Stand Your Ground Laws

[Tecumsehsbones]

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.

 

[damngrumpy]

The right to a defence based on deadly force has some responsibility however.
Yes, you might believe you are going to die however Zimmerman for example
went looking for a problem and he was armed and the aggressor. Once you go
after someone or challenge someone, and they fight back in any case I don't
see where you would have the right to use deadly force when you were the
problem to begin with.
If that were the case we would be going back to the wild west days when the law
barely functioned. Oh pardon me, we are going back to the wild west where the
law is barely functioning.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

The right to a defence based on deadly force has some responsibility however.
Yes, you might believe you are going to die however Zimmerman for example
went looking for a problem and he was armed and the aggressor. Once you go
after someone or challenge someone, and they fight back in any case I don't
see where you would have the right to use deadly force when you were the
problem to begin with.
If that were the case we would be going back to the wild west days when the law
barely functioned. Oh pardon me, we are going back to the wild west where the
law is barely functioning.

Always respect your opinion, damngrumpy (can I call you damn? Just kidding).

Have to disagree this time, though. As far as I'm concerned, if you are going about your lawful occasions (operative word is "lawful") and someone presents you with a threat, I believe you have a right to react violently in self-defence, up to deadly force where warranted.

Zimmerman was being a fool and an ***. But his conduct, as best we know from the evidence presented, was lawful.

 

[Colpy]

The right to a defence based on deadly force has some responsibility however.
Yes, you might believe you are going to die however Zimmerman for example
went looking for a problem and he was armed and the aggressor. Once you go
after someone or challenge someone, and they fight back in any case I don't
see where you would have the right to use deadly force when you were the
problem to begin with.
If that were the case we would be going back to the wild west days when the law
barely functioned. Oh pardon me, we are going back to the wild west where the
law is barely functioning.

Zimmerman was behaving in a perfectly lawful way.

There is NO evidence that he initiated the violence.

Therefore he is innocent of all the politically-motivated charges against him.

BTW, stand your ground had absolutely nothing to do with the Zimmerman case.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Zimmerman was behaving in a perfectly lawful way.

There is NO evidence that he initiated the violence.

Therefore he is innocent of all the politically-motivated charges against him.

There has to be a line, and I draw the line at the law. No matter how big a jerk you are being, it does not justify assaulting you (I'm using "you" as a generic, Colpy, not aimed at you personally), unless you are breaking the law.

Call that my codification of the "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" rule.

BTW, stand your ground had absolutely nothing to do with the Zimmerman case.

You are correct. Florida's SYG law has certain procedures that can be invoked, and Zimmerman did not invoke them. This was a straight self-defence case, and Zimmerman would have been acquitted even in a duty-to-retreat state, in my professional opinion (I'm licensed in a duty-to-retreat state).

I understand the duty to retreat. It's intended to minimise violence in society. I just disagree with it, because I don't like the notion that anybody, lawman or criminal, can limit my freedom of action when I am within the law.

Perfectly reasonable people can support the duty to retreat. I'll keep my disagreement with them respectful.

 

[eh1eh]

Zimmerman was behaving in a perfectly lawful way.

There is NO evidence that he initiated the violence.

Therefore he is innocent of all the politically-motivated charges against him.

BTW, stand your ground had absolutely nothing to do with the Zimmerman case.

Zimmerman should have stayed home and watched the game and that boy would have went home and got drunk on skittle vodka and been happy. You gunners want to search out a target. Of course that is lawful for you to do.

 

[Sal]

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.

I get that what Zimmerman did was lawful.
I get that the verdict was as it had to be.
I get that in a court of law it has to be based on the evidence present.
I get that court is not about truth or morality... I do.
I get that he has a right to continue to live his life free from verbal or physical assault.

But I do not respect what he did as a fellow human being. No male within MY world would have made THAT call. Maybe he would have come home to me bleeding, and a bit battered at worst, but he would NOT have taken the life of a 17 year old kid.

It bothers me that a 17 year old kid never got to make the choice to be a productive member of society because Zimmerman lawfully had a gun in possession and was not able to make an above-average judgement call.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Zimmerman should have stayed home and watched the game and that boy would have went home and got drunk on skittle vodka and been happy. You gunners want to search out a target. Of course that is lawful for you to do.

I'm a gunner in your mind, and I don't search out targets. I had enough of that in service.

Y'know, when you make up something in your head, then ascribe it to me (or Colpy) and argue against it, you're really just talking to yourself. And you don't need a computer to do that, you can just sit in the corner and mumble.

Saves power and electricity bills, too.

I get that what Zimmerman did was lawful.
I get that the verdict was as it had to be.
I get that in a court of law it has to be based on the evidence present.
I get that court is not about truth or morality... I do.
I get that he has a right to continue to live his life free from verbal or physical assault.

But I do not respect what he did as a fellow human being. No male within MY world would have made THAT call. Maybe he would have come home to me bleeding, and a bit batter at worst, but he would NOT have taken the life of a 17 year old kid.

It bothers me that a 17 year old kid never got to make the choice to be a productive member of society because Zimmerman lawfully had a gun in possession and was not able to make an above-average judgement call.

I couldn't agree more. I wish we had a fool-proof test for good judgment, and applied it to people who want to own guns. Alas! we don't.

I did think of one, though. Everybody who applies for a gun permit has to stand in front of a table with a gun on it, then are told "Put your left hand on the gun and your right hand on your d*ck!" Anybody who gets it wrong either doesn't know left from right, or doesn't know his gun from his d*ck. Neither should be armed.

 

[Sal]

I couldn't agree more. I wish we had a fool-proof test for good judgment, and applied it to people who want to own guns. Alas! we don't.

I did think of one, though. Everybody who applies for a gun permit has to stand in front of a table with a gun on it, then are told "Put your left hand on the gun and your right hand on your d*ck!" Anybody who gets it wrong either doesn't know left from right, or doesn't know his gun from his d*ck. Neither should be armed.

Yes, because there is no IQ test, or judgement call under stress required. It breaks my heart that this kid is dead. If Zimmerman had not been carrying that night, he might not have followed him and maybe would not even have ended up being bloodied up...both men now, one dead and the other having to live with having taken a life...how tragic.

 

[Goober]

Yes, because there is no IQ test, or judgement call under stress required. It breaks my heart that this kid is dead. If Zimmerman had not been carrying that night, he might not have followed him and maybe would not even have ended up being bloodied up...both men now, one dead and the other having to live with having taken a life...how tragic.

If he had no gun he would have waited. Clearly he does not do well in a fist fight, rough and tumble get at it type of fight.
You can think he did not do well as it appears he was attacked from behind, blindsided possibly. But he can't fight.
If he could fight, Martin would be alive.

 

[Sal]

If he had no gun he would have waited. Clearly he does not do well in a fist fight, rough and tumble get at it type of fight.
You can think he did not do well as it appears he was attacked from behind, blindsided possibly. But he can't fight.
If he could fight, Martin would be alive.

yes I think if he had been in shape and could have at least given what he got, but the kid bested him and that is a shame because it merely escalated the situation and he had a leveler... I don't think he is a bad guy...I would place a bet on it, that he wishes things had turned out differently... and for that my heart breaks for him too. I can't imagine what it must be like for him to see himself being discussed and talked about... must be awful... I don't think it was because the kid was black in the big picture... but now it is.

 

[Goober]

yes I think if he had been in shape and could have at least given what he got, but the kid bested him and that is a shame because it merely escalated the situation and he had a leveler... I don't think he is a bad guy...I would place a bet on it, that he wishes things had turned out differently... and for that my heart breaks for him too. I can't imagine what it must be like for him to see himself being discussed and talked about... must be awful... I don't think it was because the kid was black in the big picture... but now it is.

As I mentioned in the Zimmerman thread. He has 5 years max before some one offs him.

 

[Sal]

As I mentioned in the Zimmerman thread. He has 5 years max before some one offs him.

I hope not. If I were him, I would start somewhere else fresh and clean. With a new name.

 

[Spade]

Stand your ground laws = Double ought licences

 

[Goober]

Stand your ground laws = Double ought licences

Not always.

 

[Sal]

Stand your ground laws = Double ought licences

whoooooshhhhhhhhhhhh, over ma head...what does that mean?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

As I mentioned in the Zimmerman thread. He has 5 years max before some one offs him.

None of the people who committed the more spectacular murders of the civil rights struggle, and were acquitted, were ever assassinated.

Just something to consider.

 

[Goober]

None of the people who committed the more spectacular murders of the civil rights struggle, and were acquitted, were ever assassinated.

Just something to consider.

And today's culture is different in my opinion. I was not aware of that fact, thank you.

 

[Spade]

whoooooshhhhhhhhhhhh, over ma head...what does that mean?

As in "Double Ought Seven" - licence to kill.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

And today's culture is different in my opinion. I was not aware of that fact, thank you.

To the best of my knowledge, none of the cops or others who have gunned down unarmed people in the last 10 years (and there have been many) has been assassinated either.