Not giving click bait to The Trace, but apparently the ABA gave them an advance copy of super-duper secret full report investigation about Stand Your ground that claims the following:
- Stand Your Ground states experienced an increase in homicides.
- Multiple states have attempted to repeal or amend Stand Your Ground laws.
- The law’s application is unpredictable, uneven and results in racial disparities.
- A person’s right to self-defense was sufficiently protected prior to Stand Your Ground.
- Victims’ rights are undermined in states with statutory immunity from criminal prosecution and civil suit related to Stand Your Ground cases.
Let’s go with the first assertion:
Stand Your Ground states experienced an increase in homicides.
Taking Evil Florida as example, from 2006, the first full year of implementation of SYG to 2014 which is the last year FDLE has provided data, the murder rate has gone from 6.2 per 100K to 5 per 100K. I don’t know in Common Core, but old school stats call that a decrease.
Multiple states have attempted to repeal or amend Stand Your Ground laws.
Again in Evil Florida, they tried their best with full cooperation of the Media and assorted Useful Idiots and did fail. Floridians by far and large like SYG and they are not willing to go back to when prosecutors played politics with the lives of citizens defending themselves.
Victims’ rights are undermined in states with statutory immunity from criminal prosecution and civil suit related to Stand Your Ground cases.
I venture a speculation and say this is the real reason the ABA is opposed to SYG/Immunity: It is bad for their pockets. And did you notice the use of the word victim? It is being applied to the critter that needed the defense and not the person who had to use force to stop the attack. Who has not heard of cases in which a criminal or his family has sued in civil court even though it was their precious snowflake the one that wanted to carve his initials on a stranger and get his money or her sex? We still hear the lamentations of “He was a good boy! Just because he was flinging a machete does not mean he deserved to be shot!” from weeping mothers and other relatives?
The law’s application is unpredictable, uneven and results in racial disparities.
The application of the law was predictable: Some prosecutors and judges had no problem with it and some hated it so much they did their best to screw with it or misapply it. It seems it ended with the case of of Gabriel Mobley, who was thrown under the bus by the legal system and had a successful appeal that cemented Stand Your ground in Florida.
As for the use of the race Card to eliminate SYG, we go to the original source of the Anti SYG movement: The Tampa Bay Tribune and their database of cases. As of today, the numbers were as follows:
Fatal cases total = 134
Cases where the SYG claimant was Black: 45.
14 convicted, 25 justified, 6 pending.
Cases where the SYG claimant was White: 81.
33 convicted, 41 justified, 7 pending.
Cases where the SYG claimant was Hispanic: 10
2 convicted, 7 justified, 1 pending.
Black by a factor of two to one had a better outcome claiming SYG. Hispanics are in a three to one ration while Whites are almost even. So much for being a racist law.
Non Fatal cases = 115
Cases where the SYG claimant was Black: 38.
10 convicted, 24 justified, 4 pending.
Cases where the SYG claimant was White: 69.
21 convicted, 44 justified, 4 pending.
Cases where the SYG claimant was Hispanic: 5.
1 convicted, 3 justified, 1 pending.
Although Whites improve their ratio, Blacks maintain the two to one in favor and Hispanics their three to one.
Out of the total amount of cases (249), Blacks comprise 33% even though they are only 18% of the population in the State of Florida. Any claim that SYG is racist is patently BS according to the numbers provided by the Tampa Bay Tribune.
I have always sustained that SYG is hated within some in the legal profession because it literally took their power to screw with people’s lives and not having to pay for it. It has to be intoxicating to be God-like and with a flick of the finger destroy somebody’s life that did nothing other than stop a deadly force attack. The idea that a prosecutor should strive for justice appears to be lost in the care to have great conviction records and successful re-election campaigns.
That is a sad commentary on our Justice system.
15 thoughts on “American Bar Association does not like Stand Your ground: Color me surprised.”
In Texas, If you have a right to be where your at (no trespass), have comiitted no crime or just a class c misdemeanor (traffic ticket), and havent instigated the confrontation (no mutual combat), I can stand my ground and apply simple to deadly force depending on the attack (violent forcible felony or not).
This is ethical and moral. It is clear and defends the true victim – the person being physically attacked/threatened illegally.
States without SYG that have stated or case law assumed “duty to reteat”: Their is no duty to retreat unless it can be done in complete safety, which is a high, clear tactical hurdle to define.
SYG merely reinforces the Common Law precepts that a person has a right to go about unmolested and a right to defend themself if they are molested. I am not aware of any SYG law that says that you can shoot anybody any time you want to – in spite of what the CSGV wants us to think the SYG laws say/mean.
SYG still means you probably will go to court to prove you are entitled to claim it as a defense against further prosecution. That means business for the tilecrawlers.
Even in states where SYG is combined with civil immunity tilecrawlers represent folks who sue on the hope that somewhere there is some money to be made.
If it were not for the fact that the overwhelming majority of “victims” leave behind no assets we should see civil suits against their estates. But even on E-Bay a pair of kicks and rims with spinners is not going to cover the cost of suing to get them.
There you go, citing facts again.
What do you expect? They are lawyers. Florida’s Civil Tort pre-emption is stealing their right to make money off the misfortune and suffering of someone that had to defend themselves or a loved one against an attack. SYG limits their ability to make money by filing civil suits, therefore SYG is Bad Law.
99% of lawyers give the others a bad reputation.
I love the first talking point.
Homicides went up, but murder went down. ..ie good people were killing bad people in self defense.
Anti-gun gun means pro-criminal, and not even figuratively, as they get tied in knots when a violent animal gets killed by a prospective victim…but look the other way when they run wild raping and murdering in anti-gun cities!
Just heard from a lawyer here in Fla where I live that recently deceased SweetChiorBoy’s momma was suing the victim of a violent DGU attack for wrongful death, in spite of the Fla civil immunity tort law, just because. I’m sure the ambulance-chaser has convinced her to do so in the hopes of getting an out of court settlement. The way the lawyer explained it to me was that the civil judge in the case apparently is anti-gun and had allowed the case to move fwd even though it clearly met the criteria for dismissal according to the pre-trial hearing.
The lawyer for SweetChiorBoy’s momma has taken the case on contingency in hopes of an OofC settlement, knowing full well that she has no chance of winning, and even though the law allows the defendant to recover attorney fees should he win, momma is most likely a welfare queen and other than her Obama phone and her EB card she will have no assets to recover fees from. So the victim will be left holding the $80K+ bag of lawyers fees to defend himself with no chance of recovery.
If I were king for a day I would make momma’s lawyer responsible for the defense fees should momma be unable to pay them, since he probably convinced her to sue in the first place …….
In that situation, Craig, I would think the person most responsible for fees should be the judge that allowed the case to move forward when it clearly has no chance and should have been dismissed. If the judge were PERSONALLY liable for the costs of the lawsuit when the case met the criteria for dismissal, I’d bet he’d change his tune about putting the case forward.
This is in the Florida Legislature right now:
Yep, it’s pissed off lawyers that are losing money that are complaining the most… Screw ’em…
The statement, “I’d rather be judged by 12, than carried by 6” still makes sense.
I just want the 12 jurors to be there for the right reasons and not for the political or financial gain of a SOB DA. The SYG is not my license to shoot anyone who offends me. It is there so I do not have to suffer a complete economic catastrophe when I was correctly defending myself.
To corrupt an existing proverb: Better to live a lifetime on your feet than to die on your knees.
Trayvon Martin having anything to do with SYG being the biggest lie of all.
The Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.
[Snipped by Miguel]
Original Source: Guncite
Copy and pasting verbatim long treatises from other non-mentioned sources makes for boring comments. A small relevant section followed by the link to the original source will suffice.
Why would you expect the ABA to support “stand your ground”? They don’t make any money defending someone who isn’t charged with a crime
[…] when applied so Blacks could not be armed, this is just pure hypocrisy. Plus the data from Florida has shown that Blacks are also the biggest beneficiary of SYG. Second, the link they provide does not go to a study by Texas A&M but a paper published by […]
Comments are closed.
Login or register to comment.