Stand Your Ground Laws

[smackababy]

With all the current debate after the Zimmerman trial, I figured there would at least be some discussion to be had here.

Stand your ground laws exist in 22 states and allow someone to use force to defend themselves from an unlawful attack without the duty to retreat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law


There is a huge fuss over it being, and this is a direct quote, "law enabling it to be open season on young black men." Now, I don't think people understand the law or the issue to which they were protesting (as all evidence seems to indicate in the Zimmerman case, Martin was the aggressor of the actual altercation, which is illegal).

I was just wondering if people believe the spirit of the law is good, or just a way to 'get away with murder'?

I don't intend for this discussion to focus on the Zimmerman case, but I understand some of the details are relevant, such as if Zimmerman's choice to exit his vehicle and follow Martin should be viewed as part of the total altercation, despite it not being illegal. Same as if someone were to "instigate" an altercation by name calling without direct threats. Does that give the person who attacked immunity from a stand your ground case? Is it still self defense if you were attacked because you intentionally slighted a person in some way?

Personally, and I am sure growing up in Texas effected this, I believe a person has the right to defend themselves and others from severe harm. Making those that do such criminals is rather ridiculous in my eyes. But, I am also the type of person who would become a criminal in this way to save my own life or someone else's.

I am really curious at the opposing side's arguments against this though. I cannot come up with any other than the potential for abuse and law enforcement's inability to determine if said abuse occurred, but I am sure there are others.

 

[soulcougher73]

I am fine with stand your ground laws. You assault me and if im packing i will use it to defend myself. If you dont want to possible die stop assaulting people.

 

[mizzou]

it's just common sense and lets you respond with force when you are met with force.

Just keep in mind though, if you have no witnesses or evidence to support your claim, you could wind up being charged with the same crime as the guy who assaulted you. Why? Because the dude who assaulted you is going to lie his ass off and theres no evidence to prove it being false. (hopefully there is)

This is very common in minor fights, where both parties are bloodied up a bit and both claim to be victims.

 

[ivwshane]

No it's a horrible law that encourages more violence and unless there are witnesses it's almost impossible to prove a crime was committed.

It's a short sighted law and should be repealed but won't because the gun lobby will spin it into some kind of anti gun movement.

 

[RampantAndroid]

No it's a horrible law that encourages more violence and unless there are witnesses it's almost impossible to prove a crime was committed.

It's a short sighted law and should be repealed but won't because the gun lobby will spin it into some kind of anti gun movement.

The converse is that by being required to retreat, you endanger the victim.

I have zero problems with SYG laws. If someone threatens me, I don't want to worry about trying to run first and further endanger myself with indecision. I'd rather stand and defend myself from the get go, if I believe it is the safest option.

If doesn't encourage violence. It allows the use of up to lethal force when violence is brought against you.

 

[Retro Rob]

No it's a horrible law that encourages more violence and unless there are witnesses it's almost impossible to prove a crime was committed.

It's a short sighted law and should be repealed but won't because the gun lobby will spin it into some kind of anti gun movement.

I personally think it should be repealed because it may be abused.

Just image a scenario were you have two guys, one gets shot, the shooter doesn't get charged. Instead of retreating, they both "stand their ground" and make what could have been an avoidable conflict into a bloodbath.

Or in a case like Zimmerman's, why is the shooter being aquitted while the victim could have been "standing his ground", for example?

I don't quite have a clear understanding of the law, so excuse my ignorance, but these are the situations I thought of.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I like it because it basically makes it so if you intend to harm others with violence, you might get a punishment that doesn't fit the crime. Those who are large and/or good physical fighters should have no incentive to use those advantages on victims.

 

[smackababy]

No it's a horrible law that encourages more violence and unless there are witnesses it's almost impossible to prove a crime was committed.

It's a short sighted law and should be repealed but won't because the gun lobby will spin it into some kind of anti gun movement.

How exactly does it encourage more violence? It is only applicable when someone is breaking the law and attacking you.

Your alternative to such a "short sighted" law is to force people to not defend themselves or face manslaughter, at best, charges? This is part of what I don't understand about the opposition to the law. It gives people the right to defend themselves from harm.

 

[RampantAndroid]

I personally think it should be repealed because it may be abused.

Just image a scenario were you have two guys, one gets shot, the shooter doesn't get charged. Instead of retreating, they both "stand their ground" and make what could have been an avoidable conflict into a bloodbath.

Or in a case like Zimmerman's, why is the shooter being aquitted while the victim could have been "standing his ground", for example?

I don't quite have a clear understanding of the law, so excuse my ignorance, but these are the situations I thought of.

The problem with the Zimmerman point you bring up...is that the jury was basically deciding who the victim was - that's the best way to look at the case. The jury decided there was a complete lack of evidence which suggested Martin was the victim. The jury basically said that they believed Zimmerman was the victim. And that makes sense given the evidence. Zimmerman "follows" Martin. Martin turns back and fights.

See, if you were to walk up to me right now and say "I'm going to kill you" and I'm carrying a gun...I cannot lawfully shoot you. Now, if you follow that statement by pulling out a knife and remaining in close proximity to me and giving me reason to believe you are going to to make good on your threat THEN I can shoot. My point is quite simply, if Zimmerman simply walked around in the direction Martin went, that isn't grounds to defend yourself. It isn't grounds to pick a fight. The only point at which Martin is right to have hit and then mounted Zimmerman was if Zimmerman ran after Martin, swinging his gun around....of which there was no evidence.

As for the bloodbath you mention, again - one of those people will be the victim, one the aggressor. Only one of those people may stand their ground, only one will have an avenue to claim self defense.

 

[smackababy]

As for the bloodbath you mention, again - one of those people will be the victim, one the aggressor. Only one of those people may stand their ground, only one will have an avenue to claim self defense.

I think people like to confuse the fact that a good number of defendants attempt to claim self defense means that having a law that allows it means more will commit said crimes. It is always in the defendant's best interest to claim self defense if there is evidence they actually killed the person.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think people like to confuse the fact that a good number of defendants attempt to claim self defense means that having a law that allows it means more will commit said crimes. It is always in the defendant's best interest to claim self defense if there is evidence they actually killed the person.

It's probably best if any defense laws are very carefully worded. In principle I support the right to defend oneself and others, and "duty to retreat" may put the innocent in danger.

A standard of proportional force based on a threat as determined by a reasonable and prudent reasoning might be possible. If one can defend oneself without resorting to killing if the situation reasonably permits works for me, however that is not always possible in all situations.

 

[smackababy]

It's probably best if any defense laws are very carefully worded. In principle I support the right to defend oneself and others, and "duty to retreat" may put the innocent in danger.

A standard of proportional force based on a threat as determined by a reasonable and prudent reasoning might be possible. If one can defend oneself without resorting to killing if the situation reasonably permits works for me, however that is not always possible in all situations.

The thing is, the justifiable use of force is outlined very much.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

That is for outside of a personal dwelling. It is clearly lined out what must be in order for you to use deadly force. You must legally be able to be in the area, you must not be committing any unlawful act(I believe in some states it is felony), and you have to reasonably believe you or another is in danger to receive great bodily harm.

That law is only ambiguous in the reasonable belief that great bodily harm is or will occur. And that is examined by law enforcement and determined.

In the Zimmerman case, the problem is the public was in outrage because a) they didn't have the facts, all they saw was a white sounding individual shot a black teenager and b) anything involving the harming of a minority by someone other than a minority is automatically touted as racist by the usual suspects (Al Sharpton). And even after a trial, the public, and the usual crybaby brigade, is still up in arms because it wasn't the outcome they wanted.

 

[Retro Rob]

The problem with the Zimmerman point you bring up...is that the jury was basically deciding who the victim was - that's the best way to look at the case. The jury decided there was a complete lack of evidence which suggested Martin was the victim. The jury basically said that they believed Zimmerman was the victim. And that makes sense given the evidence. Zimmerman "follows" Martin. Martin turns back and fights.

See, if you were to walk up to me right now and say "I'm going to kill you" and I'm carrying a gun...I cannot lawfully shoot you. Now, if you follow that statement by pulling out a knife and remaining in close proximity to me and giving me reason to believe you are going to to make good on your threat THEN I can shoot. My point is quite simply, if Zimmerman simply walked around in the direction Martin went, that isn't grounds to defend yourself. It isn't grounds to pick a fight. The only point at which Martin is right to have hit and then mounted Zimmerman was if Zimmerman ran after Martin, swinging his gun around....of which there was no evidence.

As for the bloodbath you mention, again - one of those people will be the victim, one the aggressor. Only one of those people may stand their ground, only one will have an avenue to claim self defense.

Excuse me, but it seems to me some people don't want to do the proper thing, but rather, look for legal loopholes to skate through.

Sure, it isn't illegal to follow someone, but where I am from, that's sure to get some mess started -- if you're thinking they're suspicious for whatever reason.

So, in theory, I can follow a suspicious person, and if they get uneasy and a confict ensues, I can shoot them dead, granted, by waving self-defense?

When are we going to champion "what's legal isn't always right", instead of "it's legal for me to do it, so I will do it"?

I all read in the GZ case is "XYZ isn't illegal", but was it smart...that should be the question actually...

 

[poofyhairguy]

No it wasn't smart. He has paid with time and legal fees.

 

[Fern]

I think there is a good deal of confusion surrounding Self-Defense and SYG laws.

I think it best to separate the law into 3 parts:

1. Regular Self-Defense. This is actually what the Zimmerman case was about; it just so happens that FL has a SYG provision in its Self-defense law so idiots and race baiters continually bring it up, and wrongly so. Regular Self-Defense law requires that, if possible, you retreat to safety before resorting to deadly force. Zimmerman was on his back being beaten, therefor he could not retreat and under the normal Self-Defense law he was permitted the use of deadly force.

2. SYG law. This simply removes the requirement to retreat under the above 'regular' self-defense law(s). In some cases this exemption from the requirement to retreat is limited to certain locations, such as your home or car. The 'retreat' requirement was repealed for a number of reasons, one of which is that litigating whether the defendant has sufficiently attempted to retreat was extremely difficult and was therefor never applied evenly. The results being some very unfair verdicts.

3. Self-Defense for the person provoking the fight. The Zimmerman case, IMO wrongly so, focused a lot of attention on this provision. This provision puts back the requirement to retreat for the provoker. This provision was created for the benefit of women with abusive husbands/boyfriends. Too often the woman had struck (slapped, licked, bit, hit with pot or pan or threw vase etc.) at the husband/BF and was subsequently attacked. However, in the absence of this provision the women, who did reasonably fear death or GBH, were unable to claim Self-Defense (because they provoked it) and sent to prison for lengthy sentences (mandatory sentencing guidelines) . This provision was intended to correct that. I.e., if after provoking the fight the woman tried to retreat or made it clear she wished to stop, she would then be able to defend herself should the husband/BF continue attacking her etc.

Fern

 

[EagleKeeper]

Excuse me, but it seems to me some people don't want to do the proper thing, but rather, look for legal loopholes to skate through.

Sure, it isn't illegal to follow someone, but where I am from, that's sure to get some mess started -- if you're thinking they're suspicious for whatever reason.

So, in theory, I can follow a suspicious person, and if they get uneasy and a confict ensues, I can shoot them dead, granted, by waving self-defense?

When are we going to champion "what's legal isn't always right", instead of "it's legal for me to do it, so I will do it"?

I all read in the GZ case is "XYZ isn't illegal", but was it smart...that should be the question actually...

You are choosing to ignore a key facet in Zimmerman.

Self defense is for when you have no other reasonable choices.

For Zimmerman, the tipping point was when Martin was on top and continuing to attack ignoring other people.

Were they standing up, Zimmerman would either not have shot, or been able to leave. He was no longer protected.

Each SYG and Self Defense case has to be looked at in the entirety, not cherry picking a part and using that to justify the result.

A person needs the protection of defense.
By denying them such, you put the victimt at a greater risk.

 

[Retro Rob]

You are choosing to ignore a key facet in Zimmerman.

Self defense is if you have no other reasonable choices.

For Zimmerman, the tipping point was when Martin was on top and continuing to attack ignoring other people.

Were they standing up, Zimmerman would either not have shot, or been able to leave. He was no longer protected.

Each SYG and Sekg Defense case has to be looked at in the entirety, not cherry picking a part and using that to justify the result.

A person needs the protection of defense.

I can't understand you first point.

Edit: you fixed it!!

 

[Fern]

-snip-
So, in theory, I can follow a suspicious person, and if they get uneasy and a confict ensues, I can shoot them dead, granted, by waving self-defense?

You're missing the part where the law requires you to reasonably be in fear of imminent death or GBH.

If you think carrying a gun around, starting a fight and letting somebody beat the crap out of you is a clever ploy, I think you're foolish. Under that scenario there's a damn good chance the gun is taken away by the guy beating the crap out of you and he shoots you with your own gun. And he'll get off on Self-defense.

And I think the guy with the gun better look beaten up or he's unlikely to get Self-Defense.

Fern

 

[Retro Rob]

You are choosing to ignore a key facet in Zimmerman.

Self defense is for when you have no other reasonable choices.

For Zimmerman, the tipping point was when Martin was on top and continuing to attack ignoring other people.

Were they standing up, Zimmerman would either not have shot, or been able to leave. He was no longer protected.

Each SYG and Sekg Defense case has to be looked at in the entirety, not cherry picking a part and using that to justify the result.

A person needs the protection of defense.
By denying them such, you put the victimt at a greater risk.

EK,

My point wasn't about why Zim shot Martin, it was what could have been avoided, but I don't want to argue about that anymore.

My thing is, people keep yelling about what's illegal, and what's allowable by law... and yes, we do need protections against violent idiots and a legal way to protect ourselves.

I'm really talking about people who might want to stretch the legal definition more than what its intention is. Just because we can legally follow someone doesn't mean I can always claim self-defense when I basically played a part in causing the altercation by following someone who may not even be a criminal.

I'm all for giving citizens a way to legally protect themselves, but I am also concerned about asking citizens to avoid conflict wherever possible (for instance, not hanging out too late in shady areas, and nodding and greeting those whom you pass on the street -- letting someone know you see them and being nice can prevent a lot of conflict and let the perp know you see them).

Use some common sense sometimes. Sure, things aren't always avoidable -- I agree. But many things can be.

Should we carry guns? I don't see a real reason why not from a legal POV.

 

[Retro Rob]

You're missing the part where the law requires you to reasonably be in fear of imminent death or GBH.

If you think carrying a gun around, starting a fight and letting somebody beat the crap out of you is a clever ploy, I think you're foolish. Under that scenario there's a damn good chance the gun is taken away by the guy beating the crap out of you and he shoots you with your own gun. And he'll get off on Self-defense.

And I think the guy with the gun better look beaten up or he's unlikely to get Self-Defense.

Fern

yeah, but that's not what I was saying, but good point.

I wonder what "fear of imminent death" really is, though. Should it be one punch that hurts pretty bad, or someone beating you within an inch of your life?

Too much subjectivity, IMO, and can result in unnecessary death, possibly.

 

[poofyhairguy]

How about this- don't hit or punch people.

 

[Fern]

yeah, but that's not what I was saying, but good point.

I wonder what "fear of imminent death" really is, though. Should it be one punch that hurts pretty bad, or someone beating you within an inch of your life?

Too much subjectivity, IMO, and can result in unnecessary death, possibly.

It's very subjective. But it has to be that way or there is no self-defense until it becomes objective, meaning you have already suffered death or GBH, and that's not self-defense - it's too damn late.

Laws cannot be written with a sufficient degree of specificity. You just can't cover every scenario. And when they try, as with tax laws, you necessarily create loopholes or safe havens. Neither of which are desirable in criminal law.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

yeah, but that's not what I was saying, but good point.

I wonder what "fear of imminent death" really is, though. Should it be one punch that hurts pretty bad, or someone beating you within an inch of your life?

Too much subjectivity, IMO, and can result in unnecessary death, possibly.

That's the issue and the reason the law sucks. If you are trying to escape and can't, normal self defense laws work. It's the subjective part about imminent danger that I have issues with.

Let's say zimmerman thought Martin was weaker than him but Martin was scared some stranger was going to do something to him, how does he protect himself? Our bodies have two responses, fight or flight, are we to be judges on an subconscious decision? Martins response was fight, has he had a gun and killed Zimmerman maybe that would have been his story.

(the point of the above is to use a real situation and turn it into a what if, despite what the facts are).

 

[Patranus]

How about this- don't hit or punch people.

That is really the bottom line.
And what is lost in this debate is the fact that SYG wasn't even claimed by Zimmerman.

SYG is a perfectly acceptable law. If you don't want to get shot, don't put yourself in a position to get shot. Assume everyone is packing heat.

This idea that someone has a duty to retreat is laughable. All it doesn't is perpetrate the victim mentality. We need more people to "stand their ground" against criminals, not retreat.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Our bodies have two responses, fight or flight, are we to be judges on an subconscious decision?

Yes we hold people accountable.

Its a conscious decision to use violence, and if you do you put yourself possibly in the path of death.