Alaska has "Stand Your Ground"

[Tallpine]

So let me ask you this, De Selby.

Do you think that there should be a duty to retreat from a violent confrontation that you did not initiate?

If you are confronted with an armed attacker, or a physically superior attacker, or a group of unarmed attackers, and you shoot them. Is the fact you did not attempt to run away be an indicator you were not acting in self-defense?

No worries, mate 

[RevDisk]

I'm not so sure this wave of SYG legislation is good policy - the law of self defense works pretty well in most jurisdictions, and did before SYG.  In my view it offers little to no additional protection to law abiding citizens, but a fantastic loophole for underworld types to avoid facing juries and instead have their cases dismissed by a judge.   Drunken bar fights, gang fights, etc seem to be the most common invocations of stand your ground laws.

Na.

No person should have to retreat from their home, business, buddy's place, etc. It'll be pretty easy to tell the scumbags from the regular citizens. Guy who I halted from trying to steal my car stereo had a list of crimes that was about 7-9 pages. I am the owner of my property, have no documented contact with the guy, and no criminal record in the US.

Thankfully, I did not have to use lethal force. But I doubt the legal end result would have been much different. It did, in part, come down to his word against mine. I'm not saying one's history should be the sole criteria used, but unless it's scumbag on scumbag crime...  Most times it is the most obvious scenario. If a person with a lengthy criminal history is shot on the property of someone without a criminal history, the person without a lengthy criminal record is probably not the aggressor.

If two folks with lengthy criminal history engage in lethal activity, yes, trusting either party may be very complex. As long as no innocent bystanders are injured, few folks are going to be overly concerned.

[Matthew Carberry]

Relaxing a bunch of laws pertaining to weapons control in Alaska, it seems. I predict you'll all be dead in a week.

I had a contractor put a round in me this morning for talking back to him. Cop showed up and made me clean up the blood as a health hazard.  And SYG doesn't even go into effect until mid-September.  This was just "Friday in Alaska." 

I actually agree with DeSelby that in most cases SYG laws aren't needed, I just disagree that they really make the prosecution's job that much harder. If they can't dispute the multiple other more clear-cut requirements for a successful SD claim they shouldn't be going to trial on a subjective opinion disagreement about the realistic possibility of retreat after the fact.

The cases prosecutors tend to bring up as problematic are bad guy on bad guy, with no civilians involved, in the midst of a criminal transaction they know occurred but can't get -easy- evidence to prove.  I find it hard to care that much.  If an innocent gets hit they will put out the resources like they do on every other "real" crime.

Other than that, better ten scumbags get away with killing other scumbags than one innocent get run through the system with the resulting known effects on finances, jobs, and personal relationships.

[De Selby]

No worries, mate 

Micro, the answer to your question is no, I don't believe that.  But I don't think you need a series of questionably written statutes to achieve that outcome, if you need anything at all.

Jamis, Texas was undoing damage done by monkeying with the criminal legislation in the 90's when it adopted the no-retreat rule, and that lesson runs both ways.

Matthew, have a look with how the Florida courts have struggled to work out how SYG fits in with the rest of self defense law and criminal procedure.   That kind of uncertainty and difficulty doesn't improve justice.  My view (doing this kind of thing for a living) is that if there isn't a compelling problem, legislation is not the answer.

[Matthew Carberry]

I think the immunity portion is the problem for Florida. There's a dozen states that have had simple "no retreat" by statute or precedent for decades (or forever) and they apparently do fine. If they can do it so can everybody else.

[MicroBalrog]

I'm just failing to see the issue here.

THe worst thing that can happen is that a few extra guilty people gt acquitted. I don't really hold it as sacred that we absolutely must convict every guilty man, and then imprison everyone we convict for a long time, and then give them a permanent criminal record.

I'm happy to accept this if it avoids yet another drawn-out trial with the court nitpicking heat-of-the-moment tactical calls from the safety of an air-conditioned room guarded by multiple armed police officers.

[De Selby]

I'm just failing to see the issue here.

THe worst thing that can happen is that a few extra guilty people gt acquitted. I don't really hold it as sacred that we absolutely must convict every guilty man, and then imprison everyone we convict for a long time, and then give them a permanent criminal record.

I'm happy to accept this if it avoids yet another drawn-out trial with the court nitpicking heat-of-the-moment tactical calls from the safety of an air-conditioned room guarded by multiple armed police officers.

Okay, trials get more complicated, end up numerous appeals to resolve questions that courts have handled since the Magna Carta, and no tangible benefit to honest self defence cases results....and you can't see the problem because the only other cost is that a few more guilty people go free?

Again, the problem here is that these costs do not come with an advantage for traditional self defense.  Matthew is right that it's the trappings (immunity, other procedures, etc) that cause the main problem. 

But why risk it at all?  What we had offered plenty of protection, and the attempts to symbolically recognise our custom of self defense comes with problems.  I fail to see the win in that.

[JN01]

Stand Your Ground legislation was proposed in Ohio last week.  From HB203-

ORC 2901.09 B) For purposes of any section of the Revised Code that sets forth a criminal offense, a person has no duty to retreat before using force in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of that person's residence, if that person is in a place that the person lawfully has a right to be

Additionally, current law says that the person claiming self defense can't be at fault in creating the situation which led to the confrontation.

I guess I don't really see a down side to the changes either.

[MicroBalrog]

Okay, trials get more complicated, end up numerous appeals to resolve questions that courts have handled since the Magna Carta, and no tangible benefit to honest self defence cases results....and you can't see the problem because the only other cost is that a few more guilty people go free?

Again, the problem here is that these costs do not come with an advantage for traditional self defense.  Matthew is right that it's the trappings (immunity, other procedures, etc) that cause the main problem. 

But why risk it at all?  What we had offered plenty of protection, and the attempts to symbolically recognise our custom of self defense comes with problems.  I fail to see the win in that.

And courts/prosecutors have in quite a few historical periods since the Magna Carta handled this badly.

If we can avoid prosecutors asking silly questions such as "did you really need to pull the trigger not twice, but thrice", or "you could have run away", or using the fact that you used handloaded ammunition against you - which I am told the courts do - then this is a win.

[De Selby]

And courts/prosecutors have in quite a few historical periods since the Magna Carta handled this badly.

If we can avoid prosecutors asking silly questions such as "did you really need to pull the trigger not twice, but thrice", or "you could have run away", or using the fact that you used handloaded ammunition against you - which I am told the courts do - then this is a win.

Where is the evidence if this happening in cases where SYG laws would have had anything to do with it???  I hear lots of urban legends about what happens in self defense cases, but those legends aren't grounds for policy making.

Certainly unfair prosecutions happen, but I don't see how SYG law makes a difference to them.

[De Selby]

So you have changed your position from "You CAN'T do it after the closing arguments" to "Why would you wait to do it then"?

Just wanted to highlight that subtle change.

Missed this - I'm assuming you didn't read the case, since it was entirely about how applying the rule that you bolded was the wrong thing to do for an SYG hearing.  That's not a subtle change - what you bolded has nothing to do with the SYG law, and isn't the rule under which "immunity" motions are to be made.  Or at least, that's what the Florida Supreme Court spent several pages saying there.

Edit:  I should probably quote p.15 of the case to prevent any misunderstanding:

A motion to dismiss on the basis of section 776.032 immunity is not subject to the requirements of rule 3.190(c)(4) [De Selby edit: (c)(4) is what mak quoted]but instead should be treated as a motion filed pursuant to rule 3.190(b)[De Selby edit:  in other words, a motion for which time for moving is before or at arraignment].

[Matthew Carberry]

I think part of it is revulsion against perceived abuses, common enough to be significant or not. There is an undeniable and correct feeling that many prosecutors and police in many areas are actively hostile to gun rights, carry rights, and the idea that armed self-defense can be legitimate.

Given that kernel of truth perception, SYG laws are a thumb in the eye to those in officialdom who created that perception.

"Going to treat -us-, the law and order good guys like criminals? F you, if you can't play nice we're taking away your tools to do so. If you want to screw even one of us, you're going to have to work harder at it."

[MicroBalrog]

Where is the evidence if this happening in cases where SYG laws would have had anything to do with it???  I hear lots of urban legends about what happens in self defense cases, but those legends aren't grounds for policy making.

Certainly unfair prosecutions happen, but I don't see how SYG law makes a difference to them.

I think SYG is only part of the reform that is needed.

[De Selby]

I think SYG is only part of the reform that is needed.

What's the reform that's needed?  The law of self defense has worked well in America for a long time.  Restrictions on what you can defend yourself with are a different matter entirely.

[erictank]

I think part of it is revulsion against perceived abuses, common enough to be significant or not. There is an undeniable and correct feeling that many prosecutors and police in many areas are actively hostile to gun rights, carry rights, and the idea that armed self-defense can be legitimate.

Given that kernel of truth perception, SYG laws are a thumb in the eye to those in officialdom who created that perception.

"Going to treat -us-, the law and order good guys like criminals? F you, if you can't play nice we're taking away your tools to do so. If you want to screw even one of us, you're going to have to work harder at it."

And worth it just for that alone.

[MechAg94]

Micro, the answer to your question is no, I don't believe that.  But I don't think you need a series of questionably written statutes to achieve that outcome, if you need anything at all.

Jamis, Texas was undoing damage done by monkeying with the criminal legislation in the 90's when it adopted the no-retreat rule, and that lesson runs both ways.

Matthew, have a look with how the Florida courts have struggled to work out how SYG fits in with the rest of self defense law and criminal procedure.   That kind of uncertainty and difficulty doesn't improve justice.  My view (doing this kind of thing for a living) is that if there isn't a compelling problem, legislation is not the answer.

What changes were made in Texas in the 90's?  The only change I am aware of in the 90's was the CHL legislation. 

From my memory, the SYG law and other recent changes for self defense were put in place mainly due to bad court precendents (both criminal and civil) which made the "rules of self defense" very complicated and full of trip wires for the person defending themselves due to fear of prosecution and fear of lawsuits.  The protection from civil liability was the most important change with regard to self defense. 

I remember my first CHL class where the instructor was talking about the need to try to walk away or retreat before shooting or the need to carry pepper spray or mace just so you could prove that you tried non-lethal defense first if you got sued.  Sometimes these things are adviseable, but I shoudln't be required to do them to avoid a lawsuit. 

[Hawkmoon]

My question is what benefit they offer to the rest of us - what was wrong with what these states had before?

What's wrong with self-defense laws that impose a duty to retreat is that they impose a duty to retreat. That's bad enough -- if I am somewhere that I have every legal right to be, why should I be required to retreat from an assault before I am allowed to defend myself?

Then, most of them further muddy the waters by making the requirement to retreat subject to the caveat that you must do so only if you can do so "in complete safety." So now I, the VICTIM of an assault, am required to perform a higher-level probability and statistical analysis of myriad factors affecting the confrontation, all within a VERY small increment of time, to determine whether it is "completely" safe for me to attempt to retreat, or if I have satisfied all the requirements to defend my aging person.

So the benefit to us is that we no longer have to perform that high-level probability and statistics analysis. If attacked, we can just defend ourselves. I have a difficult time thinking of that as a bad thing.

[Hawkmoon]

The problem is that the common law and existing statutes actually did serve well at stopping malicious prosecutions - there is no evidence I'm aware of in these states of wrongful convictions or sustained prosecution that would've been altered in any way by SYG.

:Cough, cough:

Harold Fish

:Cough, cough:

[Triphammer]

:Cough, cough:

Harold Fish

:Cough, cough:

I had been thinking of this case while reading the whole thread. I think the biggest change affected in the followup of Mr. fish's case is that now, when self defence is claimed, it is a positive defense & the prosecutor has to prove different. You know, that whole innocent till proven guilty thing.
 

[De Selby]

:Cough, cough:

Harold Fish

:Cough, cough:

This is a good example - it was controversial among the gun boards because of the warning shots Fish fired and the lack of any weapon being presented, AND it had nothing to do with the duty to retreat.  The case turned on whether his fear of being harmed was reasonable.

This idea that people are being convicted left right and centre because they could have run away is urban legend - the duty to retreat (where it exists at all) has never amounted to much in America, yet there's a wave of feel good legislation to address it.

There are certainly widespread rumors and movies to indicate that self defense law puts the innocent at risk, but we probably shouldn't be shaping our self defense laws based on what happens in fiction.

[Hawkmoon]

If one accepts that it is difficult (or impossible) to prove a negative, let's look at the other side of your coin: Rather than prosecutions for NOT having attempted to retreat, how many people in situations where they should (and could) have defended themselves were injured or killed because they hesitated to exercise deadly force over fear of being prosecuted because they weren't certain whether or not they could retreat ("in complete safety")?

No, I don't have any cases to cite. It doesn't matter whether or not there are any at all. The possibility that there could be one tomorrow is enough.

[MicroBalrog]

This idea that people are being convicted left right and centre because they could have run away is urban legend - the duty to retreat (where it exists at all) has never amounted to much in America, yet there's a wave of feel good legislation to address it.

Then what is the problem?

Is the duty to retreat a good thing, that we should keep it in law?

[De Selby]

Then what is the problem?

Is the duty to retreat a good thing, that we should keep it in law?

The problem is in changing a well settled, quite reasonable set of rules for something that has negative consequences for prosecuting some crimes, while providing no additional benefit to what the citizens had before in terms of self defense.

The old adage that you shouldn't fix what ain't broken applies to legislation as much as it does to anything else.  The SYG reforms create uncertainty and introduce negatives to "fix" a problem with self defense that never existed.

[MicroBalrog]

Are there, or are there not, laws that impose a duty to retreat in some states?

[De Selby]

Are there, or are there not, laws that impose a duty to retreat in some states?

This is a red herring - there are "duty to retreat" statutes and cases, but they don't require individuals to take any opportunity to avoid self defense possible.  Volokh has some good commentary on it:http://www.volokh.com/2012/04/03/the-duty-to-retreat-the-duty-or-not-to-comply-with-demands-necessity-and-liberty/

Statutes necessarily change what courts "on the ground" are doing, and it's risky to do so when the courts are viewing self defense favourably.