I would take any legal opinions of cops with a huge grain of salt.

Why wasn't the car thief charged as a juvenile simply because he was a juvenile?

What are some examples of US cities that have successfuly undergone this large change?

I'm firmly in the stand your ground camp. Why should you value your assailant's life more than yours? Why should someone have to retreat or forced to deescalate a situation that they did not cause? You can quote statistics at the issue as much as you want but it doesn't change the fact that you should not have to back down from any violent confrontation.

>SYG shifts the burden of proof to the State

State always has the burden of proving defendants guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. What? You are citing papers without understanding them.

Jury, not the state, determines guilt and whether affirmative defense (defendant has burden usually under SYG statutes to prove self defense) has been met.

Sigh, I guess we'll no longer be battling Antwerp as the jewelry capitol of the world.

As it should be.

> it seems like folks are ok with the human tragedies that result from the BS in this city with people shot in carjackings or from squeegee kids, but even if you don’t care about the victims of crimes

I’m not sure where this idea comes from? People aren’t okay with it, but it’s not something that can be easily curtailed by just “adding more law enforcement” or by having a “sense of urgency” because these problems are systemic to citizens of this city being put down by government malfeasance, redlining, and lack of opportunity resulting from those prior two issues. This requires a large change through education (the schools need improvement, that’s obvious) and government incentive (potentially UBI) to encourage a shift in attitude that will take the course of decades.

I would think any successful policy aimed at reducing gun violence would actually lower the number of gun-related homicides but that's just me.

I'm curious how many times the distinction between DTR and SYG is even relevant. I would assume in nearly all instances of self defense, either law would result in the same outcome. I would also be curious if there is any research into whether the law changes behaviors - like do people even know what the law says? If they do, are they acting on that knowledge in the heat of the moment? We only hear about the one or two cases a year where someone gets off on what seems like an obvious murder because of SYG laws.

I obviously don't have enough information to form an opinion on this, but my gut says that the law isn't going to change many of the outcomes. It's just a matter of what can be prosecuted after the fact.

Gee, you can't possibly imagine that might not mean equitable application? Also, prosecutorial discretion has a substantial effect on these cases. If there's inadequate evidence to prove that the individual did NOT act in self-defense, evidence that is hard to document because of the subjectivity of "fear," killers will not even be charged. And that's /if/ the local prosecutor is motivated solely by evidence and not protecting their buddies. Note all the times in recent news when overwhelming public outcry was needed to even charge murderers because the local prosecutor decided there was no crime.

If only research on this were easy to find.

https://efsgv.org/wp-content/uploads/StandYourGround.pdf

https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2022/01/the-dangerous-expansion-of-stand-your-ground-laws-and-its-racial-implications/

https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/_stand_your_ground_kills_-_how_these_nra-backed_laws_promote_racist_violence_1.pdf

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/race-justifiable-homicide-and-stand-your-ground-laws-analysis-fbi

https://psychology.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/2017-04/1-s2.0-S0277953615301489-main.pdf

https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/stand-your-ground-laws-and-racial-bias

while turnover of businesses is always going to happen, Baltimore city residents spend far too little time thinking about economics. if the city isn't a place people want to live and work, it will die. there is a "survivor bias" with us current residents. we, by nature of still being here, have accepted a certain amount of lawlessness and BS, so we tend to dismiss people's fears and annoyance with such things. however, we aren't the majority case. most people in the US don't want to live with the BS that happens in baltimore and will avoid the city, which includes people who work at large companies and make decisions about where their offices are located. the tax revenue lost by a squeegee kid shooting someone is astronomical. every carjacking is another huge loss. every gang shooting is a huge loss. if we want programs to help folks pull themselves out of poverty, we need tax revenue. it seems like folks are ok with the human tragedies that result from the BS in this city with people shot in carjackings or from squeegee kids, but even if you don't care about the victims of crimes, at least think about the economics of the situation and the revenue the city loses.

as unpopular is law enforcement is, it's a requirement for being a place where people live and work. we need to stop thinking about policing as a 1-dimensional line from "more shitty police or less shitty police" but start thinking about how to have better, more auditable, more effective police combined with evidence-based diversion, bond, and parole programs. the fact that we're not putting up more license plate scanners is a disgrace; that's the kind of police budget item that isn't corrupt. the fact that we won't try out a Tile program for tracking cars is ridiculous considering how little it would cost and how it puts the power in citizens' hands instead of the police's. there are actions we can take, but we're not taking them. we need a sense of urgency and we need a sense of "I'm not sure this will work, but lets give it a try"

[removed]

Jury would make determination if he satisfied syg jury instruction/statute. He would get to present evidence that he did. I would get the other squeegee boys to take the stand and testify that the victim charged the shooter and only turned away at the last second which would create reasonable doubt/give the affirmative defense of SYG

[removed]

Not sure what that means. It would be up to the jury to determine if the facts presented to them would satisfy the hypothetical stand your ground jury instruction based on the corresponding statute.

In what situation does Stand Your Ground even apply?

Even as a Duty to Retreat state, if someone threatens you with a weapon (knife, gun, bat, etc.) or attempts to physically attack you, you are already justified to defend yourself with deadly force here.

I feel that but I don't think you can make it that simple

lol

Kind of the point of the policy ya know... defending yourself from all this crime and such lol

It's cute that you think SYG would be applied equitably.

[removed]

I moved from a SYG state. It's another excuse to execute Black and Brown people. That's all it is and all it is used for.

No.

I lived decades in a SYG state. Stand your ground is a law that is written for everyone but demonstrably not adjudicated for everyone.

It is ineffective in combating crime. It perpetuates the false narrative that "Second Amendment rights" are somehow universal when we know only "certain people" are actually afforded those rights in SYG cases. These laws were cooked up by lobbyists for specific people in order to to resolve the fact that they oversold gun technology that makes it easier to take a human life than to walk away from a conflict or retreat from a threat. It's one of the most toxic threats to the sanctity of human life Americans have codified in decades and in practicality it only applies to people privileged by class and/or color.

Hybrid would be "we all get along" don't think that's possible

That's horrifying on so many levels