Category: Carrying / Self-Defense

From Tam, on a preteen birthday party gone sour:

I do know that they take money out of your paycheck for 911 services, and dialing that number will cause a guy dripping with qualified immunity to show up and pepper spray the preteen birthday party, so us bloggers can rake him over the coals for it.

Along the lines of what I blogged about earlier today. We live in a hysterical media-driven society largely devoid of civic virtue. Best to keep that in mind when carrying to defend life.

Bah… who needs one?

Extrano’s Alley takes a look at the new facts that have emerged, and Joe Huffman has just one question about the case. I think at this point we’re running out of new facts and revelations.  Thanks to overreach on the part of insurrectionist militias and celebrity assholes, I think this case is jumping the shark. I think a lot of gun people, who were initially quite hostile toward Zimmerman, and feeling a bit sheepish as the facts are coming out. I wouldn’t feel too bad, personally, because that initial reaction occurred because he broke one of the cardinal rules of lawful concealed carry, which is to practice avoidance and not to go looking for trouble. I think when mistakes like that are made out of the gate, that leads to a shooting, that shooting is naturally going to garner less sympathy from our community, and we’re less willing to give someone the benefit of doubt on other facts. If anything, this shows the importance of engaging in good practices while carrying.

I carry a gun to protect me and those I love. I don’t carry a gun to protect you, my neighborhood, or society as a whole. I realize this makes me a poor sheepdog, and I don’t care. I don’t get paid to be a sheepdog, and for better or worse society looks down on people being sheepdogs who don’t get paid for the duty. I’m willing to be a good witness, I’m willing to call police, and hell, in a rare, outstandingly clear circumstance, I might decide to intervene directly.

As much as I wish we lived in a society where looking out for each other in that manner was socially acceptable, the fact of the matter is that it often isn’t, and I’m not rolling those dice for you. If I end up using deadly force to save someone from an attacker, the potential six figure trial is on me. Not the state, and not the person saved. Hell, how do I know the person I’m saving isn’t one of these self-loathing types that’d rather be a victim than have to live with being connected to a justifiable homicide. You know, someone who can assuage that guilt by blaming the person who killed to save them. If you don’t think those types exist, you’ll believe it when they’re testifying for the prosecution at your trial.

George Zimmerman’s concern for his neighborhood was commendable, but he doesn’t owe anyone what he’s going through now. Ultimately his neighbors didn’t care enough to get involved, and some of them are active in the movement to lynch him before he’s even had a fair trial. Unfortunately, in a society where no one is responsible for themselves, their actions, or really anything, this is what we reap. We don’t live in a society where civic responsibility is commended, nor do we live in a society where the civilly responsible are given the benefit of doubt.

I am not a fan of utter passivity, like the kind that happened when Zimmerman was screaming for help. The fact that no one responded, save one person who called the police immediately and took a look to be a witness, is lamentable. But no one owes their neighbors what Zimmerman is going though. And for what? To rid the neighborhood of suspicious looking people? I’m definitely not saying I’d never intervene to save a neighbor, but I am definitely saying if you’re going to do that, you better make sure the crime matches the stakes, otherwise, I’m not looking to be anyone’s sheepdog save me and mine.

UPDATE: Today’s update from Extrano’s Alley.

Pretty recently, we got ourselves some castle doctrine and stand your ground here in Pennsylvania too. The Allentown Morning Call is reporting on a story that presents a test of the new law. Prosecutors said even if the law hadn’t changed, they probably still would have declined to prosecute. What tends to steady a prosecutors hands is that juries are generally more forgiving of crime victims dispatching their attackers than prosecutors tend to be. I’ve said previously that all stand your ground really does is make the law reflect what juries tend to do anyway. It honestly doesn’t change that much, but it does pull some options off the table for a prosecutor who doesn’t like self-defense that just wants to nail someone. Think about the Gerald Ung case for a minute. Duty to retreat didn’t play a role there (Ung was retreating when he was attacked), but would you really want to give prosecutors an extra tool to go after someone who committed legitimate self-defense? Bet their future that the Jury will do the right thing anyway? Make them pay six figure legal fees to go to trail because the powers that be in a big city don’t like the plebes to be able to have guns to defend themselves? Castle Doctrine laws are more a statement of principle than a desire to fix an actual problem, and I think most people agree with the principle it states.

Speaking of the Pennsylvania law, our arch nemesis (every blog should have an arch nemesis!), Max Nacheman of CeaseFirePA, is busy misrepresenting self-defense laws, the Martin case, and pooping all over due process on Public Radio here in Pennsylvania. I thought the attorney, Peter Georgiades, on our side, did an excellent job. Max Nacheman is pretty clearly not a legal expert, and it was enjoyable to see him go up against someone that was. Give it a listen. It’s worth 24 minutes if your time.

Tam reproduces (with permission) a forum post that I think everyone should read, related to the Treyvon Martin shooting. I would also add this case is a great example of why I’m such a big advocate of carrying a defensive spray in addition to a gun. If Zimmerman had been able to spray Martin, he might have either stopped the attack or put Martin in enough pain in order to gain the upper hand and make an escape. As it is, Zimmerman only had one option, and that was deadly force. If Zimmerman had something else, we would have been talking about something else this week, because Martin would still be alive, and Zimmerman wouldn’t be in any real trouble. The advantage of sprays is that they can be used much earlier in a confrontation than a firearm, and at a considerably reduced legal standard. In most states the standard is being in reasonable fear unlawful force is about to be used against you. Unlawful force can be as much as a shove, grab, or even a verbal threat. It could even be someone approaching you that won’t respond to verbal commands. In most cases, if you shot someone in that situation, you’d be guilty of manslaughter at best, and murder at worst. Even if you ultimately end up wrong in a “bad spray,” it’s generally going to be misdemeanor assault, rather than felony manslaughter.

Is the one you have. In the end of this story, the perp still ended up making the mistake of bringing a ninja sword to a gunfight.

SayUncle: “Keep your friends close, and your junk closer.“

Looks like New Jovian Thunderbolt is going to give it a try. I’ve been wondering whether the summary judgement has made all of Maryland shall-issue, or whether that gets put on hold until appeal. I guess we’ll find out. Be nice if we could get some court mandated reciprocity too :)

Our opponents are all over this story from Florida, where a white captain of a neighborhood watch got into a tussle with a black teenage male, and through circumstances that have not yet come to light, and are still being investigated by police, he ended up shooting and killing the 17 year old, who was unarmed. Needless to say, because of the racial implications here, all sense and reason will go out the window. I don’t really have any statement as to whether the guy is a murderer or not, because all the facts are not in. This is a case that, to me, looks very similar to Gerald Ung, except that was a crowd of white guys trying to beat up an Asian guy. This is one black teenage male against a white male in his 20s. But unlike Ung, it looks like George Zimmerman took blows before resorting to deadly force, and unlike Zimmerman, Ung had multiple attackers. Generally speaking, you can more easily claim self-defense using deadly force against multiple, armed attackers than you can a single, unarmed attacker.

I’m not an expert in Florida’s self-defense law, but it is a castle doctrine state, which means there’s not a duty to retreat. Traditionally, under common law, you were justified in using deadly force to stop commission of a felony. It was not only justified, at the time it was considered a civic duty to do so. In the case of an affray between two law abiding people, which is the case here, you were required to retreat before resorting to deadly force.

Given the circumstances, I think it’s likely this guy’s case will go before a grand jury. I would not be surprised if the grand jury hands down a bill if the facts surrounding the affray and shooting are in dispute. This case reminds me of the Joe Horn case, who ended up no billed by a Texas Grand Jury. Generally, to be able to claim you killed in self-defense against an unarmed person, you would have to prove that there was a force disparity. If Zimmerman was on the ground and getting bloodied, a force disparity is going to be a lot more believable to a jury. But there are some lessons here, regardless of the outcome of the case:

• Zimmerman was following the kid, on the phone with 911, saying the kid looked suspicious. There’s not any facts that have come out to indicate what was suspicious, other than a black teenager walking through a predominately white, wealthy neighborhood. The 911 dispatch told him not to confront the kid, and wait for the police. He should have heeded that advice. We carry guns for self-defense, we’re not cops. It would have been one thing if he was stopping a robbery, but questioning “suspicious” people is a job for the police.
• You need to have options all the way up and down the force continuum. You don’t want your only option to be fists and deadly force.
• You never want to be in a position where you initiate the confrontation that leads to a shooting. The law and juries frown on that, and for justifiable reasons. I would not be surprised at all if the grand jury hands down a bill of indictment and this goes to trial based on this fact alone.
• There’s nothing unmanly about running away from a fight. If you’re armed, you should run away from a fight. Ask yourself whether you’d rather deal with having run away, or whether you want to deal with six figure legal fees for shooting someone? Or worse, end up in prison. The law says you have no duty to retreat. That doesn’t mean retreat isn’t a good idea.

So that’s my two cents. I think this case is going to trial, personally. But we’ll see. Depends on what facts are made public once the police investigation is over. It’ll be really surprised if it doesn’t at least go to a grand jury. Zimmerman never should have confronted the kid, and I’ll be really curious as to what objective behavior was making him a suspicious person. If it was a case of the kid being black in a white neighborhood, that’s really going to look bad to a jury, and it should.

UPDATE: Looks like a witness is talking to the media here. If he was down on the ground getting pummeled, unable to disengage from the fight, that’s going to point more favorably to self-defense. Sucks for the family, but one way to avoid your kids getting shot is to teach them it’s wrong to beat people up.