Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Alva Goldbook

(149 posts)
127. Utterly wrong. You just don't understand the law.
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:49 PM
Apr 2013

It's not your fault, I'm sure you're not a lawyer.

Before I begin, let me say a few things. 1) I am a progressive. I just happen to be pro-gun. 2) I am NOT a member of the NRA or any other gun rights group. 3) What you understand of the stand your ground laws is based upon what you've read in newspapers, written by journalists. And sadly, many journalists are as dumb as rocks. To illustrate this point, Sarah Palin has a journalism degree. Journalists tend to be as wrong on gun laws as they are on scientific matters like say climate change.

Now onto your points: Do a google search. Zimmerman's legal team declined to use the Stand Your Ground defense. There's a reason for this. He would lose such a defense.

Here's the deal: The law is very specific about when you're legally allowed to use your gun for self-defense and when you can't. I know my own state's gun laws the best, so I'll start there. Under Virginia state law, I am legally prohibited from even taking my gun out of it's holster when I'm in public unless two legal criteria are met.

1) I reasonably feared for my life.
2) I can demonstrate to a reasonable person, that if I did not act with deadly force, I would have likely been killed or seriously injured.

Suppose I look out my window at 2 am and see someone trying to break into my car. I am explicitly prohibited by law to use my gun to prevent this crime from happening. I can't shoot the guy. I can't scare him off with my gun. All I can do is call the cops.

Now suppose my wife is in the car at the time. Then I can use my gun. Why? Because her life may be in danger.

If someone breaks into my home I can use my gun. Under the castle doctrine, anyone who breaks into my home is someone who automatically is determined, under the law, is someone who is trying to harm me. Out in public, that's the different story. Out in public, those legal tests I mentioned come into play.

Suppose I'm at the grocery store putting groceries into my car, and someone approaches me and hurls an insult at me. I am not legally allowed to use my gun. I must demonstrate those legal tests. If that person says, "I'm gonna kill you!", and that person is a 5'4 100 pound girl, then I'm not legally allowed to use my gun. Force of numbers, Force of size come into play. Those are legal definitions. Suppose the person who says this is 6'5 and looks like a body builder. Then I'm on better legal footing using a gun. Force of numbers doctrine. Suppose the person is a male, 5'8 and of average body size. Not so clear legal footing. Suppose average body size guy says, "I'm gonna kill you" and he's holding a knife pointed in my direction. Then those legal tests have been met. Suppose same guy is holding a knife, but it's not pointing in my direction and he doesn't say a word to me. Then I can't use a gun.

Suppose instead I'm putting groceries into my car, and someone hurls an insult at me. I say nothing. The person shouts more things at me, and pulls out a knife and says he's gonna kill me. I can shoot him, but I will be arrested. Once I'm arrested, I will plead a "justifiable homicide" defense. Under the law, this is the same as pleading guilty (to murder), and I must prove my innocence. I have to prove those two tests.

Suppose instead, I'm putting groceries into my car, and someone insults me, and I insult them back. They say something else, and I say something else too. Things escalate, and guy pulls out a knife and says he's going to kill me. Am I allowed to use my gun? No. Why? Because by arguing with the guy, I escalated the situation. I am legally not allowed to use my gun. If I do, I will go to jail for murder. Instead, I must do two things, under the law:

1) I must retreat. Run away. Run until I can't run any more. If then, I am still being attacked I must
2) Tell my attacker that I'm surrendering. I give up. I'm not fighting anymore. If then I'm still being attacked, then, and only then can I use a gun for self defense. Even then, I am not legally allowed to plead "justifiable homicide". Rather, I must plead "excusable homicide". This is far less in my favor legally, much harder to prove in court, and thus more costly to defend. This is when you get into the 6 figure legal fees that later force you to declare bankruptcy. Trust me, it's not shoot first. It's shoot as a last option.

For these reasons, I always carry myself in a polite and courteous manner. I never road rage. I never say anything mean to anyone. Why? Because I have a gun on me. If I behave rudely to anyone, and they get angry, I'm in big do-do.

Under Florida state law, they have a Stand Your Ground law. Virginia has long standing laws on using guns in public, but other states do not. 20 years ago, most states didn't have concealed carry laws. What Stand Your Ground laws do is bring the Castle Doctrine out into public. It is not a shoot first ask questions later sort of thing.

Under Florida law, I am allowed to use a gun to protect my property, even if no one's life is threatened. For instance, if someone is trying to break into my car in Florida, then I can use a gun to prevent that. However, I can only do this if I am the sole owner of the car. If I'm paying the car off, then I'm not allowed to do this. If I own the car with someone else I can't do this. If I have kids and the kids grandmother stops by the house, I'm not allowed to use a gun in self-defense, even if she stops over in the middle of the night. There are a number of other exceptions all laid out in the law.

Now let's get to the Zimmberman case. Under the law, Zimmerman cannot claim stand your ground. Why? Because Zimmerman approached Trayvon Martin. This is what led to the events of that day. Had Zimmerman not approached Martin, that tragedy wouldn't have happened. By approaching him, under the law, Zimmerman was the aggressor. That is why his lawyers smartly decided not to plea a Stand Your Ground defense. He would have lost.

Now there's been some people who say that this gives a drug dealer the ability to say, "I shot this guy in self defense", when the drug dealer was committing a criminal act. That it lets murderers off the hook. But the reality is that murderers have been pleading defenses like this for a very long time. It's the "I didn't do it" or "they did it to me" or "I'm innocent and I promise I'll never do it again, just let me go" defense. That's been used forever, and smart investigators have always been able to get their convictions anyway.

I hope you can see, that the law on these matters is quite complex. And it's perfectly understandable to be irate by your understanding of the law given the media reports of them. But journalists aren't lawyers. They're not scientists either. And most of them are pretty dumb.

Good find. There are a lot of gun cultists who consider Zimmerman commited a "justified" homicide. Hoyt Apr 2013 #1
Now with the "Shoot First Ask Questions Later" - I mean, "Stand Your Ground" laws BlueCaliDem Apr 2013 #14
Bingo. That is exactly what AtheistCrusader is doing in this thread. SunSeeker Apr 2013 #27
Except of course AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #87
Shoot first ask questions later? You have got to be kidding me. Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #58
Defending the NRA position is unthinkable. Are you a Zimmerman fan? "No one is going to shoot firenewt Apr 2013 #70
Yes, I believe it is. BlueCaliDem Apr 2013 #91
Nope... Wednesdays Apr 2013 #146
Yeah, I know it's a joke, but it's what you gun-fanatics support. BlueCaliDem Apr 2013 #90
No, it's not what I support. Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #93
Wow. You had all those videos on the ready! Good for you! BlueCaliDem Apr 2013 #106
Utterly wrong. You just don't understand the law. Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #127
Zimmerman's attorneys BlueCaliDem Apr 2013 #134
Thank you. ctsnowman Apr 2013 #141
Utterly Wrong, Again. Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #148
Cherry-picking information to support your fetish with guns doesn't help you. BlueCaliDem Apr 2013 #149
LOL. Massad Ayoob. DanTex Apr 2013 #150
Excellent, well-reasoned response. appal_jack Apr 2013 #140
Legally, it might appear well-reasoned, but in practice, it's not. BlueCaliDem Apr 2013 #144
How many gun owners can afford 6 figures in legal fees? Progressive dog Apr 2013 #100
But suicides don't count BainsBane Apr 2013 #2
Some should. The "spur-of-the-moment" action made simple by use of gun. Scuba Apr 2013 #26
Wait ... you're advocating FOR suicide? baldguy Apr 2013 #29
I've long felt I should have the right to end my own life if I choose to do so. Scuba Apr 2013 #38
Euthanasia robs Big Pharma and Big ProfitCare of vital profits. BlueCaliDem Apr 2013 #133
when someone hangs himself, do you blame the rope? (end) Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #59
That page of the NRA handbook must be almost worn out by now! Walk away Apr 2013 #76
I'm not one of those people BainsBane Apr 2013 #88
No, because the rope gave them time to rethink their suicide. jeff47 Apr 2013 #131
Having a gun in the home increases your chance of a gun death many times over. SunSeeker Apr 2013 #3
But, but billh58 Apr 2013 #4
Defensive gun uses Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #9
And there are actually billh58 Apr 2013 #10
That one BlueCaliDem Apr 2013 #15
It's amazing how billh58 Apr 2013 #18
They don't care because they get paid BlueCaliDem Apr 2013 #24
Bill....the numbers are different because the 2 studies use different methodology. Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #48
The OP is about billh58 Apr 2013 #49
Mischaracterize much? AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #104
Source? nt Tommy_Carcetti Apr 2013 #32
here you go. Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #60
Says an NRA 'study'. louis-t Apr 2013 #152
No, it's called extrapolation. It's used in every poll. Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #153
Pretty amazing infographic there, EarlG. nt Poll_Blind Apr 2013 #5
Guns don't kill people, Jamaal510 Apr 2013 #6
US DoJ shows the vast majority of lawful defensive gun uses do not involve fatalities. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #7
From the report cited in another reply. I guess we can all cite stats as needed. SlimJimmy Apr 2013 #12
Uh huh. What was your point? AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #19
My point is that the number used in the OP is wildly low and the Kleck study wildly high. The SlimJimmy Apr 2013 #37
You are comparing billh58 Apr 2013 #43
Not exactly. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #66
Yeah, I get it. billh58 Apr 2013 #72
Actually, including all sets of numbers, I suspect the cost would roll AGAINST the use of firearms. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #81
Absolutely ... well stated. SlimJimmy Apr 2013 #85
I'm not buying the lethal use of force metric as the only one that qualifies. That's not being SlimJimmy Apr 2013 #84
By that little twist of billh58 Apr 2013 #89
I think the OP is using an extremely strict metric in making his point. In the interest of fairness SlimJimmy Apr 2013 #92
That is your opinion billh58 Apr 2013 #96
Not equal. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #102
I view it (at a minmum) as 108k that did not suffer an attack on their person or worse, death. SlimJimmy Apr 2013 #107
I opt on the side of owning firearms, but expecting reasonable regulation of that ownership. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #112
Well stated. My views exactly. SlimJimmy Apr 2013 #116
If I brandish a shotgun at an armed intruder and stop them from assaulting my family, that is SlimJimmy Apr 2013 #98
And again we disagree. billh58 Apr 2013 #103
How on God's green planet do you come to the conclusion that I support the unrestricted SlimJimmy Apr 2013 #105
It appears that I am billh58 Apr 2013 #108
I'll reserve judgement on your intent here. But suffice it to say that you have misrepresented my SlimJimmy Apr 2013 #114
WHY is the OP comparing the two groups of gun deaths? AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #113
Ah, agreed. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #62
Yes, I also agree with your assessment. SlimJimmy Apr 2013 #82
Attempting to compile "all lawful DGUs" would be impossible. IveWornAHundredPants Apr 2013 #122
Fair point. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #143
The Kleck study is not absurd. Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #65
Depending on state law. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #68
Which states? Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #94
Not all states have statutes regarding this. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #97
Warning shots are a very good way to get yourself killed. GreenStormCloud Apr 2013 #117
In florida, a warning shot = a 20 year mandatory minimum felony. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #118
Warning shots are a good way to get someone else killed. Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #129
You are right. GreenStormCloud Apr 2013 #132
Gunners love to cherry pick that 1997 survey, without disclosing the report's conclusion SunSeeker Apr 2013 #13
Agreed, the reporting tallies are not accurate. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #16
And if you extrapolate that out.... Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #51
"It was designed to make it difficult to fabricate a story." What bullshit. SunSeeker Apr 2013 #80
Kleck explains this himself. Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #136
And this is why Kleck has no credibility. SunSeeker Apr 2013 #145
Not Americans FreeEmily Apr 2013 #20
Per capita violent assault comparisons to other G20 nations are not... favorable to us. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #23
Wrong. The US has lower rape and assault rates than many gun-free countries. Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #55
Now there's a fine billh58 Apr 2013 #63
No, Bill.... Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #71
Do you report the income you receive from billh58 Apr 2013 #74
The NRA? I'm not even a member. Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #95
Ahh... bobclark86 Apr 2013 #111
True. BlueCaliDem Apr 2013 #22
Yeah, I'd bet the unintentional shootings are far more likely to be fatal than the intential ones. enki23 Apr 2013 #119
Shootings classified 'unintentional' are often AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #142
So WILDLY Wrong it's laughable. Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #8
It is the figures you cite that are wildly wrong and laughable. SunSeeker Apr 2013 #21
That paper you cite was published 16 years ago and has been challenged. Dan Ken Apr 2013 #53
Yes, I do know. Did you mean to reply to me or our new gungeoneer (post #8)? SunSeeker Apr 2013 #83
See post 13; thucythucy Apr 2013 #25
Exactly! SoapBox Apr 2013 #11
Good joke on Steph this morning. Cleita Apr 2013 #17
Hah! She's always so sharp! Love the woman. eom BlueCaliDem Apr 2013 #28
Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2011 DeYanko Apr 2013 #30
And yet another billh58 Apr 2013 #39
Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2013 #31
Welcome to DU. Tommy_Carcetti Apr 2013 #33
Lots of new very pro gun people popping up today. lark Apr 2013 #44
MIRT found and billh58 Apr 2013 #77
Hoping so lark Apr 2013 #147
You're so compassionate...you must be a conservative. cyberswede Apr 2013 #36
They're coming out of the woodwork billh58 Apr 2013 #42
Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2013 #52
... cyberswede Apr 2013 #56
I am very busy missing the show what happened??? DainBramaged Apr 2013 #75
A sad little gun troll had to go bye bye cyberswede Apr 2013 #79
Thanks, another bug sprayed DainBramaged Apr 2013 #86
Bullshit DainBramaged Apr 2013 #41
Your last sentence is something that some of us want to consider, but, as there SHOULD be in any patrice Apr 2013 #73
But, but, but, that's because everybody isn't packing heat! catbyte Apr 2013 #34
The thing I really DON'T like about this picture, Amimnoch Apr 2013 #35
Your proposals would allow any non-crazy person the right to armed Flatulo Apr 2013 #54
Que the NRA talking points in 3-2-1....... DainBramaged Apr 2013 #40
Nailed. it. That post was a bullshit set-up, as in volleyball. nt patrice Apr 2013 #78
The gunners flock to these threads like a moth to flame neverforget Apr 2013 #101
Gun manufacturers profit from each and every case... radhika Apr 2013 #45
sensible gun control would still have allowed samsingh Apr 2013 #46
The 203 number is a low number. GreenStormCloud Apr 2013 #50
Let's look at those. GreenStormCloud Apr 2013 #47
Thanks for all of the billh58 Apr 2013 #57
Calling something a talking point is not a rebuttal. GreenStormCloud Apr 2013 #61
Your arguments have been answered with logic many times here at DU Dan Ken Apr 2013 #67
Yep, got me pegged billh58 Apr 2013 #69
I could never rebut your statement that you are a cow. Pholus Apr 2013 #99
Yes. And 390k from smoking, 49k from second hand smoke alone - that one always gets me. geckosfeet Apr 2013 #115
You might feel safer still if you duct tape pillows to all the sharp corners of your furniture. IveWornAHundredPants Apr 2013 #121
K&R! TeamPooka Apr 2013 #64
Thank you... bobclark86 Apr 2013 #109
Thanks, Earl. Great stats. toby jo Apr 2013 #110
Surprise, Surprise, Surprise - Will The Gun Violence Fallacies Never End cantbeserious Apr 2013 #120
So is DU now "Officially" Anti-Gun? MicaelS Apr 2013 #123
Just that gun prescence has led to more death than protection. fascisthunter Apr 2013 #126
Sounds like a name of a headbangers band... Ellipsis Apr 2013 #124
You do realize this isn't a point in your favor. Yukari Yakumo Apr 2013 #125
There are some crazy people who think that ALL the gun-related deaths are bad! IveWornAHundredPants Apr 2013 #128
Some of us here at DU have used guns in self-defense before NickB79 Apr 2013 #130
K&R nt ProudProgressiveNow Apr 2013 #135
What's more "self defense" than defending yourself against yourself? Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #137
Thanks EarlG! This kind of post sure rings the dinner bell for the gungions. FailureToCommunicate Apr 2013 #138
Of those 230 Justifiable Homicides cleduc Apr 2013 #139
We just need more guns liberal N proud Apr 2013 #151
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Video & Multimedia»Pic Of The Moment: So Muc...»Reply #127