- Jul 26, 2002
- 11,757
- 0
- 71
I want to talk specifically about the stand your ground law. Obviously we will look at the Trayvon Martin case and others, but this thread is NOT about Trayvon Martin, but more importantly the law and whether or not it needs to be changed.
A friend and I were having a conversation the other day and we happened upon this conclusion. Depending on the verdict of the Martin/Zimmerman trial, we almost have a precedent that it is legal to use a gun during a fight. This seems to be an EXTREMELY slippery slope. Where do you draw the line?
Most of us being men in this forum, I think its safe to say most of us have been in at least one or two fights in our life. Shit happens. Now I've not been in any fights since the age of 18, but I wouldn't judge someone who was. A fight out at a nightclub or a bar. A disagreement at a sporting event. An argument in a traffic accident or road rage incident. The list goes on and on, but fights do happen.
Sometimes fights are simply pushing and shoving. Sometimes they escalate to punching and/or a wrestling match. The vast majority of these cases are NOT life threatening. Someone might get their ass kicked, but very rarely will it end fatal.
Well, with this stand your ground law, it brings in a MASSIVE gray area for when someone 'feels' their life is threatened. So basically, if I get in a fight with some guy who starts whooping my ass a little bit, I'm legally entitled to shoot him? Sure, if he doesn't stop he could kill me, but its just a fight, I'll probably just end up bruised and battered.
It just seems that this stand your ground law is WAAAY to dangerous. I'll be stunned if lawmakers don't revisit this law, as I think it is grossly irresponsible.
Discuss, but let's please try to keep it on topic of the law itself and not stray to racial issues, specifics about the Trayvon case etc... We have enough of that in the other threads.
A friend and I were having a conversation the other day and we happened upon this conclusion. Depending on the verdict of the Martin/Zimmerman trial, we almost have a precedent that it is legal to use a gun during a fight. This seems to be an EXTREMELY slippery slope. Where do you draw the line?
Most of us being men in this forum, I think its safe to say most of us have been in at least one or two fights in our life. Shit happens. Now I've not been in any fights since the age of 18, but I wouldn't judge someone who was. A fight out at a nightclub or a bar. A disagreement at a sporting event. An argument in a traffic accident or road rage incident. The list goes on and on, but fights do happen.
Sometimes fights are simply pushing and shoving. Sometimes they escalate to punching and/or a wrestling match. The vast majority of these cases are NOT life threatening. Someone might get their ass kicked, but very rarely will it end fatal.
Well, with this stand your ground law, it brings in a MASSIVE gray area for when someone 'feels' their life is threatened. So basically, if I get in a fight with some guy who starts whooping my ass a little bit, I'm legally entitled to shoot him? Sure, if he doesn't stop he could kill me, but its just a fight, I'll probably just end up bruised and battered.
It just seems that this stand your ground law is WAAAY to dangerous. I'll be stunned if lawmakers don't revisit this law, as I think it is grossly irresponsible.
Discuss, but let's please try to keep it on topic of the law itself and not stray to racial issues, specifics about the Trayvon case etc... We have enough of that in the other threads.