The American Bar Assoc. on STAND YOUR GROUND LAWS

[Protected One]

In Sept. 2015 the American Bar Association released their "Report and Recommendations", compiled by their National Task Force on Stand Your Ground Laws. I have the 59 page document in hard copy on my desk.

Their recommendations are addressed to (4) distinct areas:
Legislatures
Law Enforcement Agencies
Jury Instructions
American Bar Association

It is repeated in several places they recommend the SYG laws be repealed or amended. Were I to look into their supporting research I am confident I would find much to disagree with, including "facts" that are inclusive of inappropriately used statistics.

It's my belief that the way is being paved for a much larger and broader legal action regarding the SYG laws. In such a case it would be (to my way of thinking) an asset to have a ABA National Task Force Report in your pocket to support your position.

If you have the interest, google it, give it a read/browse and lets hear you thoughts.

 

[Rastoff]

Any idea if there is a specific series of events that is driving this assault on SYG?

CA doesn't really have a specific SYG law. It's the omission of any laws against standing your ground that make it legal. We do have a type of castle doctrine. In CA, if someone is forcing their way into your home, the law presumes you were in fear of death or great bodily harm.

 

[hkcavalier]

Just a slight conflict of interest here.

The group representing attorneys, a group that needs plentiful contentious cases in order to justify their employment and make a living. SYG laws remove gray areas (well, they try to at least) and get rid of what most of us would consider unnecessary court cases e.g. homeowner shoots and kills an armed intruder in their home.

 

[Protected One]

Just a slight conflict of interest here.

The group representing attorneys, a group that needs plentiful contentious cases in order to justify their employment and make a living. SYG laws remove gray areas (well, they try to at least) and get rid of what most of us would consider unnecessary court cases e.g. homeowner shoots and kills an armed intruder in their home.

SYG laws apply to incidents away from the home. Castle Doctrine gives homeowners the right to "defend their castle". Two separate things.

 

[okiegtrider]

From the order form for the report. I think it speaks volumes about what drives this mess.

The Report contains an expansive, multidisciplinary, candid
and thorough investigation and study of states' Stand Your
Ground laws including:
1. A summary of the comprehensive legal study and
the recommendations made concerning the utility
of states' Stand Your Ground laws as well as their
impact on the criminal justice system, public safety
and individual liberties;

2. Intersecting topics such as the interplay between
Stand Your Ground laws and the implicit/explicit
bias; balancing the rights of an accused with that
of a victim; and exploring the tensions surrounding
the initial justifi cation for passage of the Stand Your
Ground laws; and

3. A culmination of the Task Force's analysis of a substantial
compilation of information excerpted from
testimony from experts and stakeholders at six public
town hall meetings; extensive legal research on each
jurisdiction's self–defense regime; and critical insights
and expertise gleaned from roundtable series with our
esteemed Advisory Committee.

Please order your complimentary copy of the Report
today. We will have limited copies of the complimentary
Report available in September 2015. You may contact,
Rachel Patrick, Director of the ABA Coalition on Racial
and Ethnic Justice at

 

[LoboGunLeather]

SYG laws apply to incidents away from the home. Castle Doctrine gives homeowners the right to "defend their castle". Two separate things.

Important to understand the differences.

So called "castle doctrine" laws provide that a person confronted within his home by an intruder is legally presumed to have a reasonable fear for his life, justifying acting in self defense.

So-called "stand your ground" laws provide that a person having a legal right to be where he is at and to do what he is doing, faced with an actual or imminent attack he believes likely to cause his death or grievous injury is presumed to be acting in legitimate self defense (i.e.: there is no duty to retreat).

Most importantly, neither of these types of laws provide any degree of immunity from prosecution, only a rebuttable presumption; i.e.: the "reasonable man" test (were the person's perception, conclusions, and actions reasonable under all known facts and circumstances).

Also, while such laws may appear to shield people from criminal prosecution that aspect is far from absolute. Perhaps the greater aspect is to shield people from civil litigation, which is also far from absolute.

Far from the "license to kill" or "get out of jail free card" as portrayed by some critics, though it takes little imagination to see why lawyers raise such arguments.

 

[Erich]

Just a point of information: ABA doesn't represent all attorneys - it's like AARP, you have to join (and, like AARP, the positions they take keep many of us from even considering joining).

 

[Protected One]

Important to understand the differences.

So called "castle doctrine" laws provide that a person confronted within his home by an intruder is legally presumed to have a reasonable fear for his life, justifying acting in self defense.

So-called "stand your ground" laws provide that a person having a legal right to be where he is at and to do what he is doing, faced with an actual or imminent attack he believes likely to cause his death or grievous injury is presumed to be acting in legitimate self defense (i.e.: there is no duty to retreat).

Most importantly, neither of these types of laws provide any degree of immunity from prosecution, only a rebuttable presumption; i.e.: the "reasonable man" test (were the person's perception, conclusions, and actions reasonable under all known facts and circumstances).

Also, while such laws may appear to shield people from criminal prosecution that aspect is far from absolute. Perhaps the greater aspect is to shield people from civil litigation, which is also far from absolute.

Far from the "license to kill" or "get out of jail free card" as portrayed by some critics, though it takes little imagination to see why lawyers raise such arguments.

The removal of "Civil Litigations" protections is one of the main things they recommend.

Here is an excerpt from their recommendations.

"Resolved, that the American Bar Association urges all federal, state, local, and territorial legislative bodies and government agencies to:
(a)refrain from enacting Stand Your Ground Laws that eliminate the duty to retreat before using force in self-defense in public spaces, or repeal such existing Stand Your Ground Laws.
(b)eliminate Stand Your Ground Law civil immunity provisions that prevent victims and/or innocent bystanders and their families from seeking compensation and other civil remedies for injuries sustained."

 

[Protected One]

Just a point of information: ABA doesn't represent all attorneys - it's like AARP, you have to join (and, like AARP, the positions they take keep many of us from even considering joining).

A fact that most people are likely unaware of.

I can easily see the ABA representative in court saying - "Your honor, on behalf of the American Bar Association which represents the attorneys of this country....."

 

[rustythread]

A fact that most people are likely unaware of.

I can easily see the ABA representative in court saying - "Your honor, on behalf of the American Bar Association which represents the attorneys of this country....."

Not gonna happen. Remember, there's a judge in that court, and there are now damn' few judges who are not licensed to practice law themselves.

I dropped ABA membership about 40 years ago,
partly because of its position on firearm issues.

That being said, however, I don't see any reason for "groundstanders" to shoot innocent bystanders without legal responsibility. A right to carry, and a right to self-defense, are not licenses to be a piss-poor shot in a public venue.

 

[16thVACav]

Not gonna happen. Remember, there's a judge in that court, and there are now damn' few judges who are not licensed to practice law themselves.

I dropped ABA membership about 40 years ago,
partly because of its position on firearm issues.

That being said, however, I don't see any reason for "groundstanders" to shoot innocent bystanders without legal responsibility. A right to carry, and a right to self-defense, are not licenses to be a piss-poor shot in a public venue.

SYG laws do not confer legal protection to those who shoot innocent bystanders.

 

[SMSgt]

No way am I attempting to read 59 pages of legalize. When they cut it down to a couple pages of plain English, let me know.

 

[skeetshooter]

Pogo said

"We have met the enemy,,,and they are us !!!!!!!

 

[federali]

SYG Laws needed.

Suspension of SYG laws gives lawyers an opportunity to pursue, and to make it easier for them to prove excessive or unnecessary force. That could mean money in their pockets. In my opinion, lawyers are not motivated by the pursuit of justice, ethics and the American way. It's all about the bottom line. In states without SYG laws, the focus quickly shifts from the aggressive actions of the instigator to whether or not the victim could have retreated with complete safety.

I'm sorry if I offend anyone with my broad brush but this has been my life's experience.

 

[Protected One]

Suspension of SYG laws gives lawyers an opportunity to pursue, and to make it easier for them to prove excessive or unnecessary force. That could mean money in their pockets. In my opinion, lawyers are not motivated by the pursuit of justice, ethics and the American way. It's all about the bottom line. In states without SYG laws, the focus quickly shifts from the aggressive actions of the instigator to whether or not the victim could have retreated with complete safety.

I'm sorry if I offend anyone with my broad brush but this has been my life's experience.

The truth is only offensive to those whose purposes it does not suit!

 

[amazingflapjack]

Given no other option-I'll stand my ground. I can't run anyway!

 

[rustythread]

Both as a 2nd amendment proponent and practitioner, and as a member of the bar, I have long been dismayed to see vocal members of each group "broad brush" the entirety of the other group. This sort of bullet-bigot propaganda creates ill-feeling without regard to truth, and dulls the ability to discriminate between fiction and fact.
Anyone whom this offends needs some serious introspection, and maybe an enema.

 

[Protected One]

Both as a 2nd amendment proponent and practitioner, and as a member of the bar, I have long been dismayed to see vocal members of each group "broad brush" the entirety of the other group. This sort of bullet-bigot propaganda creates ill-feeling without regard to truth, and dulls the ability to discriminate between fiction and fact.
Anyone whom this offends needs some serious introspection, and maybe an enema.

As a member of the bar do you have any "pertinent" comments related to the ABA Task Force Proposals, which is the subject of THIS discussion?

 

[cmort666]

This is just part of a broader effort to create an untouchable class of violent felons.

The goal is a European style de facto, if not de jure crippling of the right to lawful self-defense, in favor of reliance on imaginary "police protection" of individuals.

The "people" pushing this seek to be "OSHA for rapists".

 

[Old TexMex]

Both as a 2nd amendment proponent and practitioner, and as a member of the bar, I have long been dismayed to see vocal members of each group "broad brush" the entirety of the other group. This sort of bullet-bigot propaganda creates ill-feeling without regard to truth, and dulls the ability to discriminate between fiction and fact.
Anyone whom this offends needs some serious introspection, and maybe an enema.

Please define "bullet-bigot propaganda", esquire. Your language has eluded me. As a practicioner, do you support the revocation and/ or the suppression of SYG laws, as suggested in the article referred by the OP? If so, why? This may allow the use of a narrower brush, eliminate ill feeling and reveal a truth.
Thank you.