting/
http://austin.twcnews.com/content/news/302314/man-dies-after-accidental-austin-premier-gun-show-shooting/
If they ever have a stupid olympics, you are a slam dunk for the gold. And the silver. And the bronze…
@Jenos Idanian #13:
The people at gun shows are pretty busy shooting themselves and each other. Yes, we really want these folks carrying guns everywhere they go.
Pastor Shot Dead by Son-In-Law Outside Gun Show in Tragic Sunday Accident
ORANGEVILLE, Pa. – Police intend to charge a gun show vendor who accidentally shot a woman while demonstrating a concealed carry wallet holster.
Man shot, killed outside Cedar Park gun show
5 injured after firearms go off at Ohio, N.C., Indiana gun shows
Man Dies after Accidental Austin Premier Gun Show Shooting
‘American Sniper’ author Chris Kyle fatally shot at Texas gun range
Woman Kills Son, Self at Gun Range
Greenburgh Official Wants To Close Gun Range After Bullet Grazes Woman
Todd Getgen (42) shot while target shooting
Christopher Bizilj (left) shot himself when he lost control of an Uzi submachine gun at a 2008 fair
@anjin-san: You didn’t offer any links for those, but one of those incidents I know quite a bit about — and it puts a hell of a lot more hurt on your argument than mine.
Christopher Bizilj was eight years old when his father took him to a gun show. The father wanted Christopher to fire a fully-automatic weapon. The show official — a teenage boy — tried twice to dissuade the father from having him do that, but the father insisted. Christopher fired the gun, but was too small and not holding the gun properly to control the recoil. The gun kicked up and Christopher shot himself in the head, killing him.
The gun show’s organizer was charged with involuntary manslaughter. The state’s case was that he was grossly negligent in putting a 15-year-old boy in charge of who got to fire the fully-automatic weapon. The organizer was also fired from his job — he was the Chief of Police in Pelham.
All the laws in the world won’t stop people from doing incredibly stupid things. And look up at all the “don’t do anything yourself, call the cops and let them handle it” bullshit — here it was a cop who set up this whole tragedy.
Former Chief Fleury was acquitted. He should have been convicted.
The father won a $700,000 settlement for the death of his son. He should be in jail, too.
Oh, and I said “mass” shootings. If you’re actually stupid and not dishonest, that means “more than one person,” and often “several.” Your list includes a murder/suicide or attempted murder/suicide (two max) and “five wounded” in what looks like an accident.
If you’re dishonest and decided to ignore “mass,” then I got nothing else to say to you.
@ Jenos
Oh please. Oh please. Oh please.
@anjin-san: Oh please. Oh please. Oh please.
OK, challenge accepted.
You’re dishonest.
Out of respect for your request, my future comments to you will involve variations on that theme.