The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Repeal the "Stand Your Ground" Laws
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/8139-repeal-the-stand-your-ground-laws
Washington - The "Stand Your Ground" laws in Florida and other states should all be repealed. At best, they are redundant. At worst, as in the Trayvon Martin killing, they are nothing but a license to kill.
Police in Sanford, Fla., cited the statute as grounds for their decision not to file charges against Martin's killer, George Zimmerman. Martin, 17, was strolling home from a convenience store, armed with an iced tea and a bag of Skittles, when Zimmerman -- a Neighborhood Watch volunteer and wannabe police officer -- spotted him and decided he looked suspicious.
Zimmerman, who is 28, happened to be armed with a handgun. He followed Martin, despite instructions from a 911 operator not to do so. They had an encounter that left Zimmerman suffering from minor injuries and Martin dead on the ground from a gunshot wound. While we don't know exactly what happened, we know that Zimmerman initiated the contact by stalking a young man who had done nothing more sinister than walk down the street wearing a hooded sweatshirt.
Police decided to release Zimmerman without charges because of the Stand Your Ground law. The relevant part of the statute says that "a person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked ... has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm."
Zimmerman claimed self-defense, was given the benefit of the doubt required by law and released.
This was a shocking travesty, as we now know. The "person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked" was Martin. Under the Florida law, as I read it, he had every right to feel he was in "imminent peril of death or great bodily harm" from the stranger who was following him. He had every right to confront Zimmerman -- to stand his ground -- and even to use deadly force, if necessary, to defend himself.
Imagine that Martin, not Zimmerman, had been carrying a legal handgun -- and that it was Zimmerman who ended up dead. It seems to be that the law should have compelled police to release Martin, a young African-American in a hoodie, without charges.
Somehow, I doubt that would have happened.
The consensus view, which I've heard expressed by supporters of Stand Your Ground, is that police were wrong to extend the law's self-defense immunity to Zimmerman so quickly without a more thorough investigation -- and that given what we have learned about Zimmerman's pursuit of Martin, the law does not seem to apply.
But then why does Florida, or any other state, need this statute? State laws already allowed the use of deadly force in self-defense. By making explicit that the person who feels threatened has no obligation to retreat, all the state Legislature accomplished was to lessen the odds that a hot-tempered confrontation would be allowed to cool down without violence.
The Florida law took effect in 2005. Five years later, the Tampa Bay Times said that reports of justifiable homicide across the state had tripled. The newspaper found cases in which the protection of Stand Your Ground had been invoked by persons who felt -- perhaps with good reason, perhaps not -- that they faced imminent attack in their homes. Those incidents were at least in keeping with the intent of the legislation. But the paper also found the law being used to excuse violence committed during fights at house parties, disputes between neighbors and disagreements in public parks.
"Gangsters are using this law to have gunfights," Tallahassee state's attorney Willie Meggs told the Times.
Following Florida's lead, about 20 states have enacted similar legislation. I doubt you will be surprised to hear that the National Rifle Association has lobbied hard to get these dangerous and unnecessary statutes approved.
These laws encourage hotheads to go into potential confrontations with loaded firearms. They give permission to shoot first and ask questions later. This may be good for gun manufacturers, funeral homes and the NRA, but it's tragic for justice in America.
© 2012, Washington Post Writers Group

Knee-jerk much?

There’s not enough known at this point to say for certain the SYG law was abused or misinterpreted in this case.  If it were, it’s still no reason to repeal it.  In spite of such legislation, there are notable cases in Oklahoma where the shooter was convicted (or pled out).  Jerome Ersland and Kenneth Gumm (shot the tweaker at the RiverParks parking lot) both know that there are limitations to the law.

I want the right to be able to protect myself without fear of prosecution for attempting to save my life or someone who is with me at the time if I’m attacked.

Law hasn't even been enacted here yet...has it?

I want the right to be able to protect myself without fear of prosecution for attempting to save my life or someone who is with me at the time if I’m attacked.

In states without Stand Your Ground laws, you have two options when your life is threatened:
1. Run away.
2. Die.

guns beget more gunz....I don't know what's more shocking: The fact that this was invented at all, or the fact that it wasn't invented in America.

I'm not a very fast runner.

guns beget more gunz....I don't know what's more shocking: The fact that this was invented at all, or the fact that it wasn't invented in America.

That is absolutely false. The duty to retreat only extends as far as it is possible to safely retreat. But yes, if you can run away and you choose to kill someone instead, a self defense defense wouldn't be available to you. Nor should it be.

Don’t know about you, but I can’t run at 1700 to 3400 FPS, so out-running a bullet is pretty much an impossibility.

Heir- sad reality here, if it went down as you said, is all this kid really had to do was tell Barney Fife he was walking to his dad’s fiancee’s house and perhaps the oaf would have backed off with a “have a nice evening”.  If he decided to ambush or charge Zimmerman, he effed up.

There are reports from The Miami Herald and CBS News that police in Sanford, Fla., were looking to arrest George Zimmerman on a manslaughter charge for the killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin on Feb. 26.

But the local state attorney's office "held off pending further review," the Herald says. According to CBS: "On March 12, police gave the case to State Attorney Norm Wolfinger. He told them they needed more evidence to arrest Zimmerman."

ABC News adds that it has been told by multiple sources that "the lead homicide investigator in the shooting ... recommended that [Zimmerman] be charged with manslaughter the night of the shooting."

He has not been arrested or charged with any crime. Another state attorney is now handling the case and will be taking it to a grand jury.

Martin's father told CNN Tuesday evening that he's convinced Zimmerman wasn't arrested because "the police profiled Trayvon Martin" and concluded that because he was a young black man, he had probably been up to no good.

Zimmerman, 28, has told police he acted in self defense. The shooting, and what Martin's family and their supporters say was a lack of follow-up on the part of police and prosecutors, has ignited a national discussion about race and racial profiling.

In its report, CBS also lays out some of the evidence about what police did in the hours and days after Martin's death. It reports that Zimmerman was questioned for five hours on Feb. 26, that the next day "detectives re-enacted the shooting with Zimmerman at the scene" and that "for the next two weeks, lead investigator Chris Serino pursued a manslaughter charge against Zimmerman."

The Orlando Sentinel also tries today to dispel some "Trayvon rumors" with some facts. It reports, for example, that rumors about key evidence not being collected are not true, according to Sanford police:

"They took [Zimmerman's] clothing as well as Trayvon's and packaged it for crime-lab analysis. A spokeswoman for Special Prosecutor Angela Corey would not disclose Tuesday where the clothing is now, but she wrote in an email that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement 'is assisting with the processing of physical evidence.’ “

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/03/28/149518721/reports-police-pursued-manslaughter-charge-in-trayvon-martins-death

If this was a white kid that was killed this wouldn't be front page news.....no one made this about race except the news media who needed a front page story and the black community...PS: Love how they put: "strolling home with a tea and some skittles" ...I know at 17 I always strolled home and had nothing else on my mind......

If this was a white kid that was killed this wouldn't be front page news.....no one made this about race except the news media who needed a front page story and the black community...PS: Love how they put: "strolling home with a tea and some skittles" ...I know at 17 I always strolled home and had nothing else on my mind......

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Grpql9GXLQ&feature=related[/youtube]
  s/b nostyle?


try this: if this were a white kid murdered by a black man weighing 100 lbs. more then the black man would already be on death row...or very close to it. The news media didn't make this story.....bigotry and racial bias police made this a story.  

Hispanic=ethnic group
Black=race

HUGE DIFF!

Hispanic=ethnic group
Black=race

HUGE DIFF!

Melanin.  Not that big a difference.

Shouldn't attack or shoot anyone.  Skin tone shouldn't matter worth a  squirt.

Hispanic=ethnic group
Black=race

HUGE DIFF!

The two races discussed here are Caucasian (white), Negroid(black). Hispanic is not a race it is an ethnicity. Hispanics are actually those Caucasians that live or came from Hispania (Spain) as opposed to Latino's whose ancestry may have been Hispanic mixed with other indignenous peoples from or in the Latin American countries. The two terms are often misused and intermixed along with Mexican (a country).

The two races discussed here are Caucasian (white), Negroid(black). Hispanic is not a race it is an ethnicity. Hispanics are actually those Caucasians that live or came from Hispania (Spain) as opposed to Latino's whose ancestry may have been Hispanic mixed with other indignenous peoples from or in the Latin American countries. The two terms are often misused and intermixed along with Mexican (a country).

I guess its because of the possibility that this may be prosecuted as a hate crime which is race oriented. I don't think the hate crime laws are about ethnicity.

I don't think the hate crime laws are about ethnicity.

Funny though, HB 1804 was called “racist” and defined as “racism”, not ethnicism.

The inference in the Martin case is that someone of the majority shot a minority which is clearly a falsehood.  This is an instance of one minority killing another minority but it serves those who wish to keep pushing the racial divide quite well to characterize him as “white”.  Had this been an Anglophile who shot an Hispanic, you can be certain the victim would not have been referred to as a “white Hispanic” he simply would have been “Hispanic”.

Who gets to determine a shooting like this was a hate crime?  Why wasn’t the killing of two white people by two black men in Hicks Park back in September ruled or even insinuated as a hate crime?  Perhaps those young men had a hatred of white people and that’s why they singled out these two instead of robbing a couple of black people.  It’s almost as if blacks, Hispanics, gays, or women aren’t capable of hate crimes, only white, straight males.  And that right there is an example of profiling.

Funny though, HB 1804 was called “racist” and defined as “racism”, not ethnicism.

The inference in the Martin case is that someone of the majority shot a minority which is clearly a falsehood.  This is an instance of one minority killing another minority but it serves those who wish to keep pushing the racial divide quite well to characterize him as “white”.  Had this been an Anglophile who shot an Hispanic, you can be certain the victim would not have been referred to as a “white Hispanic” he simply would have been “Hispanic”.

Who gets to determine a shooting like this was a hate crime?  Why wasn’t the killing of two white people by two black men in Hicks Park back in September ruled or even insinuated as a hate crime?  Perhaps those young men had a hatred of white people and that’s why they singled out these two instead of robbing a couple of black people.  It’s almost as if blacks, Hispanics, gays, or women aren’t capable of hate crimes, only white, straight males.  And that right there is an example of profiling.

A hate crime isn't about majority or minority groups.  The crime has to be motivated by race, ethnicity, sex, etc to qualify.  So if can be proven that a black man (for argument's sake) murdered a white man specifically because of his race or ethnicity, then it's a hate crime.

A hate crime isn't about majority or minority groups.  The crime has to be motivated by race, ethnicity, sex, etc to qualify.  So if can be proven that a black man (for argument's sake) murdered a white man specifically because of his race or ethnicity, then it's a hate crime. 

If an Hispanic man (Zimmerman) murdered a black man (Martin) specifically because Martin was black, that qualifies as a hate crime.

If it could be proven that the Hicks Park incident was primarily about race then it would also be a hate crime.  I don't know anything about the Hicks Park thing, so can't speak about whether that would apply.

What if Zimmerman profiled Martin based on race, followed him, then confronted him "what are you doing here."  Then Martin, outraged by being followed and confronted, engaged in assault then battery, causing Zimmerman to fire upon Martin.

Would that be considered a hate crime?

If this is the scenario (and I'm not saying it is), was the act of taking Martin's life motivated by race, or self defense?  

Can someone be a racist and engage in an act of self defense against another race without that act considered as racially motivated?  

A little further speculation. . .if Martin attacked Zimmerman for profiling him based on race, would Martin's act be considered a hate crime?  

Again, I am only exploring possible scenarios.  I offer no opinion on who I believe to be guilty of a crime.  I am not privy to enough evidence to form an opinion yet.

What you are describing is a crime of or involving hate but "Hate Crimes" are specific to groups that are typically a minority and have laws passed referring specifically to that group.

The last I heard, anyone can murder a white man and whether it involves hate or not, it is not a "Hate Crime".  It is still murder, manslaughter, or whatever but not a "Hate Crime".

Edit:
I looked around and perhaps the term I should have used is "Hate Crime Law" for the law that increases the penalties for crimes against protected groups.

What if Zimmerman profiled Martin based on race, followed him, then confronted him "what are you doing here."  Then Martin, outraged by being followed and confronted, engaged in assault then battery, causing Zimmerman to fire upon Martin.

Would that be considered a hate crime?

If this is the scenario (and I'm not saying it is), was the act of taking Martin's life motivated by race, or self defense?  

Can someone be a racist and engage in an act of self defense against another race without that act considered as racially motivated?  

A little further speculation. . .if Martin attacked Zimmerman for profiling him based on race, would Martin's act be considered a hate crime?  

Again, I am only exploring possible scenarios.  I offer no opinion on who I believe to be guilty of a crime.  I am not privy to enough evidence to form an opinion yet.

In the interest of fostering global understanding, people from Hispaniola don't really like being called hispanic. They also consider anybody who isn't black as night white.

The More You Know ☆彡

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States
 . . . does a good job summarizing what hate crimes and laws in the US are and aren't.  There's a whole section about hate crimes committed against white people. 
It doesn't matter whether the crime was perpetrated by one specific race on another specific race.  What matters is the motivation for the crime.  If the crime was motivated by hate for a race or sex or ethnicity (etc) then it's a hate crime.  That can and does include crimes perpetrated by other races on white people. 

I like hate crimes.    They are like normal crimes, just illegal-er.

jesus didnt need a gun....

(http://www.philzone.org/discus/messages/439459/759167.jpg)

What you are describing is a crime of or involving hate but "Hate Crimes" are specific to groups that are typically a minority and have laws passed referring specifically to that group.

The last I heard, anyone can murder a white man and whether it involves hate or not, it is not a "Hate Crime".  It is still murder, manslaughter, or whatever but not a "Hate Crime".

Edit:
I looked around and perhaps the term I should have used is "Hate Crime Law" for the law that increases the penalties for crimes against protected groups.

Hate crime laws exist because to commit a violent act against someone because you hate the color of their skin, or their religion, or their sexual identity, is especially heinous. It goes above and beyond just the random act of violence, and should be punished accordingly.

Who gets to determine a shooting like this was a hate crime?  Why wasn’t the killing of two white people by two black men in Hicks Park back in September ruled or even insinuated as a hate crime?  Perhaps those young men had a hatred of white people and that’s why they singled out these two instead of robbing a couple of black people.  It’s almost as if blacks, Hispanics, gays, or women aren’t capable of hate crimes, only white, straight males.  And that right there is an example of profiling.

If someone murders you because you are white, that is a hate crime, because hate crime laws include all races.
So you are, indeed, a protected class whether you like it or not.

My perception is that a hate crime against a white male (if it really does exist) will not be prosecuted as vigorously as the other way around.

While the reality of the situation is that a crime is much more likely to go without serious investigation if the perp is white and the victim is black. Perhaps not in cases where a hate crime law might be invoked, but in general. I prefer to believe it's not due to racist intent, but just a side effect that gives the appearance of overt racism.

It's not a matter of liking it or not.  My perception is that a hate crime against a white male (if it really does exist) will not be prosecuted as vigorously as the other way around.  I can well imagine you will say my perception is wrong. I say do (not just you personally) something to correct that perception other than spouting rules and regulations.

I think that's a common perception among many white people who have never experienced discrimination, or violent acts commite against them just because they are "different".

Why are green olives in a jar but black olives are in a can?

I haven't had violent acts done to me because I was white but I have been discriminated against.  I did get into a fight with a Navy barracks roomie who was Puerto Rican but we had both had a few adult beverages.   I didn't get a summer job during my college years that I had the previous two summers because I am white.  That year the job was reserved for a minority.   I also was told by a Navy electronics instructor that Polish people are stupid and he never had one do any good in his class. I am 1/2 Polish on my dad's side, my last name is Polish. I took care of that instructor by getting the highest grade of my classmates in that class.

I haven't had violent acts done to me because I was white but I have been discriminated against.  I did get into a fight with a Navy barracks roomie who was Puerto Rican but we had both had a few adult beverages.   I didn't get a summer job during my college years that I had the previous two summers because I am white.  That year the job was reserved for a minority.   I also was told by a Navy electronics instructor that Polish people are stupid and he never had one do any good in his class. I am 1/2 Polish on my dad's side, my last name is Polish. I took care of that instructor by getting the highest grade of my classmates in that class.

I bet the Puerto Rican won! 

The actions of the perpetrators determine if it is a hate crime. Did they single these people out because they were white? Did they shout "Honky" or "Cracker" while they were killing them? In this case, the two victims were targeted for a robbery, which appears to be the motivation for the crime. While horrible and senseless, it's not a hate crime.

In contrast to this, take the Chilean gay man that was just tortured and beaten to death, and then swastikas were carved all over his body. The perps were all known neo-nazis. This is an obvious case of a crime motivated by hate. Other cases aren't quite as obvious....

Was Zimmerman motivated by hate? We don't know for sure yet, but the mounting evidence doesn't look good for him.  

I think he acted out of fear

Yes, if I were scared of someone I know I would get out of my car and follow them on foot. That's what scared people do, isn't it?

You don't even have to be scared to "stand your ground."   

If you aren't fearing for your life or great bodily harm and you intentionally shoot someone, you deserve to go to jail.

I honestly cannot think of a single instance I’ve heard of where the term hate crime has been applied on a white person.

Wasn't there a poster on this forum who had to do exactly that (shoot someone breaking into his home) here within the last two years or so?

I'd have to defer to custosnox on the details, but yes, he did shoot at an intruder who had actually kicked his door in. As I've repeatedly stated, I think it's perfectly reasonable that a person has more leeway in self defense when they're in their home. I don't think that extends to shooting people you can't even see, though.

TeeDub, you might want to get your glasses checked. Outside the home unless you reasonably believe you (or another person) are in danger of death or great bodily harm or see someone committing a forcible felony you can't shoot someone. Mere physical harm that does not rise to the level of great bodily harm (essentially injury that would be life threatening or cause the long-term loss of use of some body part) does not count. If you shoot someone in that instance, you should not expect protection by the law. The law is pretty clear. Stupid, but clear.

So much blather and blabber on here....

I can. I have a friend who was killed by two white guys. It was white on white hate...gay man murdered by white gay bashers.

You people do not understand the plight of the White man nor the meaning of hate crimes. But keep it up.

With such a corrupt system of law enforcement emerging in this country, what difference does justification make?  Just curious...

At least in Tulsa and Oklahoma County districts, SYG is NOT a slam-dunk.  They keep the bar high, some think a little too high.

G. A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force, but the law enforcement agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
H. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection F of this section.

Sorry, I meant white straight people.  I understand the plight of the white man these days quite well.  Do you?

The law specifically bars someone whose situation is covered by the SYG law from being arrested unless there is probable cause to believe that SYG does not apply.

No. Obviously not. Splain it to me....

Define probable cause.

"Probable cause” is not concrete, nor easily defined.

Sorry sonny, use the Googlez.  I’m out for the weekend.

No. Obviously not. Splain it to me....

Racist.  What's with the "Splain" thing?  Watching too much "I love Lucy"?

More Killings Called Self-Defense

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303404704577311873214574462.html
By JOE PALAZZOLO and ROB BARRY

At a time when the overall U.S. homicide rate is declining, more civilians are killing each other and claiming self-defense—a trend that is most pronounced in states with new "stand your ground" laws.

These laws, which grant people more leeway to attack and even kill someone who is threatening them, are attracting close scrutiny following February's controversial killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Florida by a neighborhood watchman. Florida has one of the broadest self-defense laws of the 25 states with some version of a "stand your ground" principle.

So-called justifiable homicides nearly doubled from 2000 to 2010, the most recent data available, when 326 were reported, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of crime statistics from all 50 states. Over that same 11-year period, total killings averaged roughly 16,000 a year, according to the state figures, which the Journal obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and from Florida.

The data on justifiable homicides and their relationship to "stand your ground" laws hasn't been rigorously studied, according to criminal scientists, and it leaves some questions unanswered. For instance, does a rise in justifiable homicides reflect killings that otherwise wouldn't have happened? Or does it reflect the fact that more killings might naturally fall into the "justifiable" category, if a new law broadens that category?

The statistics don't capture why a killer felt threatened, or whether the victim was armed. And by definition, the dead man—and justifiable-homicide victims are almost exclusively male, unlike nonjustifiable homicides—isn't around to testify.

Still, the numbers provide a rich snapshot of justifiable-homicide characteristics over the 11-year period:

• In about 60% of justifiable-homicide cases in which the relationship between victim and killer was known, the pair were strangers. This differs sharply from nonjustifiable cases, where more than three-fourths of victims knew their killers.

• Firearms were used in more than 80% of justifiable cases. (In seven cases, the victims were asphyxiated or strangled.) In nonjustifiable cases, guns were used about 65% of the time.

• The average age of victims in justifiable cases was 30; in nonjustifiable cases, the average was 32. By either yardstick, the February killing of 17-year-old Mr. Martin was an outlier.

The death of Mr. Martin, a black teen, is driving a widespread debate about the role of race. The nationwide data show that in three-quarters or more of all killings, "justifiable" or otherwise, the killer and victim were of the same race. Proportionally, blacks are more often the victims of homicide.

A split appeared in the data when the race of killer and victim differed. Among all homicides, when races differed, the victim was more often white. By contrast, in justifiable-homicide cases, when the races differed, the opposite was true: The victim was more often black.

James Alan Fox, a professor of criminology at Northeastern University, said that difference "is certainly, on the face of it, something that needs to be explored." He noted it is difficult to draw conclusions without deeper study. "Could it be an element of racism? You can't necessarily assume that," he said.

Critics of the stand-your-ground laws say they breed a shoot-first mentality that not only can lead to more killings, but can make it tough to investigate killings that might otherwise be worth a closer look.

"I choose to believe prosecution for murder has a deterrent effect. It should be a huge deal to take a life," said David LaBahn of the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys. He said laws such as Florida's give civilians stronger protections than police officers who kill in the line of duty.

Supporters of stand-your-ground laws say they empower people to confront criminals in life-threatening situations, rather than flee. "I don't want to find out whether I can outrun a bullet," said James Corley, a Columbia, S.C., lawyer who shot and killed an armed intruder a few years ago.

In that 2009 incident, an intruder had broken into a club for recovering alcoholics and demanded everyone's wallets at gunpoint. Mr. Corley shot him with a concealed weapon. The local prosecutor didn't pursue charges, concluding that Mr. Corley acted in self-defense.

For decades, many states embraced the "Castle Doctrine," the principle that a person's home is their castle and they are generally within their rights to defend themselves, even with deadly force, against intruders.

Outside the home, however, most states required people to try to retreat, rather than take on an aggressor.

A wave of "stand your ground" laws, including Florida's in 2005, expanded the doctrine to include places outside the home.

The National Rifle Association is a prominent backer of the new laws. An NRA official didn't respond to requests for comment.

Oklahoma State Senator Harry Coates, one of the sponsors for the law that passed in his state in 2006, said: "At the time, we were dealing with a tremendous number of carjackings."

Under the Castle Doctrine, he said, "It was a little unclear whether you could protect yourself. So we put it in the statutes that yes, you can shoot to kill if your life is in peril, period." Sen. Coates added, "It's not to allow you to blow people away unless your life is being threatened."

The Journal obtained most of the state-by-state data from the FBI, which collects it from the states, and also obtained Florida data from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Florida doesn't use the FBI's guidelines when reporting additional information about homicides.

The FBI data don't capture all homicides. The states' reporting is voluntary, and the country's thousands of police agencies aren't consistent in how they report. Some states, including New York, reported no justifiable homicides at all for some years.

In absolute terms, the number of homicides of all kinds reported in the data increased slightly between 2000 and 2010. But when adjusted for population growth, the overall homicide rate declined slightly in that data.

By contrast, over that period, the number of killings categorized as justifiable rose by 85% to 326 cases in 2010 from 176 in 2000, the figures show.

Five of the states that enacted "stand your ground" laws during the past decade—Kansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Montana and West Virginia—reported no significant change in justifiable homicides. In Michigan, which passed its law in 2006, they fell.

Overall, the figures show the sharpest increase in justifiable homicides occurred after 2005, when Florida and 16 other states passed the laws.

While the overall homicide rates in those states stayed relatively flat, the average number of justifiable cases per year increased by more than 50% in the decade's latter half, the data show.

In Texas and Georgia, such cases nearly doubled and in Florida, they nearly tripled. Meanwhile, in states that saw no change in their self-defense laws, justifiable homicides reported to the FBI stayed nearly flat after a slight uptick in the middle decade.

Florida's particularly strong law not only eliminates the duty to retreat, but also presumes that a person who used deadly force in his home or vehicle had a reasonable fear of harm, and it immunizes the killer from civil lawsuits. At least six other states have laws mirroring Florida's.

Justifiable homicides in Florida rose from an average of 12 a year before the law was passed in 2005 to an average 33 a year afterward, according to statistics from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

There are a number of ways a homicide can be deemed justifiable. Prosecutors can decide not to bring charges, or a person can be cleared of wrongdoing by a jury. A judge can also find that someone acted in self-defense.

That's what happened in an unusual case in Miami this past week. Citing the Florida law, a judge dismissed a murder charge against Greyston Garcia, who had chased and stabbed to death a suspected burglar who had stolen his car radio. The judge ruled that a bag of radios swung by the suspect, Pedro Roteta, at Mr. Garcia amounted to a lethal threat.

Mr. Garcia "was well within his rights to pursue the victim and demand the return of his property," the judge said.

Prosecutors plan to appeal, according to a spokesman for Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle. Mr. Garcia's lawyer, Eduardo Pereira, said: "Mr. Garcia defended himself when attacked by an armed burglar."

In the February killing of Mr. Martin in the Orlando suburb of Sanford, a neighborhood-watch volunteer, George Zimmerman, said he acted in self-defense in shooting the teenager. Mr. Zimmerman hasn't been arrested or charged. His lawyer didn't respond to requests for comment.

The scope of "stand your ground" laws is being tested in several court cases across the country, including in Texas, where self-defense killings increased from an annual average of 26 before the law went into effect in 2007 to 46 after, according to the data.

Jose Manuel Morales was convicted of murder for shooting and killing Enil Lopez in a December 2007 gang fight in Dallas. According to Mr. Morales's lawyer, he was acting in defense of his brother, Juan Morales.

Mr. Morales's murder conviction, for which he was sentenced to 25 years in prison, is now in question because the trial judge incorrectly told the jury the brothers had a duty to retreat. A Texas appeals court is considering whether the error was severe enough to warrant a new trial.

Mr. Morales's lawyer, John Hagler, declined to comment specifically on the case. He did say the new law has given criminal-defense attorneys such as himself a new tool where few existed before. "If you've got two guys shooting it out, how many defenses are there?" he said. "I've had cases where my guy shot a guy in the back with an automatic rifle 11 times and claimed self-defense," Mr. Hagler said, noting that as the lawyer representing the accused, "you've got to do something."

Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins, whose office is prosecuting Mr. Morales, said the Texas law was too susceptible to abuse. "If someone is trying to kick in your door, I don't think you should have a duty to retreat," said Mr. Watkins, who declined to comment on the Morales case. "But you can't pursue an individual and then claim self-defense."

Write to Joe Palazzolo at joe.palazzolo@wsj.com and Rob Barry at rob.barry@wsj.com

Outside the home, however, most states required people to try to retreat, rather than take on an aggressor.

Wasn't there a poster on this forum who had to do exactly that (shoot someone breaking into his home) here within the last two years or so?

Just a young white college graduate who comes from a good loving family who was out with his friends on Friday night and had been at one of their apartments two doors down then left and came right back from his car to get his wallet that he realized he had left in the apartment.  On his way back, he accidentally went to the wrong door. Of course, being a weekend and late at night, one apartment can easily be mistaken for the next.  He went to the door and jiggled it saying, "hey guys, let me in" and the cop opened up the door immediately firing off 3 shots without him even entering the apartment or having a chance to even realize it was the wrong door!
As the police and paramedics arrived he was laying outside of the apartment and mumbled to the officers, "sorry it was an accident" As the off-duty officer/shooter stood above him exclaiming "that is what he gets for trying to come in".  It is also speculated that he waited 5-10 minutes to call in the incident, letting the victim lay there helpless and bleeding out as he stood there watching.  There are several people that will be character witnesses for this gentleman that everyone is so quick to call a criminal, he is one of the most fun-loving, warm-hearted, and goofy individuals you will ever meet, he has never even been in a fight before, so when people that know him hear that the deputy claimed he was being aggressive, everyone almost laughs and immediately knows that is a false statement because the kid doesn’t have a mean bone in his body.  Not to mention if given even 5 seconds before being shot, he would have probably said "hey, sorry wrong door" 
It is truly sad that some hondo cop who is trained for many other alternatives concerning conflict resolution besides firing your gun immediately turned to just that!  Why not wrestle him to the ground? Although that wasn't even necessary because he did not even enter the apartment and I swear to God, the last thing this kid was being was aggressive, he would rather sit back and socialize even with this stranger and again, if he were given just a few seconds probably could have made a new friend... That is the type of guy at hand here!  An innocent 27 year old that accidentally went to the wrong door!!!  So the only criminal in this situation is the so-called officer that OPENED HIS OWN DOOR and IMMEDIATELY fired THREE shots at someone OUTSIDE of his apartment. This gentleman should be put away for a long time, let alone someone that we want carrying a gun around everyday as a part of their job!??   
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20110522_11_A5_Anoffd822662

That somebody can claim self defense out of a "belief" that they're in danger ...

Go figure.

What had actually been unclear was whether a person could use deadly force in defense of others.

You guys with carry permits speak up:
One of my friends with a permit (he is presently out of town or I'd double check with him) once told me that if he saw me (personal friend) being attacked that he could NOT use his gun to defend me.  He would have to watch me die waiting for the police.

You guys with carry permits speak up:
One of my friends with a permit (he is presently out of town or I'd double check with him) once told me that if he saw me (personal friend) being attacked that he could NOT use his gun to defend me.  He would have to watch me die waiting for the police.

You guys with carry permits speak up:
One of my friends with a permit (he is presently out of town or I'd double check with him) once told me that if he saw me (personal friend) being attacked that he could NOT use his gun to defend me.  He would have to watch me die waiting for the police.

Technically someone with a CCL is not supposed to access or use their weapon unless they have reason to believe the are subject to imminent physical harm or death.  I can make a safe assumption that if a gun were aimed at you it would be aimed at me next.  

And just a courtesy tip to anyone who ever defends themselves, absolutely DO NOT speak to any investigators until you have an attorney present and only after you have given your account to your attorney.  That’s your legal right, I suggest you use it.  

Should the cops ask you what happened:  “I’m not sure but I’m still in shock.  I’d like some time to let it sink in and speak to my attorney before I speak on the record.”

That’s not even remotely suggesting guilt on your part.  It’s been pointed out that there either were things said or might have been things said immediately after the cops arrived at Erslund’s pharmacy as well as on the scene of the Riverparks SYG incident which eventually worked against each defendant.

I’d love for CF or Guido to weigh in on this one.

It's my understanding, from the class and the reading of the law, that if you belief you or someone else is in danger of immediate grievous harm or death that you can use deadly force. 

You guys with carry permits speak up:
One of my friends with a permit (he is presently out of town or I'd double check with him) once told me that if he saw me (personal friend) being attacked that he could NOT use his gun to defend me.  He would have to watch me die waiting for the police.

No, only if that person is blood related or marriage related to you.  Sorry for the lateness of the response, but I have my CC class fresh in my head from Saturday.

That would be correct RA.  Now, if the attacker, after noticing you've witnessed this, turns to you, then it depends on the level of force involved.  Striking you with a fist?  Can't draw your weapon.  Comes at you with a knife or a gun, however, is considered threat of lethal force.  But a friend being attacked?  You cannot do anything until you are certain that YOUR life is in danger.

It's not that straightforward... there are both laws to consider and they say in slightly different ways that defending someone else (non-relative) is allowed.

That's not what I was told Saturday and there were cases that were cited that appeared to be the case.  Maybe as part of the stand your ground (Castle Doctrine) law.  When out and about as a CC license holder, no.

Read the actual text of the law, then let me know what you think.  See Title 21, section 1289.25 part D (link below).  I know how I read the section, and have heard a couple interpretations of it.  Don't remember hearing guido weigh in on it, but don't get the impression that he works much with this type of law.  Anyone else??

http://www.ok.gov/osbi/documents/SDA_Lawbook_NOV_2011.pdf

“...to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forceable felony.”

What it’s going to hinge on is whether or not the investigators believe there was about to be a forceable felony or whether or not an assault with bare fists, feet, or a chair leg would cause great bodily harm.  I’m aware of people being killed with one blow to the head before.

But, yes, I’m reading that if I saw someone being assaulted by someone else with a knife, gun, or having a forceable felony committed on them (I’m guessing rape or armed robbery) I could intervene and shoot the newly-minted felon.  

NOTE: A citizen's use of deadly force to protect another is strictly limited under Oklahoma law. Before use of a
firearm can be threatened or used in defense of another,  the person protected must be the defender's spouse,
parent, child, employer, or employee. To display, point, threaten, or use a firearm in defense of anyone other
than a spouse, parent, child, employer, or employee, is unreasonable, unlawful, use of force.

I’d have a hard time standing by and watching a woman get raped by some armed POS in a parking garage because I was unclear on the law.

http://guninstructor.net/CCC_Handout.pdf

Search for 'defense of another'.  This was part of the course.  This is a CLEET document.  I'm pretty sure this is cited from law.

Specifically 'Deadly Force - defense of another'

A note within the document plainly states:

I’d have a hard time standing by and watching a woman get raped by some armed POS in a parking garage because I was unclear on the law.

Hero!!!!! And that's why we need SYG !!!!

Heir and Hoss, thank you for you insight and knowledge. No guessing with you two.

http://www.ok.gov/osbi/documents/SDA_Lawbook_NOV_2011.pdf

Strange.   The OSBI says that this is the book that needs to be used in the CC classes.   It doesn't even address shooting an unarmed intruder or only being able to shoot in protection of a relative.

And so would I.  That doesn't mean you can't use non-lethal force.  You just cannot pull a weapon on the perpetrator UNLESS HE WAS TO TURN YOUR WAY AND ADVANCE WITH A KNIFE OR A GUN.  Or that person is related to you in the manner I specified in my post above.  We asked a lot of hypothetical questions in this class.  Some our instructor was not so clear on and indicated he would contact the DA to find out what might happen in a case as such.  This however, was made crystal clear to us.  Keep in mind it excludes the castle doctrine part.  So if I fear for my life or someone else's life in my own home, even someone I don't know, I have a right to defend that person.  While you're away from home however, the rules change.

http://www.ok.gov/osbi/documents/SDA_Lawbook_NOV_2011.pdf

Strange.   The OSBI says that this is the book that needs to be used in the CC classes.   It doesn't even address shooting an unarmed intruder or only being able to shoot in protection of a relative.

I’m pretty sure all you would have to say is “Get off or you are done!” and they would point it your way.  Regardless, it’s still going to boil down to whether or not the PD or the DA determine they pointed a weapon at you or advanced.  Without eyewitnesses, they really can’t tell and I seriously doubt someone else whose life you just saved is going to tell the cops you just started shooting for no reason and no one was in danger.

The part I emboldened is one of the rubs to conceal carry or SYG: defend yourself at your own peril because cops and DA’s from different districts all seem to disagree on what the law means and that was very carefully explained to me by my instructor who was a 40 year LEO veteran as a Sheriff, police chief, and someone who helped author much of what has been codified as the SDA and SYG statutes.

Not getting into a big you know what game on instructors just simply stating that your instructor is equally as clear on the laws as mine was or as most DA’s and LEO’s are.  It’s all subject to interpretation and as well what they think the evidence at the crime scene indicates.

Personally, I hope I’m never in a situation where I need to worry about it.

Best advice of all is that you have a right to remain silent, I highly recommend you do that should you ever get in that situation until you have your own personal attorney present.

Which was another one of my instructor's points.  Call 911 RIGHT AWAY.  If the person you pointed at or shot should call them first and say some crazy man shot him/pulled a gun for no reason, it becomes a timeline of he said/he said.  My instructor was by no means a 40 y/o LEO, but he was VERY knowledgeable on the subject.

Which was another one of my instructor's points.  Call 911 RIGHT AWAY.  If the person you pointed at or shot should call them first and say some crazy man shot him/pulled a gun for no reason, it becomes a timeline of he said/he said.  My instructor was by no means a 40 y/o LEO, but he was VERY knowledgeable on the subject.

Not sure exactly what point you are trying to make...???  I think Hoss is coming from direction of what he was taught in class, which sounds like it took excerpts and inserted interpretations that are not exactly in the law.  That is the document I told everyone (addressed to Hoss) to look at.  That is the text of the law.  (Did you read some of it?)

See Title 21, section 1289.25 part D.

Section B says nothing about being armed or unarmed, because that is irrelevant in those circumstances - by the law's definition - it is presumed.

My FIRST response in any situation like this is always going to be "RUN AWAY", if at all possible.  I have no interest in angry physical confrontation at any level, so will always leave if I can.  I think that is a pretty good response for many if not most of these type situations.

I’m sure he was.  There is simply no telling how it’s all going to play out due to different understandings of the law.  I’d sure as hell hate to wind up like Kenneth Gumm. 

Joe Horn made it through fine.  He warned the dispatcher he was going outside to confront two burglars who broke in to his neighbor's house, then managed to shoot both, kill one, and walks free.

The operator said, “You’re going to get yourself shot.” But Mr. Horn replied, “You want to make a bet? I’m going to kill them.”
Moments later he said, “Well here it goes, buddy. You hear the shotgun clicking and I’m going.”

Then again, that was Texas.

On June 30, 2008 a Harris County grand jury cleared Mr. Horn by issuing a no-bill after two weeks of testimony.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLtKCC7z0yc

Fellow confronted a burglar at his neighbor’s in Tulsa a year or two back over behind the Best Buy off Skelly Drive and ended up dead.  Stay in your locked house and call the cops.  If they try to come in your house, then act.

Castle Doctrine material right there (your suggestion, that is).  And I was told it extends to your vehicle as well.  Which kind of goes at odds to what happened to Mr. Gumm, if I'm assessing it correctly.

Castle Doctrine material right there (your suggestion, that is).  And I was told it extends to your vehicle as well.  Which kind of goes at odds to what happened to Mr. Gumm, if I'm assessing it correctly.

Fellow confronted a burglar at his neighbor’s in Tulsa a year or two back over behind the Best Buy off Skelly Drive and ended up dead.  Stay in your locked house and call the cops.  If they try to come in your house, then act.

That is why you don't confront people without a gun and the willingness to use it.    Guns aren't to threaten or intimidate people, they are strictly for defense.   (That is why firing a warning shot often negates any sort of self defense claim.)

Warning shot is the Hollywood BS fantasy stupid thing to do.  It has no place in any real world scenario EVER!

George Zimmerman is suing the family of the teenager he shot nearly eight years ago, seeking more than $100 million from Trayvon Martin's parents, their attorney and others. Zimmerman claims he was the victim of a conspiracy.

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/04/784846004/george-zimmerman-sues-trayvon-martins-family-for-more-than-100-million

George Zimmerman is suing the family of the teenager he shot nearly eight years ago, seeking more than $100 million from Trayvon Martin's parents, their attorney and others. Zimmerman claims he was the victim of a conspiracy.

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/04/784846004/george-zimmerman-sues-trayvon-martins-family-for-more-than-100-million