Stand your ground laws...

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by garren

He swung at her after she shot him in the leg. I'd swing at her too for that.

Ok - it is indicated that she did in fact fire the rifle (a .22 btw) but he was not shot - he was hit by shrapnel. However, he did have a knife on him and he approached her with it - which is when she initially fired.

Her claim is he brandished the knife - which is when she got the rifle out. He advanced on her (you can see that in the video) and she shot once - he got hit with shrapnel and swung at her - she then shot him dead. A knife was found on the scene and she actually took pictures after he was down to prove he had one. Smart woman, that was.

I will say this - in the video - it looks like she fired on accident that first time - she was as startled as he was I think. Still, if he pulled a knife on her as appears to have happened - I can't fault her for shooting him.

We may have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

From the article:



An eyewitness puts him attacking her - she should not be charged when it goes to the grand jury. She had every right to self defense. Apparently he made some unwanted sexual advances, she declined, he didn't like that answer. From the eyewitness account - she saved herself from a rape at the least.

Ah, well, from the video, she had every chance to drive away. I'm not sure she needed to hang around and wait till it got to the point where she calmly and deliberately opened the trunk and pulled a rifle.

Story continues...http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?se...cal&id=9182830

[garren]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Ah, well, from the video, she had every chance to drive away. I'm not sure she needed to hang around and wait till it got to the point where she calmly and deliberately opened the trunk and pulled a rifle.

Story continues...http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?se...cal&id=9182830

Agreed. Just like I've said multiple times. I worked in a security surveillance job for 10 years and have an eye for these things.

[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.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by 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.

Following the hypothetical you've given, if someone pulls a knife on me in an unprovoked attack, do I feel a have a duty to retreat?

No, i don't. They attacked me. I have a right to defend myself.


Now, since I know this whole conversation is going to lead into guns (again), ill expand on this further.

As i stated I have a right to defend myself, so i feel no duty to retreat. In fact i think it's assine to suggest otherwise. It leads into the whole, "criminals rights take greater priority then your own" discussion. However, I also feel that using a gun is the absolute last resort in personal defense. I will try anything and everything else, before using it. If the opportunity presents itself to run and get away from the situation, then I will. If i can't get away, then I'll be forced to use the last resort.

In summary, I have a right to defend myself. All i want is the threat to stop. The situation dictates my response, but the most lethal response, will always be the last resort, when there is no other option.

EDIT:
As an aside, if someone comes at you with a knife, running away may not be an option at all. It's been proven that an assailant can cover the distance of about 21 feet in just a few seconds. Trying to run may only result in a knife in your back.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Following the hypothetical you've given, if someone pulls a knife on me in an unprovoked attack, do I feel a have a duty to retreat?

No, i don't. They attacked me. I have a right to defend myself.


Now, since I know this whole conversation is going to lead into guns (again), ill expand on this further.

As i stated I have a right to defend myself, so i feel no duty to retreat. In fact i think it's assine to suggest otherwise. It leads into the whole, "criminals rights take greater priority then your own" discussion. However, I also feel that using a gun is the absolute last resort in personal defense. I will try anything and everything else, before using it. If the opportunity presents itself to run and get away from the situation, then I will. If i can't get away, then I'll be forced to use the last resort.

In summary, I have a right to defend myself. All i want is the threat to stop. The situation dictates my response, but the most lethal response, will always be the last resort, when there is no other option.

EDIT:
As an aside, if someone comes at you with a knife, running away may not be an option at all. It's been proven that an assailant can cover the distance of about 21 feet in just a few seconds. Trying to run may only result in a knife in your back.

I was going to argue with you until I saw your edit. Someone pulls a knife, if would be a case of self defense. Still, it's a tough call, I wouldn't shoot unless I felt I had no choice.

I did a lot of stupid fighting back in my 20's, mostly when I hit the country bar scene, a mix of urban cowboys, bikers and rednecks, mixed with a lot of decent city folk. I boxed for years and did several tough men contes thought I was a tough guy. I wouldn't say I started fights, just seemed to find myself in them. The last fight I got in got bad. I went with a girl to a club and her ex showed up. He was a rookie cop and she said was a bad ass. Course I got about have lit as usual, was just standing there with my drink when I got a shove in my back, causing me to dump my drink all over myself. He gave me a big bump from behind as he walked by. I didn't do anything, but moments later I saw him and the girl go outside, so I followed. I did walk up to them in the parking lot, he pulled his club out as I got close and we just came together. It didn't seem like a bad fight, got him in a headlock and went to punching his face, we rolled a little and the bouncers broke us up. I was shocked when I saw his face, teeth hangin out, blood everywhere, his face swollen up. Worse, the idiot had a gun in a ankle holster. A bouncer said he was going for it and took it. Guess I was lucky he didn't shoot me. Even worse, the police showed up, guess who got arrested.....me.

Lucky for me the girls sister was out there and agreed with my story that he swung first with his billy club and the judge dropped charges. Still, the idiot remained on the force.

I'm not totally sure of "stand your ground" seems I heard even if you start the fight, but later take a beating and feel your life is in danger, you can use deadly force. Could that same cop I was beating have shot me and claimed self defense today? I know the majority of fights I was in or saw, people got hurt much worse than GZ. Hate to think every fist fight today, a person could claim he was scared and kill someone and get away with it. I certainly believe anyone has a fight to meet deadly force with deadly force, but not so sure I agree with stand your ground, seems that's just an excuse to progress the situation to something much worse, then claim self defense.

Certainly you have the right to stand your ground on your property, in public, I think you're obligated to walk away, not stand face to face egging the situation on, better to call the cops. If you can't retreat, then I think we have plenty of self defense laws.

Seems to me, "stand your ground" is the same as the "stand up against bullies" concept that many of our fathers taught us we had to do. I know about every bully I stood up to resulted in a fight. Not really a big deal in my day, you took your lumps and moved on, but today people throw bullets, very dangerous IMO.

[August]

At what point does punching someone in a fist fight become an attempt to maim or murder? When one opponent has his "teeth hangin out, blood everywhere, his face swollen up" and the other protagonist isn't stopping his attack might be sufficient justification to some juries.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by August

At what point does punching someone in a fist fight become an attempt to maim or murder? When one opponent has his "teeth hangin out, blood everywhere, his face swollen up" and the other protagonist isn't stopping his attack might be sufficient justification to some juries.

That's highly possible, but I find that's the danger of stand your ground. When I walked out, not sure I had the intent to fight, but as I got close, he swung with a club and I charged in.

I think " stand your ground" is dangerous in that it encourages people to progress a situation that they should've walked away from or called the police. More so in town where many carry concealed heat. I'm all for the right to carry, but someone carrying a gun and feeling they have to stand their ground is very dangerous.

Sure I mentioned the time I was metal detecting an old park in the rougher side of town. Several blacks gathered at the picnic table drinking, started making slurs towards me. Several were walking around my car looking in. I was concerned they were damaging my car. I was carrying my firearm as usual. I could've easily walked to my car, confronted them or tried to leave, but felt if I did, something bad could happen. I kept my distance and called the police and left. I guess legally I could've walked up there, stood there and argued, ended up in a gun fight. Many suggest carrying a firearm emboldens people to stand there ground, when it should be the opposite. Course, I remember thinking to myself as I stood there, that if they came to me, I wasn't gonna leave, I had the right to be there. Who knows what would've happened. The smart thing would've been to keep backing away until the police got there. My guess is I would've stood my ground, because I was armed.

[Ducimus]

IMO, the use of lethal force is "A-OK" so long as your being threatened with lethal force, and you did not instigate the situation.

EDIT:
Examples of what I would consider being threatened with lethal force.
ex 1. Assailant has in their hands a deadly object.
ex 2. trying to get his hands around your throat or, dare i say it, trying to smash your head repeatedly into something. These actions have only one intent in my view.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

IMO, the use of lethal force is "A-OK" so long as your being threatened with lethal force, and you did not instigate the situation.

EDIT:
Examples of what I would consider being threatened with lethal force.
ex 1. Assailant has in their hands a deadly object.
ex 2. trying to get his hands around your throat or, dare i say it, trying to smash your head repeatedly into something. These actions have only one intent in my view.

That is self defense, not stand your ground.

[Ducimus]

True. However, i find the politics of the situation makes things very fuzzy.

The way i'm interpetting the whole debate on the anti side, something like: "your supposed to run away less you violate the the misguided persons civil rights. He's more important then you after all! Your just some dirt bag gun owner looking for an excuse!"

That's how i'm seeing this argument, because the argument is at it's core, on the anti gun agenda, so any real discussion is becoming very fuzzy to me.

EDIT:
Ill leave this here.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

True. However, i find the politics of the situation makes things very fuzzy.

The way i'm interpetting the whole debate on the anti side, something like: "your supposed to run away less you violate the the misguided persons civil rights. He's more important then you after all! Your just some dirt bag gun owner looking for an excuse!"

That's how i'm seeing this argument, because the argument is at it's core, on the anti gun agenda, so any real discussion is becoming very fuzzy to me.

It is fuzzy, I agree. Course, many refer to stand your ground as " Make My Day" law. The law simply states you have no duty to retreat. This is why in the old west, many sheriffs outlawed guns inside city limits, men stood their ground, fights broke out, guns came out. I think the danger of stand your ground is either side can say he stood his ground. GZ stated TM blindsided him when he reached into his pocket for his phone. Who knows, maybe TM thought he was going for a gun. The fact is had TM killed GZ, he could've claimed the same stand your ground position.

I think the problem is, it encourages people to engage, not retreat. Not that I'm sure it applies in the GZ case, but we really don't know whatTM was thinking.

[Ducimus]

In my mind it all comes down to who instigated the hostility in whatever the situation may be. I think He who instigated is automatically in the wrong.

I view this as a separate issue from concealed carry because if your carrying, you should be looking to avoid situations to begin with as a matter of training to have gotten your CFP to begin with.

edit: Minor clarifications.

[August]

Well it's the fuzziness of the situation that gave rise to stand your ground laws in the first place I thought.

"Duty to retreat" laws put the burden of proof on the defendant rather than on the prosecution like it should be. How does a defendant prove that he didn't see that open door behind him for instance or that he really thought he wouldn't have a chance to make it there if he tried or maybe was just so scared at the time that he just didn't think of it?

One jury might think it's reasonable where another one wouldn't. Convictions become a popularity contest rather than one based on hard evidence and proven actions. Justice becomes more of a crap shoot than it already is.