According to an analysis of FBI data done by the office of New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I), who co-chairs the 650-strong Mayors Against Illegal Guns, states that passed Stand Your Ground laws experienced a 53.5 percent increase in “justifiable homicides” in the three years following enactment; states without such laws saw a 4.2 percent increase.
Even opponents of the law, analyzing FBI data, find that it has been working as intended!
Oddly enough, the WaPo editorial writers somehow find that justifiable homicides going up is a bad thing.
Stand Your Ground (Florida) is a good law. It doesn’t give a “License to Kill” like many of the anti-self defense liars are saying. The immunity only applies in cases where there is NO PROBABLE CAUSE to belive that the use of force was unlawful. Why would it be a good idea for the police to arrest ANYONE for ANYTHING if there is NO PROBABLE CAUSE that a crime was committed?
I find that odd too, the contention that an increase of justifiable homicides necessarily means “more criminals are ‘getting away with murder’.”
To make that claim they need to show both numbers; if -overall- homicides, of all types, are stable or decreasing, with only the percentage found to be justifiable increasing, that leads to two plausible hypothesis, which only a case by case analysis can test.
1) Homicides that, in all other circumstances but “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”, are obviously criminal (bangers killing bangers while bangin’) are now being found to be justifiable thus “bad guys” are indeed “getting away with murder”*, or
2) Homicides that, in all other circumstances were obviously justifiable (law-abiding citizen attacked by violent felon, nut job, drunk, etc.) except for the prosecutor choosing to push the “duty to retreat” in front of a grand jury, are now being properly treated as lawful and thus “good guys” are no longer being prosecuted unjustly.
Without the overall homicide numbers for the years in question the “increase in justifiable homicides” is statistically meaningless and impossible to give context to.
* – Obviously if the elements of the crime can’t be proven no one is “getting away” with anything. No proof, no guilt in the American system of justice, regardless of what the prosecutor claims to “know”. Relying primarily on strained post facto claims of what someone should have thought of and tried to do retreat-wise is evidence the rest of your case is weak and probably shouldn’t be brought at all.
As a lawyer, I am embarassed to admit that, although I knew a presumption arose in the case of someone being in one’s home or vehicle, I didn’t know that the law eliminated the ridiculous duty to retreat.
I don’t look for trouble and would be quite inclined to walk away for the reasons Tam’s espoused by linking to a recent post about the trouble one can bring on by standing his or her ground (e.g. Zimmerman).
But there is something quite unAmerican about requiring one to retreat.
I don’t drive aggressively, I don’t flip people off, I mind my own business and I don’t go to bars (except on rare occasions to hear a band).
But telling me I have to run if someone tries to hurt my wife or me is ridiculous.
I think you are ignoring the fact that they are anti-self defense. They would rather someone DIE than fight back, and would like to stomp out any inclination of fighting back that still exists in the populace. While I think you assessment is probably as good, if not better than anyone else’s, they would just say “But it’s people getting KILLED! How can you want people to be KILLED!”