Stand Your Ground

[Night Strike]

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

What's the problem?

Why is a "Stand Your Ground" law necessary...isn't that essentially just self-defense, which is considered an acceptable defense?

Stand Your Ground laws should not be necessary, but our society has made them necessary through glorification of criminal actions. When criminals are able to press their own charges or civil suits against people who fought back protecting life or property, then laws have to be written to re-protect those victims. Stand Your Ground laws are essentially a codified explanation of when a person can use lethal self-defense. They don't really give anyone new rights; they just explain the rights that people already have.

[Woodruff]

Also whats focible felony? I really do have no idea what that means.

I suppose forcible felony means if you catch someone raping or murdering someone in front of you, and you are able to prevent them. That goes from a gigantic grown man deciding he can handle grabbing a punk kid and toss him off a rape victim all the way to drawing your gun and telling them to freeze and remain frozen until the police come.

I don't know either, but I would think "forcible felony" would be more the individual who is doing the raping or murdering, not the individual that stops them. I say that because stopping them SHOULDN'T be a felony (although these days, who knows!).

[Woodruff]

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

What's the problem?

Why is a "Stand Your Ground" law necessary...isn't that essentially just self-defense, which is considered an acceptable defense?

Stand Your Ground laws should not be necessary, but our society has made them necessary through glorification of criminal actions.

Uh...what? I'm afraid that outside of hip-hop culture, I don't see a lot of glorification of criminal actions.

When criminals are able to press their own charges or civil suits against people who fought back protecting life or property, then laws have to be written to re-protect those victims. Stand Your Ground laws are essentially a codified explanation of when a person can use lethal self-defense. They don't really give anyone new rights; they just explain the rights that people already have.

But that's my point..."self defense" is already codified. That's why I don't understand why "Stand Your Ground" is necessary. I don't see the distinction. Is there a distinction?

[Phatscotty]

The main distinction is that the potential victim is not required to retreat if they think they can. Like when someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, you are not required to give them a warning shot, or hide until you get discovered.

This shouldn't be treated any differently than pleading insane. Sure, people try to do it, but hardly anyone can pull it off without some real solid evidence and a real solid story, and a jury who sees it the same way on top of that.

[Night Strike]

When criminals are able to press their own charges or civil suits against people who fought back protecting life or property, then laws have to be written to re-protect those victims. Stand Your Ground laws are essentially a codified explanation of when a person can use lethal self-defense. They don't really give anyone new rights; they just explain the rights that people already have.

But that's my point..."self defense" is already codified. That's why I don't understand why "Stand Your Ground" is necessary. I don't see the distinction. Is there a distinction?

This:

The main distinction is that the potential victim is not required to retreat if they think they can.

I also believe most of those laws re-establish the primacy of "innocent until proven guilty". If someone claims they were standing their ground when they used deadly force, the detectives cannot arrest or charge them until they find evidence to the contrary. The authorities must prove that the act was NOT self-defense rather than the accused having to go into court and prove that they acted in self-defense (prove themselves innocent).

[Woodruff]

The main distinction is that the potential victim is not required to retreat if they think they can. Like when someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, you are not required to give them a warning shot, or hide until you get discovered.

You're absolutely not required to retreat to be able to claim self-defense either. I'm still not seeing a distinction.

[Woodruff]

When criminals are able to press their own charges or civil suits against people who fought back protecting life or property, then laws have to be written to re-protect those victims. Stand Your Ground laws are essentially a codified explanation of when a person can use lethal self-defense. They don't really give anyone new rights; they just explain the rights that people already have.

But that's my point..."self defense" is already codified. That's why I don't understand why "Stand Your Ground" is necessary. I don't see the distinction. Is there a distinction?

This:

The main distinction is that the potential victim is not required to retreat if they think they can.

That doesn't change anything. An individual is not required to retreat in order to claim "self defense".

I also believe most of those laws re-establish the primacy of "innocent until proven guilty". If someone claims they were standing their ground when they used deadly force, the detectives cannot arrest or charge them until they find evidence to the contrary. The authorities must prove that the act was NOT self-defense rather than the accused having to go into court and prove that they acted in self-defense (prove themselves innocent).

As the situation with Mr. Zimmerman showed, that happens WITHOUT "Stand Your Ground".

[Agent 86]

So someone is stalking and following you. What do you do, I turn the stalker into the stalked. He is carrying, so am I. Let's see now how the dead Zimmerman feels. I go to prison but I'm still alive!! Oh the outcry, take the law into your own hands without the authority to do so..bang bang the witch is dead. So yeah I'll stand my ground under U.S. stupid law

[AndyDufresne]

For the last few weeks, I've been starting to hand-stand my ground.


--Andy

[Night Strike]

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2013/07/obama-strongly-supported-stand-your-ground-when-in-illinois-senate.html

[karel]

stand your ground law will never go away,thank god,i love this law,and i really like our states stand ur ground law

[Woodruff]

stand your ground law will never go away,thank god,i love this law,and i really like our states stand ur ground law

Why? What does it do for you that the "self-defense defense" doesn't?

[loutil]

So someone is stalking and following you. What do you do, I turn the stalker into the stalked. He is carrying, so am I. Let's see now how the dead Zimmerman feels. I go to prison but I'm still alive!! Oh the outcry, take the law into your own hands without the authority to do so..bang bang the witch is dead. So yeah I'll stand my ground under U.S. stupid law

Wow...you really should do some research and read the testimony before you jump to this conclusion. Trayvon confronted Zimmerman and punched him. This was the testimony of Trayvon's girl friend. He broke his nose and knocked him to the ground. The only close eye witness testified that Trayvon was on top beating Zimmerman "MMA style". Zimmerman did not have his gun out. He was only following waiting for the cops to arrive which happened only 1 minute after the shooting. Further, stand your ground was NOT used by the defense as Zimmerman was on his back getting pummeled as evidenced by the photos taken after. That law did not even apply. However, self defense did as is the basic law in this country. Further, read about the time line between when Trayvon left the convenience store and when Zimmerman started following him. It is clear that Trayvon was not "headed home" and was most likely casing the area. It should also be noted that Trayvon did not buy skittles and ice tea as has been reported OVER and OVER. He actually purchased a drink called Watermelon fruit juice made by Arizona Ice Tea. This is very important as it is an important ingredient in "Lean" a popular street drug. The actual recipe calls for skittles, Arizona Watermelon fruit juice and Robotusend cough medicine. There are screen captures from Trayvon's cell phone that shows his friend giving Trayvon the specific recipe to make the drug. Not so innocent as tea and skittles...
Here is some good commentary on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebu6Yvzs4Ls

[Phatscotty]

nice vid

[PLAYER57832]

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

What's the problem?

There is nothing in that about any duty to avoid conflict to begin with.

There is a big difference between defending your house, your children, yourself from someone who is threatening or actually attacking you and claiming that if YOU follow someone with a gun, YOU threaten THEM.. and they respond, that you are then OK to kill them.

If someone comes onto my property or even "gets in my face" in a public place, then I have the right to defend. BUT... that doesn't mean I have the right to egg someone on or to actually threaten someone and then claim "self defense" if THEY react.

[Woodruff]

It should also be noted that Trayvon did not buy skittles and ice tea as has been reported OVER and OVER. He actually purchased a drink called Watermelon fruit juice made by Arizona Ice Tea. This is very important as it is an important ingredient in "Lean" a popular street drug. The actual recipe calls for skittles, Arizona Watermelon fruit juice and Robotusend cough medicine. There are screen captures from Trayvon's cell phone that shows his friend giving Trayvon the specific recipe to make the drug. Not so innocent as tea and skittles...

Why is this "very important"? How is it relevant to the situation as it progressed at all?

[Lootifer]

The fact that you are trying so hard to protect Zimmerman is weird Loutil.

I mean, yes most of the "bad stuff" that went down was due to Martin (he was your stereotypical young, disgruntled, drug taking angry youth). But Martin being a bad guy doesnt excuse Zimmerman from being an idiot*.

* I use the word idiot for a specific reason; it is not illegal to be an idiot. As far as the verdict goes I generally have no issue with it as it is by the book according to the law. To me this is an issue of -a- the wrong charge being pressed, and -b- the law being something I personally disagree with; self defense with a lethal weapon is something I oppose (fortunately I dont live in the US so its all fine and dandy ).

[Night Strike]

self defense with a lethal weapon is something I oppose (fortunately I dont live in the US so its all fine and dandy ).

Why would you oppose such a thing? Is self-defense not a fundamental human right?

[Lootifer]

To clarify. I oppose the ownership of very lethal weapons specifically for self defense (such as handguns).

I have no problem with defending yourself or others from harm.

Incidently I dont believe there are any fundamental human rights (though I may have said otherwise in another thread, assume that I have changed my mind). I think human rights are things that, in a just society, we should have access too (running water, being allowed to defend oneself, etc), but they are not things we fundamentally have.

[Ray Rider]

It should also be noted that Trayvon did not buy skittles and ice tea as has been reported OVER and OVER. He actually purchased a drink called Watermelon fruit juice made by Arizona Ice Tea. This is very important as it is an important ingredient in "Lean" a popular street drug. The actual recipe calls for skittles, Arizona Watermelon fruit juice and Robotusend cough medicine. There are screen captures from Trayvon's cell phone that shows his friend giving Trayvon the specific recipe to make the drug. Not so innocent as tea and skittles...

Why is this "very important"? How is it relevant to the situation as it progressed at all?

It's relevant to the media portrayal of the story, which, as was pointed out in the video that's been posted here multiple times, likes to draw strongly sympathetic comparisons between the racist lynching of Emmett Till (who was a kid on his way back from buying candy at the grocery store) and Trayvon (who was a burglar and martial arts fighter on his way back, not from buying just any candy, but specifically 2/3s of the ingredients to make some drugs).



What is concerning is the (seemingly) concerted effort by the media to portray it as an unarmed, innocent, African-American kid on his way back from buying candy at the local store who was shot in cold blood by a big white dude stalking him, when the reality is much more complicated and much less black and white (pardon the pun). What is also concerning is the way many people have swallowed that biased story hook line and sinker without a second thought. It's just a bit more evidence of the death of true journalism and rise of sensationalism.




Anyway, this is getting off topic...I believe there's another thread where this case is being discussed.

[Woodruff]

It should also be noted that Trayvon did not buy skittles and ice tea as has been reported OVER and OVER. He actually purchased a drink called Watermelon fruit juice made by Arizona Ice Tea. This is very important as it is an important ingredient in "Lean" a popular street drug. The actual recipe calls for skittles, Arizona Watermelon fruit juice and Robotusend cough medicine. There are screen captures from Trayvon's cell phone that shows his friend giving Trayvon the specific recipe to make the drug. Not so innocent as tea and skittles...

Why is this "very important"? How is it relevant to the situation as it progressed at all?

It's relevant to the media portrayal of the story

I don't really care about the media circus. I find it highly irritating that this seems to be getting hammered in as if it starts to justify what Zimmerman did. I find it interesting information (as I've mentioned elsewhere), but as to the situation itself and how it progressed, I don't see it as relevant at all.

What is concerning is the (seemingly) concerted effort by the media to portray it as an unarmed, innocent, African-American kid on his way back from buying candy at the local store who was shot in cold blood by a big white dude stalking him, when the reality is much more complicated and much less black and white (pardon the pun). What is also concerning is the way many people have swallowed that biased story hook line and sinker without a second thought. It's just a bit more evidence of the death of true journalism and rise of sensationalism.

I certainly don't disagree with this. The media in the United States is a terrible state of affairs. I find that I get much more accurate and unbiased information by going to Russian (RT), British (BBC) and Qatari (Al Jazeera) media. NPR is probably the only news media that I sort of trust here in the United States, and I find that I still have to be skeptical of it in some areas. It's probably the top turd on the dungpile though.

[Woodruff]

Incidently I dont believe there are any fundamental human rights (though I may have said otherwise in another thread, assume that I have changed my mind). I think human rights are things that, in a just society, we should have access too (running water, being allowed to defend oneself, etc), but they are not things we fundamentally have.

As I've said before, if the government can take away a right, it's not very fundamental to our being human.

[Phatscotty]

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

What's the problem?

There is nothing in that about any duty to avoid conflict to begin with.

Player, what does the part (that I already painstakingly yet quite visibly underlinez) mean?

[Phatscotty]

It should also be noted that Trayvon did not buy skittles and ice tea as has been reported OVER and OVER. He actually purchased a drink called Watermelon fruit juice made by Arizona Ice Tea. This is very important as it is an important ingredient in "Lean" a popular street drug. The actual recipe calls for skittles, Arizona Watermelon fruit juice and Robotusend cough medicine. There are screen captures from Trayvon's cell phone that shows his friend giving Trayvon the specific recipe to make the drug. Not so innocent as tea and skittles...

Why is this "very important"? How is it relevant to the situation as it progressed at all?

It's relevant to the media portrayal of the story, which, as was pointed out in the video that's been posted here multiple times, likes to draw strongly sympathetic comparisons between the racist lynching of Emmett Till (who was a kid on his way back from buying candy at the grocery store) and Trayvon (who was a burglar and martial arts fighter on his way back, not from buying just any candy, but specifically 2/3s of the ingredients to make some drugs).



What is concerning is the (seemingly) concerted effort by the media to portray it as an unarmed, innocent, African-American kid on his way back from buying candy at the local store who was shot in cold blood by a big white dude stalking him, when the reality is much more complicated and much less black and white (pardon the pun). What is also concerning is the way many people have swallowed that biased story hook line and sinker without a second thought. It's just a bit more evidence of the death of true journalism and rise of sensationalism.




Anyway, this is getting off topic...I believe there's another thread where this case is being discussed.

We are living in the age of feelings. Naturally, it's what comes right after enough minds have been destroyed. "If it feels right, then it's right" "We don't need no stinking details." "HE IS THE BAD GUY!" "tweet his address." "We want his face on dead or alive posters!"

"GET HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

They are the lynch mob, but they are justified. Just like all lynch mobs, amirite? Oh well, it's not like the President of the United States has anything to do with creating it and feeding it and fueling it and depending on it and making sure they are dependent on him.

[Woodruff]

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

What's the problem?

There is nothing in that about any duty to avoid conflict to begin with.

Player, what does the part (that I already painstakingly yet quite visibly underlinez) mean?

It certainly isn't a refutation of what PLAYER said.