Stand Your Ground

[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?

[AAFitz]

So, you admit that if some strange guy is stalking you, and has a gun, you should probably use force to protect yourself?

Thats actually the point of the people calling you an idiot, for not realizing the stupidity of your position.

An innocent kid was walking home, got confronted by a moron with a gun, and was then shot after defending himself against an obvious and clear danger.

The problem is, only idiots do not see it for what it was, which was a moron who killed an innocent kid, who was walking home...because...he was a moron, ignored the advice of police, and again...simply and tragically, was just a moron.

[Serbia]

So, you admit that if some strange guy is stalking you, and has a gun, you should probably use force to protect yourself?

Your premise is false. First of all, if some strange guy is stalking me, I probably don't know he has a gun. But either way, if I see some strange guy stalking me, I do NOT use force to protect myself, I get the hell out of there. The guy hasn't attacked me, so I have nothing to protect myself from. You people defending Martin, as if he is in any way justified for initiating a fight with Zimmerman, are blind idiots. That's not to say I believe Zimmerman was totally innocent in his actions, but the verdict was correct; he should have been found not guilty of murder in the state of Florida.

Bollocks.

[Phatscotty]

So, you admit that if some strange guy is stalking you, and has a gun, you should probably use force to protect yourself?

Thats actually the point of the people calling you an idiot, for not realizing the stupidity of your position.

An innocent kid was walking home, got confronted by a moron with a gun, and was then shot after defending himself against an obvious and clear danger.

The problem is, only idiots do not see it for what it was, which was a moron who killed an innocent kid, who was walking home...because...he was a moron, ignored the advice of police, and again...simply and tragically, was just a moron.

It does not at all surprise me that you think Zimmerman used the Stand Your Ground defense. It proves beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever that you are absolutely clueless. Zimmerman did not use the stand your ground defense, which kinda makes you the...hmmm...what's the word.....HMMMMMMMMMMM (not to mention, your entire post flies in the face of all the evidence)

there's already a thread, as you know, for Zimmerman/Trayvon, which has NOTHING to do with stand your ground. This is about the law. Suck that drool string back into your pie hole and try to focus

[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?

[Woodruff]

So, you admit that if some strange guy is stalking you, and has a gun, you should probably use force to protect yourself?

Thats actually the point of the people calling you an idiot, for not realizing the stupidity of your position.

An innocent kid was walking home, got confronted by a moron with a gun, and was then shot after defending himself against an obvious and clear danger.

We really don't know that's how it went down between Martin and Zimmerman, of course.

[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?

I personally have a problem with the implication that an individual does not have a duty to retreat IF THEY REASONABLY CAN DO SO SAFELY. That is the primary difference I see between "Stand Your Ground" and "Castle Laws" (which apply to your home, and which I support the idea behind if not some details).

Could Trayvon Martin have retreated safely?

[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?

I personally have a problem with the implication that an individual does not have a duty to retreat IF THEY REASONABLY CAN DO SO SAFELY. That is the primary difference I see between "Stand Your Ground" and "Castle Laws" (which apply to your home, and which I support the idea behind if not some details).

Could Trayvon Martin have retreated safely?

I think it is most likely that both of them could have retreated safely. Without knowing the details of exactly what happened that night (which nobody but Zimmerman does), I can't know for sure of course.

By the way, I edited my post above because I didn't like the way I worded it (I didn't realize anyone had started to respond to it or I would have put in "EDIT" into it, but I'm not trying to hide it). But if you could, go take a look at it again, in case you might have a thought on my change as well.

[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?

I personally have a problem with the implication that an individual does not have a duty to retreat IF THEY REASONABLY CAN DO SO SAFELY. That is the primary difference I see between "Stand Your Ground" and "Castle Laws" (which apply to your home, and which I support the idea behind if not some details).

Could Trayvon Martin have retreated safely?

I think it is most likely that both of them could have retreated safely. Without knowing the details of exactly what happened that night (which nobody but Zimmerman does), I can't know for sure of course.

By the way, I edited my post above because I didn't like the way I worded it (I didn't realize anyone had started to respond to it or I would have put in "EDIT" into it, but I'm not trying to hide it). But if you could, go take a look at it again, in case you might have a thought on my change as well.

That's fine. So, let's say a robber wants to steal your purse. You think you can reasonably retreat safely, so you turn around and run, but the robber can run faster, and they catch you. Now what?

[SaviorShot]

Or if I'm a criminal an there is no stand your ground I say give me your car now!!! And there's no way to stop me from taking it or I will civil sue you for assault =] lol. I live in ky an take self defense classes yearly. We show our kimbers to our friends an our glocks to our enemies lol. Your responsibility to be ready for the fight never ends!!!!!!

[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?

I personally have a problem with the implication that an individual does not have a duty to retreat IF THEY REASONABLY CAN DO SO SAFELY. That is the primary difference I see between "Stand Your Ground" and "Castle Laws" (which apply to your home, and which I support the idea behind if not some details).

Could Trayvon Martin have retreated safely?

I think it is most likely that both of them could have retreated safely. Without knowing the details of exactly what happened that night (which nobody but Zimmerman does), I can't know for sure of course.

By the way, I edited my post above because I didn't like the way I worded it (I didn't realize anyone had started to respond to it or I would have put in "EDIT" into it, but I'm not trying to hide it). But if you could, go take a look at it again, in case you might have a thought on my change as well.

That's fine. So, let's say a robber wants to steal your purse. You think you can reasonably retreat safely, so you turn around and run, but the robber can run faster, and they catch you. Now what?

Obviously, at that point you can no longer reasonably retreat safely. Isn't that obvious?

[Woodruff]

Or if I'm a criminal an there is no stand your ground I say give me your car now!!! And there's no way to stop me from taking it or I will civil sue you for assault =] lol.

Huh? You believe if a criminal demands your car and you don't let them take it, they can sue you in civil court?

Aside from that, if someone demands your car and is wielding a weapon, let them have the damn thing. It's simply not worth your life...it's just an automobile.

I live in ky an take self defense classes yearly. We show our kimbers to our friends an our glocks to our enemies lol. Your responsibility to be ready for the fight never ends!!!!!!

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being physically and mentally prepared to fight, when a situation presents itself and there is no other reasonable option. Nothing at all.

[Phatscotty]

I personally have a problem with the implication that an individual does not have a duty to retreat IF THEY REASONABLY CAN DO SO SAFELY. That is the primary difference I see between "Stand Your Ground" and "Castle Laws" (which apply to your home, and which I support the idea behind if not some details).

Could Trayvon Martin have retreated safely?

I think it is most likely that both of them could have retreated safely. Without knowing the details of exactly what happened that night (which nobody but Zimmerman does), I can't know for sure of course.

By the way, I edited my post above because I didn't like the way I worded it (I didn't realize anyone had started to respond to it or I would have put in "EDIT" into it, but I'm not trying to hide it). But if you could, go take a look at it again, in case you might have a thought on my change as well.

That's fine. So, let's say a robber wants to steal your purse. You think you can reasonably retreat safely, so you turn around and run, but the robber can run faster, and they catch you. Now what?

Obviously, at that point you can no longer reasonably retreat safely. Isn't that obvious?

Sure it is. But you only focus on the end result, and miss all the important stuff. Like for instance, if you are going to support a law that orders the potential victim to flee, there are a lot of other things you are ordering the potential victim to do also. Like take their eyes off the would be robber. Turning your back to someone who is trying to attack you is a HORRIBLE idea. You can't see what's in their hands, how would you even know what you would be defending yourself from? What if when you turned around again, there are 2 would be robbers working together? Then you have to reassess the entire situation, and may very well find out that what you thought would reasonably defend against one person is not sufficient to deal with 2 people. And plenty of other things as well.

My question to you is, why in the hell should we make it law for the victim to make themselves disadvantaged? Why in the hell should we expect the victim to survive the ordeal by following the law against a person who clearly does not care about the law, which is another major disadvantage? Why in the hell would we make it more confusing for the victim whose adrenaline is pumping and probably not thinking straight? Are we really going to throw the victims in jail because they did not act the way we think they should have acted when their life was on the line?

Your position empowers criminals and makes it harder and more confusing for victims to defend themselves

[Woodruff]

That's fine. So, let's say a robber wants to steal your purse. You think you can reasonably retreat safely, so you turn around and run, but the robber can run faster, and they catch you. Now what?

Obviously, at that point you can no longer reasonably retreat safely. Isn't that obvious?

Sure it is. But you only focus on the end result, and miss all the important stuff. Like for instance, if you are going to support a law that orders the potential victim to flee, there are a lot of other things you are ordering the potential victim to do also. Like take their eyes off the would be robber. Turning your back to someone who is trying to attack you is a HORRIBLE idea. You can't see what's in their hands, how would you even know what you would be defending yourself from? What if when you turned around again, there are 2 would be robbers working together? Then you have to reassess the entire situation, and may very well find out that what you thought would reasonably defend against one person is not sufficient to deal with 2 people. And plenty of other things as well.

First of all, you've managed to completely disregard what I was actually supporting, creating some strange strawman of "a law that orders the potential victim to flee". I suppose it's the only way you can try to twist it into something manageable for your shoot-first fantasy world.

Aside from that, you don't seem to have actually been in a lot of these sorts of situations, based on the presumptions you make in that paragraph. Fleeing willy-nilly isn't necessary to retreat, first of all. Who is turning their back on the attacker? Your strawman is burning, but you're not managing to do anything about the actual argument. Of course, you tried to create your strawman with your initial statement, creating the situation as if the lady with the purse did exactly that, so that I would have to respond to that situation you created.

My question to you is, why in the hell should we make it law for the victim to make themselves disadvantaged?

I can't answer that, since it's not something I'm advocating.

Why in the hell should we expect the victim to survive the ordeal by following the law against a person who clearly does not care about the law, which is another major disadvantage?

That's exactly what I do expect...that victim to survive the ordeal by following the law. As you so often say, criminals don't follow the law...do you advocate that we turn victims into criminals?

Why in the hell would we make it more confusing for the victim whose adrenaline is pumping and probably not thinking straight?

It's not really very confusing to try to get out of a situation without making the situation worse. It's not really very confusing to try to find a way to retreat from a situation safely.

Are we really going to throw the victims in jail because they did not act the way we think they should have acted when their life was on the line?

If it is warranted. It doesn't make sense to me to give a victim carte blanche to react in any manner without recourse or consequence. I know you'd prefer that for your shooter fantasy, but it just doesn't make sense.

Your position empowers criminals and makes it harder and more confusing for victims to defend themselves

My position does nothing of the sort, regardless of how hard you try to create my position for me.

[Phatscotty]

Ordering the victim to retreat is ridiculous. It puts the risk on the victim and emboldens the criminal. Period. What you suggest is something that you think will save a couple people a year. What we are doing is savings thousands.

That's a main reason why gun homicides are down in the US in the last couple years, since the Supreme Court ruling on handguns and the implementation of stand your ground laws along with conceal carry in all 50 states. What the states are doing has reduced gun crime Our way is working. Take away the stand your ground laws, and you will see violent crime rates rise.

Repealing stand your ground law sets an extremely bad precedent. Imagine how a criminal feels/thinks the day he/she hears "Stand your ground has been repealed in your state".....xactly

Law abiding citizens should not and will not back down to criminals.

[oVo]

You people defending Martin, as if he is in any way justified for initiating a fight with Zimmerman, are blind idiots. That's not to say I believe Zimmerman was totally innocent in his actions, but the verdict was correct; he should have been found not guilty of murder in the state of Florida.

You are accepting the premise on Zimmerman's word that Martin "initiated a fight," even though it was GZ who followed TM and exited his car armed with a gun.

His actions may not have been premeditated, but Zimmerman may have already had an idea of what might happen. I don't believe the evidence was there for a murder charge at all, yet do find the shooter culpable for what occurred that night and feel he should be held accountable for the stupidity of his actions.

What happened that night could have --and should have-- been avoided.

[Woodruff]

Ordering the victim to retreat is ridiculous.

Did you even read my post? Or, as usual, are you just ignoring the things you don't want to respond to?

It puts the risk on the victim and emboldens the criminal. Period. What you suggest is something that you think will save a couple people a year. What we are doing is savings thousands.

Saving thousands? Like Trayvon Martin?

That's a main reason why gun homicides are down in the US in the last couple years, since the Supreme Court ruling on handguns and the implementation of stand your ground laws along with conceal carry in all 50 states. What the states are doing has reduced gun crime Our way is working. Take away the stand your ground laws, and you will see violent crime rates rise.

There are a lot of variable, and to suggest that only one of those variables is overwhelmingly responsible is simply dishonest.

Repealing stand your ground law sets an extremely bad precedent. Imagine how a criminal feels/thinks the day he/she hears "Stand your ground has been repealed in your state".....xactly

"Stand Your Ground" laws are simply self-defense laws. Self-defense hasn't become illegal.

[Serbia]

You people defending Martin, as if he is in any way justified for initiating a fight with Zimmerman, are blind idiots. That's not to say I believe Zimmerman was totally innocent in his actions, but the verdict was correct; he should have been found not guilty of murder in the state of Florida.

You are accepting the premise on Zimmerman's word that Martin "initiated a fight," even though it was GZ who followed TM and exited his car armed with a gun.

His actions may not have been premeditated, but Zimmerman may have already had an idea of what might happen. I don't believe the evidence was there for a murder charge at all, yet do find the shooter culpable for what occurred that night and feel he should be held accountable for the stupidity of his actions.

What happened that night could have --and should have-- been avoided.

I would also like to find him "culpable", but on what legal ground? Because while I fully agree that "what happened that night could have - and should have - been avoided", I also believe that Martin also should have made different choices, and that based on the evidence available, Zimmerman did not commit a crime. No law was broken. Being very stupid is not a crime, not yet anyway.

Bollocks.

[BigBallinStalin]

So you got the Law, sure, but what about the informal rules of society, man?


The Law = Bollocks. You cannot disagree.

[Lootifer]

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?

What is a forcible felony?

Also the problem (in my opinion) is this allows you easily justify what might otherwise be considered murder. Now this is a problem with any law, but in this particular case you are talking about making it ok to take another life.

I, personally, think it should never "be ok".

[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?

What is a forcible felony?

Also the problem (in my opinion) is this allows you easily justify what might otherwise be considered murder. Now this is a problem with any law, but in this particular case you are talking about making it ok to take another life.

I, personally, think it should never "be ok".

I'm not sure it works like that. Just because a person claims they were standing their ground, does not mean it's easily justified. A jury has to agree.

And that's really reaching claiming that "it allows you to take someone elses life" obviously, it would need to be proven that the victims life was in danger

[Lootifer]

Oh dont get me wrong; it'd be very hard to pull off, say, a planned hit on someone and play the stand-your-ground card. That's not what I am saying.

But hypothetically speaking (and this is not what I think happened, its simply an example to illustrate my point) Zimmerman could have carefully provoked Martin, and subsequently acted (im pretty sure even if he didnt have signs to show he lost a scuffle he would have been cleared of Murder) in a way that lead to the same outcome we see; that careful provocation and acting could be based on him thinking in his head: "Right thats a drug addled black kid, im going to do the world a favour and get rid of him if I can".

Also note that im speaking of personal preference here. You guys can do what you like

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

[Phatscotty]

Oh dont get me wrong; it'd be very hard to pull off, say, a planned hit on someone and play the stand-your-ground card. That's not what I am saying.

But hypothetically speaking (and this is not what I think happened, its simply an example to illustrate my point) Zimmerman could have carefully provoked Martin, and subsequently acted (im pretty sure even if he didnt have signs to show he lost a scuffle he would have been cleared of Murder) in a way that lead to the same outcome we see; that careful provocation and acting could be based on him thinking in his head: "Right thats a drug addled black kid, im going to do the world a favour and get rid of him if I can".

Also note that im speaking of personal preference here. You guys can do what you like

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

I see what you are saying, but I'm not sure that compares to the assumed far greater number of people who defend themselves legitimately.

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.