Opinion: ‘Stand your ground’ code for vigilantism

[Parker 213]

Another slant from E.J. Dionne:

 

http://www.northjers...2.html?page=all

 

Opinion: ‘Stand your ground’ code for vigilantism

Monday April 16, 2012, 5:18 PM

BY EJ DIONNE

The Record

 

 

IT’S understandable if unfortunate that the controversy surrounding the killing of Trayvon Martin has polarized the country along both racial and ideological lines. But there is one issue that should not have any racial connotations: the urgency of repealing “Stand Your Ground” laws.

 

And leave it to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to speak the blunt truth about why these laws are dangerous — and why the National Rifle Association keeps pushing them anyway.

 

“In reality,” Bloomberg said in a speech before the National Press Club last week, “the NRA’s leaders weren’t interested in public safety. They were interested in promoting a culture where people take the law into their own hands and face no consequences for it. Let’s call that by its real name: vigilantism.”

 

On guns, Bloomberg is strong and everyone else is feckless, to paraphrase the late columnist Murray Kempton.

OK, not exactly everyone else. Bloomberg’s partners in the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns — notably Boston’s Mayor Tom Menino, the organization’s co-chair — have filled the void left in state legislatures, Congress and the White House by moderates, liberals and many conservatives who ought to know better but are too petrified by the NRA to confront it. Mayors face the daily toll taken by gun laws dictated by gun lobbyists and are less easily intimidated.

 

“Feckless” is a favorite word of columnists. Its first meanings, according to Webster’s, are “weak” and “ineffective,” and it is an ineffectiveness spawned by weakness that explains why Stand Your Ground laws spread through legislatures like a virus. By Bloomberg’s count, they are now on the books in 25 states.

 

These laws didn’t arise in response to broad, spontaneous popular demand. As both The Washington Post and The New York Times reported last week, the idea came from on high, courtesy of the NRA, which worked closely with a right-wing group called the American Legislative Exchange Council.

 

“It was the NRA taking a stealthy fight to the states,” Mark Glaze, the director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, told me in an interview, “and 25 flowers bloomed.”

 

Feeble resistance to the NRA

Resistance to the gun lobby has grown so feeble and the NRA has won so many victories that its legislative maestros must find ever more creative ways to prove its relevance.

One way is to pretend that President Obama, a disappointment to many who support more rational gun laws, is actually a grave threat to gun rights.

 

He most assuredly is not.

 

Yet Mitt Romney, who once supported gun-control measures, tried to Etch-a-Sketch that past away before the NRA Friday, pledging to defend rights he claimed the president “ignores or minimizes.”

 

Another way is to come up with increasingly extreme laws to extend the reach of guns into American life. You can imagine that if the NRA proposed a statute to arm all 10-year-olds to make our schools safer, hundreds of state legislators and members of Congress would robotically vote yes. You can also predict what the NRA slogan would be: “An armed child is a safer child.”

 

What’s insidious about Stand Your Ground laws is that in every jurisdiction that has them, these statutes tilt the balance of power in any street encounter in favor of the person who has a gun. That’s what happened in the Martin case. The law provides a perverse incentive for everyone to be armed.

 

Complicate law enforcement

Equally problematic, these measures complicate law enforcement, breeding confusion for both police and prosecutors. They weren’t even necessary, since courts have long recognized the right to self-defense.

 

As Glaze noted, “it’s not about standing your ground, it’s about taking authority away from police and ignoring 400 years of common law that has always allowed you to defend yourself.”

 

We need to know more about why officials in Florida were so slow in investigating and ultimately charging George Zimmerman in the Martin killing — and one can hope that things will become clearer as the case moves forward.

But it’s very hard not to conclude that the Stand Your Ground law threw sand into the wheels of justice. As Bloomberg said, “The strongest law of all is one that is never on the books, and that is the law of unintended consequences. Stand Your Ground laws prove that that’s true.”

 

We do not need statutes that encourage citizens to assume that feeling threatened is reason enough to shoot another human being.

 

And legislatures that just rubber stamp laws written by national lobbying groups turn the whole idea of “states’ rights” into an empty and laughable slogan.

 

E.J. Dionne writes for The Washington Post. Send comments about this column to [email protected]

[BarkNBite 15]

Dumburg is only speaking on behalf of his Party.................as far a Trayvon.........it appears he had the opportunity to head home like a nice young man when he took off running.... and not circle back to confront and assault Zimmerman as per the time line.

IMO.............he payed for his mistake.....plain and simple.

[Parker 213]

The media and left-leaning libs are making the most of this "crisis."

[leahcim 680]

I am still ambivalent because I am not fully informed on SYG. I understand and agree in principle with law that would extend a castle doctrine to allow protection of self and property outside of the confines of your property. But I am not sure how far that should go--should there ever be a duty to retreat? Does it allow broad, blanket defense against any shooting (just say "I feared for my life" and the only wittness is dead) and the court has the burden to prove that you did not fear for your life or feel threatened? Is there a responsibility to try to de-escalate or retreat--e.g. if someone is running away from you with your property, can you chase them down and then defend yourself in the ensuing confrontation? So I think it depends on how the law is written, but I think anyone who CCW has the responsibility to understand the law, when they can/should employ the weapon, when they should step back and let the situation play out, when they should try to descalate and--when a confrontation does occur--how far do you take it. e.g. many self defense laws do not allow you to continue "defending" if the perp has backed off or becomes compliant.

 

I think it is pretty useless to discuss the current Zimmerman case wrt SYG because it is completely dependent on whose story you believe, who was the aggressor, did Trayvon attack Z or vice versa, etc. The Jury is going to have to decide that based on fact presented in court, not based on media hyperbole from both sides--I do not envy that job because they will probably be in danger if they do not give the right decision (and by right I mean Left).

[Ronald Silver 2]

I am still ambivalent because I am not fully informed on SYG. I understand and agree in principle with law that would extend a castle doctrine to allow protection of self and property outside of the confines of your property. But I am not sure how far that should go--should there ever be a duty to retreat? Does it allow broad, blanket defense against any shooting (just say "I feared for my life" and the only wittness is dead) and the court has the burden to prove that you did not fear for your life or feel threatened? Is there a responsibility to try to de-escalate or retreat--e.g. if someone is running away from you with your property, can you chase them down and then defend yourself in the ensuing confrontation? So I think it depends on how the law is written, but I think anyone who CCW has the responsibility to understand the law, when they can/should employ the weapon, when they should step back and let the situation play out, when they should try to descalate and--when a confrontation does occur--how far do you take it. e.g. many self defense laws do not allow you to continue "defending" if the perp has backed off or becomes compliant.

 

I think it is pretty useless to discuss the current Zimmerman case wrt SYG because it is completely dependent on whose story you believe, who was the aggressor, did Trayvon attack Z or vice versa, etc. The Jury is going to have to decide that based on fact presented in court, not based on media hyperbole from both sides--I do not envy that job because they will probably be in danger if they do not give the right decision (and by right I mean Left).

I too am uncertain. Who's to contradict your story when the only other witness is dead? The only certainty I have about CCW is that it should be restricted in heavily populated areas like cities.

[Jon 264]

I too am uncertain. Who's to contradict your story when the only other witness is dead? The only certainty I have about CCW is that it should be restricted in heavily populated areas like cities.

 

Please explain your reasoning behind this.

[Ronald Silver 2]

Please explain your reasoning behind this.

We all know we can't take back a bullet once it leaves the barrel. 1st. There's a higher probability of hitting unintended targets in the background. 2nd I'm sure we all have experienced road rage in dense traffic over stupid things like someone cutting us off, not driving fast enough, or tailgating you. Imagine what would happen when ccw holders with short temper "lose it." 3rd. If I was a bad guy & know my potential victims may be armed, things may escalate for me to get an illegal firearm even if I didn't want one.

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

The only certainty I have about CCW is that it should be restricted in heavily populated areas like cities.

 

Which of your other rights are you willing to abbrogate based on where you live? You have been drinking the New Jersey kool-aide for too long.

 

With rights come responsibilities. Apparently you don't consider armed citizens responsible and would rather see the government impinge their rights. I think this is transferrence - if you don't feel your capable of making a shoot/don't shoot decision, then don't carry a firearm, but don't punish others for your shortcomings - that's "liberalthink".

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

[Malsua 1,422]

We all know we can't take back a bullet once it leaves the barrel. 1st. There's a higher probability of hitting unintended targets in the background. 2nd I'm sure we all have experienced road rage in dense traffic over stupid things like someone cutting us off, not driving fast enough, or tailgating you. Imagine what would happen when ccw holders with short temper "lose it." 3rd. If I was a bad guy & know my potential victims may be armed, things may escalate for me to get an illegal firearm even if I didn't want one.

 

None of these things occur in the 41 states the regularly permit CCW. Stop thinking like a NJ resident and go elsewhere. You'll see these "problems" are nothing more than the fevered imagination from the Brady campaign.

[Midwest 28]

I wonder how many innocent victims died over the decades because they weren't allowed by the state to protect themselves with a firearm. Where is the outrage in that? The Sullivan law in NY (and other laws like it in no carry states) are responsible for the loss of lives, including assaults and rapes. Why doesn't anyone call this out?

[MarkWVU02 47]

Dumburg is only speaking on behalf of his Party.................as far a Trayvon.........it appears he had the opportunity to head home like a nice young man when he took off running.... and not circle back to confront and assault Zimmerman as per the time line.

IMO.............he payed for his mistake.....plain and simple.

 

You really love throwing your speculation into every thread about this case. Not of what you say is fact. It's actually getting old.

[bulpup 98]

I too agree it is in how it is written.

 

The point of the law, as I see it, is that if a citizen is attacked in the course of a crime, be it an assault or a robbery, they were at risk both criminally and in civil court by not first choosing to "run off." They are then on the defensive against the wailing mothers of the deceased, saying how he or she wouldn't hurt a fly. The person defending themselves first has to prove that they tried to leave but the attacker persisted, that the attacker was a committing a crime and/or gave them enough fear that they were afraid for their lives. That seems like a very hard case to defend, especially if you went through lengths to get a CCW and learn how to use it and the other guy had just fists.

 

On the other hand, Stand your Ground laws seem to have created incidents - at least three anyway - where an individual with a carry license starts an argument, gets his a** beat and then kills the guy that was punching his lights out. No one can agree to that that is the intent of the law, quite the oposite. That one incident with the guy skateboarding - sure I can get annoyed with people, but would I get in the face of some guy while carrying a pistol of it? No.

 

But I don't think the above is vigilantism. I think it is some people with poor judgement without clear guidance on how to get out of a heated situation without having a fight.

 

But lastly, what really gets me is just moderen society. You SHOULD, be able to have a heated discussion without worrying about some Uber fighter dude just thinking he can beat your a**. That has been going on forever. This is the situation that could be viewed as the core of the issue. If I get into a fender bender with some guy that is half my age, in tip top condition and has nothing to lose by knocking me down, what is exactly my duty to retreat? Wouldn't I do that anyway given the disparity of strength and ability? Should I leave my car and property just because some musclehead is also a hot head? What if I am with my wife? In NJ I do. It may or may not be the best and safest thing to do, but the only people in that case that would be retreating would be the weaker. I don't see how I am better off being told to run away from any incident. Even worse is what if that hothead also has a pistol?

 

There is a median somewhere. The intent is correct, but hot heads are making it look like it isn't getting the results that we would have expected.

[Ronald Silver 2]

Which of your other rights are you willing to abbrogate based on where you live? You have been drinking the New Jersey kool-aide for too long.

 

With rights come responsibilities. Apparently you don't consider armed citizens responsible and would rather see the government impinge their rights. I think this is transferrence - if you don't feel your capable of making a shoot/don't shoot decision, then don't carry a firearm, but don't punish others for your shortcomings - that's "liberalthink".

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

Things are never black & white. Compromise is what life is about. I grew up & worked in Manhattan. You can't tell me it's safe for you to open fire on Times Square just because you are being mugged. I agree with many here that NJ is a nanny state. No one is punishing anyone here. I guess Wyatt earp was a nazi for taking away guns in Tombstone too, right? Let's respect everyone's opinion. Thanks

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

Things are never black & white. Compromise is what life is about. I grew up & worked in Manhattan. You can't tell me it's safe for you to open fire on Times Square just because you are being mugged. I agree with many here that NJ is a nanny state. No one is punishing anyone here. I guess Wyatt earp was a nazi for taking away guns in Tombstone too, right? Let's respect everyone's opinion. Thanks

 

I do respect your opinion, I just don't want you to advocate that your opinion should become the rule of law, when it transgresses my rights. Read my post again - I said that with rights, come responsibilities, no one is saying you should open fire in Times Square. If you are an adult and accept the responsibilities that come with those rights, you should have enough sense to make the shoot/no shoot decision. I don't need the government making that one for me when it's my life in the balance.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

And yes, Wyatt Earp was a nazi for disarming the populus

[raz-0 1,259]

We all know we can't take back a bullet once it leaves the barrel. 1st. There's a higher probability of hitting unintended targets in the background. 2nd I'm sure we all have experienced road rage in dense traffic over stupid things like someone cutting us off, not driving fast enough, or tailgating you. Imagine what would happen when ccw holders with short temper "lose it." 3rd. If I was a bad guy & know my potential victims may be armed, things may escalate for me to get an illegal firearm even if I didn't want one.

 

By your reasoning the police should not open fire on anyone either. They fire a HELL of a lot more shots per incident than the average self-defense situation. Realistically, there is probably not a significant difference in risk compared to your average suburban sprawl. A stray bullet will only pass through so much body and/or so much construction. Cities tend to have sturdier construction, and yeah, there might be 10,000 people on the sidewalk going that way, but the 1.5 people the bullet oculd pass through are simply closer than they would be in the world of suburban sprawl.

 

Realistically, even when it is the police, they endanger more folks than they protect. What isn't spelled out is that they value their lives more. I value mine more. If the criminal scumbag would keep to themselves, nobody need get hurt.

 

Wyatt Earp WAS a scumbag, sorry. He just happened to be the crook in charge and was a little less bad than the crooks that were not.

 

Howabout we respectfully disagree rather than assume jsut because something comes out of someone's mouth, it is equally as valid as everything else and just as important.

[Ronald Silver 2]

I do respect your opinion, I just don't want you to advocate that your opinion should become the rule of law, when it transgresses my rights. Read my post again - I said that with rights, come responsibilities, no one is saying you should open fire in Times Square. If you are an adult and accept the responsibilities that come with those rights, you should have enough sense to make the shoot/no shoot decision. I don't need the government making that one for me when it's my life in the balance.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

And yes, Wyatt Earp was a nazi for disarming the populus

Pizza Bob, as serious gun enthusiasts here we know we are very responsible. But what about the poorly trained? The immature? The armed drunks? What about the indecisive shooters? I'm absolutely positive that some of these ccw holders in other states do not know if they can actually take another life until the moment of truth comes. Talk is cheap until you draw & fire. That split second life & death decision made under stress is very difficult.

[Jon 264]

Pizza Bob, as serious gun enthusiasts here we know we are very responsible. But what about the poorly trained? The immature? The armed drunks? What about the indecisive shooters? I'm absolutely positive that some of these ccw holders in other states do not know if they can actually take another life until the moment of truth comes. Talk is cheap until you draw & fire. That split second life & death decision made under stress is very difficult.

 

So, you're willing to disarm yourself and become a potential victim on the slight chance that you might protect someone else?

 

Call me selfish, but I'm not.

[Ronald Silver 2]

So, you're willing to disarm yourself and become a potential victim on the slight chance that you might protect someone else?

 

Call me selfish, but I'm not.

Yes, I would give my life to protect one innocent soul. But that's just me. Think of it this way. If you saw a bus turning into a street corner right into a 10 year old girl walking by, would you make an effort to save her?

[Ronald Silver 2]

By your reasoning the police should not open fire on anyone either. They fire a HELL of a lot more shots per incident than the average self-defense situation. Realistically, there is probably not a significant difference in risk compared to your average suburban sprawl. A stray bullet will only pass through so much body and/or so much construction. Cities tend to have sturdier construction, and yeah, there might be 10,000 people on the sidewalk going that way, but the 1.5 people the bullet oculd pass through are simply closer than they would be in the world of suburban sprawl.

 

Realistically, even when it is the police, they endanger more folks than they protect. What isn't spelled out is that they value their lives more. I value mine more. If the criminal scumbag would keep to themselves, nobody need get hurt.

 

Wyatt Earp WAS a scumbag, sorry. He just happened to be the crook in charge and was a little less bad than the crooks that were not.

 

Howabout we respectfully disagree rather than assume jsut because something comes out of someone's mouth, it is equally as valid as everything else and just as important.

Come on, there's 40 NYPD. 41 shots on Amadou Diallo is just one really bad bad example that is constantly brought up over & over again.

[BarkNBite 15]

Silver............I respect the right to your opinion...........but you don't have a clue as most on this thread......after working in the worst areas of Newark since the riots in the 60's untill the early 80's and being armed every day......experience talks, all that other speculative nonsense throw out the window.....

[Brisco 130]

Things are never black & white. Compromise is what life is about. I grew up & worked in Manhattan. You can't tell me it's safe for you to open fire on Times Square just because you are being mugged. I agree with many here that NJ is a nanny state. No one is punishing anyone here. I guess Wyatt earp was a nazi for taking away guns in Tombstone too, right? Let's respect everyone's opinion. Thanks

 

Wait a minute, Am I on NJGF or app.com/cnbc.com?

 

I just want to clarify. Some scumbag is trying to mug/rape you and your family, you are in a populated area, so you don't think you should be allowed to defend yourself?

 

No Thank You. If I had my rights, like a lot of the country, I would protect myself or my loved ones.

 

Wyatt Earp was just like Bloomburg/Lautenburg/the Clintons etc. Who are you to decide my rights?

 

And yes, I might give my life to save someone else's, but not some crack head who might harm some other innocent.

 

Populated area, really?

[BCeagle 12]

Bad example, who is going to mug you in the middle of Times Square with thousands of people and probably a 100 cops within a block.

 

You are going to get mugged in a less populated area like Northern Central Park at night.

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

Pizza Bob, as serious gun enthusiasts here we know we are very responsible. But what about the poorly trained? The immature? The armed drunks? What about the indecisive shooters? I'm absolutely positive that some of these ccw holders in other states do not know if they can actually take another life until the moment of truth comes. Talk is cheap until you draw & fire. That split second life & death decision made under stress is very difficult.

 

As we've established, you are entitled to your opinion and if you don't feel confident enough to carry in populated areas, then don't. But don't expect me to give up my rights to self defense because of your opinion.

 

No disrespect to our LEO board members here, but the Amadou Diallo case is not an anomaly. FBI statistics reveal that the hit percentage in NYC LEO shootings (for the last year figures were available) was 23%. Contrast that with the 68% hit percentage of armed citizens. I'll take my chances and defend myself, thank you.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

I have an idea, why don't we curtail free speech in the inner city, as it might be used to incite to riot

[MedicYeti 96]

 

I too am uncertain. Who's to contradict your story when the only other witness is dead? The only certainty I have about CCW is that it should be restricted in heavily populated areas like cities.

 

We all know crimes don't generally occur in heavily populated areas. Every night when I watch the news I hear about another shooting in small towns and rural areas; there's almost never a shooting in Philly or Camden.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

I too am uncertain. Who's to contradict your story when the only other witness is dead? The only certainty I have about CCW is that it should be restricted in heavily populated areas like cities.

 

What?

[Ray Ray 3,566]

Siver............I respect the right to your opinion...........but you don't have a clue as most on this thread......

 

what?

[Soju 153]

“In reality,” Bloomberg said in a speech before the National Press Club last week, “the NRA’s leaders weren’t interested in public safety. They were interested in promoting a culture where people take the law into their own hands and face no consequences for it. Let’s call that by its real name: vigilantism.”

 

"In reality", Bonesinium said, "I can say anything I want now because I just told you it was reality. Mayor Bloomberg isn't actually a mayor, but rather a pretty pink princess, so let's call him by his real name: Toadstool."

[KpdPipes 388]

We all know we can't take back a bullet once it leaves the barrel. 1st. There's a higher probability of hitting unintended targets in the background. 2nd I'm sure we all have experienced road rage in dense traffic over stupid things like someone cutting us off, not driving fast enough, or tailgating you. Imagine what would happen when ccw holders with short temper "lose it." 3rd. If I was a bad guy & know my potential victims may be armed, things may escalate for me to get an illegal firearm even if I didn't want one.

38 states have Shall Issue, 3 more have unrestricted carry, yet stories like that are few and far between....you sound more like Bryan Miller frankly.

[raz-0 1,259]

Come on, there's 40 NYPD. 41 shots on Amadou Diallo is just one really bad bad example that is constantly brought up over & over again.

 

I never brought that up, but since you did, we'll go with it. My point has nothing to do with the justification of force. It has to do with the delivery of it. In that instance that case was close to typical for nypd. The majority of shooting officers unloaded most of their magazines hitting about 40%. Nypd bats below average. Average for the industry is close to 50% miss, and usually a lot of shots are fired although i suspect current training trends are moving away from "shoot the whole magazine and reassess".

 

You don't hear a lot of stories about cops killing innocent bystanders. I suspect you risk assessment is dookie.

 

[PeteF 1,044]

I have an idea, why don't we curtail free speech in the inner city, as it might be used to incite to riot

 

Not a bad idea. As it has incited riots in many cases.

 

Yes I am being sarcastic about curtailing free speech, but not the riots.