Deprecated: mb_convert_encoding(): Handling HTML entities via mbstring is deprecated; use htmlspecialchars, htmlentities, or mb_encode_numericentity/mb_decode_numericentity instead in /var/www/html/wp-content/plugins/super-cool-ad-inserter/inc/scaip-shortcode-inserter.php on line 37
George Zimmerman stands accused — by almost everyone except the law-enforcement professionals of Sanford, Fla. — of chasing down 17-year-old Trayvon Martin and fatally shooting him on Feb. 26. And though Martin was doing nothing wrong, though he tried to flee, and though a police dispatcher told Zimmerman to back off … Zimmerman has cited Florida’s “stand your ground” law to claim the shooting was justified.
Florida law permits the use of deadly force if a shooter “reasonably believes it is necessary” to protect oneself, and Zimmerman says Martin jumped him after Zimmerman abandoned the chase. And maybe we shouldn’t be surprised to hear the law cited by a man who went chasing after trouble despite being urged not to. Because if gun owners weren’t jumping at shadows, “stand your ground” — or a similar law in Pennsylvania — might not exist at all.
Pennsylvania passed its “stand your ground” measure last year, and the first casualty was honest debate. Politicians referred to HB 40 as “the Castle Doctrine” … as if it was all about home defense. In fact, Pennsylvania already had a “Castle Doctrine” asserting the right to use deadly force against intruders. HB 40 extended that right to anywhere a gun-owner has “a right to be” … in the castle, across the moat, or down in the village among the serfs and minstrels.
Was such a bill necessary? After Martin’s death, the Philadelphia Inquirer‘s Amy Worden, who covered the HB 40 debate, tweeted that the measure “passed w/out a single example of a problem.”
Well, sure … if by “example” you mean “something that has actually happened.” But for all its blue-steel swagger, the gun-rights movement lives in perpetual fear of threats the rest of us have difficulty seeing
During a rally for HB 40 last May, for example, Larry Pratt, of the Gun Owners of America, maintained that today’s students were being “taught to fear the Bill of Rights and to kneel down before the ruling class.” Did you miss that day in civics class? Then try state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe’s claim that HB 40 will protect us from “prosecution that might possibly come from some rogue DA.”
The threat of rogue DAs, sadly, hasn’t prompted Republicans to abandon the death penalty. But where gun owners’ fears are concerned, the GOP will oppose even the forces of law and order.
Richard Long, executive director of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association, says prosecutors are wary of HB 40, partly because of what they heard about the impact of Florida’s law. Prosecutors there “told us they were seeing an increase in deadly force in questionable scenarios,” Long says. Martin’s shooting, he adds, “brought one of those concerns to life.”
At least Pennsylvania’s law isn’t as extreme as Florida’s. For one thing, an assailant must be wielding a lethal weapon — a baseball bat will do — for shooting him to be justified. A threat can’t exist solely in a gun-owner’s mind: Shooting someone still requires a stronger factual basis than, say, passing legislation.
Good thing, because some gun-owners seem to have difficulty recognizing legitimate threats. As Barack Obama gears up his re-election bid, gun sales are rising — just as they did after he was first elected. As one gun-shop owner recently told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, “People are terrified he’s going to get re-elected and then he won’t care about getting votes next time.”
Obama’s only notable gun initiative has been making it easier to carry firearms in national parks. Yet like George Zimmerman on patrol, some gun-rights absolutists seem to think that backing away is just another form of suspicious behavior. So they’re taking the fight to us.
Metcalfe and others are now drawing beads on local ordinances, passed in Pittsburgh and elsewhere, requiring gun-owners to tell police when their firearms are lost or stolen. (Supporters say the bill will help crack down on those who wrongfully sell guns to criminals.) The bill doesn’t take anyone’s guns away; it merely requires notifying police when someone else does. Yet Metcalfe insists such ordinances “leave law-abiding citizens disarmed and defenseless against violent intruders.”
This is politics, Zimmerman-style. Facing no immediate threat, gun-rights extremists are chasing bogeymen down the street and into alleyways … and then opening fire. All in the name of self-defense.
This article appears in Mar 28 – Apr 3, 2012.
Chris,
You’re wrong about PA law. Their is no requirement for the assailant to be wielding any weapon. Try reading the PA Castle Doctrine for yourself.
Your knowledge of the FLA case and the law show you did little fact finding and research before writing this piece of crap.
@Angry in Pittsburgh:
The language of the Act is pretty clear:
“An actor who is not engaged in a criminal activity, who is not in illegal possession of a firearm and who is attacked in any place where the actor would have a duty to retreat under paragraph (2)(ii), has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and use force, including deadly force, if:
(i) the actor has a right to be in the place where he was attacked;
(ii) the actor believes it is immediately necessary to do so to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse by force or threat; and
(iii) the person against whom the force is used displays or otherwise uses:
(A) a firearm or replica of a firearm as defined in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712 (relating to sentences for offenses committed with firearms); or
(B) any other weapon readily or apparently capable of lethal use.”
Furthermore, Richard Long, of the state District Attorneys Association, confirmed that one of the changes the DAs sought — and got — during the HB 40 was “that the person [being shot] had to display a deadly weapon to force them to act in defense.” He added that under Pennsylvania law, Zimmerman “wouldn’t be able to avail himself [of the ‘stand your ground’ provisions] because Trayvon martin was not displaying a deadly weapon.”
I can point you to any number of other references, including media accounts, that make this same distinction. Here’s one:
http://articles.philly.com/2012-03-27/news…
“Chief among the modifications to Pennsylvania’s legislation before it was enacted: The perceived assailant has to be seen displaying a weapon before an individual can use deadly force in self-defense.”
“At least Pennsylvania’s law isn’t as extreme as Florida’s. For one thing, an assailant must be wielding a lethal weapon — a baseball bat will do — for shooting him to be justified. A threat can’t exist solely in a gun-owner’s mind: Shooting someone still requires a stronger factual basis than, say, passing legislation.”
Chris, the above statement is incorrect. If you read the PA UFA you will note a distinction depending on where the threat occurs. If the actor has the right to Stand His Ground (as in his home) there is no need for the assailant to have a weapon for the actor to employ lethal force. If the actor doesn’t meet the criteria for Stand Your Ground (as in a location away from home), then he must first attempt to retreat (if he can do so in complete safety). If he can’t safely retreat, then he can deploy lethal force provided he meets the other criteria set forth in the UFA. I’m summarizing the UFA, details can be found by reading it in it’s entirety.
Zimmerman deployed his firearm as a last resort only after crying for assistance all the while Martin was on top of him beating him. According to the facts so far, the police rightly deemed it justified. However, I take no satisfaction in that a young man lost his life over this.
OK, let’s back up a second here. You came here and declared “Th[ere] is no requirement for the assailant to be wielding any weapon.” On the basis of that claim, you implied that I hadn’t read the legislation and claimed that I did “little fact finding.”
I responded by posting the relevant section of the law — you know, the one you claimed I hadn’t read. I also posted an interpretation from a guy whose organization represents districts attorney around the state, and some corroborating assertions from a Philadelphia daily.
I notice your new comment didn’t respond to any of that directly. Instead, you start talking vaguely about how “other criteria” must be satisifed for a shooting outside the home to be justified. (Could one of those criteria be that the assailant must be wielding a weapon?) So I’m asking you now: Do you think Richard Long is mistaken about what the law says? Or are you conceding that you were wrong?
As for your distinction between shootings inside the home and outside the home … I think it’s pretty clear that this piece is solely about the latter. In the third paragraph, for example, I argue that “Castle Doctrine” is a misleading title for a bill that extends well beyond the home, and it’s clearly outside-the-home shootings that are at issue here. (After all, the Zimmerman/Martin shooting, which prompted this whole debate, didn’t happen in Zimmerman’s house.) So the distinction isn’t really relevant to this discussion. In any case, your claim was that there is NO requirement for the assailant to be wielding any weapon.
If you’re going to stand your ground — arr arr — please cite the portions of the law that you believe support your original claim. (Since you think I’m dumb and can’t read legislation, I’ll have to ask for you to point to SPECIFIC provisions … no airy, vague claims about how “details can be found by reading the law in its entirety,” please.) I’m asking you to do what I’ve already done: point to the provisions that you think support your argument. The politicians who established this law, and the DAs who have to enforce it, might find your perspective intriguing.
Chris,
My main problem with your article is this paragraph:
“At least Pennsylvania’s law isn’t as extreme as Florida’s. For one thing, an assailant must be wielding a lethal weapon — a baseball bat will do — for shooting him to be justified. A threat can’t exist solely in a gun-owner’s mind: Shooting someone still requires a stronger factual basis than, say, passing legislation.”
As read (in the context of your article) you are claiming that PA law requires an assailant to be wielding a weapon for shooting him to be justified regardless of the situation. As I stated this is not what the PA UFA says and I provided a summary of the pertinent sections of the PA UFA.
You made your mistake by not framing the situation for the reader to make your statement true in PA.
I didn’t post the entire applicable sections of the PA UFA here because it wouldn’t matter. The average reader would have a hard time understanding it. It requires study to fully understand the law as it is written. That’s why most people consult with an attorney, like I have.
On your quest to understand the PA UFA you will also find that according to PA law a threat can exist solely in a gun owners mind and lethal force be justified.
“The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion. “
Isn’t “believing” a process of the mind? What it boils down to is whether or not the actors belief was justifiable in the eyes of the law. Apparently, Zimmerman’s was.
Whatever, dude. This article and this debate are about altercations outside the home. And in the context of such a confrontation, it’s necessary for the person being shot to display a lethal weapon for a shooting to be justified. You’ve said nothing whatsoever to disagree with that. Instead, you change the subject to shootings INSIDE the home, which have never been at issue in the Zimmerman shooting or in any of the debate following from it.
Even the language you quoted from the bill is followed by a slew of qualifications and restrictions … including the restriction that in a confrontation outside the home, an assailant must be armed.
The reason this matters — other than the fact that I take it amiss when some joker shows up and misconstrues a law he accuses ME of not knowing — is that it’s important for people to realize what the law actually says. I’d like to avoid having a Zimmerman/Martin situation in Pennsylvania. So let’s be very clear here:
In Pennsylvania, if you are accosted out on the streets, you don’t get to shoot someone just because you feel threatened. Your assailant must be carrying a firearm (or credible facsimile of one) or other lethal weapon.
Thanks for joining in, but we’re done here.
“Whatever, dude. This article and this debate are about altercations outside the home. “
-But you didn’t specify that in your article when quoting the law, which makes the reader believe it applies to all situations, which it doesn’t.
“And in the context of such a confrontation, it’s necessary for the person being shot to display a lethal weapon for a shooting to be justified.”
-You’re absolutely wrong.
“You’ve said nothing whatsoever to disagree with that.”
-Sure did. Away from ones home, the shooting can be justified without the presence of a weapon. The victim only has to attempt a safe retreat first, and if he can’t, then he can defend himself with lethal force, even if the attacker doesn’t have a weapon.
“Instead, you change the subject to shootings INSIDE the home, which have never been at issue in the Zimmerman shooting or in any of the debate following from it.”
-Sorry, not true. It boils down to your lack of comprehension of the material.
“Even the language you quoted from the bill is followed by a slew of qualifications and restrictions … including the restriction that in a confrontation outside the home, an assailant must be armed.”
-Your not including the entire scope of that section of law, you are leaving out sections that permit the defender to use lethal force outside of the home even if an assailant is not displaying a weapon.
“The reason this matters — other than the fact that I take it amiss when some joker shows up and misconstrues a law he accuses ME of not knowing — is that it’s important for people to realize what the law actually says. I’d like to avoid having a Zimmerman/Martin situation in Pennsylvania. So let’s be very clear here:”
-Yes it does matter. But fortunately the people I know who carry a concealed weapon know the law, not what you are spewing as law. What I hope is that those who do choose to carry a firearm for self defense consult a lawyer as to what the law is, not what some wet behind the ears journalist says it is in a local paper.
“In Pennsylvania, if you are accosted out on the streets, you don’t get to shoot someone just because you feel threatened. Your assailant must be carrying a firearm (or credible facsimile of one) or other lethal weapon.”
-You are 100% wrong. And this is the crap you are telling the readers. Thank god the number of readers of your miss-information is limited.
“Thanks for joining in, but we’re done here.”
-Yup.
As a non-gun owner, I am so sick of hearing about the rights of gun owners and how they are constantly under siege and threat. How about the fact that the rampant presence of guns (legal or illegal) impinges on my right (and the rights of lots of other non-gun owning Americans) to feel safe while walking down the street?
I personally think that guns are for cowards, people who desperately need to convince themselves of their own power. I’m sure I’ll ignite plenty of rage with that statement. Maybe someone will even want to shoot me for expressing it. Sadly, our lenient gun laws make that scenario all too possible.