LotsRegret
9d ago
One, is that actually a fair characterization of all SYG laws, that they only narrowly remove avoidance
I try to avoid absolutes, but I haven't seen any SYG law that did anything except remove avoidance - which isn't to say a judge or jury somewhere misunderstood it in a case - so if I could be pointed to a bad SYG law that removes more than avoidance, I'd love to see it.
I realize sympathy for assailants is low around here, but common law does usually support the idea that e.g. a fistfight or an unarmed mugging is usually not a fight to the death (of course intentionality matters). The presence of a gun obviously changes the calculus. But who assumes this extra risk, is the operative question?
In this case, the defender with the gun isn't legally allowed to use it in a non-lethal confrontation - it would break the proportion pillar, just having the gun doesn't permit one to use it. SYG also doesn't do anything here as if the "defender" goes for the gun, they are not acting in legal self defense with or without SYG.
As an example, should a conscious decision to bring a gun to an otherwise nonlethal dispute have any bearing on the legal responsibility, and do SYG laws impact that kind of finding?
Theoretically, and I am confident this has happens fairly often, two people who are both armed (guns holstered) and get into a shoving match without anything else happening. In this example, if one of them reaches for their gun, they have elevated a non-lethal confrontation into a lethal one, and the other person is now legally allowed to go for their gun. If no one reaches for their gun, it is a non-lethal confrontation regardless of guns being present - same as if they each had a sheathed knife or sword.
To give you your due, however, the presence of guns (or any other lethal weapon) does heighten tensions as actions in the heat of a confrontation can be misinterpreted and someone quickly lowering their hand to their side can look just like reaching for the gun. That is an incredibly unfortunate example, though, again, this isn't an issue caused by SYG or remedied by removing SYG - with or without SYG a confrontation where lethal weapons are around (even when holstered) is much more likely to escalate to legal self defense due to misinterpretation of actions.
In a weird way, guns essentially remove the avoidance pillar in most self defense cases to begin with (making SYG redundant), as as Nybbler put it: you can't outrun a bullet. It would be a very unusual self defense case where the prosecution could reasonably suggest a person can safely run from a lethal confrontation with an attacker with a gun.
Where SYG would most likely apply is when the "attacker" has a melee weapon of some sort and the "defender" has a gun - but is also confident they could safely remove themselves from the situation yet still decide to use the gun instead. I would be surprised if the number of cases which fit this fact pattern or similar to this is incredibly small - making SYG a boogeyman. I'm not even really defending SYG laws as much as I am pointing out it is probably used effectively in a handful of cases annually and is being smeared by people who either have no idea how self defense law works or are lying for political/legislative ends.
LotsRegret
10d ago
So IANAL, but I do enjoy law as a hobbyist - so take my answers with that in mind.
As far as I know, every state in the US now has it such that if you claim self defense and meet a very low standard, the burden goes to the state to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not act in self defense. The state does that typically by attacking at least one of the pillars, as if they can disprove any one pillar beyond a reasonable doubt, they win.
So for the scenario you laid out, it really depends - it would probably meet reasonable fear, but if the lady has done this once a week for years without anything coming of it, well then, probably not. If the door was well secured and locked, then that cuts against the imminence pillar - as she still needs to get through that door and close distance. However, if the door banger is armed with a gun, well, bullets can go through doors, so it may be a more reasonable argument on imminence.
Also, if the person performing self defense was in her house, it becomes a castle doctrine issue, not stand your ground, just fyi - but that is just one more thing people mix up.
At the end of the day, the defendant has to hope the prosecution can't convince 12 random people that the defendant broke one of those pillars beyond a reasonable doubt; and given the number of trials I've watched where I was shocked with the jury result given the legal and factual claims on the table, I'd always try to avoid using deadly force until I had no choice remaining, even if that means I am taking actions not required to meet the legal standard.
I know in that situation I would personally have retreated and called the police and had my gun trained on the door in case she breaks it down - but that doesn't mean what this person did was illegal, I just wouldn't bet on a jury to save me if I am firing on someone through my front door without knowing they were armed (it also breaks several of gun safety rules to do so, though those aren't laws, just best practices).
LotsRegret
10d ago
Exactly.
SYG is being completely mischaracterized or misunderstood to be allowing things it just flat out doesn't cover. It only removes the requirement of fleeing from a deadly encounter if it is possible (and you listed several examples of it not being possible).
Franky, if I were on the jury I would probably have acquitted, just on the basis of how SyG works. As far as I understand (IANAL), the only requirement for self-defense under SyG laws is reasonable fear of death/harm. In this case, it really seems like the jury concluded there wasn't a reasonable fear because the killer was racist.
So SYG only removes the requirement that someone flee from a deadly force encounter, if possible - it still requires the person to have not of started the deadly force fight, be reasonable in the fear for their life, be in imminent danger of gross bodily injury or death, AND only matching deadly force with deadly force.
So self defense claims are based on five pillars:
- Innocence - you can't have started the fight
- Proportion - deadly force can only be initiated based on the threat of deadly force, not non-deadly force fights
- Imminence - the threat has to be occurring right now, not in the unspecified future
- Reasonable - a reasonable person would have considered the encounter a deadly force threat, even if it ended up being wrong after the fact (example: the gun someone pulled was actually a replica and not a working firearm).
- Avoidance - If possible, you must try and flee the deadly force threat before defending yourself.
All the state/prosecution needs to do is show the person is guilty of breaking ONE of those pillars to knock out a self defense claim - even if the other four are met.
Did the jury think you started the deadly force fight? Guilty.
Did the jury think you escalated the fight into deadly force? Guilty.
Did the jury think there no imminent threat? Guilty.
Did the jury think you were not being reasonable with your evaluation of a deadly force threat? Guilty.
Did the jury think you could have run away in the heat of the encounter? Guilty.
News and politicians frequently don't understand (or actively lie) about how self defense is determined in the law - not understanding that Stand Your Ground only removes the requirement of avoidance, but not the other four pillars. It isn't a pass for you to not be innocent, respond to non-deadly force with deadly force, react before the threat is imminent, or have your decisions not be reasonable.
If the news or politicians blame people saying "they feared for their life" on Stand Your Ground, that is arguing reasonableness, not avoidance - Stand Your Ground only deals with avoidance. This is an example of either not understanding self defense law or lying. If the jury felt the fearing for their life wasn't reasonable (or the person is lying about fearing for their life), Stand Your Ground wouldn't matter, as they'd fail the reasonableness pillar and be guilty.
Zimmerman was a classic example of Stand Your Ground being blamed - but the defense never argued it and didn't need to. When Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin, he was pinned to the ground and being pummeled - there was nowhere to run to - so there was no need to argue he didn't need to run away (pillar five, avoidance), he physically couldn't.
What people are upset about is they feel stand your ground lets people go "looking for trouble" - Zimmerman should have minded his own business and not go looking for Martin - but that is just something that would be impossible to regulate in the real world. It also puts the cart before the horse: the attacker shouldn't have started a deadly force fight.
Are there situations where things are "awful but lawful"? Of course! If someone who couldn't walk without crutches attacks someone with a knife in a stand your ground state, instead of running to safety it allows you to stab them / shoot them legally, even if you could have easily escaped.
There are also the reverse cases wherein what should be an innocent person who used self-defense correctly only to be convicted because a good prosecutor can have the jury "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" the decision the person who used self defense made in the split second they had in a life or death fight that maybe they could have gotten away (even if the person being attacked didn't actually see a valid avenue of escape, so long as the jury felt they had one)
I'd suggest the vast majority of self defense cases never actually invoke stand your ground in a trial and it is just a boogeyman being used by people to explain increasing violence, but can't regulate a "mind your own business" ethic when something bad happens to a person who is a part of a class that gets special considerations from certain ideologies.
LotsRegret
1mo ago
Isn't there an old(?) joke about "Not asking a white supremacist the race of their significant other."
LotsRegret
4mo ago
It is easier to have a wife.
LotsRegret
7mo ago
Because it is a losing political issue.
"X politician won't take free federal money to improve our student's education and pay our teachers more!"
LotsRegret
9mo ago
Someone who is racist already has demonstrated a poor judgement of reality.
While I would say being racist is a moral failing - if being racist makes you a poor judgement of reality and unfit for providing input on things outside of race we've got a lot of governments throughout the world and a ton of civilizational knowledge we need to toss in the dumpster, including the US and liberalism.
LotsRegret
9mo ago
Left wing political ideals and policies poll substantially better than the DNC does, and for good reason.
Because general policy proposals with no need to discuss tradeoffs and costs of implementations will always poll better than known entities with baggage who have to make compromises to get things done?
LotsRegret
9mo ago
I believe the ERA, which would apply strict scrutiny for sex-based discrimination, same as the level for race, instead of intermediate scrutiny which is used now, is very much a "careful what you wish" situation for its cheerleaders on the left generally. As strict scrutiny is an almost impossibly high bar, meaning common female-centric societal advantages advantages build into the law or policies become illegal: the draft, sex-based crime initiatives, female-focused jobs and skills initiatives, affirmative-action (theoretically already dead), etc.
But I could be wrong.
LotsRegret
1yr ago
Sure.
Here are some examples of the extra legal and other groundwork the GOP/Trump did this time to prevent a 2020 repeat.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-prepared-pivotal-court-battles-could-decide-2024-election
https://apnews.com/article/trump-rnc-jan-6-legal-team-lawsuits-13d24822cc4899e5934a07661fe649e3
LotsRegret
1yr ago
Talking about it and actually doing something about it, especially with regards to Trump are very, very different things. Trump talked about fraud a lot but in terms of actual action, he did next to nothing to meaningfully try and thwart any. Four years of smarting over the loss and the GOP workshopping how to actually crack down on where they feel the fraud occurred is an entirely different thing. They were much better prepared this time and had a lot of lawyers working to make sure the rules were as in their favor as possible.
LotsRegret
1yr ago
This reasoning seem bizarre to me. I'm not saying there was fraud what is common background noise and especially not that it was enough to swing several states, but your reasoning seems to be the equivalent of saying "Well, if the Japanese snuck attack Pearl Harbor, surely they'd pull another Pearl Harbor" it neglects that after that sneak attack, the US was on a much different footing.
LotsRegret
1yr ago
I live in a very politically homogenous state with lots of guns. I'm not concerned about any political violence in my area or civil war.
LotsRegret
1yr ago
Sorry, my reply was a bit of a joke as Hitler ran for president in 1932, placing second.
Admittedly, "my enemy is literally Hitler" wasn't as useful of an attack back then.
LotsRegret
1yr ago
“my enemy is literally Hitler” game goes back to at least George W Bush.
I'm guessing this goes back to at least 1932.
LotsRegret
1yr ago
Absolutely, I think your views here are matching my own.
In my post I was leaning more into my acknowledgement that my vice is not good or healthy, it is something that deserves at least some shame by me. This was because of the beliefs espoused by the OP as well as the "healthy at any size" / "anti-fatphobia" activists; I was looking to distance myself from them and show the OP that my current state does deserve at least some contempt. I did try and bring in the fact that it is a vice like many others, as you bring up, though one that is always visible to everyone unlike almost every other vice as a way to help them better contextualize how I think fat people should be viewed.
LotsRegret
1yr ago
Oh wow, my first QC. Thanks everyone, I am humbled.
LotsRegret
1yr ago
You're fine but I do appreciate the apology even though I don't feel it is truly needed. I'm not offended, I just wanted to speak about something I actually understand since I normally lurk as most of the time the topics are more eloquently covered by others.
There are absolutely overweight people who are stupid, ignorant, or entitled. Reality TV will be highlighting these people as it is more dramatic than just an otherwise well-put together person who can't overcome eating too large of portions because it would be boring as hell.
But at the end of the day, it was my poor choices that brought me here and only better choices will get me out of it. I deserve being looked down on for those poor choices; it just isn't through stupidity, ignorance, or entitlement - just weakness in the face of a vice.
Firstly, you are judging an entire group of people on the basis of reality tv - something I wouldn't recommend anyone do at the best of times. People on reality TV are hand picked to get viewers eyes, not for showing reality. Imagine if I judged everyone from New Jersey based on Jersey Shore.
So I will lay my cards on the table and say I am obese and probably fall under the "morbidly obese" category.
I am not ignorant: I know fully well about the food pyramid. I know how to count calories. I understand nutrition basics fairly well, how to read nutrition information, etc. I eat fast food maybe once a week before tabletop night and eat out once a week for date night. Other than that either I or my wife cook our meals - and we eat well - last night was tomato artichoke bisque soup with a croque monsieur. The night before was pan fried walleye with a chickpea and avocado salad. I admittedly have a more peasant palette than my wife, but she's really taught me how to cook better tasting and healthier meals.
I am not entitled: While I am married, I am fully capable of taking care of myself and could live alone without issue. I take a shower every day. I work a fulltime job and have a healthy career. I have two hobbies which require at least some level of activity (fishing and woodworking). I walk my dogs several miles multiple times a week to make sure they stay healthy and at the appropriate weight (irony, I'm aware). I try to make sure I am never taking too much room anywhere I am and try to constantly stay alert for anyone who needs to move by me.
I am not stupid: I am fully aware my biggest hurdle is portion size control. I'm not happy being fat, but clearly I am actively making the decision to continue being so as I have helping sizes that are too large. Now, I'm not looking to get any surgeries for weight loss, and am otherwise in pretty good health - but I also know being in good health is only temporary and I am a time bomb waiting to happen.
So why am I replying? Sympathy? No. I don't deserve sympathy. I've made my own poor choices and that is entirely on me.
Maybe for some sort of understanding. Everyone has their vice: alcohol addictions, affairs, drugs, video games, porn, etc. I wear my vice in public every day; you and everyone else can see my vice on me. That fit person walking down the street that beats their spouse everyday and is a functional alcoholic? You would never know their vices without getting to know them, and maybe not even then. Does that excuse me being overweight? Of course not. I'm trying to fix it; I've failed in the past and may fail for the rest of my life, but I'm still going to try.
I don't want special accommodations.
I don't really care if people think worse of me because I am overweight: I think worse of me for being overweight.
I hate the "healthy at any size" movement and its derivatives.
All I would like to do is point out some of us overweight people don't fall into how you are observing a reality TV show.
LotsRegret
1yr ago
To take a Red Tribe issue of note; the idea that the Federal government could ever confiscate already owned guns is fantasy.
Can I be skeptical that this is so far fetched? Unlikely, sure, but all it would take is a 5-4 SCOTUS decision to claim the 2A does not confer an individual right to own guns. Right now, with the current SCOTUS lineup that won't happen, but give it a generation or two, some unlucky deaths/retirements, or court packing and we could quickly be there.
It may be bias on my end, but I also feel the more conservative members of SCOTUS who are textualists (and to a lesser extent originalists) are less partisan and more consistent with their rulings on the whole than the more liberal side whose motivating principle seems to be more about how they think society should be.
LotsRegret
1yr ago
We'll see how that goes now with Chevron deference no longer being the law of the land.
This is just part and parcel of the swap that goes on whenever one side gains control of the white house. The "right" now believes the government story and the "left" doesn't - essentially the polar opposite of two years ago - and it'll swap again once the democrats win the presidency again.
More options
Context Copy link