Stand Your Ground and The Bully Pulpit

One way or another I stumbled across Lethal Lessons from Florida, a post on a blog by Jeff Gerritt and sponsored by the local bird cage liner.  For a solid explanation of stand-your-ground law, read Much Confusion Around Both Stand-Your-Ground and Castle Doctrine by Andrew F. Branca.

I wrote a brief response which will probably last until the censors see it, and so was inspired to write a more lengthy response here.  Keep reading to find out why I disagree with Jeff and his anti-freedom agenda.


Disagree 100% Jeff.

It's perfectly safe to live in or visit Florida.  Like any other State, there are places where a prudent man would arm himself.  The North side of Jacksonville comes to mind.  You're trying to make Florida sound like a DMZ, and it isn't.  I ought to know; I lived there for several years.

You cite three shootings we should all be considering in regard to enacting a stand your ground law in Ohio.  None of these shootings apply.

Your first example is the Michael Dunn shooting.  As I write this, the jury is still deliberating on the case of Michael Dunn.  I know you don't like that, but it seems that the Michael Dunn shooting isn't the 'fair trial and fine hanging' case that you think it is.  A few little things like self-defense and the law seem to be standing in your way.

The second case you misrepresent is the Zimmerman-Martin self-defense shooting.  This was such a clear-cut case of self-defense that upon their initial investigation the local police called it what it was: self-defense against a violent criminal.  By way of reminding you about the inconvenient facts of the case, let me ask you this: If you were armed and pinned to the sidewalk by a violent, athletic teenager who was pounding your head into the cement, how long would you wait before you opened fire?  I wouldn't wait at all, but that's just me and six other Florida residents that served on the jury of a case that should have never, never gone to trial.  I notice you neglected to bring up the role of the New Black Panther Party and the way they put a prince on Zimmerman's head.  I guess that isn't important to you, Jeff.

Then you bring up the Reeves-Oulson shooting.  The jury has yet to be convened - what happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'?  I suppose that doesn't apply to anything you write.

In keeping with your theme of prevarication, you state that Ohioans should consider these three cases when deciding about the need for a stand your ground law in Ohio.  I understand that in your home State, Massachusetts, it's very common to make new law based on the single exception.  Likewise, you believe we Ohioans are supposed to make Ohio law based on three Florida cases.  This kind of law-making is a prime example of the kind of stupidity that we do not need in Ohio.  You can keep it in Taxachusetts where it belongs.

The truth about stand your ground law is that it deals with the act of retreating within the context of lawful self-defense.  In particular it is not a law that allows someone to shoot first and ask questions later.  It will, however, legally protect a person who's lift is threatened while inside their own home - something that Massachusetts didn't have until a poor mother of two got sent to prison for defending herself from a murderous ex-boyfriend.

Ohio needs a good, strong stand your ground law that protects the law abiding citizens from over zealous, fascistic prosecutors.

Sorry you hate freedom so much, Jeff.  Maybe you should move back to Massachusetts.