Posted on 06/16/2012 6:46:55 PM PDT by marktwain
A few months ago, the Cato Institute sponsored a policy forum or expert discussion on self-defense laws, including the controversial ‘Stand Your Ground’ law. Among those speaking at the event was Massad Ayoob, the internationally renowned firearms and self-defense instructor.
Ayoob, by most accounts, is a guru in the gun community. He’s been an editor at GUNS magazine and AMERICAN HANDGUNNER since the 1970s, and has published thousands of articles in gun publications, martial arts publications and law enforcement journals.
AyoobBut as far as his writing goes, Ayoob is probably best known for his seminal work, ‘In the Gravest Extreme,’ which is widely considered to be the authoritative text on the topic of the legal use of lethal force.
In addition to being a prolific author, he served 19 years as chair of the Firearms Committee of the American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers, and several years as a member of the Advisory Board of the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association.
He is a regional handgun shooting champion, a judicially recognized expert witness for the courts in weapons and shooting cases (since 1979), and a Captain in the Grantham, New Hampshire police department, where he has been a fully sworn and empowered, part time police officer for 36 years.
In any event, you get the picture. The guy is a sage when it comes to all things self defense and firearm related.
So, here the speech he gave as part of the Cato Institute's panel discussion (it’s worth watching the entire clip):
Ayoob does a great job defending ‘Stand Your Ground.’ In his measured tone, he dispels rumors about the law (e.g. one can’t just shoot someone because he/she feels like it, he/she needs to establish ‘reasonable’ fear of imminent death or great bodily harm) while making several cogent points concerning the need to support it (e.g. the presumption of self-defense streamlines the judicial process and saves taxpayers money).
But, as I’ve said in the past, in theory SYG is a great law. In practice, it’s being abused.
Personally, I think the law needs to be improved. I’m specifically referring to Florida’s version of the law, which is the most widely known and discussed. For reference, you can check out the law here.
I’ve been giving this some thought, after reading your comments and doing some research, here are three ways I think Florida’s SYG can be improved:
1. The law is inapplicable if the shooter possesses a firearm illegally.
2. If the suspect has a history of violence or a felony conviction, he/she loses the preponderance clause. In other words, a judge can’t dismiss the case; it must go before a jury.
3. If the shooter left the scene to arm himself/herself, and then returned to confront the victim, then SYG does not apply.
I think a SYG law with these explicated provisions would help to reduce the number of criminals who invoke the statute, thus reducing abuse.
These are just preliminary suggestions. I'm interested to see what the Florida task force reviewing the law discovers.
Are there any potential improvements I am missing?
later
Sad when a persons right to defend oneself has to be defined by lawyers. 100 years ago this would have never been questioned. Natural law over man made law, or even a rat will bite you if he is cornered.
Not sure I like this because it's easy to see it being used against a homeowner, say, who leaves the immediate scene of a crime during a home invasion robbery (namely, the front entryway) to retrieve a gun from a back room or a car parked outside, then returning and killing the home invaders, only to be charged under this provision. His home is his home and he should be allowed to leave and return. Could say the same about his car if he's carjacked.
You can bet there were be murderers who use self defense as an excuse for executing someone they hate. In the aftermath of the Trayvon race bait hoodie klan ‘protests’, jacked up black racists on the internet talked about using SYG in defense of murdering whitey.
Given the recent conviction of that retired firefighter in Texas who murdered his neighbor, it seems SYG does not accidently protect murderers/predators. Police have to be careful of this con game.
I was raised Democrat. I had problems with that. So I set about educating myself.
There came a time when I addressed the issue of guns. Gun ownership, gun use, gun laws - all of it.
God, being Good, introduced me at that time to the writings of Massad Ayoob. Firmly, yet, gently and clearly, he took hold of my head, and oriented it in the correct direction about guns, and everything concerning them.
Since then, I have had no questions, because he made everything crystal clear.
Thank you, Massad. I consider you a dear friend you have never met.
LOL, I also consider myself a dear friend of yours whom you have never met.
In principle I have no problem with this. The devil, however, is in the definition of "illegally". Freedom haters have spent decades erecting a scaffolding of illogical, conflicting (mostly in geographical terms, but sometimes also law vs. law), and picayune laws which render possession at a given time in a given location "illegal" for reasons that wouldn't stand up if they had to be debated on a case-by-case basis. So....NO. Besides, since SYG is ALREADY restricted to cases in which the shooter is in a place they have the legal right to be and causing no harm till the conflict erupts, why is he obsessing about illegal possession?
2. If the suspect has a history of violence or a felony conviction, he/she loses the preponderance clause. In other words, a judge can’t dismiss the case; it must go before a jury.
This is another one that sounds good in principle, but I bet the terms get to be applied as defined by attorneys and liberals, in other words, incorrectly. So, as you must do with any proposal that could be abused to abuse freedom, you must err on the safe side; BRRRRRRRAP!
3. If the shooter left the scene to arm himself/herself, and then returned to confront the victim, then SYG does not apply.
I believe that's already the case.
which explains why the prosecution at the Zimmerman bond hearing badgeringly pursued this line of questioning with his wife. He should expect it at the SYG hearing.
“1. The law is inapplicable if the shooter possesses a firearm illegally. “
I have problems with that inclusion. The right to self defense is for all men. Just because the government doesn’t approve of their being armed means, what, that they are less of a human and deserve to be a victim?
We all know what the government gives it can take away and it cannot take what it did not give. Self defense is a God given right, not a government provided privilege subject to its approval.
“I believe that’s already the case.”
Yes, it would seem that would apply directly to the reasonable fear for imminent death or bodily harm part. If you left and came back later the prosecution should be able to argue your reaonable fear left with you.
I agree with the other poster to an extent who was concerned about that provision incriminating homeowners who go to the bedroom to get their gun, etc., but I don't think it applies because SYG per se is pretty much for use in public as I understand it. Self defense in your own home or business was always legal and the new provisions of SYG aren't required in those cases. In any case, if the law is restricted in that way, I'd have no problem with some explicit verbiage being added to make it clear those cases aren't the ones to which it applies.
“Self defense in your own home or business was always legal and the new provisions of SYG aren’t required in those cases.”
You’re right, SYG doesn’t apply. Within the home it’s called the “Castle Doctrine,” as in “an Englishman’s home is his castle.” No, it is not in all states and all instances assumed you have the right to protect your life and property against invaders. For instance, I remember a firestorm some time back against a man who rigged a shotgun to fire when the door to his shop was breached. Some potential robber got his head blown off, and people were angry at the owner instead of happy that another criminal got what he deserved.
It was kind of a general statement with focus on Florida, where I'm sure self defense is generally legal in your home or business.
Your example is not a very good one to demonstrate your first statement, however, as many jurisdictions differentiate between self defense per se, and placing a "booby trap". Booby trapping is illegal in many jurisdictions in which self defense is perfectly legal and expected, and in many cases is justified by the risk to LEO's and others who might claim some sort of legal right to enter your property. Personally, I'm not entirely swayed by that reasoning, as the circumstances under which they have good reason to enter without permission and without prior notice would seem to be vastly outnumbered by the cases in which booby trapping, when rationally applied, would lead to a beneficial outcome, as in your example.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.