George Zimmerman's attorneys won't use "stand your ground" defense

[TPaine7]

32. Hmmmm...

Are you posting to prove that allegedly "scientifically literate" anti-gunners are just as clueless as the garden variety antis? Are you intentionally mocking the anti-gun position?

Let's look at your original claim:

DanTex (1,719 posts)
3. Of course SYG is still relevant.

Recall that the study about SYG found that SYG laws increased non-self-defense shootings. This indicates that, not surprisingly, SYG laws have an broader impact beyond just the cases where SYG laws are applicable: they encourage more questionable shootings and get more people killed.

And this partly is because they empower would-be gun heroes like Zimmerman to try and become actual gun heroes, based on the belief that SYG laws will protect them. And Zimmerman was almost right. Until the media got hold of this case, they weren't even going to charge him with anything thanks to SYG.

Here's the first source's abstract:

Abstract
From 2000 to 2010, more than 20 states passed laws that make it easier to use lethal force in self-defense. Elements of these laws include removing the duty to retreat in places outside of one’s home, adding a presumption of reasonable belief of imminent harm, and removing civil liability for those acting under the law. This paper examines whether aiding self-defense in this way deters crime or, alternatively, increases homicide. To do so, we apply a difference-in-differences research design by exploiting the within-state variation in law adoption. We find no evidence of deterrence; burglary, robbery, and aggravated assault are unaffected by the laws. On the other hand, we find that homicides are increased by around 8 percent, and that these homicides are largely classified by police as murder. This suggests that a primary consequence of strengthened self-defense law is a net increase in homicide. Finally, we present back-of-the-envelope calculations using evidence on the relative increase in reported justifiable homicide, along with assumptions about the degree and nature of under reporting, to assess whether the entire increase was legally justified.

Let's see. If more people legitimately stood their ground, instead of running or taking whatever criminal assailants dished out one would expect there to be more homicides. I would also expect the police to largely classify these homicides as murder (or at least manslaughter); I would expect police to often press charges.

Let's put the pieces together.

a. More homicide (the natural result of more people standing their ground, legitimately or illegitimately)
b. More classification of homicides as murder (the natural result of more homicides, legitimate or illegitimate; police have to classify a homicide as murder or manslaughter in order to charge the shooter)
c. "This suggests that a primary consequence of strengthened self-defense law is a net increase in homicide." Of course.
d. They did "back-of-the-envelope calculations" to assess whether the entire increase in reported justifiable homicides was legally justified.

You may--or may not--understand the technical details of "difference-in-differences research design", but this study certainly does not "{find} that SYG laws increased non-self-defense shootings." It doesn't even claim to. It is scientifically illiterate to claim that it does.

I think your mocking of antis is cruel. Many of them, though clueless, don't deserve to be satirized like this.

Let's look briefly at the logical shortcomings of this study.

If you tell people that they aren't obligated to run from deadly threats but are free to defend themselves, if you tell millions of people that, some of them will not run but will follow the new law as they understand it. There will be an increase in homicides; there would be an increase in homicides if everyone obeyed the new law perfectly (which of course not everyone will). No one should be surprised by an initial increase in homicides.

The police will have to adjust to the new rules too. They will make mistakes. Some people who obeyed the new law will be charged, some who didn't will walk. No one should be surprised that police will classify many of the increased homicides as murder and charge people. By acting as if police classification is the final word, the study ignores the errors that are certain to be made as the legal system adjusts.

But the icing on the illogic cake is the "back-of-the-envelope calculations." The main problem I have is why these calculations were done. They were done, not to estimate what percentage of the claimed self-defense increase was mistaken or intentional fraud, but "to assess whether the entire increase was legally justified."

I could have saved them some time. So could many folks in Jr. High School. The entire increase wasn't legally justified. Period.

Some people will make mistakes. Some will try to game the system. Same as it ever was.

Some police will get it wrong--many at first--so using police classifications will warp your outcome, since it must be classified as a crime for the shooter to even be charged. Court findings, while not perfect, would be a much sounder measure. I would hope that judges would, on average, have a better understanding of the law than cops. How many shooters were convicted would be a better metric than how many were classified as crimes by police.

Making perfection the standard means that any reasonable calculation will show failure. But that is, I suspect, the point. Of course the entire increase won't be legally justified.

To see just how silly a standard that is, imagine that the Supreme Court made a major ruling loosening the use of deadly force by police. You may be sure that some cops will honestly get it wrong and shoot when the ruling does not allow it and some will try to game the system. Eventually, misunderstandings of the law will be corrected and the only ones trying to game the system will be the ones who always try to game the system.

The true measure of the ruling would be whether or not the ruling is just, not whether 100% of the shootings in the transition period are legally justified or whether more people are shot.

The cherry on top of the illogic icing is the lack of concern over lives saved. The abstract, at least, doesn't even take into consideration the concept of defensive gun uses being DEFENSIVE--in some cases lifesaving.

You shot a serial killer? OMG, that's a homicide!!

The police charged you with murder? You are guilty as charged! Your action is one of the costs of SYG.

You say you were found innocent in court? Who cares?

Clearly yours was an unjustified homicide that was caused by SYG and there was no societal benefit. Your life that was saved (never mind the other lives saved that can't be proven definitively) has no value whatsoever.

I am certain that if someone skilled in statistics and criminology (and not in the pocket of an advocacy group) wanted to estimate INNOCENT lives saved by SYG, they could do so. First there would be some fraction of the shooters. Then, using rap sheets and criminal histories, they could estimate how many people would have been killed by the felons who were wounded and jailed, had they not been apprehended. Then they could estimate how many of the dead assailants would have murdered and how many people their deaths saved. This could then be compared to the increase in deaths attributed to SYG. That would be a more legitimate cost-benefit analysis--not that simple cost-benefit analysis is the way to assess the exercise of rights.

The first time I find you citing a paper that even attempts to fill in the other side of the ledger, I will probably fall out of my chair. But that would violate not only your agenda, but the agenda of all of the people you are likely to cite, wouldn't it?

Now on to your second source:

The controversies surrounding Stand Your Ground laws have recently captured the nation’s attention. Since 2005, eighteen states have passed laws extending the right to self-defense with no duty to retreat to any place a person has a legal right to be, and several additional states are debating the adoption of similar legislation. Despite the implications that these laws may have for public safety, there has been little empirical investigation of their impact on crime and victimization. In this paper, we use monthly data from the U.S. Vital Statistics to examine how Stand Your Ground laws affect homicides. We identify the impact of these laws by exploiting variation in the effective date of these laws across states. Our results indicate that Stand Your Ground laws are associated with a significant increase in the number of homicides among whites, especially white males. According to our estimates, between 4.4 and 7.4 additional white males are killed each month as a result of these laws. We find no evidence to suggest that these laws increase homicides among blacks. Our results are robust to a number of specifications and unlikely to be driven entirely by the killings of assailants. Taken together, our findings raise serious doubts against the argument that Stand Your Ground laws make America safer.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w18187.pdf?new_window=1

Of course much of what I said above applies. This study apparently focuses on changes since 2005, meaning some of them are more recent still. It takes time for the legal confusion to abate, so honest mistakes are being made. And of course there are opportunists trying to get over. These issues will decrease over time.

So what's the bottom line?

...In this paper, we use monthly data from the U.S. Vital Statistics to examine how Stand Your Ground laws affect homicides. ... Our results indicate that Stand Your Ground laws are associated with a significant increase in the number of homicides... Our results are robust to a number of specifications and unlikely to be driven entirely by the killings of assailants. Taken together, our findings raise serious doubts against the argument that Stand Your Ground laws make America safer.

Big surprise!! It's "unlikely" that all of the additional homicides are "the killings of assailants." Some folks are trying to get over! And that implies that the bottom line, end result of the laws is negative, not that in the wake of any new law their will be opportunism. And of course, any lives that would have been taken by the legitimately killed attackers have exactly zero value.

LOL!

As I've said, the true measure of the law is whether it's just, not whether some people are trying to use it to get over or whether it's perfectly effective.