b

Exactly the reason I gave earlier for why this case made national media...
White v Black tension. It fits the narrative

Is the "narrative" wrong?

And its only half the issue. The other half is the effect of the Stand Your Ground Law.
Setting aside this particular instance, it has trebled the instances of "justifiable homicide" in Florida. And according to the Tampa Bay Times resulted in a lot of violence that was once avoided. Probably because without the SYG law, a lot of people would have been deterred from aggressive behaviour.
A good law, deters crime.
A bad law, encourages criminal behaviour. In this case SYG makes it very difficult for a prosecutor to make a case that ultimately turns on the "mindset" of the shooter claiming the SYG defence.
The reason why the honus is placed upon the defendant claiming an insanity defence is the same reason that the honus has always been placed upon those claiming justifiable homicide.
You can't just say I'm really crazy ...believe me.
You can't just say, I was really in fear of my life...believe me. But thats the way SYG is currently written.

The narrative is wrong if the vast majority of blacks killed are killed by other than whites, but the media and black outcry is over a white v black shooting. (double standard)

How would you re-write the law? Do you think there is a need for homeowners to be protected?

The problem with your point ricky is that the general rule of thumb in the US, even prior to SYG laws, is that there was no requirement to retreat. The big difference in SYG laws is the presumption of self defense is no longer an affirmative defense. Which means there is no need for a defendant to prove self defense.

In the past this is how it would work. Person A would commit a crime. Person B would defend himself and kill the assailant. B would be arrested, probably for manslaughter, and taken to trial. B would have to submit pre-trial paperwork asserting self defense and what information they were going to provide to proof that. At trial, if, in the judge's opinion, not enough evidence was provided, the jury could not consider self defense as a mitigating factor. If and only if the defendent was able to meet the standard of evidence for self defense did the prosecution have to prove it was not actually self defense.

Under the new SYG laws, the defense has the presumption of self defense. The entire burden is on the prosecution to show the situation did not include a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury.

This is pretty much the only difference in the majority of U.S. jurisdictions.

The problem with the shift of the burden of proof lies within the nature of proof itself in logic. You can prove or disprove an affirmitive, but you cannot usually prove or disprove a negative (cf: Russell's Teapot)

The prosecution is attempting to prove an affirmitive - that the accused is guilty. The defence doe not need to fully disprove it, only cast enough doubt on it.. The prosecution have the burden of proof and this is right, because the reverse, that the defendant would need to proof a negative - that they are not guilty - is not logically provable to the same extent and so this would be unfair to the accused.

However, an affirmitive defence does make sense that way, because otherwise you would be asking the prosecution to prove a negative.

To make it that self-defence is no longer an affirmitive defence is logically inconsistent. Further, to elevate it so that police forces cannot even arrest someone who is asserting it will hinder justice.

The Zimmerman-Martin case demonstrates this very well, in fact. Either of them could have possibly killed the other. Had Martin killed Zimmerman with his fists, he could easily have asserted self -defence based on Zimmerman being in possession of a gun.

Seems to me that this removes some of the responsibility in what we would normally want to be a highly accountable situation - the taking of a life.

bbauska wrote:The narrative is wrong if the vast majority of blacks killed are killed by other than whites, but the media and black outcry is over a white v black shooting. (double standard)

You seem to be assuming that the narrative is false if another can also legitimately exist. The prevalence of black on black crime is orthogonal to the powerful image that some see when they think of a white* man kill a black man after 'suspicions' about them but the forces of law and order appear reluctant to act. The latter part it is probably what makes it more notable.

* by the way, I thought usually in the US Hispanics were not always considered 'white'

How would you re-write the law? Do you think there is a need for homeowners to be protected?

Having read the laws, I would repeal 776.032 and fall back to 776.013 which has quite a deal of protection for people who are attacked or their home/vehicle is entered illegally.

What they shouldn't get, however, is carte blanche.

b

How would you re-write the law? Do you think there is a need for homeowners to be protected?

I would simply repeal SYG. Justifiable homicide, as an affirmative defence, always worked before as a defence for a shooting. (And for the insanity defence which is rarely successful because it is an affirmative defence)
There's no evidence to suggest that the requirement for actually having to prove your killing was justifiable, stopped anyone from adequately protecting themselves... Even the Florida state legislator who sponsored SYG couldn't "justify" the SYG law with evidence that showed there were people being prosecuted because "jusitifiable homicide" was failing as an adequate law.
Currently, in Florida at least, the SYG law has lead to a trebling of jusitifiable homicides. People seem to be encouraged to act aggressively because they no longer have the responsibility for proving their actions were justified.
In the case of loss of life, it seems to me that it should be incumbent upon the killer to explain how they acted justifiaibly. Its required of police whenever they fire a gun. Why should a citizen, privately enforcing the law or protecting themselves, be held to a lower level of accountability than a police officer?
By the way, because the police know they will be held accountable, they are less likely to use force without cause. The statistics indicate that when relieved of the burden of justifying their actions, private citizens act rashly. Impunity does that.

b

The narrative is wrong if the vast majority of blacks killed are killed by other than whites, but the media and black outcry is over a white v black shooting. (double standard)

Should I get out my Venn diagrams?
Besides, is the narrative white on black crime? Or is it a police departments's inadequate response to crimes against blacks or other minorities? Or is it a police departments and justice departments "blue wall of silence". The banding together to protect "one of our own"?
I think its fairly complicated. The more that is revealed, last nights videos of Zimmerman at the police station, and the comments by Whites funeral director (he had no bruising or wounds on his hands) , the more it seems to me that Zimmerman was released when he should have been charged because of either:
1) confusion over the SYG law OR confusion created by the SYG law.
or perhaps by high level interference in the investigation.
Or both confusion and interference.
But beyond that the idea that a black man in the US continues to face a different level of scrutiny and a different kind of process in his interactions with police seems to be a common narrative. Some of it may be justiifed by daily experiences of police. But when it occurs in a situation like Zimmerman/White it demonstrates the prejudice that exists. (Prejudice coming from the word, pre-judged) . White was prejudged by Zimmerman.... Acting as a self appointed arbiter of justice (see: vigilante) Zimmerman followed and accosted White for no other reason than how he looked. Walking while black while Wearing a hoody The wearing of which would make the New England Patriots Head Coach a suspect at all times..)

danivon wrote:You seem to be assuming that the narrative is false if another can also legitimately exist. The prevalence of black on black crime is orthogonal to the powerful image that some see when they think of a white* man kill a black man after 'suspicions' about them but the forces of law and order appear reluctant to act. The latter part it is probably what makes it more notable.

* by the way, I thought usually in the US Hispanics were not always considered 'white'

How would you re-write the law? Do you think there is a need for homeowners to be protected?

Having read the laws, I would repeal 776.032 and fall back to 776.013 which has quite a deal of protection for people who are attacked or their home/vehicle is entered illegally.

What they shouldn't get, however, is carte blanche.

There can be other narratives, I agree. Perhaps when the narrative of blacks being murdered in large numbers is SO much larger than the little "white v black" murders, that is what should be talked about.

I use the white v black instance because that is what is being spoken about from the media. I do know that Zimmerman is half Hispanic.

I also agree with the recommendation of the law you have given. Protection for someone in their own house/car. Normal regulation in public/equal access locations.

RickyP,

First off, why the increase in justifiable homicide? Could it be an increase in crime as well? Perhaps statistics were not tracked well before the law. Hard to tell... I will look into that.

A citizen should be held to a lower level of accountability because a police officer has BEEN TRAINED to use judgement in a stressful situation. (I have been through the judgmental shooting courses several times). Are you saying that a police officer should be held to the same responsibility as a normal citizen? I certainly hope not, as I want them to be experts (but not perfect) in the area of crime and judgement.

When I speak of the narrative, it is the one of the media blowing this out of proportion, and disregarding the iceberg sized data on the murders of blacks.

If the investigation (which I have advocated from the beginning) shows Zimmerman acted recklessly or criminally, he should be tried to the fullest extent of the law, including the death penalty if Murder 1 is the charge. Will you support him getting the death penalty if found guilty of Murder 1? Probably not. I can say I want him punished more than you.

BTW, I am all for Belichick being held without bail...

bbauska wrote:RickyP,

First off, why the increase in justifiable homicide? Could it be an increase in crime as well? Perhaps statistics were not tracked well before the law. Hard to tell... I will look into that.

Here are the stats for crime Florida between 1960 and 2010.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/flcrime.htm

Looks like generally crime has followed national trends of peaking in the late 80s early 90s and falling to about half that level (in terms of per 100,000 people) by the 2000s, across most if not all categories.

However, at the bottom it shows the ranking of Florida as a State, and it ispretty much in the top 10 for most crimes except Murder, Rape and Vehicle theft. In most categories it is moving up the rankings.

This ABC local report: Justifiable Homicide Double since Stand Your Ground

The rates for the years 2000 to 2010 are shown, There certainly appears to be a step-change after 2006, rather than a gradual trend, although the numbers are low.

I don't see a similar step-change in the crime-rate statistics in the first link in those years.

So, if the jump is not attributable to SYG, what is it? Have you found evidence of a change in methodology in collecting the stats?

A citizen should be held to a lower level of accountability because a police officer has BEEN TRAINED to use judgement in a stressful situation. (I have been through the judgmental shooting courses several times). Are you saying that a police officer should be held to the same responsibility as a normal citizen? I certainly hope not, as I want them to be experts (but not perfect) in the area of crime and judgement.

Ah well, I'm one of those people who thinks if we are going to allow people to have lethal weapons like handguns, they should be demonstrably well trained on when and how to use them.

If the investigation (which I have advocated from the beginning) shows Zimmerman acted recklessly or criminally, he should be tried to the fullest extent of the law, including the death penalty if Murder 1 is the charge. Will you support him getting the death penalty if found guilty of Murder 1? Probably not. I can say I want him punished more than you.

Your last sentence comes off a bit 'holier than thou', to be honest. Needless one-upmanship isn't the point, Brad.

The point is that the investigation is tainted to many by the lack of decisive action at the start and the association with a bad law. Hopefully that can be reversed by a full investigation that is open and seen to be beyond reproach. In that sense I hope we agree.

If it came across as "Holier than thou" it was not meant that way. I want the criminal tried to the fullest extent, whether that is Zimmerman or Martin. RickyP certainly would not want that death sentence used. I am willing to use a stricter execution of sentencing than he is. That is all I was saying.

The crime numbers for violent crimes have gone down during the time in question. That is something to the positive. Perhaps the SYG has that for side-effects?

If the shootings in question are "justifiable" after investigation, does it matter? If the invaded person justifiably uses deadly force it should not matter whether there are 42 or 4,200. If a perpetrator is doing an illegal invasion activity that he/she gets killed doing, and the invaded person investigated is found to have "justifiably", that is just too darn bad.

I agreed that the law should not apply to outside of personal residences/vehicles. Fine, change the law to that. If someone comes into the house, and gets blown away, that is not my worry. Investigate, and if found to be "justifiable homicide" then end of story. The perpetrator should know that could be a result.

I want them to know that could be the result, and the invader can make the choice.

bbauska wrote:The crime numbers for violent crimes have gone down during the time in question. That is something to the positive. Perhaps the SYG has that for side-effects?

I didn't see much of a change from the earlier trends for the same period. So crime didn't seem to be rising, but falling gradually, and SYG does not seem to have been followed a significant chang in the rate of fall.

If the shootings in question are "justifiable" after investigation, does it matter? If the invaded person justifiably uses deadly force it should not matter whether there are 42 or 4,200. If a perpetrator is doing an illegal invasion activity that he/she gets killed doing, and the invaded person investigated is found to have "justifiably", that is just too darn bad.

Hmm. This assumes that the determination is based on a full investigation ofthe facts, and not on a greater likelihood of cases being dropped as JH because the law stops proper police action.

But personally, I think 4,200 dead people would be an indicator of a major problem. There are about 1,000 murders in Florida a year.

I agreed that the law should not apply to outside of personal residences/vehicles. Fine, change the law to that. If someone comes into the house, and gets blown away, that is not my worry. Investigate, and if found to be "justifiable homicide" then end of story. The perpetrator should know that could be a result.

If you read title 776.013, are you happy with that level of protection? If so, then SYG can be repealed fully (because we need your permission on this one )

I suppose we do need to be a little bit careful with these 'justifiable homicide' figures. On the one hand, it's easy to just say "well, if it's justified then who gives a damn ?" when of course it's only justified in the sense that it doesn't result in a prosecution but may otherwise be unjustifiable. On the other hand, just because this classification of himicide has doubled it doesn't necessarily follow that this means more deaths are occurring. It could just be that the rate of homicide has remained constant but more people are avoiding prosecution and being shunted into the 'justifiable' category. If so that would undermine Ricky's argument that the law is making people more aggressive. Ultimately we don't really know and it would be difficult to adequately test. My suspicion is that SYG does encourage violence but it wouldn't be easy to quantify.

danivon wrote:But personally, I think 4,200 dead people would be an indicator of a major problem. There are about 1,000 murders in Florida a year.

Is 42 an indicator of a major problem? As to SYG, I have stated my position already.

I know my attitude is cavalier toward the invaders. Such is the price of "doing business" in that line of work.

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:But personally, I think 4,200 dead people would be an indicator of a major problem. There are about 1,000 murders in Florida a year.

Is 42 an indicator of a major problem?

Not on its own. A rise from under 20 a year to over 40 a year is, however, an indicator of some change. You yourself said you'd look into it. So what have you found?

As to SYG, I have stated my position already.

I'm still confused, as to what it is you are supporting. What is it in Title 776.013 parts 1 and 2 that you feel do not offer enough protection to householders

By the way I prefer not to use 'homeowner', as that seems to me to suggest that it's about legal owership of property, when I thought it would be about security of the residents themselves. Tenants can be burgled too. I know, because both times my home was robbed, I was renting.

I know my attitude is cavalier toward the invaders. Such is the price of "doing business" in that line of work.

Not all people who enter others houses are intent on burglary. They could, as has happened, been confused or drunk and just go into the wrong house. If you are going to assume that every 'invader' is there with hostile intent, then sure, you are unlikely to be anything but cavalier. If, however, you were to consider alternative possibilities...