Stand your ground laws...

[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.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by 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.

Two people standing their ground usually results in someone instigating a fight.

Let's say we pass each other in the street, you're carrying concealed, I bump you by accident, but you took it as an offense.

"hey you, wtf, watch where you're going" says you.

"FU, you ugly arse goat butt licker" says I

We stare each other down

"get out of here or I'll kick your yellow arse" says I

"just try it" says you.

We get eye to eye, we're yelling and spit from your mouth hits my face. I push you back, you fall down. I reach for my cell, you take it as a threat and pull your gun and give me two to the chest and one to the head. I die, worse, Steve starts dating my wife.

Believe it or not, you could claim you "stood your ground."

Let's say I did have a gun, but was just putting my hand on it, because I saw you had one. You feel threatened and pull, but I cap you...

The problem remains, without the duty to retreat, both could be wrong, but the one that lives wins by default.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Two people standing their ground usually results in someone instigating a fight.

Let's say we pass each other in the street, you're carrying concealed, I bump you by accident, but you took it as an offense.

"hey you, wtf, watch where you're going" says you.

Your ignoring the second half of what I said. If you bumped into me, i'd just say "excuse me", or "sorry, didn't see you there" and go about my business. In fact, id say the same regardless if I was carrying or not.

Aside from that, just because someone is carrying, doesn't mean they're going around with a chip on their shoulder. In fact, I would say it's the exact opposite, as you should be more conscious of the things you do if you are carrying. The irony is, your actually trying to be a model citizen because your carrying and don't want to get into any situation. The chip on the shoulder argument is the type of assumption made by the same kind of people who think a barrel shroud is the shoulder thing that goes up.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Your ignoring the second half of what I said. If you bumped into me, i'd just say "excuse me", or "sorry, didn't see you there" and go about my business. In fact, id say the same regardless if I was carrying or not.

Aside from that, just because someone is carrying, doesn't mean they're going around with a chip on their shoulder. In fact, I would say it's the exact opposite, as you should be more conscious of the things you do if you are carrying. The irony is, your actually trying to be a model citizen because your carrying and don't want to get into any situation. The chip on the shoulder argument is the type of assumption made by the same kind of people who think a barrel shroud is the shoulder thing that goes up.

I know you would, but I fear stand your ground for many is an encouragement to do the opposite. Course both sides state studies to promote their point of view.

Yes, responsible gun owners do everything to retreat from a bad situation, that's my point, we should retreat if possible from a situation. As in my case, you say excuse me and walk on. The problem with stand your ground is many feel they can stand up and see what happens.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Armistead

The problem with stand your ground is many feel they can stand up and see what happens.

Some may feel that way, but legallly that's simply not the case is my understanding. If someone feels they can stand up and see what happens, then they are either grossly misinformed or poorly trained.

[Spiced_Rum]

Originally Posted by Armistead

The problem with stand your ground is many feel they can stand up and see what happens.

I knew someone years ago who used to conceal carry, and whenever he went to an ATM would stand there counting his cash just hoping some punk would try to steal from him so that he could draw and fire. Never happend though.

I do not condone that type of attitude, however, if someone is trying to steal your money and threatens your life then stopping them IMHO is fine.

EDIT: point made that protecting property is no license to shoot, unlike defending your life if you believe it is in danger.

[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.