Stand your ground laws...

[soopaman2]

Being from a state not allowing either laws (what I call a "bend over and take it state")

What is the difference between SYG, and Castle Doctrine?
or is it 2 fancy names for the same thing? Both could apply to personal property defense.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Kind of a nutty question. If you are assaulting a cop is that defending yourself? Sounds like resisting arrest to me. But lets take that with a grain of salt. We understand police get out of hand with the batons, etc. Not much you can defend yourself with if you are battered by baton welding police. One is kind of subdued quickly in that situation.

Well, if a cop is acting unjustly, you have the right to defend yourself if you are in fear of your life or great bodily harm since committing a crime under the color of authority is also a crime.However, it's rolling the dice because police are automatically assumed to be the good guys , it's an uphill battle and better make damn sure you are in the right, but there have been cases where people have had charges dropped or found not guilty for defending themselves against police going too far.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Well, if a cop is acting unjustly, you have the right to defend yourself if you are in fear of your life or great bodily harm since committing a crime under the color of authority is also a crime.However, it's rolling the dice because police are automatically assumed to be the good guys , it's an uphill battle and better make damn sure you are in the right, but there have been cases where people have had charges dropped or found not guilty for defending themselves against police going too far.

That is why I stated one is subdued quickly when the batons are involved. Not much time to SYG. More likely on the ground a bloody mess. But, yes, cops get in trouble for it(in most cases). Either way, one knock to my head and SYG means nothing. I'm out cold.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

Being from a state not allowing either laws (what I call a "bend over and take it state")

What is the difference between SYG, and Castle Doctrine?
or is it 2 fancy names for the same thing?

Castle doctrine says your home is your castle, someone enters it unlawfully, you are not required to retreat but may use forced, up to and including deadly force to defend your "castle". Before this, people were expected to avoid a confrontation if possible.The law came about because idiot prosecutors charged people with shooting burglars.

Stand your ground is an extension of castle, saying if out in public and attacked, youre not required to retreat, you may defend yourself.Basically, these laws were meant to protect citizens from idiot prosecutors like Angela Correy.This is why Zimmerman was not charged by the State Attorney(District Attorney in other places) after the police investigated, because the evidence screamed self defense and they followed the law.Only after politics and ignorant masses got involved did it turn into the cluster it currently is.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

What is the difference between SYG, and Castle Doctrine?

Good question!

While they are similar, there are differences. Like all other laws - codified or not - each state sees things differently. However there are some general differences.

First, Castle doctrine generally applies to your home, car, etc - a location that belongs to you. While some states allow the doctrine to be used more like SYG - as in its available if your legally at any location, most do not. SYG can be anywhere in the state that allows it.

Second, Castle doctrine does not always require you to be in fear of injury or death - again depending on the State. Some allow you to use it in defense of your property. SYG is ONLY usable in fear of injury or death.

Third, the person you use it against must be committing a crime of some sort - like assault, breaking and entering, arson, theft etc. That crime itself may not be directly what causes you to be worried about your safety.

Generally speaking, the CD successfully used also provides full civil immunity - so the person breaking into your house that you shoot - can't sue you for medical bills, etc.

CD can not be used to justify an action if you were the instigator of the matter. If you hit someone in the head as they walk past your house, steal their wallet and then run inside and they break down your door to get at you, so you shoot them - you cannot avail yourself of CD. Your actions in initiating the matter do not have to be criminal to negate your use of CD.

You must be in your location legally, not a fugitive yourself or aiding one, not performing a criminal act at the time, etc.

[soopaman2]

Excellent, thanks guys.

I would think all states need a law to protect victims of crimes who fight back, but northern states uh...


Here they told me to call the police and hide, not discharge my rifles or handgun.

Hide?

Can't reach a phone? Shoot a gangbanger? I am tried on manslaughter, and sued by an angry family.

Blame the victim, my skirt was too revealing, thats why I got raped/ Forget the fact he assaulted me or climbed in my window, I hate this craphole sometimes.

"yo what time is it" wham! in the face as you look at your watch!

Had that happen in a subway a few times....

The main problem with SYG and castle laws is too many people are complete idiots, too many people are paranoid, and too many people have fear derived from a perception of crime that is out of kilter with reality.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

Excellent, thanks guys.

I would think all states need a law to protect victims of crimes who fight back, but northern states uh...

Well - have a read if you like...
http://rense.com/general76/univ.htm

Private firearms: Stopping 2.5 million crimes a year.

Well, if you can defend yourself, your not properly at the mercy of the gub'ment, are you? Your not relying enough on big bro to protect you.

And don't look at facts about guns..... Believe the myths:
http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. " --Thomas Jefferson

[Armistead]

The Martin case is a bad example of stand your ground, more self defense. We just had a case where a white man caught two men robbing his barn, He said it was dark and one charged him, he shot him dead, the other ran. The one that ran was caught and said the man simply shot out of nowhere, no warning, command, etc. The Sheriff believed the man, no charges and said he stood his ground on his property.

I prefer the Castle laws, but I think they apply more to your personal property. If in public and you can safely retreat before using force, I think you should. Now, if someone trying to rob you, that's different.

It's tough, fight break out all the time, it would be dangerous every time someone got a slap to claim stand your ground, fear for life and blow people away.

[garren]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Kind of a nutty question. If you are assaulting a cop is that defending yourself? Sounds like resisting arrest to me. But lets take that with a grain of salt. We understand police get out of hand with the batons, etc. Not much you can defend yourself with if you are battered by baton welding police. One is kind of subdued quickly in that situation.

Are you saying unarmed citizens who attack cops with their hands should be shot? Then there's nothing wrong with what Zimmerman did.

But there have been some dirty cops do some pretty dirty things.



and this one is just crazy...

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by garren

Are you saying unarmed citizens who attack cops with their hands should be shot?

Well, if a guy knocks a cop flat with his bare hands and turns to the next one, the next cop or even the one who was assaulted (if possible) needs to take action.

If that means shooting him, well...he shouldn't have assaulted a cop in the first place.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

I would think all states need a law to protect victims of crimes who fight back, but northern states uh...

I think you should amend that to "northeastern states". Montana and Wyoming are also northern states, as is Vermont.

[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