That covers a lot of ground, a long period of time, and no doubt an enormous number of incidents in many places. So I suspect that some were second guessed and some were not -- much as it is today.kwguy said:
Why "stand your ground" is good law
- Thread starter abajaj11
- Start date
- Status
What can we do as the media assaults SYG laws in states?
1. Educate everyone that Stand your ground (SYG) started in response to discrimination against african Americans who were being convicted wrongfully in many cases for defending themselves. So the roots of SYG are actually to protect minorities from being sued.
2. Educate everyone that SYG is actually being used disproportionately more by African Americans to protect themselves even now.
See: http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/16/b...and-your-ground-law-at-disproportionate-rate/
Another one: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/17/NPR-Misleads-About-Stand-Your-Ground
3. Donate to the NRA and GOA and SAF....maybe the price of a 100 rounds of 9mm/223 ammo every year?
The anti-2As are usng every crisis they can to keep the pressure up. Now they have Bloomberg's millions to play with and I believe they will be targeting state races. We need to make sure our ideas are heard as well.
1. Educate everyone that Stand your ground (SYG) started in response to discrimination against african Americans who were being convicted wrongfully in many cases for defending themselves. So the roots of SYG are actually to protect minorities from being sued.
2. Educate everyone that SYG is actually being used disproportionately more by African Americans to protect themselves even now.
See: http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/16/b...and-your-ground-law-at-disproportionate-rate/
Another one: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/17/NPR-Misleads-About-Stand-Your-Ground
3. Donate to the NRA and GOA and SAF....maybe the price of a 100 rounds of 9mm/223 ammo every year?
The anti-2As are usng every crisis they can to keep the pressure up. Now they have Bloomberg's millions to play with and I believe they will be targeting state races. We need to make sure our ideas are heard as well.
Check this link out:The only "debate" on stand your ground is as follows: Do you believe that a person who or whose loved ones are in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm has a duty to retreat, or are they allowed to use lethal force immediately to alleviate this imminent danger?
Keep in mind, the danger is imminent, meaning you have seconds or less to react. What would you rather do if you felt you or your loved ones had only seconds or less to live or risk grave bodily harm? Look around for retreat avenues, or neutralize the threat?
That's the only debate. The anti-2A folks clearly want you to not use lethal force. If you do, they will sue you. Of course, many of them have bodyguards and will not encounter a situation where they have seconds or less to decide. But if you believe in 2A and the empowerment of the common person, then where is the debate?
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/rep-who-backed-stand-your-ground-if-law-goes-away-/nY2F6/
SYG is used by African Americans more to stay out of jail when they have rightfully defended themselves.
Cosmoline
Member
I'm growing more and more antagonistic towards SYG laws. The sensational cases are glossing over the more practiacl problems that arise when you have a hoard of gang-bangers all claiming the defense. And it strikes me as unsound to encourage armed citizens to posture or insist on their rights to be at a particular place. We don't carry firearms to preserve a right to walk down a sidewalk. And retreat, where possible, is almost always tactically sound. You want to use concealment and cover. You want to avoid the fight. Not puff up the chest and start insisting.
I don't like the common law doctrine either. But it seems to me the laws need to be rewritten in general to comport with tactical reality. Lines on the ground tend to get people killed for no good reason.
If there is imminent danger there should be no duty to retreat. The question is whether we want armed citizens entering and remaining in dangerous situations before there is any imminent threat.
For example, if there are nogoodnicks walking down the sidewalk I try to avoid them. Under SYG laws I can march right into them and stare them down. I can verbally insist on my right to be there and demand to know what they're doing there. And they can insist right back, and then someone draws and we're off to the races. Who knows who was first to throw down? No expert will tell you it's a good idea to do something like that. And typically, having a firearm means you need to avoid that sort of confrontation even at the cost of your own ego.
One's home is a different matter, and I do support the castle doctrine as a general matter. But I don't think we've struck the right balance for public confrontations. And I'd hate to have to prosecute a gang shooting now.
I don't like the common law doctrine either. But it seems to me the laws need to be rewritten in general to comport with tactical reality. Lines on the ground tend to get people killed for no good reason.
If there is imminent danger there should be no duty to retreat. The question is whether we want armed citizens entering and remaining in dangerous situations before there is any imminent threat.
For example, if there are nogoodnicks walking down the sidewalk I try to avoid them. Under SYG laws I can march right into them and stare them down. I can verbally insist on my right to be there and demand to know what they're doing there. And they can insist right back, and then someone draws and we're off to the races. Who knows who was first to throw down? No expert will tell you it's a good idea to do something like that. And typically, having a firearm means you need to avoid that sort of confrontation even at the cost of your own ego.
One's home is a different matter, and I do support the castle doctrine as a general matter. But I don't think we've struck the right balance for public confrontations. And I'd hate to have to prosecute a gang shooting now.
Last edited:
Pizzapinochle
member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 570
Cosmoline, I think you are looking at the biggest objection to SYG laws.
The argument against them is that it creates a psychology of escalation instead of defusing.
The mindset of "I can confront this guy because I can stand my ground and if things go bad i'll pull my gun and shoot him" is wrong, and I know most here will say it is wrong, but there are examples where it seems that is precisely what happened and the result is someone dying that did not need to.
The balance is a law that allows you to fight back when truly threatened, but does not "reward" escalating a conflict and "winning."
I don't know what that law is, but it is somewhere between SYG and the Australian example. How is that for non-specific enough to not be wrong?
The argument against them is that it creates a psychology of escalation instead of defusing.
The mindset of "I can confront this guy because I can stand my ground and if things go bad i'll pull my gun and shoot him" is wrong, and I know most here will say it is wrong, but there are examples where it seems that is precisely what happened and the result is someone dying that did not need to.
The balance is a law that allows you to fight back when truly threatened, but does not "reward" escalating a conflict and "winning."
I don't know what that law is, but it is somewhere between SYG and the Australian example. How is that for non-specific enough to not be wrong?
Cosmoline
Member
I like the idea of a duty to retreat limited to situations where retreat can be accomplished in perfect safety. That is, if you simply need to step around the problem. It prevents you from starting a fight by provocation, and excludes situations where you are being pursued or physically threatened. That was essentially AK law before SYG just got signed, and it seemed to work pretty well. Most of the time there was no duty to retreat, except in cases where mutually hostile people or groups chose the confrontation. Which is typical for gang conflicts where each demands the other leave.
Pizzapinochle
member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 570
Depends on how much provoking you do. It certainly creates a grey area and, unfortunately, some gun owners could interpret that grey area in favor of becoming confrontational.
Deer_Freak
Member.
Most of us have decent situational awareness, especially in our homes and places we frequent. There is no looking for an escape route because we are aware of all the entrances. Some people talk big online but when it comes right down to it, no one wants to use their gun.
If you think you won't hesitate to use a gun you might be wrong. Many green soldiers in combat shoot high, hoping they won't kill anyone. After they see a few of their buddies all mangled from enemy fire something changes and they try to kill the enemy any way they can. If you think you are better than thousands of well trained soldiers who have never seen combat, god bless you.
Given all the facts above if the average law abiding citizen shoots someone intentionally they tried to escape. They are traumatized by shooting itself. They are not fit to defend themselves in a court of law. We need laws like stand your ground to protect law abiding citizens from the legal system and the costs associated with it.
If you think you won't hesitate to use a gun you might be wrong. Many green soldiers in combat shoot high, hoping they won't kill anyone. After they see a few of their buddies all mangled from enemy fire something changes and they try to kill the enemy any way they can. If you think you are better than thousands of well trained soldiers who have never seen combat, god bless you.
Given all the facts above if the average law abiding citizen shoots someone intentionally they tried to escape. They are traumatized by shooting itself. They are not fit to defend themselves in a court of law. We need laws like stand your ground to protect law abiding citizens from the legal system and the costs associated with it.
Pizzapinochle
member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 570
DeeFreak, I disagree with most of what you just said.
1. "Most of us have decent situational awareness,"
Who is 'most of us'?
If "us" is THR readers/posters, MAYBE that group features a majority who have decent situational awareness, but it is a pretty small number overall.
If "us" is gun owners in general, I don't really think most gun owners have any realistic concept of situational awareness, much less practicing it consistently.
2. " especially in our homes and places we frequent. "
This is more true, but stand your ground laws apply ANYWHERE. The gas station you have never been to before? The pizza hut down the street? No familiarity there.
3. Not sure your point about soldiers. Thankfully, most people have never had to experience war, so comparisons between the general population and combat veterans is not a good comparison.
4. "Given all the facts above if the average law abiding citizen shoots someone intentionally they tried to escape."
I don't think this is the case at all and there are PLENTY of examples where it is clear the average law abiding citizen did NOT attempt to escape and then claimed "stand your ground" as a defense, frequently in situations that there was never even a need for a gun to be used in self-defense.
This is the problem with SYG laws, it leads SOME people to believe that EVERY conflict is an excuse to pull their gun and start shooting.
1. "Most of us have decent situational awareness,"
Who is 'most of us'?
If "us" is THR readers/posters, MAYBE that group features a majority who have decent situational awareness, but it is a pretty small number overall.
If "us" is gun owners in general, I don't really think most gun owners have any realistic concept of situational awareness, much less practicing it consistently.
2. " especially in our homes and places we frequent. "
This is more true, but stand your ground laws apply ANYWHERE. The gas station you have never been to before? The pizza hut down the street? No familiarity there.
3. Not sure your point about soldiers. Thankfully, most people have never had to experience war, so comparisons between the general population and combat veterans is not a good comparison.
4. "Given all the facts above if the average law abiding citizen shoots someone intentionally they tried to escape."
I don't think this is the case at all and there are PLENTY of examples where it is clear the average law abiding citizen did NOT attempt to escape and then claimed "stand your ground" as a defense, frequently in situations that there was never even a need for a gun to be used in self-defense.
This is the problem with SYG laws, it leads SOME people to believe that EVERY conflict is an excuse to pull their gun and start shooting.
Just like our justice system may let a guilty person go free because someone is 'innocent until proven guilty', that's better than the alternative. Just like SYG laws. I'd rather keep them and allow someone the freedom to defend themselves rather than hamstring them with after the fact 'what ifs' concerning the 'duty to retreat'. If they mess it up, then let the judge and jury sort it out. But don't hamstring them from the start.
We can't have a 'zero defect' law for everything. That's fantasy.
We can't have a 'zero defect' law for everything. That's fantasy.
two gun charlie
Member
You can make any law and refine it as much as you like , criminals will always take advantage of it and the good guys will often be victims of it , One should be more concerned with the quality , experience and righteousness of your judges.
How a judge interprets and applies laws is far more important than how the laws are written.
How a judge interprets and applies laws is far more important than how the laws are written.
Everyone here would choose retreat when possible. Most people would. But to legislate that it be necessary is a bridge too far, IMO. We cannot and should not legislate morality. Legislation is not the solution for all ills, and certainly not for non-existent "problems" invented by the gun control lobby.
SYG had nothing to do with the Martin/Zimmerman case, and the latter is being used as a launching pad for another push for gun control legislation.
People who do not retreat will have a harder time claiming self defense. SYG is not a get out of jail free card. The shooting has to be justified. You can't just shoot someone and claim that you had a right to be there and no questions will be asked. Zimmerman shot someone as a part of neighborhood watch in a place he had a right to be, and yet he was still prosecuted for murder. He won by jury verdict in the end, but clearly the SYG law did not apply, nor did it protect him from murder charges.
The hype is being overblown. CPL holders don't whip out guns in a show of bravado and machismo. We all know that law-abiding gun owners are a great bunch of people. The stats are there on CPL holders for all to see, and we have the evidence to show that we are not a violent segment of the population. We all view guns as we view seat belts, fire extinguishers, and life insurance policies. We would hope to have them and never need them, but we will not be forced into a situation where we need them and do not have them.
SYG is like telling someone they don't have to flee a burning building. They don't. They're adults. They can make their own decisions at their own risk. They may stay inside trying to fight the fire themselves. Sometimes they may stop the fire. Other times they may die. With SYG, you may be OK, you may get killed, or you may get tried for murder. No one of sound mind and body is eager to test that out, contrary to the media hyperbole that the mere presence of guns turns us all into cowboys in wild west shootouts over parking spaces. Such is the hype with EVERY pro-gun law that is passed. The whole "blood in the streets" and "wild west" analogies run rampant, yet never materialize.
This is no different. Violent crime has been decreasing for decades despite all the hype over mass shootings, SYG, etc. CPL holders remain one of the most law-abiding segments of the population.
All I'm going to say is that their is a large subsection of CCW holders that do have a blood thirsty, macho, superiority complex whether some of you want to admit it or not. I hear the vigilantly tough guy talk all the time from them. It's not all "Gun Grabber" rhetoric. I think that proponents and advocates of the law both make valid points and have valid concerns, but both sides are too pig headed to admit to it.
Personally, I think that people should have a duty to and be required to flee if they can do so safely. It makes absolutely no sense to me for someone not to only risk their life (which is fine with me), but also the lives of their family members, neighbors, and other innocent bystanders when a gun fight was avoidable (which isn't okay with me). Yes, the CCW holders on this site and maybe even the ones in your circle of friends are responsible, but there are a lot of people out there who are exploiting this law or at least have stated that that they would if the opportunity presented it's self. CCW aren't all devils like one side likes to portray us, but all of us aren't angels either like we like to think we all are... If we ignore problems and do not look at things subjectively, I fear that we will have more cases where idiots like Zimmerman who will fuel the flames that will ultimately help get more gun laws passed. Whether that shooting was justified or not, his behavior leading up to the shooting fit a stereotype of how gun grabbers view us.
Personally, I think that people should have a duty to and be required to flee if they can do so safely. It makes absolutely no sense to me for someone not to only risk their life (which is fine with me), but also the lives of their family members, neighbors, and other innocent bystanders when a gun fight was avoidable (which isn't okay with me). Yes, the CCW holders on this site and maybe even the ones in your circle of friends are responsible, but there are a lot of people out there who are exploiting this law or at least have stated that that they would if the opportunity presented it's self. CCW aren't all devils like one side likes to portray us, but all of us aren't angels either like we like to think we all are... If we ignore problems and do not look at things subjectively, I fear that we will have more cases where idiots like Zimmerman who will fuel the flames that will ultimately help get more gun laws passed. Whether that shooting was justified or not, his behavior leading up to the shooting fit a stereotype of how gun grabbers view us.
Last edited:
First, if a "gun fight" is in fact unavoidable, the use of deadly force is not justified. The operative words are "immediately necessary."
As pointed out in the links provided by Frank Ettin in Post #4, "It is...important to understand that neither "stand your ground" laws or court rulings of similar effect change the fundamental tenets of the use of force laws. Their only effect is to remove the duty to retreat. Force, deadly or otherwise, may only be used when it is immediately necessary and otherwise justified under the law".
Second, if you are in the company of family members, retreat becomes an impractical proposition.
We are not all angels, but our actions are public record. The data are there for everyone to see. This is not a subjective argument; it's objective. The data show that we are a non-violent segment of the population. A lot of people can chest thump on the internet anonymously, but for all the rhetoric, I suspect (and the evidence supports) that we are not a macho bunch hell bent on showing off our machismo by shooting someone just b/c we think we can. And again, SYG laws do not allow vigilante justice or protect unjust shootings. All they do is shift the burden of proof from the shooter to the state (as it should be, IMO).
The problem with the "duty to retreat" laws is that if you legitimately think in the heat of the moment that you have no safe method of retreat and that your life is in imminent danger, all it takes is for a Monday morning quarterback lawyer to point out some possible mode of retreat you didn't think of when the SHTF in that split second and--poof--you're a murderer or go broke in a civil suit for shooting someone inside your own home b/c you didn't flee your own home that he was breaking into at 3 a.m. with intent to do harm to you and yours.
The problem with the "duty to retreat" laws is that if you legitimately think in the heat of the moment that you have no safe method of retreat and that your life is in imminent danger, all it takes is for a Monday morning quarterback lawyer to point out some possible mode of retreat you didn't think of when the SHTF in that split second and--poof--you're a murderer or go broke in a civil suit for shooting someone inside your own home b/c you didn't flee your own home that he was breaking into at 3 a.m. with intent to do harm to you and yours.
Why is retreat impractical in all cases (as you seemed to imply) when family members are there? I do not get that. Next, why shouldn't people have a duty to attempt to retreat if it's a possibility instead of purposely staying put in a bad situation to wait for it to escalate? They could have left and possibly completely avoided a gun fight, but instead they stayed and waited until their lives were put in danger, so that they could then legally defend themselves. Then when guns get to shooting, they unnecessarily have risked the lives of everyone in their vicinity... I just do not agree with this.
Last edited:
No, we are not all, but some are. The mindset of others also concerns me. I'm not going to pretend that these people do not exist, and that existing laws shouldn't at least be crafted in a way to keep these idiots from making us all look bad.
Last edited:
wrc
Member
What on earth are you two talking about?
Maybe some cases where this behavior was found to be something that happened would be useful. You can understand that your claim that there is a segment of the population that because of SYG-type laws actively seeks out lethal situations so they can get away with shooting at people is very, very out there.
A lot less concern trolling would be helpful.
First off, no one is trolling, and just because I have voiced a different opinion than everyone else, does not make me a troll.
I'm disagreeing with the premise of the law. I have that right. I also am around other CCW holders, have read article posted by anti-gunners, and am a member of a few other forums were I'm constantly hearing these macho men talking this blood thirty talk. Just because I think we as responsible gun owners should stop pretending that we all are responsible, doesn't make me a troll as well.
The only one that appears to be trolling is you.. Everyone else was respectfully having a conversation with out any personal attacks.
[edit] Also do not put words in my mouth because I never said that SYS laws actively seek out to allow people to get away with murder. I said that in some cases, it may result in situations that may have been avoided. Please do not put words in my mouth.
Last edited:
The premise of the law, and of court rulings of similar effect, is that a defender may be justified in the use of force, and under some circumstances, deadly force, when and only when it is immediately necessary, without having to produce evidence that, at the time, he or she had reasonably believed that he or she could not retreat safely.
I do not think you understand the law.
Explain the law to me then. I have no problem admitting I'm wrong or mistaken.
Is the above not a honest assessment, or do I have it wrong?
wrc
Member
Praxidike said:
Praxidike said:
What does that have to do with SYG-type laws? These laws, a few of which are actually viewable up-thread, are not about firearms, and have nothing to do with CCW.
So, what does your opinion of your fellow Americans and your assumption of their intentions bring to a discussion? I'm not seeing the value or the honest engagement.
Here's a position that's an actual position, feel free to use it on another BBS:
"I believe that SYG-style laws do more to confuse potential self-defense claims than they do to clarify them. I believe that a duty to retreat, no matter how poorly defined in law or case law, creates a much better delineation between justifiable use of force in self defense and mutual combat."
That's something that can be argued for or against. I think the opposite is true, but there are actual *events* and *cases* we could discuss in that frame, there are prosecutors and defense lawyers we could interview and better understand the argument, and there are actions we could take as Americans with the information we learn.
Praxidike said:
That, charitably, is an opinion. It doesn't bother to point out to us the actual "lot of people out there" who are apparently fearless and bloodthirsty, but not fearless and bloodthirsty enough to actually go out killing people without an extra statute to help in their affirmative claim of self-defense.
Where does one draw the line? Should one be required to stay out of Chicago or East LA altogether? Refuse to take something by for mom, because she lives in a bad neighborhood? Refrain from refueling at night? Decide to forgo a trip to a pharmacy if one sees someone who looks a little rough across the street?
Those may be very prudent things to do from the standpoint of personal safety for those who have the luxury of doing them, but they would make for poor legislation.
SCOTUS found that the duty to retreat made little sense in the era of firearms almost a century ago. Courts in California, Illinois, Virginia, and the State of Washington, to name just a few examples, have eliminated the duty to retreat.
But the fundamental principles of use of force law--that one may use force only when one reasonably believes that there is no other means of avoiding to grievous harm; that one may use no more force than is immediately necessary; that one may not use deadly force after provoking a confrontation; that one is not entitled to a defense of justification after engaging in mutual combat; still hold.
It will all boil down to the determination by others of what a reasonable person, knowing what the defender knew at the time, would have done under the same circumstances.
Complications regarding a requirement to produce evidence of what a defender knew about potential escape routes have proved problematical, and that, along with the advent of firearms, is why courts and legislatures have been deciding that what was good two hundred years before Chaucer makes less sense today.
Pizzapinochle
member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 570
WRC-
This:
" there is a segment of the population that because of SYG-type laws actively seeks out lethal situations so they can get away with shooting at people"
Is not at all my claim.
Let me put this in a scenario:
Person A is in a public place, lets say a gas station, gets in an argument with Person B in another vehicle. In this situation there are clear options for retreat.
Person A is carrying a gun.
Questions:
Does the presence of SYG laws change Person A's approach to this situation vs. duty to retreat?
Would Person A be more likely to back off the argument knowing that, if the situation escalates, they have a duty to retreat?
Would person A be more likely to continue the argument knowing that, if the situation escalates, they can draw and fire under the protection of SYG laws?
Continue the scenario:
Person A and B both continue the argument, exit their vehicles, and meet in the parking lot. Yelling, chest bumping, pushing ensues.
If Person A draws and fires, killing Person B, are they justified?
If person B is arms, would they be justified in doing the same?
Under duty to retreat, pretty clear that they would NOT be justified, as there are easy retreat options. Under SYG, much less clear.
How does the lack of clarity play out?
Do people err on the side of retreat or aggression?
Do the courts rule on the side of retreat or aggression?
More complex questions:
How much does the reality of the law (what it will actual protect you from in court) differ from the perception of the law (what people THINK SYG allows them to do)?
How does this difference impact how people act in confrontational situations?
Does perceived legal protection, or the lack of perceived legal protection, even impact peoples actions in these types of situations?
How does the presence of a gun in possession of one party impact the dynamics of these situations?
Is there another alternative between SYG and duty to retreat?
It isn't simple, there is not a clear cut answer, and it is worth talking about without assigning people you disagree with extreme views that they do not hold.
This:
" there is a segment of the population that because of SYG-type laws actively seeks out lethal situations so they can get away with shooting at people"
Is not at all my claim.
Let me put this in a scenario:
Person A is in a public place, lets say a gas station, gets in an argument with Person B in another vehicle. In this situation there are clear options for retreat.
Person A is carrying a gun.
Questions:
Does the presence of SYG laws change Person A's approach to this situation vs. duty to retreat?
Would Person A be more likely to back off the argument knowing that, if the situation escalates, they have a duty to retreat?
Would person A be more likely to continue the argument knowing that, if the situation escalates, they can draw and fire under the protection of SYG laws?
Continue the scenario:
Person A and B both continue the argument, exit their vehicles, and meet in the parking lot. Yelling, chest bumping, pushing ensues.
If Person A draws and fires, killing Person B, are they justified?
If person B is arms, would they be justified in doing the same?
Under duty to retreat, pretty clear that they would NOT be justified, as there are easy retreat options. Under SYG, much less clear.
How does the lack of clarity play out?
Do people err on the side of retreat or aggression?
Do the courts rule on the side of retreat or aggression?
More complex questions:
How much does the reality of the law (what it will actual protect you from in court) differ from the perception of the law (what people THINK SYG allows them to do)?
How does this difference impact how people act in confrontational situations?
Does perceived legal protection, or the lack of perceived legal protection, even impact peoples actions in these types of situations?
How does the presence of a gun in possession of one party impact the dynamics of these situations?
Is there another alternative between SYG and duty to retreat?
It isn't simple, there is not a clear cut answer, and it is worth talking about without assigning people you disagree with extreme views that they do not hold.
- Status
