Stand your ground laws...

[CaptainHaplo]

OK, first off - this is NOT going to be a Martin v Zimmerman retread thread. Moderators, if people start changing the focus, please delete the posts they make.

Now - the AG and the President are suggesting that we get rid of stand your ground laws - requiring a person to not use legal force when threatened - whether they have a "safe exit or retreat" or not. What say you all - and WHY?

[Ducimus]

I think its pretty simple. It fits in with their anti-gun agenda, and it's a politically convenient diversion from other issues.

[soopaman2]

This is an anti gun thing.

I even bet they will work in Trayvon Martin, and Turning GZ into a criminal despite being exonerated in a court of law.

What most the rubes and idiots don't know is GZ did not try for a SYG defense.


The world would be so much better if people relied less on talking heads and pundits.

It is hard to get guns in my state, I am NOT giving mine up.

I kill paper. Paper is so evil it must be filled with holes. I spend money on rounds to make holes in paper.

I must have my guns taken away!

Shame I am about to buy a handgun that fires a shotgun shell.

(the Judge)

I should be beaten and killed for being a barbarian.


Edit: Holder can sit and spin, he had no problem with assault weapons to Mexican Cartels.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

This is an anti gun thing.

I even bet they will work in Trayvon Martin, and Turning GZ into a criminal despite being exonerated in a court of law.

What most the rubes and idiots don't know is GZ did not try for a SYG defense.

Did you even read the opening post? This is not about that case, it is about Stand Your Ground laws. Period.

[Platapus]

Use of lethal force should be a very last resort. Every other reasonable escape should be necessary. No state requires a person to place themselves in jeopardy when deciding to defend themselves using lethal force. Stand your ground laws can give people the wrong idea about last resorts.

With the authority to own weapons comes a greater responsibility for their use. This includes the responsibility not to allow situations to escalate and the responsibilty to de-escalate. Ego and pride should not enter into the decision. In some past instances, I am not sure that ego/pride did not play a part.

Existing self-defense laws in states that do not have a "stand your ground" clause, address this reasonably.

As I have posted before, anyone owning a gun for self-defense needs to read "In the Gravest Extreme" by Massad F. Ayoob It is an eye opening book on the realities of self-defense with firearms.

[Bubblehead1980]

Left wing types think that there is no right to self defense, be it against a thug or the government.They believe the proper means to self defense against any threat, guns, are not a right, even though it is an actual right guaranteed by the constitution. Obama is a legitimate racist(read his book Dreams from My Father) and put that with all his actions on race since.Always, the non black guy is wrong in his eyes.Henry Louis Gates became disorderly with a police officer and was arrested, racist cop in obama's eyes who "acted stupidly" , not the fact his friend broke the law and was arrested as anyone else would be. Ordered Eric Holder to no prosecute Black Panthers for voter intimidation after taking office in 2009, even though there was clear, undisputed evidence.

Shirley Sherrod incident, defended her, even thought she admitted racism. Just a long string of his racist behavior.Obama is now being even more racist by playing up the victim mentality "could have been me", guess what, in right circumstances back then it could have been because obama was a punk then just like he is now, and would have acted much like Traygone, resulting in someone defending themselves.Going on what he described as his mindset in his book, he was a little punk with a victim attitude that dislikes white people, who he sees as oppressors.Basically, same thing is now, nothing has changed.

Stand your grand worked here, very well.This is the intent and so tired of people saying "last resort" , it was a last resort.Let some punk attack you, bash your head in pavement and see if you don't think it's a last resort.Honestly, if you dont see using your gun as an option then, you're an idiot.

[Skybird]

A big problem I became aware of when reading about it today, is the obvious inconsistency, or better the mutual contradiction between certain US laws, namely in Florida.

There they have the stand your ground law. And also the 10-20-life rule, meaning that any situation where subjects draw a firearm, automatically must get 10 years, and must get 20 years automatically when not only drawing a weapon but also firing it - where it does not matter whether the subject shot into the air as a warning or aimed at a person. When during the firing the person fired at gets killed or even just wounded by the shot, the subject must get 25 years or life.

This led to a series of bizarre rulings in recent years. Where you have the right to shoot and kill somebody under circumstances where stand your ground applies, but using your weapon for a warning shot can earn you 20 years or life. And actually, that is not just a theoretical possibility, but common practice:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/e...PjN/story.html

How could Marissa Alexander, a 31-year-old mother of three, receive a 20-year prison sentence for firing a bullet into a wall near her abusive ex-husband, even though no one was harmed?

(...)

Ronald Thompson, 62, a disabled veteran, fired two shots into the ground to protect an elderly woman from her violent 17-year-old grandson. State Attorney Angela Corey — the same prosecutor in the Zimmerman case — charged him with four counts of aggravated assault. Thompson was sentenced to 20 years in prison, a punishment that the judge in the case called a “crime in itself.” (He is currently awaiting a new trial.)

Orville Lee Wollard, a former auxiliary police force member, shot a bullet into the wall to scare away his daughter’s abusive boyfriend. Prosecutors offered him probation. But he wanted to be exonerated at trial. Now he’s serving 20 years.

Erik Weyant, 22, fired shots in the air to disperse a group of drunk men who accosted him in a parking lot outside a bar and blocked his car. No one was hurt. But he’s in for 20 years.

In many cases, the fact that they chose to fire a warning shot, instead of aiming to kill, was used as evidence against them at trial, said Greg Newburn of Families Against Mandatory Minimums. If you were truly in fear of your life, the logic goes, you would aim at the chest, not the wall.

Florida lawmakers, in their infinite wisdom, began to notice that a lot of people were getting severely punished simply for defending themselves. But instead of repealing the Draconian measure, they passed another one: the “stand your ground” law.

Fan-tas-tic. Those people get their lives messed up and stolen from them for scaring away attackers without harming anyone, but George Zimmerman kills an unarmed one and walks away freely without even formally being held responisble for an act of misjudgement of the situation, not to mention the possibility that it simply was slaughter caused by subliminal racism, as some people claim.

Rally, those Florida laws are fan-tas-tic.

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Did you even read the opening post? This is not about that case, it is about Stand Your Ground laws. Period.

That case, like it or not, brought that law into the forefront, my mention of it is relevant.

I am not calling you out on anything, we resolved that earlier, calm down.


Or will I forever be bitched at when mentioning those 2 names in reference to anything, even if relevant?

No one would give a flying screw about SYG if it wasn't for the Zimmerman case, take a step back.

[AVGWarhawk]

Whatever happened to equal force?

[Red October1984]

I believe we have the right to defend ourselves no matter the situation.

If I'm standing on a street corner and somebody tries to rob me, I'm sure as hell going to fight back. If I'm in my house, I'll fight back. (Missouri Castle Doctrine FTW!) I don't care where it is. If I'm attacked or I fear for my life, I'll do what's necessary. That doesn't mean I'll like it. Who goes out and wants to shoot somebody. But if somebody kicks in my door at 2am, it'll likely be the last door they kick in.

If they endanger me or anybody around me, i'll send them a present at 2000 FPS.

That's about all I can say on that.

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I think its pretty simple. It fits in with their anti-gun agenda, and it's a politically convenient diversion from other issues.

+1

They're just looking for distractions from Benghazi, Economic Issues, the debt, etc.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Now - the AG and the President are suggesting that we get rid of stand your ground laws - requiring a person to not use legal force when threatened - whether they have a "safe exit or retreat" or not. What say you all - and WHY?

As a rule, an established government does not really want the people to have rights. That's the blunt truth based on human nature and self-interest. Sometimes, a revolutionary government made based on idealism may promote such ideas for awhile (it also helps get the support), but once it is established, not so much.

Nevertheless, as an idea for discussion by the people, it is not to be automatically dismissed.

First, let's revert to the fundamentals. Humans do not so much have an "inherent right" to self-defense as they have one to reasonable security. The argument of a right to self-defence is but an invocation of the right to security, and may be denied if allowing self-defence is anti-thetical to security.

Before we had governments and laws, everyone had the right to self-defence. Heck, everyone had the unfettered right to using violence to resolve disputes, only limited by the strength of their musculature.

Nevertheless, eventually most peoples decided that this unfettered right to using violence is not the best path to security, so now we have laws. To give the laws some teeth, we have police (or equivalent organ). With that, we have handed almost all our rights of violence to the police.

So why do we need self-defence? Self-defence, more than anything else, is an acknowledgment of the limitations of the police, be it their speed of reaction, or in the worst case the possibility of them abusing their powers.

In the end, it is all in what the people are willing to accept. The wider they make the self-defense law, the more they are willing to tolerate a few abuses (like I think GZ is guilty of). The narrower they make it, the more they are willing to tolerate a few innocents dying because the police cannot make it.

Every once in a while, such attitudes should be resampled and a new decision taken. Thus, Obama's proposal is not really wrong.

[CaptainHaplo]

soopa - NC (where I live) is one of the few states that I know of that has codified the Castle Doctrine. What is even better it is the only state that I know of that not only allows the Castle Doctrine to be used in your home of vehicle, but also at your workplace (provided your employer does not restrict your right to carry on their property).

If you really want to get a feel for the Castle Doctrine, take a read:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions...PDF/H650v6.pdf

Its right at the top - Section 1.

[Sailor Steve]

Utah's version has been on the books for almost thirty years.
http://www.le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76..._02_040500.htm

[Onkel Neal]

So, more about the story comes out. They knew each other.
http://www.inquisitr.com/868073/fata...illance-video/

[CaptainHaplo]

So I refer back to the original premise...

Person pulls a knife (even a small pocketknife) on you while your out and about. Regardless of why they do, I think its safe to say we all agree that pulling a knife on someone is not the proper course of action unless you are threatened and have nothing better. So let's say it is unprovoked (via physical aggression) - should you have the "duty to retreat"?

If not, why not?
If so, why?

I am looking for folks to put their viewpoints out there with an explanation - like platapus did. It provided a foundation for the discussion.