Stand Your Ground?

I agree, but then I agreed before I heard this story, too. This is just a textbook example, far clearer even than the Zimmerman/Martin case (which is pretty clear), of what is wrong with these kinds of laws.

Glad the court saw the justice in this. His argument about SYG was total bullshit. He didn't have to drive over there to begin with and he was packing heat. I think the laws of Texas allow you to carry (I'm not sure, though) and I'll assume he had a license, but still...he drove over to the other person's house, filmed himself doing it, I saw clearly the other guy with his hands up. He wasn't armed.

I hope he enjoys what's left of his life in prison.

We really need to pick and choose what we want.

Do we want a culture without guns?

Or do we want a GUN culture?

Because we don't have either: We have a culture with guns.

A gun culture is, like a car culture, ingrained in almost everyone. The ways people act in cars - car etiquette - and the technology and legality around cars all make them safer than 4 ton gigantic speeding deathtraps really should.

And the longer we waffle in this halfway point, the more stupid things are going to get.

I support the idea behind Stand Your Ground. There are times when someone was just defending themselves and got prosecuted for it. However, people that use the law like this do need to be made an example out of in a public way to let others know that it doesn't protect the aggressor.

I am perhaps one of the most ardent pro-2nd Amendment posters here at AW. And I say this guy was wrong.

There are two legal stances I approve of when it comes to self defense with guns:

1) The "Castle Doctrine" which holds that "a man's home is his castle." And so that law allows you to use whatever force you personally deem necessary to protect yourself while you are in your own home. The caveat here is that it MUST be inside your home. Not out on the front porch, or in the driveway, or in the back yard, or down the street at the local playground, or in a neighbor's back yard. If you use the gun (or even a baseball bat) against an intruder in your home, and you kill him, you are covered. The principle here is that if citizens do not feel safe inside their own homes, then the whole Thomas Jefferson thing about "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is a sham. (This final comment of mine with the Jeffferson quote is why so many gun owners feel gun ownership is part of being American. It is deeply believed in all seriousness that what we have in this country is worth defending.)

2) The "Stand Your Ground" doctrine which holds that if you are out and about in society, and if you are --this is important-- MINDING YOUR OWN BUSINESS, and then suddenly a perpetrator comes along, and if HE is the one who starts some sort of life-threatening agressions against YOU, then you have a right to defend yourself. So if you are conceal-carrying a gun, by all means whip it out and defend yourself. (Different states will have different nuances to this law. Such as, you are walking along a street, you are conceal-carrying, and minding your own business, and in a Dirty Harry sort of twist of fate, you stroll into a diner and get your usual morning cup of black coffee, but instead of being black it's got 23 spoonfuls of sugar in it and so you realize some dude is doing a full blown stick-up of the whole diner with a gun, SOME states say you can use your gun to defend the diner. Others do not. This would be a case of your using your gun as intervention on behalf of others rather than cut and dry self defense of just yourself.)

Both of the above doctrines/laws make no provision for you to do what one very good gun expert has famously said: "The 2nd Amendment doesn't allow us carte blanc to go to stupid places and do stupid things with stupid people." So that's three whole layers of "stupid" to be mindful of when you are a gun owner.

This guy did not HAVE to go down the road to his stupid neighbor and be a dumbass by declaring "I've asked you to turn it down. You have to turn it down." He knew that this stupid party was full of drunken people. He probably should have suspected they also might be conceal-carriers themselves. He quite stupidly handled his "request" with obvious agressiveness and with the worst diplomacy possible. My vote is that all three layers of "stupid" have been satisfied here. He should NOT have even gone there in the first place. HE was the agressor. No sympathy from me,

And one more thing I want to add ....

Determining the correct and acceptable employment of the Castle Doctrine is by its very nature more concrete than any detrminations on the correct employment of SYG. With Castle Doctrine the perp got shot either inside your house or outside. If he got shot inside, you're pretty much covered. But if you shot him outside, the law rarely applies. (I've heard some gun owners say "If you shoot him on the front porch, drag the body inside before calling the cops.")

But without witnesses or cameras, SYG is way too difficult to try and make an after-the-fact judgement call on as far as whether your life was REALLY in danger, and especially to determine who was the true agressor to begin with. This is why I am so unconfortable with SYG in general. Too many avenues for abuse of an otherwise well-intended law.

(One case where I am pleased with how SYG came out in court is a case involving a woman who was out in public and got jumped by a stranger who intended to rape her. She had her gun concealed upon her, but he was clenching her wrists so she wasn't able to draw. So she feigned willingness at first, and then when her hands were free she drew and fired. He wound up a paraplegic and he sued her. The jury found in her favor on the basis that she was perfectly within her rights to #1 feign cooperation, and #2 shoot the bastsard. And then as she walked out of the courtroom victorious, the press asked her: "Any regrets?" To which she replied "Yes. I regret that my boyfriend only bought me a .22. If it'd been a .45 we wouldn't even be here today." )

Plot Device said:

I am perhaps one of the most ardent pro-2nd Amendment posters here at AW. And I say this guy was wrong.

Click to expand...

Exactly. SYG wasn't a defense in this case because this wasn't what the law was designed for.

The law wasn't designed so that people with guns could use them to act like idiots on the basis that gun-in-hand means they're in the right. It was designed for situations like the 19-year-old widow/mom who warned a man breaking into her house not to come in because she was armed and protecting her newborn - then shot him because he didn't listen and broke in, anyway.

It's a defensive-action law, not an offensive-action law, and that's a huge distinction. You can't be the instigator in a violent situation and expect SYG to protect you.

And one more thing ....


"Stand Your Ground" --in a rather poetic way-- implies that you have a right to defend yourself while you are standing on YOUR ground, not on someone else's ground. I realize this is just an idiom, but the underlying human concept of "my ground" is a very primal one that relies upon territorial boundaries being universally recognized.

I have little willingness to recignize any territorial claims a man might place upon someone else's ground. He went to the other guy's house and was thus on his turf... on his "ground." That's a game-changer IMO.

The ultimate concept of SYG holds that when you are out and about in public, any given 4-foot-square piece of dirt you are standing upon at any given moment should be considered "yours" at that moment. If someone violates your 4-foot-square space (or threatens to violate it), then you can defend yourself. This philosophy is very much in line with the assertion "My right to swing my fists ends where the other man's nose begins." But he wasn't out and about in public minding his own business. He went to the other guy's home with confrontation as his sole agenda.

Cyia said:

Exactly. SYG wasn't a defense in this case because this wasn't what the law was designed for.

The law wasn't designed so that people with guns could use them to act like idiots on the basis that gun-in-hand means they're in the right. It was designed for situations like the 19-year-old widow/mom who warned a man breaking into her house not to come in because she was armed and protecting her newborn - then shot him because he didn't listen and broke in, anyway.

It's a defensive-action law, not an offensive-action law, and that's a huge distinction. You can't be the instigator in a violent situation and expect SYG to protect you.

Click to expand...

While I apppreciate the support of my post, I need very stringently to point out that the widow you speak of wasn't justified under SYG. She was justified under Castle Doctrine. Two utterly different laws. One law relies upon the physical location of the defensive action. The other relies heavily (but not completely) upon the subjective circumstances underlying the confrontation, including the perceptions (be they flawed or not) of the shooter.

This is what happens when men use their penises, or the substitutes thereof, for thinking.

I saw the tape a few weeks back. It was chilling. He just stands there calmly reciting the key phrases "I'm standing my ground," and "I'm afraid for my life," when he sounds anything but afraid. While I think George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin because he wanted to detain him and deliver what he thought was a burglar to the police, and it got out of hand, I think this guy really wanted to kill someone. That said, I think Zimmerman liked it (joking the next day and later, calmly talking about the crime) but I don't think he planned and waited for an opportunity to kill someone like the Texas shooter.

Glad to see the verdict. After Joe Horn went free, I didn't have high hopes for a conviction here.

Joe Horn was a Texan who talked at length with a 911 dispatcher, saying that he was watching burglars rob his neighbor's and that he was going to go outside and shoot them. The dispatcher tells him over and over not to, but he goes outside, says, "You're dead" and kills them both). I guess that was "Castle Doctrine," even though it wasn't his castle, because property was involved.

Romantic Heretic said:

This is what happens when men use their penises, or the substitutes thereof, for thinking.

Click to expand...

*sigh*

How is this statement ANY different than claiming that a woman is emotional because she's "on the rag"?

Romantic Heretic said:

This is what happens when men use their penises, or the substitutes thereof, for thinking.

Click to expand...

What the?? Oh wait. Roger already beat me to it.

And coming right after the post about the little old lady, too.

Lyv said:

Joe Horn was a Texan who talked at length with a 911 dispatcher, saying that he was watching burglars rob his neighbor's and that he was going to go outside and shoot them. The dispatcher tells him over and over not to, but he goes outside, says, "You're dead" and kills them both). I guess that was "Castle Doctrine," even though it wasn't his castle, because property was involved.

Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with the case. But sounds like someone might have tried to stretch the law into what I'll for the moment call "Castle Doctrine By Proxy." But that would be a HUGE stretch.

Plot Device said:

I'm not familiar with the case. But sounds like someone might have tried to stretch the law into what I'll for the moment call "Castle Doctrine By Proxy." But that would be a HUGE stretch.

Click to expand...

---

If I remember correctly, the case happened about five years ago in Texas (Pasadena). Horn caught two men robbing a neighbor's house and shot them after informing the dispatcher of his intentions to kill them. He blew them away and the grand jury issued a no-bill so Horn went free although some civil rights groups are protesting.

Texas is a big state...huge stretches are part of it (bad pun, I know)...but it seems they're a little more lenient in those who carry.

Unless you do something really, really stupid, as the retired firefighter did.

Plot Device said:

I'm not familiar with the case. But sounds like someone might have tried to stretch the law into what I'll for the moment call "Castle Doctrine By Proxy." But that would be a HUGE stretch.

Click to expand...

I tried to read up on it and ran out of time this afternoon, but I kept finding articles that stated because property was involved, it was a Castle Doctrine case. It must be Castle Doctrine by Proxy. I just remember being glad I didn't live in Texas (not that I rob houses). If anyone's interested I can dig deeper.

Shadow Dragon said:

I support the idea behind Stand Your Ground. There are times when someone was just defending themselves and got prosecuted for it. However, people that use the law like this do need to be made an example out of in a public way to let others know that it doesn't protect the aggressor.

Click to expand...

Agree.

Monkey said:

The law is causing people to die.

Click to expand...

No it's not. And if it were, it would have to join the Second Amendment and concealed carry laws, just for a start.

It certainly offers a potential justification for some actions--as was the case here--but you can't actually say what this fool would have done if there had been no SYG law on the books.

I think this moron just saw the Zimmerman case in the news and thought "heeey, wait a minute... this guy killed that guy and isn't doing so bad... I'll go kill my neighbor."

It seems unlikely to me as well. It certainly seems that several people we know of have been killed, and probably wouldn't have been if the law did not exist.

Romantic Heretic said:

This is what happens when men use their penises, or the substitutes thereof, for thinking.

Click to expand...

It's what happens when humans act on their base emotions instead of making rational, morally-informed decisions. I think both sexes are equally stupid in this regard.

One thing this case and the Zimmerman case have in common is that in both cases, somebody -- while in no danger -- called the police, and then deliberately put himself in a potentially dangerous situation instead of waiting for the help he'd already called for.

(On rereading -- I'm not clear on whether Rodriguez called the police before approaching the house on foot, or while he was standing on the street. Either way, he forced a confrontation when he could have let the police do their job.)

Monkey said:

Without this law, without that feeling that they could get away with it, would they still have shot? We could argue that forever, but IMO, it seems unlikely.

Click to expand...

Perhaps. On the other hand, have such laws saved people who were justified in their actions? Without the laws, would some people have chosen not to defend themselves with deadly force, but rather tried to have escaped, only to be caught and injured, killed, robbed and/or raped? Have the laws caused some criminals to avoid a confrontation that previously they would not have avoided? Who can say?

robeiae said:

Perhaps. On the other hand, have such laws saved people who were justified in their actions? Without the laws, would some people have chosen not to defend themselves with deadly force, but rather tried to have escaped, only to be caught and injured, killed, robbed and/or raped? Have the laws caused some criminals to avoid a confrontation that previously they would not have avoided? Who can say?

Click to expand...

That brings to mind Monsieur Bastiat...

In the department of economy, an act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects. Of these effects, the first only is immediate; it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause - it is seen. The others unfold in succession - they are not seen: it is well for us, if they are foreseen. Between a good and a bad economist this constitutes the whole difference - the one takes account of the visible effect; the other takes account both of the effects which are seen, and also of those which it is necessary to foresee. Now this difference is enormous, for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favourable, the ultimate consequences are fatal, and the converse. Hence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come, - at the risk of a small present evil.

In fact, it is the same in the science of health, arts, and in that of morals. It often happens, that the sweeter the first fruit of a habit is, the more bitter are the consequences. Take, for example, debauchery, idleness, prodigality. When, therefore, a man absorbed in the effect which is seen has not yet learned to discern those which are not seen, he gives way to fatal habits, not only by inclination, but by calculation.

Click to expand...

Myopia can make any idea seem like a terrible one, or a great one.