Stand Your Ground and Concealed Weapons Laws
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-04-03/stand-your-ground-and-concealed-weapons-laws
Protests against the killing in Florida of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin continue in cities and on college campuses across the country. The case has focused attention on Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, which says a person may use deadly force in self-defense if under threat of harm, with no duty to retreat. Nearly half of states have some form of the law. Critics contend it's dangerous and promotes "shoot-first-ask-questions-later" mentalities. Supporters argue that every citizen should have a legal right to defend himself, or herself, in life-threatening situations. Guest host Tom Gjelten of NPR and a panel of experts will discuss whether Stand Your Ground laws and permitting people to carry concealed weapons have made Americans safer.
Guests
John Velleco
director of federal affairs at Gun Owners of America.
Elizabeth Megale
assistant professor of law, Barry University Law School.
Dan Gross
president, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
John Donohue III
economist, lawyer and professor at Stanford Law School.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
We all know second amendment haters never waste an opportunity to twist a story to ban freedom and our constitutional right to protect ourselves. Waiting for the legal system to work or Facts or dead bodies time to cool are irrelevant inconveniences to these opportunists. It's amazing this piece of sleaze, Bill Clinton, has the nerve to show his face in public.
Last Monday Isabel Wilkerson was on your panel to discuss the Trayvon Martin jurder in Sanford.
She has roots in Rome Georgia and the Thankful Baptist Church. I found it interesting Pierre Noth of the Rome News Tribune had an exhaustive oped piece in the April 1 paper.
Shows how this matter is playing in communities all across the nation. I commend this piece in the Rome News Tribune for reference for tomorrows program; at same time I hope Berry College has Ms. Wilkerson on campus this fall before the Presidential election.
Her book and Steve Oney's And the Dead Shall Rise could make interesting history lessons in this national teachable moment as we try to maintain our fabric and find a just outcome in this tragedy.
Relax, no one is going to take your precious guns away from you, "they" didn't do it before when even worst murders and massacres were committed, they won't do it now. This is about an awakining of an already existed anger of racial tension in america. Believe me that only people of color would understand, because we've experienced it! White people are not the enemy nor were they ever, it is the subtle racial preference system in this country. One that does not come to realization except when you are denied that preference, it is a unique perspective of the colored people.
I don't understand how Stand Your Ground makes sense when the person "standing his ground" is actually pursuing the "threat."
There is no issue with the law, or neighborhood watch. We are trained in troubleshooting to look for the root cause, in this case the root cause is having to do with how the laws are executed and ajudicated. Don't blame the gun, or the law, blame the system that allows and, seemingly, encourages corruption and personal bias. Fix the system, and the problems will evaporate.
rsanchez- White people mostly don't get it yet, but they gonna "get it."
When Austerity tightens on their living and they resist there will be a variety of weapons pointed at them, including but not limited to handguns. The fools who resist corporate power with a pistol are only courting suicide by cop (and now soldier and contractors). It won't matter about color after awhile because all citizens who doubt or complain are already the enemy of a totalitarian corporate-run state. I wouldn't say that if I weren't convinced by experience.
But right now our Overlords find it convenient using random violent armed dumbheads to manufacture fear. That kind of sadism is almost free to produce.
Reliable, predictable, and too cheap to meter. (How many Zimmermans did we use last month?)
The boy was being pursued by a man with a gun: Wouldn't it necessitate self-defense for Trayvon Martin? --especially if Zimmerman aimed the gun. Wouldn't the same law permit the boy to defend himself "with fists" if need be?
A troubling aspect of laws such as "Stand Your Ground" for me is if they can result in situations where an armed person engages in behavior that falls into the categories of harassment or intimidation of another until they challenge/confront them - then the armed person uses that as justification to shoot.
I'm not saying this necessarily happened in the Martin/Zimmerman case - but a lot of the speculation about what transpired caused me to consider this as being an unanticipated consequence of the law.
In this day and age of the most stupid TV shows, everyone seems to think their experts on legal analysis. I suppose it's of little surprise that Diane Rehm herself has resorted to bimbo journalism with premature agenda driven shows like this one.
The episode of "Cops" Saturday night had a segment from Florida. Three men had yelled strings of obsenities at a neighbor walking past. Without any weapons, she and her boyfriend came into the men's yard to confront them. The men pulled a knife and a pipe and tried to assault the women and her boyfriend. They ran and the men chased them with the knife and pipe. When the police came, the three men said the police couldn't arrest them because Florida had a "Stand Your ground" law. Because they had chased the woman and man out of the yard, they were arrested for assault. I don't think a law that allows anyone to harm or kill any person that steps on their property should be allowed.
John represents me.
Regardless of what facts come to light, it seems to me that the Martin case's controversy is itself important. It highlights the dangerous nature of ambiguity in Stand Your Ground Laws. Who felt threatened? What if both parties felt threatened? Such laws incentivize the escalation of conflict and then ask the courts to decide who felt threatened first when one party isn't even alive to testify.
Aaron
Little Rock, AR
How can that guest on the show defending the stand your ground law justify the lost of life of an innocent person? This law legalizes murder, whether justified or not. There is a fundamental problem with that.
Castle doctrine and stand your ground combined with concealed carry reduce crime.
I have lived in NYC where I had no gun and I was a faced with violent criminals. I now live in Vermont where we can carry and crime is diminished. I am trained and agree that traing is very important.
Just a point of correction, the national survey was conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University, not a University of Florida, criminologist.
Whenever hate crimes legislation is brought up, someone always opines (in profound ignorance of much of the law) that the government shouldn't consider our mental states, just what we do.
I'd ask them to come forward against a law that differentiates between State-sanctioned self-defence and a State-prosecuted murder solely on the basis of the perpetrator's mental state.
I was a prosecutor for five years and it was my understanding that our coroner's office tested every victim's blood for drugs and alcohol as a matter of standard practice. The test was not reflective of a determination that the deceased was not the innocent party. Your guest made the remark that the FL police tested Travon Martin's blood for drugs because they had made the determination that Zimmerman was the "good guy" and Travon was the "bad guy." Do we know this to be true? If this case were in my jurisdiction, this would not be true rather it would be a matter of the standard practice in the jurisdiction. We should not be projecting motives onto any of the parties involved at any stage in the investigation. We should look only to the facts and the law and let those speak for themselves.
The founding Fathers were educated in classical western history, i.e. Greece and Rome.
a) They greatly feared the emergence of a tyrant to overthrough the republic such as a Caesar or Augustus (or many others), and other examples into the 18th century. The Fathers noted that the first move of a tyrant was to disarm a populace to reinforce their power. An armed populace could be trusted to restore the Constitution should a tyrant emerge.
b) The Fathers were all informed by the Swiss system of defence (every adult is a militia member and must be practiced with weapons)
c) The Fathers realized the nation was a frontier, and that weapons were needed.
d) The Fathers were all hunters and fishermen, for enjoyment and sustaince. They were also farmers to some degree, and weapons are needed to defend crops.
Suumary: For all these reasons, they believed every citizen own arms, and have the right to bear arms. As a result, we should retain the second ammendment unimpinged. Only one afraid of the People would end it.
Good show but why are you giving audience to an extremist organization like the Brady Campaign?
Gun lobby = donation driven enterprises to support and uphold second amendment rights, the people!
Let the Brady campaign spout it's venom. The more that the facts come out, the less they have a valid argument.
Why do certain people support the right to carry guns and shoot to kill when they deem it necessary but deny the right of women to have an abortion when the women deem it necessary?
Hello there.
I am a law enforcement officer and I own a personal weapon as well. I do not count myself as among those "supporters of the Second Amendment" represented by the Gun Owners of America. For everyone who owns or carries a gun to be claimed by them is ... false and fraudulent.
That said, I must also say that there is ... fervor from the Brady Campaign that makes me uneasy as well. I agree that "fear and paranoia" are helpful to sell guns and strengthen gun-rights laws and increase the rolls of the NRA and the like, but the folks at the Brady Campaign seem to ... well, do the exact same thing.
As an gun owner with a modicum of common sense and without a ideologically inflexible position I cannot say I feel as if any of these groups represent me.
should people with a history of violence carry a gun? Right wingers never answer the question. I have a friend with a HORRIBLE temper who now carrying a concealed weapon. i will read about him one day. I just keep my distance from him as I will carry on with one less acquaintance!
FACT: It is a crime in Florida for a person with ANY violent crime CHARGE (not even a conviction) to obtain a concealed weapons license.
Why aren't gun owners required to carry insurance as car owner do for accidents?
@Janfran...so you are comparing NYC and Vermont and saying that because of concealed carry Vermont is much safer than NYC no other factors!? LOL
Why aren't gun owners required to carry insurance as car owners do for accidents?
Everyone is ignoring the fact that neither stand your ground nor basic self defense protect the aggressor in a conflict.
1 1/2 year ago, I was in the neighborhood watch in Houston Texas. I also had a CHL. I had to have a review w/ the police dept. telling me what I could and could not do. I could not carry a gun with while on watch, could not get out of my car, I was told only to call in the issue.