Violence Against Women and Stand Your Ground

[Loren Pechtel]

Because that is going to be very difficult to draw up.

It’s not that difficult. I didn’t even graduate high school and still came close to understanding what’s needed. I can’t imagine experienced legal professionals, like attorneys and lawmakers, doing worse than me. Just because you might not have the knowledge or skill to successfully draft legislation doesn’t mean the rest of the legal experts out there are in the same boat.

The problem is that it's a situation where it's very hard to draw the line. This isn't a matter of legal wording, it's a matter of a definition better than I know it when I see it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Because that is going to be very difficult to draw up.

It’s not that difficult. I didn’t even graduate high school and still came close to understanding what’s needed. I can’t imagine experienced legal professionals, like attorneys and lawmakers, doing worse than me. Just because you might not have the knowledge or skill to successfully draft legislation doesn’t mean the rest of the legal experts out there are in the same boat.

The problem is that it's a situation where it's very hard to draw the line. This isn't a matter of legal wording, it's a matter of a definition better than I know it when I see it.

It is a human problem that needs a human solution. Perhaps requiring Guardian ad Litems be assigned in all cases of domestic violence and they have significant leeway in influencing pressing of charges.

 

[Gospel]

It is not written to protect people who must scheme and hide their means of protection to avoid being killed for having it, and then must use it with added leverage such as surprise or controlled circumstances in order to successfully protect themselves and not just lose the physical encounter - again.

What's really absurd is that if a victim buys a firearm knowing their intimate partner will eventually try to attack them, and then uses it to defend themselves, they could likely be charged with premeditated murder.

If you have the ability to buy a firearm against such an attack you have the ability to get yourself out of the situation.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, but my point is focused on how the law is applied to victims of abuse, particularly women. Can you possibly translate that sweet-sounding language of yours into something that addresses that argument?

If you have the freedom of action to buy a firearm you have the freedom of action to escape. Fundamentally, this comes down to the same thing I identified before--the law considers any non-imminent threat to be something you take the police and does not consider the case of the person who can escape but doesn't believe they can remain free.

Not necessarily true. Also just as likely and probably more likely to use a firearm owned or used by the abuser.

The strange thing about Loren's argument is that it has nothing to do with what I was actually saying. My point was about how premeditated murder charges could be applied to a victim who chooses to arm themselves, just as anyone else has the right to do. If a victim arms themselves in anticipation of an assault, and the assault occurs, they could be charged with premeditation because they knew it was coming. The law, in this way, ends up protecting the abuser if the abused exercises their right to bear arms. Meanwhile, Loren seems to be arguing some condescending nonsense like 'Just don’t go back home to your kids' or 'Don’t return from the supermarket,' as if women aren’t entitled to safety in their own homes like men are.

Seems like someone forgot about the various versions of the Castle Doctrine in each state, which claims there's no duty to retreat from your own home—a right that applies to women as well. And yes, I understand it's worded for intruders, but in my opinion, when you commit a felony against a spouse or another household member, you essentially become an intruder in your own home. Law enforcement would treat them as such, when hauling that dumb ass abuser off to jail.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'd say TSwizzle is poorly trying to say that putting this into statute form is hard because it would require drawings line where lines aren't really drawable. What level of abuse, what type of abuse, what time length between escape (if appl.) and killing is allowed. Ultimately, this is about the state of mind of the shooter. Is it a criminal mind or a desperate mind acting out for self-preservation? And that part is almost impossible to codify.

Yeah, this one is much, much harder than the normal self defense scenario because you have to see the pattern.

What sucks is that Stand Your Ground laws shouldn't even be a thing, as we've seen how people can interpret a right... quite improperly and act out stupidly... and then criminally, and still be shielded. Self defense has long been a viable defense before some in Legislatures wanted to allow summary murders of people that 'deserve' it.

SYG is political, it doesn't really have much effect.

Typically you don't have a safe retreat option in the first place so not having to take an option that doesn't exist is irrelevant. The one important thing it does is prohibit reflexive arrest--and I think that's a good thing. It doesn't prohibit charges down the road, it prohibits giving likely innocent people an arrest record.

It does have a problem as a symbol, though.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is not written to protect people who must scheme and hide their means of protection to avoid being killed for having it, and then must use it with added leverage such as surprise or controlled circumstances in order to successfully protect themselves and not just lose the physical encounter - again.

What's really absurd is that if a victim buys a firearm knowing their intimate partner will eventually try to attack them, and then uses it to defend themselves, they could likely be charged with premeditated murder.

If you have the ability to buy a firearm against such an attack you have the ability to get yourself out of the situation.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, but my point is focused on how the law is applied to victims of abuse, particularly women. Can you possibly translate that sweet-sounding language of yours into something that addresses that argument?

If you have the freedom of action to buy a firearm you have the freedom of action to escape. Fundamentally, this comes down to the same thing I identified before--the law considers any non-imminent threat to be something you take the police and does not consider the case of the person who can escape but doesn't believe they can remain free.

Since Gospel is proposing to change "the law", your post is literally non-responsive.

No. I was addressing the notion that buying a gun against DV is evidence of guilt under the current law.

 

[Gospel]

So you were repeating my argument? Thanks for the help I guess.

 

[TSwizzle]

Yes we should. I am wary of allowing women to murder their (abusive) partners in the name of self defense though. Is it right that a man can repeatedly beat the shit out of a woman to within an inch of her life and then a day, a week, a month later she and a friend kills him while he sleeps?

Within an inch of their life?! I'm at a loss at why you would have a hard time seeing how such a person could be in an understandable position of an imminent feeling that they could die any day, having already been beaten to an inch of their life.

No I am not having a hard time with it.

You are struggling with this subject because you view abuse in the past tense, where the abused see it in the past, present, and future tense. This is also isn't about a woman collecting abuse points and getting to cash in at some point. It is about understanding their state of mind and how the abuse has or hasn't impacted it regarding any potential violent self-defense act that is taken.

Nope, not at all. If I was on the jury of a case where a woman killed her habitually abusive partner, I'd say not guilty. But it's not about me and how I feel, it's how would posters on here, particularly the women, frame a new law. Gospel has had a good attempt at it. Me, I'm just not up to the task and I am not sure there is a problem with the law as such. I guess it's how good the defense case is and how the jury would view it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you have the ability to buy a firearm against such an attack you have the ability to get yourself out of the situation.

Does that work for the police as well? How about George Zimmerman?

The rules are a bit different for the police. They are expected to enter potentially dangerous situations and do not lose the right of self defense by doing so.

And Zimmerman didn't intend to be entering a dangerous situation.

Yeah, Zimmerman totally believed he could best a 16 year old he was stalking. And he could. And he got away with it. To our everlasting shame.

Zimmerman was clearly intending to bring the police, not fight the guy.

 

[Gospel]

If you have the ability to buy a firearm against such an attack you have the ability to get yourself out of the situation.

Does that work for the police as well? How about George Zimmerman?

The rules are a bit different for the police. They are expected to enter potentially dangerous situations and do not lose the right of self defense by doing so.

And Zimmerman didn't intend to be entering a dangerous situation.

Yeah, Zimmerman totally believed he could best a 16 year old he was stalking. And he could. And he got away with it. To our everlasting shame.

Zimmerman was clearly intending to bring the police, not fight the guy.

Yeah, bring the police to someone who was walking down the street. He purchased a firearm, so as you've argued, he was fully capable of avoiding someone who was walking away from him down the street.

 

[Toni]

If you have the ability to buy a firearm against such an attack you have the ability to get yourself out of the situation.

Does that work for the police as well? How about George Zimmerman?

The rules are a bit different for the police. They are expected to enter potentially dangerous situations and do not lose the right of self defense by doing so.

And Zimmerman didn't intend to be entering a dangerous situation.

Yeah, Zimmerman totally believed he could best a 16 year old he was stalking. And he could. And he got away with it. To our everlasting shame.

Zimmerman was clearly intending to bring the police, not fight the guy.

Yeah, everyone knows that it is illegal and very menacing to buy your brother snacks and walk home at noon that—if you are black. Poor Zimmerman must have been terrified!

 

[Gospel]

I think we're all misunderstanding Loren's argument. I'm starting to think they've been on our side all along.

 

[ZiprHead]

And Zimmerman didn't intend to be entering a dangerous situation.

The only witness to testify on the case said Zimmerman attacked first.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And Zimmerman didn't intend to be entering a dangerous situation.

The only witness to testify on the case said Zimmerman attacked first.

The only "witness" wasn't there and had a strong reason to not render an accurate account.

 

[Arctish]

And Zimmerman didn't intend to be entering a dangerous situation.

The only witness to testify on the case said Zimmerman attacked first.

The only "witness" wasn't there and had a strong reason to not render an accurate account.

Well, you weren't there and your posting history indicates you have a strong reason to not render an accurate account, either, so why should anyone believe you instead of the woman who testified under oath in a court of law with a defense attorney trying to poke holes in her testimony? You've been telling wild stories ever since you claimed Martin was casing houses in order to figure out which ones contained the ingredients for Purple Drank.

Anyway, to get back to the topic, this is an interesting proposal from Great Britain. I think the suggested change in the presumption that victims of abuse can escape the situation, to a presumption that they cannot easily do so (with the burden placed on the Prosecution to prove otherwise in a criminal case), is both warranted and sensible.

 

[bilby]

If you have the freedom of action to buy a firearm you have the freedom of action to escape.

That is still abject nonsense. And I still want you to show your working.

 

[Gospel]

Because that is going to be very difficult to draw up.

It’s not that difficult. I didn’t even graduate high school and still came close to understanding what’s needed. I can’t imagine experienced legal professionals, like attorneys and lawmakers, doing worse than me. Just because you might not have the knowledge or skill to successfully draft legislation doesn’t mean the rest of the legal experts out there are in the same boat.

The problem is that it's a situation where it's very hard to draw the line. This isn't a matter of legal wording, it's a matter of a definition better than I know it when I see it.

Are you suggesting that after decades of handling abuse cases, courts, along with trained professionals like forensic psychologists, social workers, and domestic violence experts, still can't recognize or determine what abuse looks like? With the vast experience in the legal system, from family courts to criminal courts, and the contributions of professionals in these fields, are you implying that there’s no expertise available to help codify new laws that would better protect abuse victims?

 

[Gospel]

And Zimmerman didn't intend to be entering a dangerous situation.

The only witness to testify on the case said Zimmerman attacked first.

The only "witness" wasn't there and had a strong reason to not render an accurate account.

She also had a strong reason not to render a false account. It's called perjury.

 

[ZiprHead]

And Zimmerman didn't intend to be entering a dangerous situation.

The only witness to testify on the case said Zimmerman attacked first.

The only "witness" wasn't there and had a strong reason to not render an accurate account.

So did Zimmerman. Far more than the girlfriend.

So if a person testifies, under oath BTW, they heard a woman screaming their testimony can be dismissed because they didn't see it?

 

[TSwizzle]

Anyway, to get back to the topic, this is an interesting proposal from Great Britain. I think the suggested change in the presumption that victims of abuse can escape the situation, to a presumption that they cannot easily do so (with the burden placed on the Prosecution to prove otherwise in a criminal case), is both warranted and sensible.

That’s a very long and detailed paper but it does a great job of showing the flaws in how self defense cases for women are not fully understood.

As self-defence is only available as a response to imminent physical force it may be of limited use to the victim who is experiencing coercive and controlling behaviour characterised by psychological and non-physical tactics. In cases involving coercive control, victims may understand that an attack by an abuser is imminent where the victim has inadequately complied with the abuser's demands. Abusers may no longer need to verbalise the threat, as the victim/survivor has internalised the rules, learning from experience the consequences of non-compliance.161 Gestures representing a threatening symbol indicating an imminent attack to the victim/survivor may appear to be innocent to an outside observer.162

To appreciate imminence in abuse contexts, it is necessary to view the perpetrator's behaviour as coercive control rather than through the bifurcatory lens of ‘a bad relationship with incidents of violence’ since this assumes ‘effective safety options’ or other alternatives between violent incidents.163 Similarly, if the victim/survivor's response is viewed through ‘battered spousal syndrome’ rather than coercive control and social entrapment, her conduct is pathologised rendering it unlikely to be viewed as reasonable.

Lots to learn here.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Zimmerman was clearly intending to bring the police, not fight the guy.

but the police told him not to follow or approach the guy. The fact that he didn’t do what the police said negates your assertion of his “clear intent”.