Duty to retreat vs stand your ground and castle laws: Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater

[TPaine7]

89. True, I did fail to break it down far enough for you.

Ok, I’ve had some important family and business stuff to take care of, so I haven’t been on here for a while. It may very well be that no one is following this thread anymore, but I think it’s wrong to let posts like this go unchallenged.

First I’ll acknowledge your single legitimate point:

You failed miserably at trying to break it down

That is correct. And let me hasten that I am probably on my way to another partial failure. I tried, and I’m trying now, to break this down so that you can see how foolish and transparent your arguments are. I didn’t succeed before, and I don’t have high hopes now.

I think that I am in good company, however. There have probably been people in your life who have tried to show you the benefits of manners, logic, self-control and English literacy. I wish them the best.

This time my likely failure will be mitigated by the fact that I am mostly writing for any others who read this, not for you.

You asked for a review, so here’s mine:

I came in here with a very calm OP. It hurled no insults; it addressed the concerns of those, who like me, are very concerned about the Trayvon Martin shooting:

Now Trayvon's killing has us all stirred up. And rightfully so. We know some disturbing things. An unarmed black youth was deemed "suspicious" and "probably on drugs" with no apparent justification. He was followed, questioned, and shot after his shooter was advised to leave him alone.

Your response was clueless in the extreme:

31. Wow! Just Wow! Killing an unarmed teen with no legal ramifications is the "bathwater"?

In the baby-bathwater scenario the baby is valuable, the bathwater disposable. No one cares about the bathwater—that’s the point.

But where in the OP do I even hint that I don’t care about Trayvon’s death? I said that we are “all stirred up” about “Trayvon’s killing”—“and rightly so.” Any literate, thinking person can see that Trayvon Martin’s killing cannot be the bathwater in the analogy. But you didn’t.

When meeting a new person, I try to avoid quickly concluding that they’re an illiterate, unthinking fool. People have bad days, people make mistakes. So I let the implication that I couldn’t care less about the death of Trayvon Martin slide. I answered the factual issue, not the insult and hysteria:

36. No, the issues with Florida law are the bathwater.

Your cluelessness continued:

And the very best case for the baby you can make is some completely unrelated case of a drunk woman who shot her husband?

No.

Once again, as any literate, thinking person can see, that case was about someone being driven from their own home (as opposed to any public place). The baby I was arguing for—the freedom of the perfectly innocent not to be legally obliged to flee from violent aggressors—is supported by the entire OP.

The OP still stands—with the exception of a single paragraph and a sentence fragment—and the OP makes my case. Anyone can see that my main point doesn’t hinge on whether people can be driven from their bedrooms by robbers or by the “unrelated case” I cited. Anyone but you.

It gets worse:

Here's the flaws in your arguments:

Now there's a frenzy to get rid of "stand your ground." But there is a serious problem with the standard legal alternative—"duty to retreat." It elevates violent criminals over the law-abiding and innocent.{quoting me}

Sorry, but this just demonstrates binary thinking. It suggests that there are only two alternatives, which is pretty much the idiotic mindset which gives us these idiotic laws in the first place….

Ok, I read that my thinking is “idiotic” coming from a guy who doesn’t take the time to digest what he’s reading. Obviously the term “standard legal alternative,” shows that I know there are other, less common alternatives. They are in the minority, however. I discussed the most popular laws.

But there is another, more fundamental reason to compare “duty to retreat” and “stand your ground.” Florida and several other states had “duty to retreat.” The law said that if you were minding your business and someone credibly threatened you with death or serious bodily injury you had to leave if you safely could. It was required.

The legislature decided to change that immoral law. That is a binary situation, by its nature. Either totally innocent people have a “duty to retreat” from violent attackers in every situation where they safely can or they don’t. Intelligent people can’t simply throw their hands up and say “it depends” as you did.

It’s not as if there isn’t nuance in the law. A person who helped start hostilities can’t stand his ground—he still has a duty to retreat under Florida law:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

That part of the law gets the principle exactly right. If you started or helped to start hostilities, you should have a duty to retreat. If you are totally innocent, you have the option to retreat but no legal duty to retreat.

The legislature owes the people clear guidance as to what is legal and what is not. Going from “duty to retreat” to a vacuous “it depends” is irresponsible. Requiring the innocent to flee the violent under penalty of law is immoral. To wave your hands and say “it depends”—leaving the innocent wide open to judges, prosecutors and juries who still believe in the “duty to retreat” is stupid. Binary thinking is laudable in this case.

Your next statement, along with your later comments, shows rare cluelessness even for the internet. It’s one thing to misunderstand common idioms and the writings of others; it’s a rarer mistake to misunderstand one’s own statements.

Since you clearly don’t understand what you said next I will explain it to you, in detail.

…The shooting of Trayvon Martin is an excellent example of why the Florida law in particular (as well as some others) are failures {sic}.

You are clearly saying that the shooting of Trayvon Martin is an excellent example of why the Florida law in particular is a failure. “The Florida law in particular”—along with some other laws—is a failure. The Florida law IN PARTICULAR.

They allow people like Zimmerman to shoot unarmed people with no criminal or civil repercussions whatsoever. Furthermore, Trayvon Martin is almost undoubtedly not the only victim of this piss-poor law in Florida alone.
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/03/20/deaths-nearly-triple-since-stand-your-ground-enacted/

What is the antecedent of “they”? Clearly the antecedent is “The Florida law in particular (as well as some others).” Your grammar mistake makes this a little harder to follow than it should be, but there is no other possibility.

Using the well-accepted principles of the language, you are unquestionably saying:

The Florida law in particular (as well as some others) allow{s} people like Zimmerman to shoot unarmed people with no criminal or civil repercussions whatsoever.

Those are your words, rendered in grammatically correct English.

Now let's look at your confusion (I am assuming you are ignorant, as opposed to being a liar):

1) SYG did not authorize what Zimmerman did, at least not what he did as reported in the national media. {quoting me}

Kinda hard to be wrong about something I never claimed, no?

I'm going to mark this one as complete bullshit.

I hope that you see the truth, even if you lack the character to admit it, and that you eventually learn to admit mistakes. People who do not learn and grow are lifelong fools.

If you do not yield to the criminal, if you defend yourself from an unjustified assault and kill or injure him, you will face charges, lawsuits, or imprisonment. Even if you did not see a safe escape path, your judgment will be second-guessed by a safe, warm, comfortable jury. {quoting me}

You're really trying to suggest that every case of self defense results in "charges, lawsuits, or imprisonment" without these laws? I beg to differ. Believe it or not, thousands of cases of self defense resulted in no charges or lawsuits being filed, years before the Dirty Harry bullshit laws were enacted. In fact, cases where someone was prosecuted for failure to retreat are exceedingly rare, and generally always involve extenuating circumstances just like the very poor example you provided.

Is English your first language? “Face” in this context does not mean what you think it does. When you read in the news that someone faces charges or jail time, do you really think they’re saying that person will be charged or jailed with 100% certainty—or to use your words, in “every case”?

If so, you should stop begging and consult a dictionary:

2face

verb

facedfac•ing

Definition of FACE

transitive verb

…

6

a : to have as a prospect : be confronted by <face a grim future> b : to be a prospect or a source of concern for <the problems that face us> c : to bring face-to-face <he was faced with ruin>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/face?show=1&t=1333308030

I try, when meeting new people, to avoid drawing the conclusion that they are intentionally misconstruing things or are simply too ignorant to understand.

So I tried to explain that you were misunderstanding. To no avail:

… Of course I'm not saying you'll be convicted 100% of the time, just that you face the possibility. {quoting me}

Actually that's exactly what you said,…

That’s a mistake no literate, clear thinking person should make, but you made it. Yet again I resisted drawing the obvious conclusion.

But there’s more:

If your definition of "freedom" includes the right to deprive someone else of theirs including the most basic right of life itself, I'll have to say that your definition diverges considerably from mine.

This is a standard line of attack from ignorant or dishonest folks. There is no “right to kill people” inherent in the right to self-defense. If I am charging you with a knife and you hit me in the head with a baseball bat in order to stop me, your legitimate purpose is to DEFEND life. If I die, that is a side effect that I brought on myself.

To conflate your right to defend yourself with an imaginary freedom to deprive me of life is contemptible. Killing is not the objective; you are acting to stop the attack.

Yet I still resisted the obvious conclusions about your character.

So in your first post, I was faced with a person who:

1. Doesn’t understand basic English and common idioms
2. Repeatedly insults my thoughts and ideas without actually understanding them
3. Is rude and aggressive
4. Can’t understand his own points
5. Apparently believes that since I disagree with him, I don’t deserve civility

As I said before, I try to put off the conclusion that a person is ignorant, uncouth, stupid, illiterate, thuggish, boorish, contemptible or otherwise unworthy of consideration until the last possible moment. I pride myself on being able to learn from anyone—children and fools included. But you are a tough case. The only thing I’ve managed to glean from your posts is that you are impervious to reasoned discourse.

That’s not very interesting.

So I will not bother to answer your reply, should you choose to make one, unless you shock me by being cogent and logical and making a legitimate point. (Or if you weave a sophistry so good that I fear people of goodwill may be deceived.)

I’m sure that you have some legitimate insight. Everyone does. But the return on investment is far too low to seek it by talking to you.

You’re dismissed.