Stand Your Ground and the Zimmerman case

In the US, the state laws governing when deadly force is justified in self defense can be broadly divided into three categories:  (Note--I am not a lawyer, and although I am attempting to be accurate, I'm nearly certain to get some details at least slightly wrong)

Stand Your Ground--In a place you have the legal right to be, you are not required to retreat from an aggressor, and if attacked may use deadly force if a 'reasonable person' under similar circumstances would believe that the attack was likely to cause death or grievous injury.    Without Stand Your Ground, self defense is generally regarded as an affirmative defense--In order to use the claim in a criminal trial, the victim of an attack who claims self defense has to essentially plead "Guilty but justified", then prove justification.  Stand Your Ground means that someone claiming self defense remains "presumed innocent" until there is enough contrary evidence.  As long as they are presumed innocent, they aren't arrested without that contrary evidence.  Most stand your ground laws also include some form of civil immunity--If you are defending against a person committing a felony, you cannot be held civilly liable for injuring or killing them unless you are found guilty in the criminal phase.   This is based on civil rules rather than criminal, so a preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond reasonable doubt.  

Castle Doctrine is similar to Stand Your Ground, but in limited locations--It applies at home.  Depending on the state it may apply when a guest in someone else's home, in your car, or in the workplace. 

Duty to Retreat is the situation where neither of the above concepts are a defense--Where a victim is required to retreat before using force.  In the US, there are only a few states that have a duty to retreat, and even in those states case law generally gives at least some of the features of Stand Your Ground, sometimes via case law rather than through legislation. 

Stand your ground is irrelevant in determining the verdict in the Zimmerman-Martin case.  Its application in criminal trials is in an extremely narrow set of circumstances--where a victim is in a place he has the right to be, realizes that an unwarranted violent attack is imminent and recognizes a viable escape route available that does not increase danger to the victim or people he is responsible for.    

In no scenario from either side is there an opportunity for escape.  If Zimmerman was the first to initiate violence, he gave up his right to self defense with or without SYG--in that case, the jury came to the wrong verdict.  If Martin jumped Zimmerman, then there was no opportunity for escape, again SYG does not apply.   Being followed is not by itself justification for violence.  It is unlikely that Zimmerman could run backwards faster than Martin could run forward.  

I've seen quite a few comments that Zimmerman-Martin shows that SYG is wrong and needs to change--but none of them explain how it would have changed the verdict here, or how it would help in general.  Instead I've heard "A Zimmerman juror mentioned it", or "someone might think they can shoot someone and get out of it just by claiming to be scared".  In some cases the people making these claims are lawyers and politicians who almost certainly know better--but believe that their audience does not, and that confusion on the issue will increase support for gun control.  

Personally, if I've ever got the choice between running to safety and shooting or killing someone, I'll run even if the law doesn't require me to.  I still support Stand Your Ground--in large part for its civil immunity.  Someone committing a felony should not be able to sue their victims unless the victims  commit a crime against the felon at least as serious.   There is also the timing problem--the prosecution has weeks or months to find the escape route you missed in the few seconds you had available.  As a general rule, I think people who initiate violence should have far less rights than those who are defending. 

Common misconceptions:

Opponents call Stand Your Ground a "Shoot first" or "Make My Day" law,  claiming that it allows people to shoot any time they feel vaguely threatened, and that it will result in blood in the streets.  The law almost always has a "reasonable person" clause, in that the threat has to be considered valid by a reasonable person under the same circumstances with the same information.  We also have decades of experience in most states, 

"He was unarmed"  "It was just going to be a beating, not worth killing over".  It is entirely possible to kill with bare hands and feet, so self defense (even without SYG) allows self defense--often requiring a disparity of force.  The disparity may be 2 against one, young vs old, man vs woman--or may just be an avid and able fighter vs someone who hasn't been in a fight since grade school.  (In the last case, it might be that the disparity isn't evident until the victim begins to lose the fight).  

"Stand Your Ground is inherently racist".  Recent studies have shown that the Florida law is claimed disproportionately by minorities, and that they are disproportionately successful.   We have recently had at least one case quite similar to the Zimmerman/Martin incident, except the shooter was black, and his attackers were both white.  Very little news coverage. 

"It means you can't arrest anyone who claims self defense".  No, it means you need a preponderance of the evidence that it was NOT self-defense in order to arrest--that would be 50.1% that the accused is guilty.  Meanwhile, the standard for a conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt"--this would have to be at least 95% positive (I'm more inclined to go with Ben Franklin's "better 100 guilty escape than one...").   If you cannot prove above 50%, what are the chances you will be able to prove 95 or 99%?  Should you really arrest someone you probably can't convict?

Suzuki Savage review

About a year ago, I bought a low miles 1987 Suzuki Savage for my wife.  The  Savage (also known as the Boulevard S40) is an underrated and misunderstood bike.   It is a light and simple single cylinder 650cc cruiser-style bike, with belt drive and a 4 speed transmission.   Its target market sees that it is a 650, and assumes it is too big and powerful.  People considering  650cc bikes find the Savage underpowered.

Ignore the displacement of the engine--rather than comparing to other 650cc bikes, compare it to bikes with similar seat height, weight and horsepower.  (I've never understood focusing on displacement rather than power and weight)  This puts it in the upper end of the 250 class of bikes--low seat height, similar weight, a bit more horsepower and lots more torque.

Horsepower is responsible for top speed, and also for acceleration when driven hard, and is likely to get inexperienced riders in trouble..  Torque is responsible for off the line and everyday performance when you aren't thrashing the bike.  More torque makes starting and shifting easier--if you let the clutch out too fast, it may chug and complain, but it isn't likely to stall.

The early Savage models had a 4 speed transmission, while later models are 5 speed.   The 5th gear  was added for marketing purposes--basically top gear was raised a tiny amount and another gear slipped in between 3rd and top.  This requires an extra shift, but with the torque curve of this engine there's no advantage from the extra gear.

I'm not a fan of cruiser styling in general, but that's taste rather than a valid criticism.   It does allow forward controls, which let the seat height be low enough for almost any adult while leaving enough room for a 6 foot rider.  (The Savage is a bit cramped for me but rideable.  The Honda Rebel is just plain too small)   The tank-mounted gauges are a significant sacrifice in usability to gain an uncluttered handlebar area--the gauges are well out of the rider's normal line of sight requiring a deliberate look down instead of being visible with a quick glance, especially with a full face helmet.    This is especially problematic for the turn signals--when I ride with my wife, I'm constantly reminding her on the intercom to turn the signal off.  (I'm going to add a beeper, or a light she can see)   Another flaw is the lack of either a fuel gauge or trip odometer--every bike should have at least one.   No tachometer, but on this bike not really needed.

Not a truck

Me:  Remember, we didn't bring the truck
Wife:  It will fit...
(She almost had to ride home with the paper towels on her lap)

Occupy Wall Street vs The Tea Party

Diagram from The Cato Institute blog

I've got issues with both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street--but I'm firmly in the center of this Venn Diagram.  It would be nice if we could work together and concentrate on the parts where both sides agree--I think that would help both groups with the parts outside the intersection.

More on Occupy Wall Street

The previous post was of what appeared to be an Occupy NY supporter's demands, but I have no way of verifying.  Daisy Deadhead is a very liberal (self-described hippie) blogger I read, so I asked her what their platform was.  She pointed to one of her posts, which I'm fisking here.  

  As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.

I feel wronged that our second amendment rights are restricted...but I doubt that counts here.

As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.

Was the mortgage paid as in the terms of the contract?  This might be a technical legal issue, but morally, you still owe.    A lot of the mess was because the government pressured mortgage originators to be 'fair' rather than fiscally responsible.

They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.

Just about everyone would take a bailout if offered, and in a couple cases banks were pressured by regulators into taking TARP funds, along with TARP regulation.  The issue of bonuses is complicated--Should a struggling company lose the manager of a profitable division because other managers screwed up?

They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.

We will never reach 100% equality.  At some point the cure becomes worse than the disease, with employers unable to risk firing non-productive employees.  

They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.

Family-run businesses in modern times are mostly limited to service industries--we don't have much family manufacturing businesses either.  Farming is either labor-intensive or capitol-intensive, and big business can afford the capitol.  Big business can also afford to navigate government subsidies more efficiently.  If we were limited to family farms, food prices would be significantly higher.

They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.

Stop eating meat.  (To be fair, Daisy Deadhead says she's a vegetarian, so she's not being a hypocrite in this point)

They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.

Union organizers are against non-anonymous elections, so they can pressure people into voting "properly".   There is no good excuse for this, there is a reason most fair elections have secret ballots.  My union experience has been working beside auto workers, and I'm not sympathetic--many were proud of working the system--an example is that tradesman work was divided into break/fix and project work.  Some would refuse to do project work unless they were on overtime--and they could get away with it.

They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.

How much education is there a right to--bachelor's, Master's, PhD?  We also have vastly different definitions of rights-requiring the effort of others can't be a right.  

They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.

It's only racism if the foreigners are lucky enough to live in America?

They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.

Somewhat valid--but some of the owner's rights should pass through to the corporation.

They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.

But the same sort of shenanigans to get out of paying a mortgage is somehow OK.

They have sold our privacy as a commodity.

Valid point.

They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press. 

Not so much, otherwise I'd never have heard of you.

They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.

Sometimes.  But products are safer now than ever, and there's no such thing as risk-free.

They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.

Huh?  Unless 'they' are the ones setting up 'subsidies for this, tax breaks for that' plans.

They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.

...often donating to both sides, perpetuating the corrupt 2 party system.  The real problem is the politicians who take these contributions.

They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.

Like Nuclear.  Oh wait....
How are they blocking alternative energy, other than the laws of science?   Alternative energy is like alternative medicine--the alternatives that work well become mainstream.

They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.

So why should they invest billions in research to find new drugs, (most of which will be unsuccessful) if they can't profit on the few that work?   Without patent protection, nobody will go through the time and trouble of testing.   There are abuses and problems here-it is surprising how often we 'suddenly' find a safety problem with a drug just as it goes generic, with a new alternative waiting.

They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.

Again, less than at any time in our history.

They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.

Quit listening.  This is as much incompetence, laziness and that most of the public is more interested in entertainment than news.  Every news story I've known about through non-news sources has significant errors in the reporting.  Everyone I've asked says the same thing.

They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.

What is this referring to?

They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad. They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.

Colonialism is declining, although I won't defend much of our overseas meddling. .

They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts.

The fault here is the government's, not the corporations.  We need a strong military-but I'll agree not as large as we have.

To the people of the world,
We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power.
Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.

I'm not seeing much in the way of solutions, other than 'more government except with US in charge".

To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.
Join us and make your voices heard!