Protesters stand up to 'stand your ground,' but laws likely here to stay


PDA






gym
July 19, 2013, 10:11 PM
Tallahassee, Florida (CNN) -- Florida Gov. Rick Scott met with protesters overnight and defended his position to not amend his state's controversial "stand your ground" law.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/18/us/florida-stand-your-ground/index.html

If you enjoyed reading about "Protesters stand up to 'stand your ground,' but laws likely here to stay" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
limpingbear
July 19, 2013, 10:17 PM
I get the distinct impression that these people just don't understand what a Stand Your Ground law is. I think that if they understood it the way it is supposed to be used that there would be no arguments about it. Or they could all just be sheeple......

gspn
July 19, 2013, 10:26 PM
People are upset about a case where "stand your ground" wasn't used...so they are protesting "stand your ground"?

This makes about as much sense as protesting apples because your store carries oranges.

X-JaVeN-X
July 19, 2013, 10:41 PM
Ignorance is bliss....

gym
July 19, 2013, 11:07 PM
We are dealing with 2 types here, those with an agenda, and those who are just stupid. Thank god our Governor gets it
http://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Citizen-Safety-and-Protection-Task-Force-Report-FINAL.pdf

gym
July 19, 2013, 11:18 PM
I guess we won't be going to any Stevie Wonder concerts for the rest of our lives. I hope he wasn't counting on me or my family to make a living. He won't be playing or appearing in FL as long as SYG is the law. "Breaks my heart". From Masses email tonight,
Quote: backwoods home.com
Stevie Wonder has announced that he won’t perform in Florida until SYG is done away with. Stevie Wonder, through no fault of his own, is blind. He has my sympathy for that.
But the other opponents of SYG seem to be willfully blind, and for that, there is no excuse.
End Quote

KTXdm9
July 20, 2013, 11:02 AM
We are dealing with 2 types here, those with an agenda, and those who are just stupid. Thank god our Governor gets it
http://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Citizen-Safety-and-Protection-Task-Force-Report-FINAL.pdf
Well said. "Never let a crisis go to waste."

Vern Humphrey
July 20, 2013, 11:11 AM
People are upset about a case where "stand your ground" wasn't used...so they are protesting "stand your ground"?
And that fact is proof, if any proof were needed, that the media has ceased to become a news source and has become a propaganda arm of the extreme left wing.

22-rimfire
July 20, 2013, 11:12 AM
Stevie Wonder not performing in FL until 'stand your ground' is repealed is a huge loss. Wish he said that about every state that has a 'stand your ground law'.

The 'stand your ground' law(s) has(ve) become a symbol. The humorous thing is that if you talk to most any black man in a higher crime area and they will tell you they will stand their ground regardless of the 'law'. That goes for concealed carry as well regardless of the law. You see, it really is different for folks that live in high crime areas versus your typical person who lives in a suburb development where there is little crime.

Huskerguy
July 20, 2013, 12:01 PM
These people are looking for every reason to have an excuse for what happened. It turns out there really isn't one. Some use race, some stalking, some the law, some hate, whatever, there has to be a reason. It can never some down to people, mistakes, poor decisions, etc. That way there is something legislatively or in policy they can change. Just watch what comes from this as a reaction.

Deanimator
July 20, 2013, 12:45 PM
There's about as much chance of "stand your ground" going away as there is of Rosie O'Donnell eloping with Michael Savage...

481
July 20, 2013, 12:58 PM
Without going too far astray of the topic and invoking the wrath of the forum management :D, the vast majority of those "protesting" simply have other agendas and have chosen to take advantage of the opportunity presented by the situation- I notice an abundance of "Occupy", SEIU membership, Socialist Party members, and others to remain nameless, at these "protests".

What truly concerns me is this Administration's willingness to use this unrest as a platform to go after another part of our Second Amendment right using the underlying assumption that gun owners and CCWers have some sort of a "wild west mentality"- the "Stand your Ground" legislation has been used successfully by a significant number of those claiming to be "aggrieved", yet there is a virtual drum-beat in the media that this sort of legislation 'must go and now'.

I find it to be an undeniable sign of desperation since none of Obama's 23 Executive Orders seems to have amounted to much.

armoredman
July 20, 2013, 01:40 PM
22-Rimfire, Mr Wonder DID state he will not perform in any state with a SYG law. Now if we can just get Lady Gaga to do that, too...:p

Back to the OP - there was a rumbling about Arizona's stand your ground style laws, but we've NEVER had a duty to retreat, no matter what Mr Holder says, and we kinda like it that way. Same as the others, I'd say the chance of it "going bye bye" is pretty slim.

buck460XVR
July 20, 2013, 01:47 PM
There is a certain amount of tradeoff and a certain amount of error in every law, regardless of how it's enforced. I willin' to bet that every law on the books has wronged an innocent person at one time or the other. Fact is tho, while keeping "stand your ground" laws may mean a few innocents may die, changing them or removing them to favor the criminal, means a whole lot of innocents may die. Which is it we're willing to accept?

we are not amused
July 20, 2013, 02:43 PM
Without going too far astray of the topic and invoking the wrath of the forum management :D, the vast majority of those "protesting" simply have other agendas and have chosen to take advantage of the opportunity presented by the situation- I notice an abundance of "Occupy", SEIU membership, Socialist Party members, and others to remain nameless, at these "protests".
You aren't the only one to have noticed that, although it seems to have escaped the news media!
What truly concerns me is this Administration's willingness to use this unrest as a platform to go after another part of our Second Amendment right using the underlying assumption that gun owners and CCWers have some sort of a "wild west mentality"- the "Stand your Ground" legislation has been used successfully by a significant number of those claiming to be "aggrieved", yet there is a virtual drum-beat in the media that this sort of legislation 'must go and now'.


I was rather surprised, when on ABC radio, a news commentator pointed out that "Stand your ground" was not used in the "ShallNotBeNamedFloridaCase", despite Obama's claim to the contrary.

By the way, I believe Stevie Wonder's home state has a "Stand Your Ground" Law.

myron ligon
July 20, 2013, 03:26 PM
Dear Sirs: Reguardless of the law or verdict that was rendered, how would any of us feel if it were our child? As a parent, would'nt we want some form of justice so we could have closure? I think we would all want our childs death to have a positive outcome of some kind.


Sincerely,
Doveshooter

rpchevy02
July 20, 2013, 03:44 PM
Dear Sirs: Reguardless of the law or verdict that was rendered, how would any of us feel if it were our child? As a parent, would'nt we want some form of justice so we could have closure? I think we would all want our childs death to have a positive positive outcome of some kind.


Sincerely,
Doveshooter
I would be heartbroken, but would absolutely not expect the conviction of an innocent man to give me "some sort of justice or closure"

armoredman
July 20, 2013, 03:51 PM
Dear Sirs: Reguardless of the law or verdict that was rendered, how would any of us feel if it were our child? As a parent, would'nt we want some form of justice so we could have closure? I think we would all want our childs death to have a positive positive outcome of some kind.
And justice was served, the trial was fair, the verdict handed down. Wouldn't you want our system of justice to remain steady, and not be overturned on the Mob's whim? The positive outcome is that self defense laws were proven both right and necessary. As for the "m child" section, I submit I am attempting to raise my child with a healthy respect for law and order, and an understanding of what is and isn't expected of him in both private and social settings. While no parent wishes to see his/her child slain, if my child was slain as the perpetrator in a case of justified self defense, I would feel far more guilt to myself and my wife for not educating him well enough to help him avoid such a situation, the same obvious feelings I see when parents visit their adult children in prison.

gspn
July 20, 2013, 04:01 PM
I would be heartbroken, but would absolutely not expect the conviction of an innocent man to give me "some sort of justice or closure"

Boom. That sums it up perfectly for most people. Apparently there are a number of folks in the country who would love to see an innocent man jailed to get some sense of satisfaction.

OptimusPrime
July 20, 2013, 04:15 PM
Dear Sirs: Reguardless of the law or verdict that was rendered, how would any of us feel if it were our child? As a parent, would'nt we want some form of justice so we could have closure? I think we would all want our childs death to have a positive positive outcome of some kind.


Sincerely,
Doveshooter
I completely agree. If G.Z. was my son, I would definitely want him to see justice and not be held to the fickle standards of a group of protestors who don't seem to even realize what they are protesting.
Oh wait, which one did you want me to regard as my son? I have sympathy for both, but one was being attacked so I guess I'll side with him.

buck460XVR
July 20, 2013, 05:02 PM
Dear Sirs: Reguardless of the law or verdict that was rendered, how would any of us feel if it were our child? As a parent, would'nt we want some form of justice so we could have closure? I think we would all want our childs death to have a positive outcome of some kind.


Sincerely,
Doveshooter


...and in a case where there is some doubt as to what really went down, without absolute proof to the contrary, any parent would give their child the benefit of the doubt. The whole deal behind the Martin/Zimmerman case is that there is only one witness alive who was there....and he is not black. Most folks that are not black believe his story about how things went down that night. Those that are black tend not to, and they don't want to. It comes down to trust. Most non-blacks don't trust strange black people. Most blacks don't trust non-blacks they do not know. There is a reason for the lack of trust between the races, but it has nuttin' to do with the Martin/Zimmerman case. It runs much deeper than that and no amount of arguing about Zimmy's guilt or innocence will change it. The prosecution presented all the evidence it had. The jury weighed all that evidence and came to their conclusion based on it....not on conjecture. It is conjecture based on lack of trust that is driving this whole argument. Changing the verdict would only change those folks happy with it, it would not have changed the fact that folks of the other race are upset about the verdict. While the shooting itself was found not to be a racial issue, why some folks believe George and why some don't is.

Romeo 33 Delta
July 20, 2013, 05:07 PM
Back to the title of the thread ... God, I sure hope so!

22-rimfire
July 20, 2013, 05:14 PM
Dear Sirs: Reguardless of the law or verdict that was rendered, how would any of us feel if it were our child? As a parent, would'nt we want some form of justice so we could have closure? I think we would all want our childs death to have a positive outcome of some kind.


Sincerely,
Doveshooter
I feel the same as rpchevy.

But since this is your FIRST post which I find interesting, I think every person or parent would like to have their death or a child's death have a positive outcome. But what is a positive outcome? There was a well publicized trial and a jury verdict. That was a positive outcome and probably reflects your feelings that justice be served even though on the initial review, no charges were going to be filed.

I think 'stand your ground' is a God given right. I think it is better phrased that there is "no duty to retreat".

HOOfan_1
July 20, 2013, 05:26 PM
What truly concerns me is this Administration's willingness to use this unrest as a platform to go after another part of our Second Amendment right .

Either I have just not noticed it before, but I don't think I have ever seen a president comment on local legal issues...certainly not as often and showing such a bias as Obama..

Not to mention he comments on these local situations without even knowing the whole story.

preachnhunt
July 20, 2013, 05:44 PM
myron ligon,
There can be no positive outcome if a man who was found innocent in a court of law is then retried in the court of public opinion and found guilty.
No amount of conscience salving will make it ok to infringe on the rights of the law abiding.
Certain people are simply (once again) using a tragedy to further a political agenda.

splattergun
July 20, 2013, 05:53 PM
These are the same people that believe dihydrogen monoxide should be banned and that the Bill of Rights should be repealed because it restricts free speech.

12131
July 20, 2013, 06:06 PM
Facts and logic are irrelevant to these emotion-driven people.:banghead:

jim243
July 20, 2013, 06:33 PM
Well I guess that Stevland Hardaway Morris will not be singing is his home state of Michigan or in any of the 21 other "stand your ground" states. That will surely cut into his income. (LOL)

Jim

myron ligon
July 20, 2013, 06:48 PM
Dear Sirs: I have been a member of this forum for many years! I have also posted comments on this forum! I never said I diasgreed with the verdict. It was based on the law as it was written. The jury ruled fairly based on the content of the law!
I do feel that it is easy to say how one would feel about things if it is not your child who was killed! Yes, we all do our best to school our children in the right way to behave etc. But things do happen and we can't teach our children everything! Hard to teach a child about how to deal with confrontations and emotional issues etc.
As far as protests, It is everyones right in this country to voice their opinions and protest in a peacful manner. This is what this country was founded on!
There are many laws of this land that need rewriting and clarification. I do not see any fault in the people of this country for wanting that!


Sincerely,
Doveshooter

481
July 20, 2013, 06:59 PM
Either I have just not noticed it before, but I don't think I have ever seen a president comment on local legal issues...certainly not as often and showing such a bias as Obama..

Not to mention he comments on these local situations without even knowing the whole story.

Yep, and of course, this Administration's willingness to subvert any issue into an attack on our 2A rights is about as 'transparent' as we'll likely ever see from 'dear leader'. After those 23 Executive Orders amounted to nothing more than a little 'sabre rattling' inside of just a few months, one begins to get the taste of a "lame-duck" second term. Interesting times, y'know HOO? :)

HOOfan_1
July 20, 2013, 07:28 PM
Dear Sirs: I have been a member of this forum for many years! I have also posted comments on this forum! I never said I diasgreed with the verdict. It was based on the law as it was written. The jury ruled fairly based on the content of the law!

Current law that allows people to defend their life....I don't think those laws need to be rewritten


I do feel that it is easy to say how one would feel about things if it is not your child who was killed!

You mean saying things based on logic rather than raw emotion and ignorance?

As far as protests, It is everyones right in this country to voice their opinions and protest in a peacful manner. This is what this country was founded on!

It is also everyone's right to ridicule their protest when it is fueled by ignorance and hate mongering.

We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it. -Thomas Jefferson

myron ligon
July 20, 2013, 07:41 PM
"Dead kids tell no tales"-George Jefferson.

22-rimfire
July 20, 2013, 07:51 PM
There are many laws of this land that need rewriting and clarification. I do not see any fault in the people of this country for wanting that!

Dead kids tell no tales-George Jefferson.

No fault at all for the people to want our legislators to change or refine laws. The part of this that bothers me is that it is being made into a racial issue and it was not.

Whether you stated that you dissagreed with the verdict or not, it is clear what you opinion is in that regard. Now you have 3 posts with a membership that started in 2009. Wish you contributed more.

HOOfan_1
July 20, 2013, 08:00 PM
"Dead kids tell no tales"-George Jefferson.

You got a citation for that quote?

Here is mine....

http://memory.loc.gov/master/mss/mtj/mtj1/052/0400/0419.jpg

look at line 20

myron ligon
July 20, 2013, 08:37 PM
22-rimfire: It is not a racial issue with me, it is a human issue! We need to look at each other as humans. Has nothing to do with white, black, blue or red! When we can talk to one another without describing a persons race, the world will be a better place! And when we can understand that the man next door or in another part of town has the same hopes and wishes for his kids and family... the world and this country will be a great place again!

22-rimfire
July 20, 2013, 08:47 PM
I am very uncomfortable even responding. Once something goes to trial, the humanity comes out of it. The facts are presented and the law interpreted by the jury based on the facts.

I was in court this past week on a civil issue, trust me, the judge couldn't have cared less about humanity or right and wrong; only the law.

HOOfan_1
July 20, 2013, 08:57 PM
the judge couldn't have cared less about humanity or right and wrong; only the law.

Fairness is for Chancery courts.

kwguy
July 20, 2013, 09:56 PM
It is also everyone's right to ridicule their protest when it is fueled by ignorance and hate mongering.

Exactly.

Everyone may 'have a right to their opinion' and all, but that does not mean that the opinion is not idiotic. Wanting to get rid of the right to defend yourself is idiotic. People that protest to get rid of the right to defend themselves are idiotic.

CoyoteSix
July 21, 2013, 03:57 AM
The Martin family has their justice already. Both through the Criminal Justice system's courts, and due to the fact that G.Z. will never live a normal life again.


He's gonna get outcasted like Casey Anthony and O.J. Simpson.


Back on Topic.

I sure hope laws like SYG can't be swayed by public opinion like that. I admire Rick Scott's ability to stay firm in the face of popular public opinion.

gym
July 21, 2013, 11:08 AM
It really comes down to "once you feel your life is being threatened, you may use deadly force to stop it". That was the answer some 44 years ago when I had my final interview with the NYPD, and it still holds true today. No one else can say when you feel that time is. As long as it's reasonable, it should stand as a judgment call that only the person holding the gun can make, IMO.

HexHead
July 21, 2013, 11:36 AM
And we wondered where all the Occupy Wall Street idiots went?

HexHead
July 21, 2013, 11:38 AM
Well I guess that Stevland Hardaway Morris will not be singing is his home state of Michigan or in any of the 21 other "stand your ground" states. That will surely cut into his income. (LOL)

Jim
They could tell him he's performing in Chicago and he'd never know the difference.

Queen_of_Thunder
July 21, 2013, 12:15 PM
Weren't we requested by the mods not to discuss the trial, outcome, and fact surrounding, out of respect to the families?
Yet the Martin family was at protests in NY City and Miami so maybe its time for discussion.

we are not amused
July 21, 2013, 12:34 PM
I think a lot of the protesters are simply idiots who don't understand the law, the court case involved, or how the law was irrelevant to the case.
They are simply a mob, not much distinguishable from a lynch mob.

I have talked to some of these people. Most reject the facts, with various reasons, but mostly based upon irrational emotions. Some will admit that they didn't know the facts, just what they heard on the broadcast National News Networks, or what they heard on Facebook.
Most accuse me of being anti-black, and some actually make physical threats against me. All seem to think I am some kind of freak for actually bothering to learn the facts, instead of just repeating what the mob says.

I will be honest, mobs like them, the Occupy protesters, the G8 summit protesters, the National Convention protesters, (it doesn't matter which political party the convention belongs to, the majority of the violent protesters are the same people) are the primary reason I own most of my guns. Mobs, whether lynch mobs or political mobs are very irrational and dangerous entities. Once a riot starts, it doesn't matter what your affiliations are, anyone near one is in danger.

HexHead
July 21, 2013, 12:38 PM
He's gonna get outcasted like Casey Anthony and O.J. Simpson.



Except he did nothing wrong, unlike those two.

The people trying to challenge SYG laws over this are idiots. SYG wasn't even a defense used by Zimmerman's attorneys, they waived the SYG hearing.

None of the demonstrations a year ago were really about "Justice for Trayvon" then or now, it's just an excuse for the "never let a good crisis go to waste" crowd to challenge a pro-gun law. The blacks that were/are demonstrating about race were just fulfilling their usual role as "useful idiots" for their puppeteers.

brickeyee
July 21, 2013, 12:47 PM
how would any of us feel if it were our child?

Maybe you should have taught the child not to pick fights with unknown folks?

They just might be armed.

Leave the 'hood behavior in the hood.

we are not amused
July 21, 2013, 01:57 PM
It really comes down to "once you feel your life is being threatened, you may use deadly force to stop it". That was the answer some 44 years ago when I had my final interview with the NYPD, and it still holds true today. No one else can say when you feel that time is. As long as it's reasonable, it should stand as a judgment call that only the person holding the gun can make, IMO.

Well, it is subject to a little bit of second guessing and twenty twenty hindsight, which is why the term "reasonable" is interjected into the law.

But that is exactly what the law is, a reasonable accommodation between competing interest and rights. The right to live is considered to be very strong, but when one is attacked, and one's life is threatened, the Law says you have the right to protect yourself. If the only way you can defend yourself is to use deadly force, then so be it.

The "Stand Your Ground" laws came about because a number of insane prosecutors and judges went beyond reason in applying the old "duty to retreat" common laws, which were never very much upheld in America any way. Most case law, and much Legislative law adopted a pragmatic "Stand Your Ground" position. But there have been exceptions, and a number of Judges and Prosecutors seemed determined to destroy the Stand Your Ground Case laws. Plus there has been an unfortunate trend among certain trial lawyers, to file Civil Lawsuits against the victims of criminal activity, who defended themselves. (Imagine a rape victim being sued by her attacker for giving him an STD) Such cases, originally rare, were becoming more common place, especially among lawyers who believed that gun ownership should be banned. Thus the Legislation to preserve the Common Law support of Stand Your Ground.

kwguy
July 21, 2013, 01:57 PM
Maybe you should have taught the child not to pick fights with unknown folks?

They just might be armed.

Yup.

HexHead
July 21, 2013, 04:00 PM
I admire Rick Scott's ability to stay firm in the face of popular public opinion.

Let's not be so quick to pat Scott on the back. We wouldn't even be here had he not pandered in the first place and appointed Angela Corey as Special Prosecutor. The Sanford PD considered it a justified self defense shooting to begin with, and now they've been proven correct. Except we've got even more crap floating around than we did a year ago.

rodinal220
July 21, 2013, 04:05 PM
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. served on the United States Supreme Court from 1902 until 1932. Still today hes probably the most quoted jurist to ever walk the face of the earth. In 1921 Justice Holmes weighed in on the concept of Stand Your Ground:

"The law has grown, and even if historical mistakes have contributed to its growth, it has tended in the direction of rules consistent with human nature. Many respectable writers agree that, if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant, he may stand his ground, and that, if he kills him, he has not exceeded the bounds of lawful self-defense. That has been the decision of this Court. Beard v. United States, 158 U. S. 550, 158 U. S. 559. Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. Therefore, in this Court at least, it is not a condition of immunity that one in that situation should pause to consider whether a reasonable man might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant, rather than to kill him. Rowe v. United States, 164 U. S. 546, 164 U. S. 558.

Moreover, if the last shot was intentional and may seem to have been unnecessary when considered in cold blood, the defendant would not necessarily lose his immunity if it followed close upon the others while the heat of the conflict was on, and if the defendant believed that he was fighting for his life."

Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921) (opinion by Justice Holmes).

barnbwt
July 21, 2013, 05:13 PM
"This makes about as much sense as protesting apples because your store carries oranges."

People are just mad, because those who benefit from roused rabbles have told them to be so (and to donate to their charity while they're at it;) ), and it's getting to be that hot/muggy time of year when it's easy to get people angry while outdoors. Occupy Wallstreet dried up with the cold weather, so will these fools.

The biggest lesson to learn here is that we should all be sure to take photos of ourselves that emphasize our innocence, so that they may be used favorably should we be wronged.

"if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant, he may stand his ground, and that, if he kills him, he has not exceeded the bounds of lawful self-defense. if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant, he may stand his ground, and that, if he kills him, he has not exceeded the bounds of lawful self-defense."
God, we need some wisdom from the '20s these days. It's ridiculous that "stand your ground" needs to be codified at all, since, as the Justice said, it is self-evident as being consistent with human nature. No matter how one gets there, by random chance or belligerence, whoever raises the stakes to lethal levels may be cut down justly (that's not "justifiably" ;) ), through no fault other than their own.

TCB

Vern Humphrey
July 21, 2013, 05:28 PM
It really comes down to "once you feel your life is being threatened, you may use deadly force to stop it". That was the answer some 44 years ago when I had my final interview with the NYPD, and it still holds true today. No one else can say when you feel that time is. As long as it's reasonable, it should stand as a judgment call that only the person holding the gun can make, IMO.
And that's an important point. The issue is a subjective one, not an objective one.

The facts may be that your attacker had a toy gun or a rubber knife -- but if you believed your life was in danger, you would be justified in defending your self, even with lethal force.

That said, don't believe that a politically-motivated prosecutor can't ruin your life to make a false, but politically correct point.

we are not amused
July 21, 2013, 05:53 PM
Let's not be so quick to pat Scott on the back. We wouldn't even be here had he not pandered in the first place and appointed Angela Corey as Special Prosecutor. The Sanford PD considered it a justified self defense shooting to begin with, and now they've been proven correct.

And they had to do more than a bit of Prosecutor shopping to find her. I understand the local prosecutor turned down the case also.

Vern Humphrey
July 21, 2013, 07:00 PM
When I see her on TV, I can hear me Sainted Irish Mither saying, "She doesn't know enough to know how little she knows."

Deanimator
July 22, 2013, 06:25 AM
The facts may be that your attacker had a toy gun or a rubber knife -- but if you believed your life was in danger, you would be justified in defending your self, even with lethal force.
You can't just "believe" it.

It has to be a REASONABLE belief.

I keep slapping imbeciles on the local newspaper online comments sections across the face with this when they try to claim that you could beat OR shoot somebody for "following" you.

22-rimfire
July 22, 2013, 10:52 AM
Using a firearm for self defense is never a first choice.

It has to be a REASONABLE belief.

I keep slapping imbeciles on the local newspaper online comments sections across the face with this when they try to claim that you could beat OR shoot somebody for "following" you.

"Reasonable belief" is very subjective and situational.

I personally would just keep moving if I knew someone was following me. But I would likely confront them in my yard. Again, situational. But guns are not my first choice even if a dog is menancing me and certainly not a human being. There could be some history however.... push the right buttons and it could become nasty.

Sam1911
July 22, 2013, 11:02 AM
Sounds like we're just rehashing the Zimmerman case here. No need to do that.

If you enjoyed reading about "Protesters stand up to 'stand your ground,' but laws likely here to stay" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!