The Orlando Sentinel asked me to analyze how Florida’s Stand Your Ground law affects the Trayvon Martin shooting case. I conclude that in most likely scenarios, the law will make no difference one way or the other on George Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence, though it does help him on some points of procedure. Jacob Sullum has related thoughts at Reason (more at Cato).
The other piece in the point-counterpoint is from Florida prosecutor Buddy Rogers who emphasizes that claims of justifiable homicide have risen sharply (from 12 to 33 a year), even if homicides per capita themselves have not. I took a look at the crime numbers in this Cato post.
To answer a question, it was the Sentinel editors who elected to describe the antagonists in the Sanford confrontation by way of a given name for one (“Trayvon”) but a surname for the other (“Zimmerman”). My own inclination is to use a surname for both.
Michael Mannheimer has an important post on the role of “provocation” in the Martin/Zimmerman case at PrawfsBlawg. Earlier here, here, and here.
P.S. David Kopel similarly argues that Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence (depending on which version of events is accepted) is no different in Florida from what it would be under the law of New York or any other state; he also defends the rationale for Florida’s use of an immunity, which he argues “does not change the law, but… apparently is effective at reminding law enforcement officers of the standard they are required to obey” under court precedents forbidding arrest without probable cause.
Tagged as:
Florida,
Martin-Zimmerman case,
self-defense,
WO writings
The New York Times invited me to participate in a “Room for Debate” discussion of Florida’s controversial “Stand Your Ground” self-defense law, and my contribution is here. I elaborate on some of the issues at stake — including the failure of Florida’s violent crime rate to rise as predicted under the law — in this Cato post (& welcome Instapundit, Reihan Salam/NRO, Alex Adrianson/Insider Online, Aaron Worthing, David Codrea readers).
Tagged as:
crime and punishment,
Florida,
guns,
Martin-Zimmerman case,
New York Times,
self-defense,
WO writings
A howler-packed Michael Lind screed against libertarians and classical liberals asserts, among other tall things, that John Stuart Mill, Benjamin Constant, and Thomas Macaulay were apologists for “autocracy.” I do my bit to correct the historical record at Cato at Liberty. Meanwhile, Will Wilkinson and Jason Kuznicki challenge Lind’s gross misrepresentations of Mises and Hayek, while Damon Root and Roderick Long take on some of his other errors. Sam Schulman, on Twitter, has fun with “Michael Lind’s eccentric view of history, upon the pinnacle of which stands – Michael Lind.” And yet more: Sam Bowman, AdamSmith.org, Brad Schlesinger, Pejman Yousefzadeh.
Tagged as:
WO writings
In a new Reason symposium on how to revitalize the American job market, I explain my answer to that question.
More: This set off a round of discussion on employment blogs including Jon Hyman (nominating FLSA for vaporization), Suzanne Boy (concur), Daniel Schwartz (leave laws), Suzanne Lucas (citing “the fabulous Overlawyered.com”), the ABA Journal, Tim Eavenson, Jon Hyman again, HR Daily Report, and Russell Cawyer. Also relevant on age discrimination laws: a June symposium in the NYT’s “Room for Debate” feature; ComputerWorld on age bias and IT.
Tagged as:
accolades,
age discrimination,
wage and hour suits,
WO writings,
workplace
I’ve got an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal on New York’s vote last Friday to legally recognize same-sex marriage. I also applaud the inclusion of protections for religious institutions (and would have favored strengthening the protections beyond the current level). The WSJ frames the discussion as “Two Views from the Right,” and they’ve got Maggie Gallagher giving the opposite side.
Tagged as:
same-sex marriage,
WO writings
Not really any legal content, but I’m in the New York Times Book Review today with a review of Mary S. Lovell’s enjoyably gossipy The Churchills, a history of England’s most celebrated political family, which concentrates more on the clan’s personal entanglements than its achievements in oratory or war-making. You can read it here.
Tagged as:
WO writings
I’ve got an op-ed in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer on the Supreme Court’s Wal-Mart v. Dukes decision. The headline (“Reining in Frivolous Class-Action Lawsuits”) is theirs; I wouldn’t use the term “frivolous” to describe the case, which after all did convince the Ninth Circuit, if not any of the Supreme nine. An excerpt:
…The misconceptions about this case begin with the identities of the real combatants. On NPR’s Marketplace this week, Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick described the plaintiffs as “1.5 million female employees of Wal-Mart who are trying to file a class-action suit.” But, of course, most of those women are not “trying” to do anything of the sort.
Rather, a relative handful of them have hired lawyers, and those lawyers daringly sought to get themselves declared the legal representatives of the other 1.496 million (or however many), who have expressed no inclination whatsoever to sue. …
The message of this ruling is simple: Employees have to prove that they have been legally wronged, not just cash in because somebody else was.
More about Wal-Mart v. Dukes here, here, and here (& welcome readers from Ira Stoll/Future of Capitalism, Jonathan Adler/Volokh Conspiracy, State Bar of Michigan blog, Omaha World Herald (editorial), Real Clear Politics, and, on the headline issue, Elie Mystal/Above the Law).
Tagged as:
Wal-Mart v. Dukes,
WO writings
I’ve got an instant analysis up at Cato at Liberty of the retailer’s big Supreme Court win today in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the class action certification case. The Court ruled unanimously that the Ninth Circuit had jumped the gun in certifying the case as a class action, and 5-to-4 (Scalia writing) that plaintiffs had failed to assemble the evidence needed for certification. (& welcome Real Clear Politics “Best of the Blogs”, Atlantic Wire, Nicole Neily/Daily Caller, Jon Hyman, SCOTUSBlog)
More: Josh Blackman (with a comment on the Court’s recognition of the work of the late Richard Nagareda), Hans Bader, Jim Copland, John Steele Gordon. Spot-the-errors dept.: Dahlia Lithwick. Briefs and other resources on the case at SCOTUSBlog.
Tagged as:
class actions,
Ninth Circuit,
sex discrimination,
Supreme Court,
Wal-Mart,
Wal-Mart v. Dukes,
WO writings
Soaring prices have lately rocked the used-car market, which — I argue in a new post at Cato at Liberty — should cast even more doubt on the wisdom of some of the federal government’s recent interventions in the auto business.
Tagged as:
autos,
WO writings
