Ask Your Question today
I'm not saying any names, but in Florida a man is on trial for basically hunting, spotting, selecting, pursuing, engaging, and then delivering a koo-de-gra to what he claims to have been a threat to his life; a person. A person that he spotted, pursued, engaged, and then killed was somehow threatening his life. I could be wrong about this, but, this does not sound like self defense.
I agree that this does not count as self-defense. This man seemed to be very paranoid and seemed to have mental problems.
Unfortunately, this may be used as a reason to strike down the Stand Your Ground law and I can't wait to see him convicted at the end of this trial. There is nothing essentially wrong with the Stand Your Ground law, it's basically just a law denoting the rights to self-defense that we (in most states) already have when it comes to leniency in a criminal trial.
Purely out of interest, why do you believe the SYG law is a good thing? Do you believe your right to not have to run away from an attacker is worth more than the right of a potential attacker to live? If so, why is your right more important than theirs?
I'm honestly just curious. The SYG law doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever, and I'd like to hear someone justify it. Don't answer if you can't be bothered :P
Honestly, I believe that once someone impedes on my right to live and be safe, they forfeit theirs. I don't think that I should have to show any special courtesy to someone that has no intention of showing me theirs or even, quite possibly, sparing my life. If an attack and threat against my life could be ended by my simply "running away", then maybe I'd have a different opinion, but as someone who has lived in a rougher area, I can tell you now that often times, it's not as simple as "run and hide". Even without the SYG law, self-defense is still a justification for murder, SYG just gives the victim more leeway if they are indeed, truly a victim (unlike the unnamed man in your story).
I come from an area, a small town, incorporated into a larger city and if someone breaks into your house in that area and you call the cops, you're gambling with your life. They might be on your doorstep in 2 minutes... or 30... or 2 hours... or never show up at all. We don't all have the luxury of having a decent police force protecting our area, and from MY unique perspective, the SYG law makes it possible for me to be able to defend myself, my home and my family without having to be asked why I didn't run into the dark and cold and allow them to die.
Abolishing the SYG MAY make people feel better about this little boy being killed, but it will also strip genuine victims of legal leeway. No one should be thrown in jail for murder when they were simply attempting to defend their lives or their homes and no one should be expected to just "run away" from an imminent threat on their lives. From second-hand experience I know that someone that is willing to break into another person's home could be willing to do much more. Someone that threatens your life could mean it.
Interesting. I'm not the OP, by the way, although I admit I am somewhat vandalising his or her story (sorry OP! :P).
My worry is that laws such as SYG which condone murder in cases of self-defence encourage a level of paranoia in people which encourages them to take lethal action when it is not at all necessary to do so, and allows a loophole for the trigger-happy would-be vigilante shooter. It encourages a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality. When people know they are allowed to kill, killing becomes something which is taken lightly, and killing should never be taken lightly.
As always, there is a culture gap between my country and yours when it comes to (amongst other things) gun availability.
I agree something needs to be done to ensure people who's lives are genuinely in danger can take lethal action if such action is absolutely necessary without fear of prosecution. But SYG is not the answer; it is too open to abuse and we can't afford to have a law open to abuse when it comes to life and death.
Thanks for the response :)
I understand why it would be called a "legal loophole", but I see it more as legal protection for the victims if anything.
Nobody is "allowed" to kill, however, everyone has a right to defend their lives. The process of justifying "self defense" in court is a lot more complicated than I am making it sound. It all comes down to the case and jurisdiction. I studied Criminal Law and I know that these things go by a case by case basis, the law and the execution are two very different things sometimes.
I can't sit here and claim that SYG and self-defense are used perfectly 100% of the time but when used correctly, they can be a good legal protection for the victim in question.
"My worry is that laws such as SYG which condone murder in cases of self-defence encourage a level of paranoia in people which encourages them to take lethal action when it is not at all necessary to do so, and allows a loophole for the trigger-happy would-be vigilante shooter. It encourages a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality. When people know they are allowed to kill, killing becomes something which is taken lightly, and killing should never be taken lightly."
I must disagree with this statement. I have known nobody that would fit anywhere near what you are saying. Most people don't think about the SYG law and most people understand the limits of it's legal protection(or know what their legal protection, if any, is) The vigilante would not be covered by SYG if they are going around shooting people and to be honest, if someone was breaking into my home and attacking me, I'd rather defend myself than ask questions. You were right about the culture gap, but murder is taken pretty seriously here and most people who commit it have so little knowledge of which laws may and may not protect them that it is dismal.
SYG doesn't make murder legal, it gives victims legal protection. Maybe it can be used as a loophole, and while I don't see how that is entirely possible, I'm sure it is.
Murder is taken pretty seriously in the US and this particular case doesn't and shouldn't represent the usage of the SYG law.
Apologies if this makes no sense:
Picture this scene. A person has broken into someone else's house in the middle of the night. The homeowner hears, creeps downstairs and shoots the intruder in the head, killing them.
Who is the victim in this scenario? The intruder has lost an awful lot more than the homeowner; I think there's a reasonable case to be stated that the dead intruder is the victim not the homeowner. What law is there to protect the intruder, the *real* loser in that situation? Nothing. Yet the trigger-happy shooter gets a free pass.
If the point of SYG is to allow people to feel free from fear to defend themselves if someone attacks them in their home, yet most people don't even think about the SYG law as you say, why even have SYG? If people don't even think about it that to me suggests it has no purpose. Maybe I'm misundersanding you :P
What is the difference between murder and killing out of self-defense? In some, maybe even most cases, you can be sure that people who pose a threat by invading your home are not actually killers. It would be little more than paranoia that would you make you want to kill those people.
"Nobody is "allowed" to kill, however, everyone has a right to defend their lives."
But they have *are* allowed to kill if they think their lives are in danger? Which fundamental superceeds the other? The one that says you can't kill or the one that says you can? Because it seems you can ony have one thing; no killing or self-defense.
********************************
"Honestly, I believe that once someone impedes on my right to live and be safe, they forfeit theirs."
This is our fundamental difference. I don't believe there is a single thing someone can do which can forfeit their rights. The point of rights is that they are universal and apply to everyone regardless of everything. There is no such thing as forfeiting rights.
********************************
What I find actually problematic about SYG is that it gives people free pass to kill people who they SUSPECT pose a threat to them. That is, to me, a fucking joke. People can suspect whatever they want, but people are stupid. Suspecting needs no evidence, suspecting needs no just reason. Suspecting is paranoia, and you've got no right to kill someone because you're paranoid. From my understanding (which is probably less than yours) there doesn't need to be an actual risk to life for SYG to be used as a defense, only a suspected risk to life. That seems like a recipe for injustice to me.
EDIT: Feel free to ignore me. I'm ill, can't sleep and need a mental punching bag to slam my brain fists wildly into with reckless abandon in order to feel even slightly better about myself. Basically, I'm feeling crank as fuck.
Ignore me.