Stand your ground laws...

[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.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

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.

Well, looking at the law it's fuzzy, but legally, you're allowed to stand your ground anywhere you're allowed in public. The fact is, if someone is clearly gonna start something, you have the right to stand there and see what happens, rather than call the police. I'm not even saying I disagree with it.

Fact is, I doubt 99% of the people know the laws or sub laws and idiots will act like idiots and smart people walk away. The problem is, there is a percentage of people that know this law, vigilante types that use it and kill when they could've walked away. Like most things, 1% muck it up for the rest of us.

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?

There is no doubt that the rest of the world looks to the USA for direction in making changes, especially in matter of law, well maybe the western democracies do. But if America is successful in changing common law issues the impact will be felt around the democratic world.

Society is a very complex thing now, many different cultures, customs and idea's, that force us to re-examine matters of law.

Unfortunatly westerm culture is Spiritually nieve, therefore easily led by every whim or good cause at tuggs it's collar, the politians are probably the worse as they believe reason and law will see us through the storms.

I often think about what George Bernarnd Shaw once said, "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

Faith, Love and Belief are all unreasonable things as we cannot touch or see them, but more people have given everything for them that just about anything else.

[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.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Armistead

The problem is, there is a percentage of people that know this law, vigilante types that use it and kill when they could've walked away. Like most things, 1% muck it up for the rest of us.

Please provide sources for the above claim that there are people out there that use the law simply to engage in vigilante activities...

Here is the problem with this line of thinking....

Like most things, 1% muck it up for the rest of us.

That makes it out like the person defending themselves - legally mind you - are somehow the bad guys. Thing is - it is those that choose to commit crime that "muck it up" and make self defense laws necessary to start with. Attempting to criminalize the victim is not the way we solve the problem.

I notice that no one seems to want to touch the Kennisaw, Ga. crime data... The proof is right there - an armed community suffers less crime than an unarmed one. Look at where gun control has been steadily enacted in stronger and stronger ways - violent crime increases. Chicago anyone? When you take away the ability of the citizen to protect him/herself - you make them more likely to be a victim.

Decreasing "stand your ground" and Castle Doctrine laws only remove that self-defense right.

Why is it that no one who is for removing guns from society is willing to put a "This is a gun free zone" in their yard? Is it because it makes them a target?