Carrying / Self-Defense – Page 13 – Shall Not Be Questioned

More Projection

An article on Wicked Local talks about how carrying a firearm only emboldened himÂ to seek trouble, and he projects that onto George Zimmerman and the rest of us.

If Zimmerman had relied on responsible adults to do their jobs or avoided direct confrontation, Trayvon Martin would probably still be alive.

I know avoiding confrontation goes against the grain of the National Rifle Association’s philosophy and lobbying and certainly is the polar opposite of laws like the Florida Stand Your Ground Law or, as I prefer to call it, the Shoot Me Where I Stand Law.

This is ridiculous. You can only stand your ground when presented with a reasonable fear of grave bodily injury or harm. In other words, someone has to already either be attacking you, or putting you in reasonable fear that you are about to be attacked. In the case of George Zimmerman, being straddled and getting your head pounded into concrete qualifies, and 6 jurors agreed his fear was reasonable. Duty to retreat plays no role because he had no opportunity to retreat. It’s amazing how many people keeping yammering about this case without the barest of facts. The jury had the fact, and they acquitted.

Don’t Take Advice from Joe Biden

A man is arrested for firing a shotgun in the air to chase off what he thought were car thieves. He actually invoked the Vice President’s advice as a defense.

Who Benefits from Stand Your Ground?

Clayton Cramer highlights an article in The Daily Caller that would seem to show that Blacks benefit disproportionally from Stand Your GroundÂ in Florida. This does not surprise me either. Blacks are statistically more likely to encounter situations where they may need to use deadly force in self-defense, less likely to get the benefit of doubt in the legal system, and less likely to be able to afford a good defense attorney, the last of which prosecutors are going to weigh when thinking about bringing charges. Prosecutors generally don’t want to bring cases where they aren’t sure they can get a conviction.

I’ve wondered how much of the negative reaction to the Zimmerman case was driven by the idea that Blacks would never get such easy treatment in similar circumstances. In that case, the fact that Zimmerman was walking the streets and not looking at a trial inflamed their sense of injustice. I think they have a point about that, to be honest. But I don’t see how stacking the deck back in favor of the prosecution is going to do anything except make it objectively worse for Black defendants who find themselves arguing self-defense in equally marginal situations.

CSGV Failing to Give the Full Context

I haven’t blogged about the CSGV for quite some time, mostly because they are irrelevant in the current debate. But their claim on the jury instructions, as you may imagine, fail to give the whole picture. The full jury instructions are posted online. You can find them here and here. There’s a lot more to the jury’s instructions than that. They, of course, fail to mention this would also be part of the instruction:

In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used.Â The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force.Â Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.

You can find exactly how the instructions changed in the Florida Supreme Court case showing here. What is also mentioned is that previously, retreat was only required when one could do so in complete safety. Zimmerman’s claim was that her was pinned to the ground. Either you believe it or you don’t. If you believe it, duty to retreat doesn’t come into play regardless, under current law or the old law.

UPDATE: You can find the exact and lengthy jury instructions here.

What did Arkansas Actually Pass?

Clayton Cramer wants to know more about what kind of bill Arkansas actually passed to address carry issues. There were questions even in the comments of Sebastian’s post on the issue of Arkansas going constitutional carry, and it looks like the Attorney General is saying that open carry under the new law isn’t legal. Obviously, there can be differences between the two topics, but many gun owners view them as directly connected. Make sure you know the law wherever you plan to carry a gun – whatever that law may or may not be since there seems to be some debate in Arkansas at the moment.

Lawfully Arming Yourself isn’t Menacing in Alabama Now

I blogged about a case back in October where an Alabama landlord was dealing with trespassers on his commercial property and then was charged with menacing after getting a shotgun from his truck which he never pointed at anyone. The state’s Supreme Court ruled last week that merely possessing a firearm lawfully does not constitute menacing.

Menacing is defined in Â§ 13A-6-23(a), Ala. Code 1975: “A person commits the crime of menacing if, by physical action, he intentionally places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury.” (Emphasis added.) The Commentary to Â§ 13A-6-23 states that menacing encompasses the situation where “‘physical injury’ is neither inflicted nor intended.” There is no statutory definition for the term “physical action.” In this case, the trial court found that getting the gun was sufficient “physical action” to constitute the offense of menacing. …

Consistent with the foregoing and applying the principles of statutory construction, we conclude that Pate’s getting the gun, without more, was not sufficient to establish the physical-action element of menacing. Therefore, we conclude that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in determining that there was sufficient evidence of the physical-action element of menacing.

The Supreme Court’s review of the facts of the case show there was only one witness who claimed that the landlord actually held the firearm up, but it was the guy who not only trespassed once, but continued to do so even after police ordered him to leave the property. But police who were on site agreed that while the landlord was clearly pissed off, they never saw him actually point a firearm at anyone. Oh, and security cameras also show the gun was only ever pointed at the ground in direct conflict with the trespasser’s claim. In fact, the entire story the trespasser gave as to threats made by the landlord while he was driving away were proven completely false by the video cameras.

While one of the officers did take possession of the firearm for a time, the landlord was never arrested on site or accused of breaking any law while the police were there with him. They only arrested him a week later for this supposed menacing because the repeat trespasser who violated police orders and then made up a completely false statement insisted on charges, and then the trial court also tried to claim that legally possessing a firearm around the presence of police officers is enough to warrant a menacing conviction.

Some questions for OC Opponents in Mississippi

Dave Hardy asks a few questions about the new OC law that’s now been enjoined in Mississippi.

Who drafted this pile of offal? Can officers of a county (which is generally a subdivision of the State) sue the State? Isn’t that a little like the City Planner suing the city because he doesn’t like the zoning plan?

Read the whole thing.

What Checks & Balances Really Means…

Since when did the concept of a three branch system of government end being defined as “whatever one guy wants to do”? I’m just curious about the understanding of checks and balances in Illinois after reading this article on the status of their concealed carry bill.

Many lawmakers expect Quinn to use the issue to try to help himself politically, taking advantage of his amendatory veto powers to rewrite the bill to make it more stringent. On Thursday, Madigan said she agreed that the governor would rewrite the bill.

The comments came at a luncheon where she encouraged female politicians to use their children as political props to create a “soft” image, but to be careful not to be so blatant about it that voters can actually see that they view their offspring as political tools.

Foster Care & Gun Ownership

Blogger Peter from Firearms & Freedom and his wife are currently going through approval to become a foster home, and he discovered an interesting requirement by the licensing agency for potential foster families in Wisconsin. They mandate that potential foster families sign a form that they will not actually carry their firearms, even if they are lawfully licensed to do so, while they have a foster child in their presence.

He has written to his state lawmakers about this issue since it seems a bit irrational that this agency considers the best place for a firearm to be out of the direct control of the owner.

Since my mom was a social worker for her entire career, I asked if she knew of any cases similar to this or related policies from Oklahoma or Virginia. She could not recall any kind of policy on this subject, especially since those who have undergone the multiple background checks are likely to be good homes for kids in need of one.

I find it interesting because this is a case where potential overreach by a social services agency in making this demand of gun owners could end up creating a more restrictive legislative policy that may not handle the sensitive nature of foster placement well. (And I have no issue with Peter seeking assistance from his lawmakers since the licensing agency is, in my opinion, overreaching on this issue with a blanket ban.) I wouldn’t be opposed if potential foster families were asked about their status as a gun owner because I do recognize that there are a handful of kids who workers probably wouldn’t want to place in that home. I also wouldn’t be opposed if social services agencies developed a general safety concerns manual/pamphlet and made potential families sign off that they have reviewed it, and it could include issues/concerns on firearms storage and possession in the home in the same manner that it might cover pool safety or any other safety issue. But telling gun owners that they shouldn’t ever possess their firearm for self- and (foster)family-defense while in the presence of a foster child isn’t the way the handle the situation.

York County Sees 63% Growth in LTC Issuance

I’ve seen stories like this all around the state. It’s going to be interesting when the State Police release the PICS numbers, which shows how many checks were run on people who apply for LTCs in a given year. The estimate on the number of LTCs issues was around 600,000, statewide. Will it hit 700,000? 800,000? It would be very good for that to be the case, because few politicians want to risk pissing off 800,000 voters in a state of 12 million people.