Here’s a little lesson in properly sourcing your posts. https://www.livescience.com/45083-misleading-gun-death-chart.html ; The chart was apparently created by Reuters (and blindly reused by loads of news sources that copy them). It doesn’t appear to be intentionally misleading since the “false perception” contradicts the reporting it was used in – they were saying that Stand Your Ground led to an increase in deaths but at a glance, the graph makes it look like they fell. There’s even a quote from the individual who actually created the chart which definitely comes across as naive rather than malicious on face value.
And yet another media myth. https://www.livescience.com/45083-misleading-gun-death-chart.html Recent reports about how Florida's "stand your ground" law affected the number of deaths in the state have raised a few eyebrows. The stories have described how, after Florida enacted its self-defense law in 2005, the gun-death rate took a sudden jump. The controversial law — which allows a person to use "deadly force" in self-protection — was a factor in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman in 2012. SYG had nothing to do with the shooting of Trayvon Martin. .
Off topic here really but for clarity, that is apparently not as straight forwards a statement as you'd make out; https://www.theatlantic.com/nationa...ur-ground-relates-to-george-zimmerman/277829/
Duty/no duty to retreat and immunity form prosecution - which really just means the state has to show the people in question did not have a reasonable fear for his life - are separate legal and legislative issues. They cannot be conflated.
In the end, and I followed that case closely, Zimmerman gave up his right to stand his ground when he pursued Martin, he actually by being armed could have been convicted for such and if anything Martin had a reason to stand his ground, not Zimmerman. But a number of anti's used the case to support their attacks on SYG and it took on a false life of it's own.
The problem at least here in Florida is, we have had overzealous prosecutors obtain convictions of people who used SYG, but didn't shoot the bad guy, the states claim being the person standing their ground could not have been in fear of their life, if they didn't shoot. So what happens is the person who bared a firearm caused the bad guy to retreat, the that person is charged with aggravated battery with a firearm and is sent to prison and it is for that reason we had the SYG law clarified placing the burden of proof on the prosecution, not the person who defended themselves.
Yes it has, one example . https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fla-wo...rs-for-warning-shot-did-she-stand-her-ground/
You'll notice that I offered up no personal opinion as to the conclusion or validity of the chart. I found it on a anti-gun sub on Reddit, and found it interesting how it had been manipulated to show, at first glance, that gun homicides in Florida had decreased since SYG laws were enacted.
Prior to amending SYG I believe 9 people have been sent to prison for either displaying a firearm or firing it, but not hitting the bad guy, we have some very anti-gun prosecutors in this state luckily they are few in numbers and have now been kicked down for their abuse of SYG.
SYG aside since Florida enacted a shall issue carry license homicides have been dropping even though the population has risen quite a bit.
Self-defense with a firearm is always tricky - do you draw and give your attacker one last chance to back off, or do you only draw in the action of shooting?
If someone took off like a rabbit and never attempted to shoot back I would probably let them go and just report the incident, otherwise they get shot with no warning as to what I am about to do. When I did training I always tried to instill in people if something causes you to draw it is already so dangerous one must fire. And in a home, is not Hollywood, no drama, no warning, no drop your gun or I will shoot, just identify aim and fire, then if possible move, and then began trying to determine if there are more bad guys in the home. The reason for moving is once a person fires they have given up their position and drywall makes a poor barrier to stand behind.
In the home, having out gun out already makes sense - I mean in encounters outside the home when you do not have your gun out.
Outside things get strange, way too many variables, is there cover, can the good guy get the first draw, maybe distract the bad guy, look behind him and yell grab his gun. Just too many variables to say this is what one should do, but bottom line if one can get off a shot do it, no warning just do it.
