Sharp as a Marble - Ultracrepidarian

That’s your word for the day. As gunnies, you’re gonna probably start using it a lot

adj noting or pertaining to a person who criticizes, judges, or gives advice outside the area of his or her expertise

I found this word in the comment section to this steaming pile of “journalism” bemoaning the fact that people are innocent until proven guilty, and the word could not be better applied as Slate’s Emily Bazelon is so far out of her league it’s almost sad yet she doesn’t let that niggling little fact stop her from burning through the pixels.

Montana’s law, however, gives people in this situation more leeway for a confrontation—this really is about standing your ground, for good reason or for bad. You can use force if you think it’s necessary to prevent someone from unlawfully entering a house. You can use force “likely to cause death or serious bodily harm” if you think that’s necessary to keep yourself from being assaulted. You don’t have to fear that you may be killed or seriously injured. You have no duty to retreat or call the police. And if you have evidence that your use of force was justified, it’s the state’s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn’t.

She, and many of the commenters, have a problem with that. Seriously.

You see, the guy stood in his doorway, telling the guy storming up his driveway he had a gun. The guy entered his garage knowing there was a gun pointed at him. I would say that’s a clear cut indication the attacker was intent on doing harm.

Could the homeowner have closed and locked his door? Sure. In fact, that would have been (IMHO) a better option but that’s easy to say sitting here, safely behind a computer screen without some irate man who clearly is looking to cause violence bearing down on me.

SYG laws are there not to encourage people to kill with wanton abandon, but to let people know that self defense is not a crime and that it’s the state’s burden to prove you are guilty. This is common sense, but because it tends to involve icky guns, logic goes out the window for many of the commenters and the author herself. There will still be an investigation, and yes, it is possible to invite someone into you home, kill them, and claim self defense and get away with it; however, that’s been the case since time immemorial.

The entire premise of our court systems is innocent until proven guilty. These people demand that unless you are different than they are (i.e. you believe you are responsible for your own protection) then they consider you less than worthy of such protections.

Of course, the article whines about Treyvon Martin, a case that SYG was never even invoked, but why let details like that prevent a good rant about a subject you have little grasp over?

Ultracrepidarian indeed!

Comments

Stuart the Viking says:

on 10/26/2012 at 11:02 AM

Holy not-understanding-the-basic-premise-of-American-law Batman! The state ALWAYS has the burden of evidence. That is something that we should never allow to be changed.

As for SYG as it pertains to the Treyvon Martin case; my understanding is that the reason Zimmerman wasn't arrested and charged at the time of the shooting was because of SYG. So, while the defense may or may not be invoking SYG, it did have an effect. Of course that effect wasn't that Zimmerman got away with murder (like the author would probably have you believe), it was just that his arrest was delayed by a bit.

It's good to point out that yes, an investigation will still ALWAYS be performed regardless of SYG.

s

Robb Allen says:

on 10/26/2012 at 11:08 AM

Stuart, Zimmerman's lawyer repeatedly said that SYG was not a consideration in the case, that he (Z) never claimed SYG, that the cops never claimed SYG (they simply realized they had no proof at the scene of the incident to arrest him for a crime), and that SYG isn't on the agenda of things to talk about.

The simple, basic premise of "We had no indication that a crime was committed thus no arrest was made" was followed, correctly. That happens to mesh with what SYG is all about.

Stuart the Viking says:

on 10/26/2012 at 12:04 PM

My recollection is that the lead investigator wanted to arrest and charge Zimmerman immediately, and called the state attorney's office for a warrant to arrest but was denied because of lack of evidence. If I remember right, it was reported at that time that SYG was mentioned as being part of the reasoning for that decision.

I wasn't saying that Zimmerman is invoking SYG now, although why he wouldn't be is beyond me.

Robb Allen says:

on 10/26/2012 at 12:16 PM

Because he's beyond the point where SYG helps, if I understand it correctly.

And the phrase SYG may have been used, but I was under the impression it was more along the lines of "We have no proof of a crime to arrest him for" which is exactly what SYG enforces.

mikee says:

on 10/26/2012 at 12:49 PM

I don't know how big the garage was in Kalispell, but mine is 25 feet from front to back. That distance takes about 2 seconds to traverse.

"I have a gun!"
One.
Two.
Bang. Bang. Bang.

That is how fast the Kalispell attack happened.

Stand Your Ground exists because before it, prosecutors were convicting people of murder based on the timeline I just described, because the people did not somehow magically remove themselves from danger in the two seconds or less they had, before their attacker was upon them.

Robb Allen says:

on 10/26/2012 at 1:06 PM

That's another critical point I try to illustrate to people.

In the sterile lab of 20/20 Hindsight, of course a better idea would have been to close the door and lock it. But I have that luxury right now, this guy didn't.

SYG protects people because, just like the lady who wrote this article, it is so easy to play Monday Morning Quarterback in a jury box or behind a computer monitor. Under that kind of stress, it's near impossible to make the absolute best decision and thus we give leeway.

Are some SYG laws poorly written? Yes. Sometimes, since lawyers are more concerned about avoiding the original intent of law and focus on missing commas and dangling participles, people can get off on a 'technicality'. But the vast majority of these cases protect the innocent.

Granted, if you don't kneel to the state, some people consider you guilty anyway and prefer you not have those protections.

Robb Allen says:

on 10/26/2012 at 1:06 PM

Stuart the Viking says:

on 10/26/2012 at 1:19 PM

I don't know about the required timeline, it may indeed be too late, but SYG does allow a defendant to request a one-time SYG hearing where, if the defendant can prove he acted in self defense, he is granted immunity from further prosecution. If such a hearing is requested, the court is required by law to allow it. Note, the burden of evidence for this one hearing is shifted to the defendant rather than the state. This is, of course, a pretty steep hill to climb which may be why Zimmerman's defense isn't going to try it.

s

Archer says:

on 10/26/2012 at 4:08 PM

Stuart (and everyone),
My understanding of the Trayvon Martin situation is this: Zimmerman was jumped, and was on the ground with Trayvon on top of him before he could react. SYG does not apply in this case because SYG, very simply, is "No Duty to Retreat." In Zimmerman's case, Duty to Retreat doesn't apply, because when you're on the ground and your assailant is on top of you, safe retreat is effectively impossible.

With no way to retreat, SYG becomes a non-issue, and Zimmerman should be presenting a straight-up disparity-of-force-self-defense case. The reason (IMHO) that SYG ever came up at all was because they have an overzealous, anti-self-defense prosecutor who wants to MAKE it an issue and get SYG repealed.

Just my $0.02.

MrSatyre says:

on 10/31/2012 at 9:09 AM

Pick a better paragraph to quote, next time. The one you chose simply reiterates the law, and does not decry it or support it. Just states the facts.

Henry Bowman says:

on 11/25/2012 at 6:02 PM

Stuart:

"Holy not-understanding-the-basic-premise-of-American-law Batman! The state ALWAYS has the burden of evidence. That is something that we should never allow to be changed."

Make damn sure this is the case in your state before you just assume it.

In 1997, sneaky Arizona lawyers and politicians changed the state burden of proof law such that self-defense became an AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. It slid right by the people. What few realized is that pleading an affirmative defense requires you first to plead guilty to the underlying homicide, THEN plead the affirmative defense -- meaning that now the burden of proof is ON YOU to prove you were NOT a murderer.

This is precisely how Harold Fish ended up in prison (http://www.haroldfishdefense.org).

Outraged gun owners and other patriots sponsored a successful bill in 2006 to return the state criterion to innocent until proven guilty. Then it took another hand-crafted bill to apply it retroactively to Mr. Fish.

I've been tod that at least one other state still have "affirmative defense" language on the books. Likely, the citizenry of that state don't realize all the ramification of that, as we failed to.

Comments have been closed on this topic.