Stand Your Ground Laws

[L Gilbert]

Good tactic. If you can't find a specific crime, use a very broad, general term that is distasteful, and pretend it's a crime.

No, "vigilantism" isn't unlawful. Neither is racism.

The Florida Code is on-line. You can search it for crimes Zimmerman committed. Until you find one, don't bother me with made-up crap, mmm-kay?

Made up crap? So Zimmerman wasn't sitting there in his truck waiting for "suspicious" people?

Oh, BTW, it wasn't a tactic. I seriously think Zimmerman was being a vigilante.

Yeah, I guess it isn't illegal.

'Stand Your Ground' Laws Promote Vigilante Mentality | Debate Club | US News Opinion

Is self-defense law vigilante justice? - CSMonitor.com

Perhaps it should have been named the "license to start shooting if a perception of harm is suspected". I think more states that adopt this stand your ground thing will be the root of more violence and people with shifty intentions will be using it as an excuse.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Made up crap? So Zimmerman wasn't sitting there in his truck waiting for "suspicious" people?

Oh, BTW, it wasn't a tactic. I seriously think Zimmerman was being a vigilante.

Yeah, I guess it isn't illegal.

'Stand Your Ground' Laws Promote Vigilante Mentality | Debate Club | US News Opinion

Is self-defense law vigilante justice? - CSMonitor.com

Perhaps it should have been named the "license to start shooting if a perception of harm is suspected". I think more states that adopt this stand your ground thing will be the root of more violence and people with shifty intentions will be using it as an excuse.

Fine. You're free to advocate a change in the laws. Just not free to find a man guilty on the basis of what you think the law should be.

 

[Goober]

Fine. You're free to advocate a change in the laws. Just not free to find a man guilty on the basis of what you think the law should be.

The C&P below is from the CS Link.
Is there any veracity that if an innocent Bystander(s) are injured / killed there would/could be no legal/ civil repercussions for the person using the SYG defense?

These new measures would push the boundaries beyond the self-defense measures already on the books. Twelve states already allow citizens to shoot intruders in their homes, and 38 states permit concealed weapons in public places. The "Stand Your Ground" laws would allow people to defend themselves with deadly force even in public places when they perceive a life-threatening situation for themselves or others, and they would not be held accountable in criminal or civil court even if bystanders are injured.

Good link if you are interested.
http://tbo.com/news/stand-your-ground-law-faces-another-court-test-360570

 

[L Gilbert]

Fine. You're free to advocate a change in the laws. Just not free to find a man guilty on the basis of what you think the law should be.

Well, as far as being charged with 2nd degree and manslaughter, I have no problem with the verdict. But, I am, as I said, pretty sure he was guilty of practising vigilantism. Whether it is illegal or not does not absolve him of being guilty of it.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

The C&P below is from the CS Link.
Is there any veracity that if an innocent Bystander(s) are injured / killed there would/could be no legal/ civil repercussions for the person using the SYG defense?

These new measures would push the boundaries beyond the self-defense measures already on the books. Twelve states already allow citizens to shoot intruders in their homes, and 38 states permit concealed weapons in public places. The "Stand Your Ground" laws would allow people to defend themselves with deadly force even in public places when they perceive a life-threatening situation for themselves or others, and they would not be held accountable in criminal or civil court even if bystanders are injured.

Good link if you are interested.
'Stand Your Ground Law' faces another court test | Breaking Tampa Bay, Florida and national news and weather from Tampa Bay Online and The Tampa Tribune | TBO.com

That's correct. The simplest case is the following: a person is assaulted, and fires in legitimate self-defence, but misses and the bullet travels on to injure or kill an uninvolved person.

At law, this is an accident. No culpability attaches. Just as if, through no fault of your own (obstructed view, mechanical failure, &c.) you strike and injure or kill a pedestrian in your car. If there is no fault on your part (such as driving violations), it is an accident.

 

[L Gilbert]

That's correct. The simplest case is the following: a person is assaulted, and fires in legitimate self-defence, but misses and the bullet travels on to injure or kill an uninvolved person.

At law, this is an accident. No culpability attaches. Just as if, through no fault of your own (obstructed view, mechanical failure, &c.) you strike and injure or kill a pedestrian in your car. If there is no fault on your part (such as driving violations), it is an accident.

Yeah, silly ain't it? So I could be someone who has barely an idea of which end of a gun to hold onto, let alone aim or whatever, and start blazing away in whatever direction .... well, I'm sure you get the idea. Good thing in Canada, we have this:

244.2. Discharging firearm — recklessness | Criminal Code of Canada

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Yeah, silly ain't it? So I could be someone who has barely an idea of which end of a gun to hold onto, let alone aim or whatever, and start blazing away in whatever direction .... well, I'm sure you get the idea. Good thing in Canada, we have this:

244.2. Discharging firearm — recklessness | Criminal Code of Canada

Unless the Canadian definition (and by that I mean legal definition) of recklessness is very different from the definition in the U.S., in the situation I described the person could not be convicted under this statute.

 

[L Gilbert]

Unless the Canadian definition (and by that I mean legal definition) of recklessness is very different from the definition in the U.S., in the situation I described the person could not be convicted under this statute.

Well, I could have been a bit more specific and also could have finished my sentence. I meant "blazing away in whatever direction hoping a round or two would hit the person endangering me" and the end of the sentence would be "hitting a half dozen people besides (or instead of) my attacker": self defense but bluddy reckless self-defense.
Fun stuff.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Well, as far as being charged with 2nd degree and manslaughter, I have no problem with the verdict. But, I am, as I said, pretty sure he was guilty of practising vigilantism. Whether it is illegal or not does not absolve him of being guilty of it.

I have not seen the term "Vigilantism" in any of our statutes or the CC, it may well exist in the US, I don't know. However, it refers to taking justice into your own hands, i.e. exacting punishment for the perceived crime. That is not legal in any jurisdiction of any free country that I know of. Justice is owned by the courts; the law, however, is owned by us, the people. It is not the sole property of the judiciary, the police, or legislators. We do have the right, and sometimes the duty to take the law into our own hands, it is ours after all. We do have the right to arrest and detain anyone we see committing an indictable offense. Our police and prosecutors, at times detest the fact that we actually do have this right as they must think that we are somehow beneath them and will prosecute, sometimes virulently, those who exercise this right, as per David Chen. The law has since been clarified so that yes, we can actually track down the scofflaw and detain him until police arrive.

The law also allows us to use force, up to and including deadly force if we reasonably believe we or those in our care are under threat of death or greivous bodily harm. That is not vigilantism, that is a basic human right.

Yeah, silly ain't it? So I could be someone who has barely an idea of which end of a gun to hold onto, let alone aim or whatever, and start blazing away in whatever direction .... well, I'm sure you get the idea. Good thing in Canada, we have this:

Sorry Les, I don't mean to pick on ya, but you're using the same arguments every other gun grabber does, and i'm too lazy to look for other posts, and I wished my home computer hadn't crashed because I had the stats where police missed their intended targets more often than armed citizens, it was worrying. However, Newsweek did report in 2003 that armed citizens shot and killed two and a half times as many criminals as police did, and mistakenly identified criminals 2% of the time, as compared with 11% for police. It almost makes you wish for the Edwardian days where we were armed, if we wished, and the police were not. They were our employees and served at our pleasure, 'tis not the case today.

 

[Omicron]

Seems to me there's a lot of confusion as to what they mean, so here's a short primer.

The general common-law rule of deadly force in self defence is that it is justified if the person reasonably believes that he is in danger of imminent death or serious bodily harm.

Several states codified changes to that standard to add "and no safe retreat is available." This is sometimes called "the duty to retreat."

Stand your ground laws generally simply clarify that in those states there is no duty to retreat. If you are committing no crime yourself and are placed in a situation where you reasonably believe that you are in danger of imminent death or serious bodily harm, you may employ deadly force in your defence (or in defence of a third person).

That's really about all there is to it.

Good explenation.

In Canada it's about how if you're such an a*shole that I have to pull a gun to defend myself, you are going to die, which in Canada is *why* it is so rediculous on so many levels the concept of having easy access to handguns is that I don't know where to start, other than note how it was Seargent Sam Steel to make Canadian police the best in the world, and thus in a roundabout way changed the history of his nation enabling it to be sovereign in a good way... yet Ottawa hated him.

Anyway, if need be, personally, for me, it's this: http://handheldfilms.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/zacuto-double-barrel.jpg

In any case, for a normal Canadian I would recommend a double-bore 410 handgun. There's no way for anyone to go on a killing-spree if they steel it, but if you seriously need to pull the trigger, you will win:

It's a pistol with two 401-bore shot-gun shells, such that it has to be used at close range, like when someone is lunging.

Something about Canadian education and civilization is such that this has *never* been recommended for self-defense, but if you're wandering through Mogadishu, it's not a bad way to differentiate yourself from Americans.

 

[Goober]

That's correct. The simplest case is the following: a person is assaulted, and fires in legitimate self-defence, but misses and the bullet travels on to injure or kill an uninvolved person.

At law, this is an accident. No culpability attaches. Just as if, through no fault of your own (obstructed view, mechanical failure, &c.) you strike and injure or kill a pedestrian in your car. If there is no fault on your part (such as driving violations), it is an accident.

So a person found not guilty under the law, can kill another and be found innocent as it would be considered an accident. Has this been tested at the SCOTUS?

Is that person open to civil action?

Police who accidentally kill bystander(s) in an incident, is the State (City etc) liable for damages to the family?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

So a person found not guilty under the law, can kill another and be found innocent as it would be considered an accident. Has this been tested at the SCOTUS?

No, a person found not guilty under law can kill another and be found not guilty as it would be considered an accident. You really need to wash the word "innocent" out of your criminal-justice vocabulary.

I can't imagine how the Supreme Court would ever get such a case. The Supreme Court's jurisdiction is limited to Federal questions, disputes between states, disputes involving ambassadors and great officers of the United States, and disputes between parties residing in different states.

Is that person open to civil action?

Everyone is always open to civil action, for an intentional tort or for negligence. The outcome of the case would turn on the specific facts of the case.

Police who accidentally kill bystander(s) in an incident, is the State (City etc) liable for damages to the family?

It depends on the case, particularly on whether or not there was negligence.

 

[gopher]

The 2d Amendment's right to possess weapons applies to all. Therefore, the Trayvon Martin's of the future need to do as the Black Panthers do in Texas - openly carry weapons and then see if someone tries to f.uck around with you.

 

[Colpy]

So a person found not guilty under the law, can kill another and be found innocent as it would be considered an accident. Has this been tested at the SCOTUS?

Is that person open to civil action?

Police who accidentally kill bystander(s) in an incident, is the State (City etc) liable for damages to the family?

Actually (and I wish I could cite this, but I can not) the POLICE are four times as apt to injure innocent people than are private citizens with guns.

Now, I understand the reason for this. The police are in pursuit of criminals, whereas CCW people are only shooting in last ditch self defence, up close and personal.

But the fact remains.

 

[tay]

A woman shot and killed an armed intruder near Katy Monday, according to the Harris County Sheriff's Office.

The 60-year-old woman told deputies two armed men entered her home through the open garage door around 11:30 a.m.

"Both were armed with pistols, she confronted both suspects," said Thomas Gilliland with HCSO.

The woman grabbed her own handgun and fired several shots at the suspects and they ran out the door.

One man collapsed and died in her front yard in the 20000 block of Fort Bowie Ct in the Sundown subdivision. Deputies found a gun near his body.

"It's the state of Texas, if you're going to go into someone's home, you're going to get shot," said Cathy Hanks, a neighbor. "That's really how we are. That's just Texas."

The other suspect got away by jumping a fence. It's not clear if he was wounded. Deputies are searching the neighborhood for him.

The victim said he appeared to be around 20 years old, was wearing dark clothing and his red underwear was showing.

The woman who fired the shots wasn't hurt.

She told investigators she didn't know the men.

60-year-old woman fatally shoots armed home intruder | WTSP.com