ON THE QUESTION OF “STAND YOUR GROUND” LAWS

I almost felt sorry for the prosecutor. Being third in the lineup, his prepared points had already been devasted by Mas and Clayton before he ever took the stand.

His measured assurances of “But that would never happen to innocent non-criminal folks” had already been met with multiple examples of where it was. His hypotheticals of criminals skating through loopholes had likewise been destroyed preemptively.

And he knew it; he took the podium with head held low, and never even pretended to pound the table.

Too bad for Mr. Jansen, you refuted all his arguments before he got to make them. He presents a weak case.

While Mr. Jansen does have some minor points, they’re points that can be raised after the passage of virtually any new law and before case law establishes the boundries of that law.

Much of his argument also seems dependent upon explicit part(s) of the Florida statute that may not exist in statutes in other states. That immunity allegedly protects from custody at the scene does present some potential situations where the shooter flat disappears. That singular possibility does not invalidate the intent of other laws.

The video is WELL WORTH watching. Although long, it is very interesting and contains a whole feast of food for thought. ANYBODY considering using a firearm as a tool for self defense should watch this one.

Protectionists don’t care about making sense.
They just want to disarm everyone.

Just speaking for the Stand Your Ground Law, I think it needs to stand as most of us on here feel and for very valid reasons. Before this law many people lost their lives hesitating, retreating and if they did not were criminally prosecuted.

Good job Mas defending the rights we all enjoy and need.

I particularly noticed how weak Mr. Jansen’s arguments for changes to the Stand Your Ground Law were.
When he talks about immunity from civil prosecution, he says not even law enforcement people have that luxury.
This may be true, but in our state, if an officer is found negligent etc. it is the tax payers that are on the hook for the
defense and any awards that may be made. If you as an individual were sued in civil court, even if the shooting was justified, your life will be ruined. It’s being called between a rock and a hard place.
Download the file to your hard drive and it will be easier to follow.

I kind of pity Mr. Jansen…. somewhat. He could have gotten up there and said, “I’ll present the alternate side, but what I am about to present has already been solidly refuted by the previous two speakers.”

But that would be just a bit too honest.

Well said, Mas!

Two things I cannot leave un said: 1. What was Mr. Jansen talking about? Perhaps some you understood his “legalism” ramblings, but with un cited references and poorly illustrated examples I could not follow nor do I understand most of his arguements. For a fellow that speaks in front of people (juries) who may not know all he “knows” he was a terrible communicator.
2. Mas, great job as communicator of complex issues, illustrator of difficult processes, logical thinking, and “common man” language. Obviously your points are well received here among the us gun folk but when I showed this to several folks of the “other side” they were like King Agrippa, “almost persuaded”. All believed your points, regardless of agreement, were the best made and communicated.
So drive on brother!

I wish I’d mentioned this in my last comment. I wish this presentation had had time for rebuttal statements and cross-examination just like in formal debate. The one lawyer in the group should have been able to handle himself, but such a format would have exposed his untenable position despite all his rhetoric (having the gal to call SYG as a license to kill even after such a cannard’s clear refutation in earlier statements, without the least effort to try and disprove the earlier statements with coherent arguments was the least grievous of Mr. Jansen’s errors).

I’m glad there were several positions in this, but it would have been even more helpful for viewers (some of whom may not already be in agreement with Mas) to have seen a formal debate, where these statements given would have only been the opening statements, as it would have opened each person’s statements and arguments to direct questioning by the other side, which is where the real meat of a debate takes place, as it forces the person to defend their arguments, and also shows (if the two sides have skilled proponents) if a cogent and tennable objection can be mounted against it.

So, I’d LOVE to see this done again, but as a debate, with “positive assertion: Stand Your Ground legislation is a good and necessary statute for a state to have” as the topic, with Mas as the proponent, and Mr. Jansen as the objector asserting the negative. Formal debate format. He’s a trial lawyer. He should be able to handle himself if he’s worth his salt in the courtroom (it used to be that lawyers were REQUIRED to be able to do this when they were in law school).

I have reviewed the video twice now. Mas, you did a wonderfull job. Really knocked it out of the park. You rarely had to use your notes.

Great looking jacket, unfortunately your necktie was slightly skewed. But nobody is perfect:) Oh, what was that ring tone on your phone? As I told you, I use the theme music from the Peter Gunn series on my phone. Give Gail 3 whacks with a wet noodle:)

Thank you for the link; I very much enjoyed listening to the arguments.

Mas, the rebuttals at the end of the program were not included in the recording. Could you fill us in on those?

FYI: For those who can’t download the rather large (1.5 GB) video, download the (65 MB) audio MP3 instead. You won’t miss anything, as the one set of slides that was shown during the presentation was not visible on the video recording.

Mas

If you are almost persuading folks like Herod Agrippa, then that means you are almost as skilful an advocate as that famous lawyer turned teacher , St. Paul. Even he was unable to convince some audiences.

I second friend qoholeth

Drive on.

Regards

GKT

Randy, I didn’t catch the off-center necktie until I saw the film. This is what happens when I am left without adult supervision and allowed to dress myself. I blame Her! 🙂

Stephen, we were allowed 3 minutes for rebuttals. I used mine to say I didn’t want anyone to leave thinking that SYG and Presumption of Reasonableness would cause police to do a sloppy job of investigating. In the case that triggered the debate, the Sanford Police did indeed continue the investigation.

I don’t know if the audience q&a was taped or not, but there was some interesting dialogue. At one point I was asked if SYG would apply to Trayvon Martin in the hypothetical presented by the Martin family and their counsel of the young man being threateningly accosted by an armed man, and answered, Yes, of course. It would come down to which side’s hypothetical was supported by the fact evidence.

best,
Mas

In regards to my 27APR12 comment, a most brilliant demonstration of Ayoob’s law #1.

I got the impression that a misguided Mr. Jansen was pushing for the repeal of SYG laws based on the sometimes misapplication of these laws by judges. This reminds me of where people want to ban guns because a gun was used in a crime.
We need these SYG laws to protect good ctizens. The judges need education on their application so that these laws are not misused to protect criminals.

qoholeth,

I was wondering if I was the only one who felt Mr. Jansen’s presentation was not up to professional standards. Other than that, it was well worthwhile to watch.

That was all very interesting stuff.
And, thanks for your effort.

This is off topic but I thought you all would find it interesting too:

This author uses the prices of older guns – such as the Winchester Model 1873 – to show how much work a Person had to do just to get one then, and compares it with how much work a Person has to do today to get one, giving us a clearer picture of where we are at.

http://lewrockwell.com/case/case45.1.html

The amazing things to be learned from looking at old catalogs selling guns.

In a recent “debate” I summarized the core of the legal issue, as I see it, as below. This makes the assumption that Martin did actually attack Zimmerman, not the other way around–of course the course of events must be determined by the investigators and evidenced in court.

“Typically for a self-defense shooting, one requires: 1) the event wasn’t precipitated by the shooter, 2) retreat isn’t practical, 3) there must be an immediate threat of grave bodily injury or death, and 4) no lesser force will stop the threat. The main element in question here is #1: Whether or not following Martin is considered provocation under the current laws. The decision in this trial will become an important guideline in future cases; I wouldn’t be surprised if it doesn’t end up in state or federal supreme court. Incidentally, ‘Stand Your Ground’ generally eliminates requirement #2, so it isn’t really pertinent to this case.”

One last thought. I downloaded the video to my hard drive and have burned several dvd’s from it. I have given one to my local police chief and sent one to a local talk radio host. Every little bit counts in the crusade. Of course in Illinois, Stand Your Ground is meaningless with out means to actually Stand Your Ground! You just hope that you can run faster than your assailant, and hope that he is a bad shot.

Mas said a couple of things which haven’t proven true in practice. One was that multiple assailants against a single defender constitutes disparity of force and justifies defense using deadly force. I remember a man in Arizona(?) who was convicted in just such a situation. The other was that a defender has a “duty to retreat” only if he or she can retreat to a position of complete safetly. I remember a case in Massachusetts(?) where a mother shot an assailant in her basement and was convicted because the basement had a door to the outside. Mas, this is a case you should know well since it occurred in your back yard. There may be critical details I am not aware of.

Jansen made a couple of valid points. First, SYG and Castle Doctrine are not an absolute bar to prosecutorial (or even judicial) misconduct. I hope Iowans are successful in their efforts, but I question whether that would have been enough to stop the prosecutor in the West Des Moines case. Second, a trivial offense should not deprive a defender of the right to claim SYG. (Maybe the law already distinguishes between trivial and serious offenses.)

When Jansen cited the roadside ice pick killing, he didn’t tell us whether the old man with the ice pick went after the guy he killed or whether the dead guy came after him. To me, that would determine whether it was murder or self defense. Under SYG, would the entire dispute be regarded as one continuing incident of mutual combat or two separate incidents of an argument, that ended when both returned to their vehicles, followed by an assault?

Kendahl, I believe the Massachusetts citation was the Shaeffer case (I hope I spelled the name correctly, from memory). One issue was that the common-law husband had threatened to kill her and her kids if she returned to the house, and she did. Apparently the feeling was that her return had set the stage for the incident. (Not that I agree with that thinking.)

best,
Mas

Your best option is always to consult with a lawyer. Some offer free consultations.

Mas — I’m glad you were there to shine brightly for those of us who believe in our rights to defend ourselves and our families. Your common sense approach combined with technical expertise and a mountain of experience is refreshing. Bravo!

Mas :
I read your book some years ago when I was a Deputy Sheriff. The law here in the state of KY regarding the justifiable use of deadly force was little changed by the Castile Doctrine. It only changed the obligation for a citizen to flee from an assailant in a public place if he could safely do so. Prior to this a person who had used deadly force had to present their case to a grand jury and convince them that a reasonable person under the same emanate threat would have been in fear of their life or of suffering great bodily harm. They had to make an affirmative defense. This was required of police officers who used deadly force as well. The prosecutor stated that police officers were not protected from civil law suits in deadly force cases but in KY we were covered under the old English law of “sovereign immunity”. As long as we did not violate the subject’s civil rights under “title seven” of the civil rights act or the subjects constitutional rights, we were immune from acts done in the performance of our duty. The private citizen enjoyed no such immunity from civil suit. The prosecutor was wrong in his assertion that the police did not have protection from civil suit.

Hi Mas,

I read this in an article today:

Trayvon’s parents and members of the Second Chance on Shoot First campaign, a coalition that includes New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the NAACP and the National Urban League, will hold a rally at the first meeting of Scott’s task force Tuesday. The group plans to present a petition signed online by 340,000 people asking for the change or repeal of Florida’s stand-your-ground law. It is making similar pushes in Indiana, Kansas and Michigan.

Do you know of any on-line petitions to support the Stand Your Ground laws in Florida and other states? If not, who might be able to set one up and deliver the opposing message to counter the current PC wave?

In my state, we enjoy the luxury of having some relatively well written laws on the books for protecting a person’s right to defend themselves. Having said that, there is still a lot of ambiguity in those laws and in the information disseminated to the public by the internet and the media. Citizens that I’ve spoken to don’t seem to be all that well informed about what their rights actually are or are not. Luckily I live in a very gun friendly state as well and a large percentage of the public is at the least armed at home but many practice concealed carry as the right is legally afforded to citizens here.

Those who argue against “Stand Your Ground” or “Make My Day” laws seem to always have the same sort of arguments. “Let the police take care of it, that’s what they are there for.” I’ve heard that statement or some variation of it for years.

Police officers are by design reactive. Unless they happen to be driving by your house and see the three armed thugs kicking in your front door. Police officers don’t come until you call them generally and are limited in their abilities by the fact that they often don’t learn that a crime has occurred until much later and usually well after the perpetrator of the crime has left the scene.

When it comes to random violent crime, the best defense anyone has is self defense. Sure, you see the guy out on your porch trying to break in, you should dial 911 but not until after you’ve retrieved your weapon, cleared your line of fire of family members and taken control of your emotions as much as possible. Before you start pressing “1” to speak to a dispatcher or “2” to have a report form mailed to you, you should have prepared yourself to fight and kill if that is what is necessary to defend yourself and your family.

This isn’t to talk poorly about law enforcement. I respect them and the job they do. I am a LEO and I know their limitations. Every cop wishes he could get the bad guy before the bad guy does bad but well…. it doesn’t work that way.

I wish I could ask every opponent of these self defense related laws one question…..
“If tonight, you wake up hearing your son or daughter screaming with pain and fear in their voice and you run down the hall to find them being attacked by someone who outweighs you by 50 lbs and is obviously physically superior to you in every possible way, which would you rather have in your hand; a phone connected to a 911 operator or a tool that could possibly save not only your childs life but yours and everyone elses in your family?”

and then….
(assuming the individual doesn’t play stupid when they answer the question) “Should that individual who you just violated your privacy and threatened the safety, if not life, of your family be allowed to sue you for protecting what you have every right to protect?”

OK, thats two questions but I get fired up about this particular topic….