Is the stand your ground law, a good law?

[Wry Catcher]

I live in Florida and love that law.

Anyone breaking into my house will meet my shotgun up close and personal.

I will have no problem blowing off a head or two.

This misses the point, as usual.

No one takes issue with SYG/castle doctrine – anyone who unlawfully enters another’s home places his own life in jeopardy, and is alone responsible for what happens.

Do you go to sleep dreaming about killing some "bad" guy, and being credited as a hero? AKA, do you suffer the Zimmerman Syndrome?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I live in Florida and love that law.

Anyone breaking into my house will meet my shotgun up close and personal.

I will have no problem blowing off a head or two.

This misses the point, as usual.

No one takes issue with SYG/castle doctrine – anyone who unlawfully enters another’s home places his own life in jeopardy, and is alone responsible for what happens.

Do you go to sleep dreaming about killing some "bad" guy, and being credited as a hero? AKA, do you suffer the Zimmerman Syndrome?

You’re generally better than this sort of post.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

This kind of law is easily manipulated. Scenarios are simple to create in which a person could be lured into doing something that could be interpreted as aggressive. Bystanders and witnesses, not seeing the context, could be easily fooled. The intent of the law is understood, but the consequences are too variable.

You may have a point but you need to expound on what you are trying to say....not clear at all....what you are trying to say as in ....'incoherent'

It’s not clear?

My point isn’t example-based. My point is that I feel the best course is to defuse an altercation, rather than exacerbate it. I don’t want to use deadly force, and truly think it should be a last resort.

That clear?

O.K. Yes, now you are making some sense and I agree with you...I would only use deadly force as a last resort. However, all situations are different. A lot of folks are placed in situations where they have no choice...aka kill or be killed. Again...yes if you can defuse a situation by all means defuse it.

However, some folks have a problem really understanding when their life is in danger or maybe they just do not want to believe it. That is how some innocent folks wind up dead. Good judgement is a necessity in life...if you do not have it then you will suffer because of it.

The problem with wanting to use deadly force as a last resort is, you are usually facing someone who uses deadly force first.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Well to begin with let us examine exactly what the stand your ground law says.

'A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.'

In nearly every case the defendant in a murder trial claims s/he was afraid for his/her life. This stand your ground law is too subjective, and when the victim is killed with a handgun carried in public, one must consider if such an act is premeditated.

The one exception I would find just, is the Castle Doctrine, See:

Castle doctrine - Wikipedia

The use of force in a stand your grand case must be evaluated, and the Zimmerman Syndrome needs to be considered. Zimmerman ignored dispatch and did not break off following what he considered - or said he did - a suspect, when he had no legal authority to do so.

Zimmerman ignored dispatch and did not break off following what he considered - or said he did - a suspect, when he had no legal authority to do so.

Did he disobey his commanding officer? Did he break a law?
Is there a law in that area against following suspicious punks?

First of all the dispatcher had no legal authority to order Z to do anything. Z broke no law by following trayvon a suspect.

As previously pointed out the dispatcher merely said we do not need you to do that. Z replied ok and stopped following trayvon and he had only followed him a short distance...at that point it was fruitless any way as he had completely lost sight of trayvon.

He killed a kid. He was acting as a vigilante motivated by the color of the kids skin. Any other spin supports that sort of behavior, and the bigotry of the spinner.

You bought the kool aid boyo. as in...you saw that picture of trayvon NBC posted of when he was l2 yrs old...oh such a sweet innocent looking kid....the one you thought was killed.

In reality that little innocent looking kid had grown up into a l7 yr. old thug that loved to fight, get in trouble and burglarize for needed funds.

The color of the skin had nothing to do with it....Z had a black grandfather not even to mention the FBI did a thorough investigation of Z and declared he is not a racist. In fact until this event he was a democrat and supporter of obama and even tutored black kids.

when dispatch first asked Z what was the race of the suspect he did not even know because it was a dark and rainy night...when T got closer only then was Z able to tell the dispatcher he was black,

Obviously you not only did not watch the trial you are not familiar with the facts of the case...yet....you come on here and spout your personal opinion like that has some relevance. What stupidity! Opinions are like assholes everyone has one.

 

[MacTheKnife]

This kind of law is easily manipulated. Scenarios are simple to create in which a person could be lured into doing something that could be interpreted as aggressive. Bystanders and witnesses, not seeing the context, could be easily fooled. The intent of the law is understood, but the consequences are too variable.

You may have a point but you need to expound on what you are trying to say....not clear at all....what you are trying to say as in ....'incoherent'

It’s not clear?

My point isn’t example-based. My point is that I feel the best course is to defuse an altercation, rather than exacerbate it. I don’t want to use deadly force, and truly think it should be a last resort.

That clear?

O.K. Yes, now you are making some sense and I agree with you...I would only use deadly force as a last resort. However, all situations are different. A lot of folks are placed in situations where they have no choice...aka kill or be killed. Again...yes if you can defuse a situation by all means defuse it.

However, some folks have a problem really understanding when their life is in danger or maybe they just do not want to believe it. That is how some innocent folks wind up dead. Good judgement is a necessity in life...if you do not have it then you will suffer because of it.

The problem with wanting to use deadly force as a last resort is, you are usually facing someone who uses deadly force first.

good point....but how I define last resort may be diffrent than how you would define it....I would define it as recognizing I had no other option and the quicker one realizes that the better of course.....using deadly force or attempting to use deadly force does not always work out for the victim. It depends in a lot of cases on how fast he is and how accurate he is with his weapon. Too many believe just by displaying a weapon the perp will stop and or run away...perhaps in some cases but not all.

 

[Flash]

Well to begin with let us examine exactly what the stand your ground law says.

'A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.'

In nearly every case the defendant in a murder trial claims s/he was afraid for his/her life. This stand your ground law is too subjective, and when the victim is killed with a handgun carried in public, one must consider if such an act is premeditated.

The one exception I would find just, is the Castle Doctrine, See:

Castle doctrine - Wikipedia

The use of force in a stand your grand case must be evaluated, and the Zimmerman Syndrome needs to be considered. Zimmerman ignored dispatch and did not break off following what he considered - or said he did - a suspect, when he had no legal authority to do so.

Zimmerman ignored dispatch and did not break off following what he considered - or said he did - a suspect, when he had no legal authority to do so.

Did he disobey his commanding officer? Did he break a law?
Is there a law in that area against following suspicious punks?

You are confused. You must not have listened to the court testimony. Either that or you are one of these Moon Bats that believed the fake news race bating Libtard narrative of what happen.

I did listen to the trial so I will educate you.

Even though he was under no requirement to do so Zimmerman did follow the advice of the dispatcher and was on his way back to his vehicle when he was attacked by the crazy racist asshole Martin. Martin, who had been on the phone with this ugly fat girlfriend making racist comments about Zimmerman being a "Cracker", which is just as racist coming from a Negro as a White using the N word.

Zimmerman never threatened that Martin asshole one bit but Martin viciously attacked Zimmerman and that is why the jury found in favor of the defendant.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Again, it’s incumbent upon law enforcement and the courts to apply and adjudicate the law consistently; and it’s incumbent upon armed citizens to know the law.

But when the law is administered inconsistently, as with the recent case in Florida, making it impossible for armed citizens to comply with the law, the fault for wrongful deaths is the responsibility of law enforcement and the courts, not that of individuals who defend themselves with lethal force in good faith.

 

[MacTheKnife]

I live in Florida and love that law.

Anyone breaking into my house will meet my shotgun up close and personal.

I will have no problem blowing off a head or two.

This misses the point, as usual.

No one takes issue with SYG/castle doctrine – anyone who unlawfully enters another’s home places his own life in jeopardy, and is alone responsible for what happens.

Do you go to sleep dreaming about killing some "bad" guy, and being credited as a hero? AKA, do you suffer the Zimmerman Syndrome?

You’re generally better than this sort of post.

The myth of black victimhood dies hard.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Again, it’s incumbent upon law enforcement and the courts to apply and adjudicate the law consistently; and it’s incumbent upon armed citizens to know the law.

But when the law is administered inconsistently, as with the recent case in Florida, making it impossible for armed citizens to comply with the law, the fault for wrongful deaths is the responsibility of law enforcement and the courts, not that of individuals who defend themselves with lethal force in good faith.

Yes, the problem in these cases of a white guy shooting a black ....political pressure is brought to bear. Backed up by the media and the usual suspects. Thus Florida twice now has arrested someone that should not have been arrested...making a mockery of the Florida law on self defense.

Usually, these cases follow a more sane course but when blacks get killed a whole new ballgame gets played and it is basically going against the law. These politicians that get kowtowed into caving in to political or media pressure should do well to remember we are a nation of laws not a nation of special interests overiding the law. The best remedy for this is to vote out of office those who submit to pressure to ignore the law from whatever source.

This case in clearwater...at the very least should have gone to a grand jury first, instead of booting it up to where some politician gets to make the decision to prosecute instead of the citizens.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Well to begin with let us examine exactly what the stand your ground law says.

'A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.'

In nearly every case the defendant in a murder trial claims s/he was afraid for his/her life. This stand your ground law is too subjective, and when the victim is killed with a handgun carried in public, one must consider if such an act is premeditated.

The one exception I would find just, is the Castle Doctrine, See:

Castle doctrine - Wikipedia

The use of force in a stand your grand case must be evaluated, and the Zimmerman Syndrome needs to be considered. Zimmerman ignored dispatch and did not break off following what he considered - or said he did - a suspect, when he had no legal authority to do so.

Zimmerman ignored dispatch and did not break off following what he considered - or said he did - a suspect, when he had no legal authority to do so.

Did he disobey his commanding officer? Did he break a law?
Is there a law in that area against following suspicious punks?

You are confused. You must not have listened to the court testimony. Either that or you are one of these Moon Bats that believed the fake news race bating Libtard narrative of what happen.

I did listen to the trial so I will educate you.

Even though he was under no requirement to do so Zimmerman did follow the advice of the dispatcher and was on his way back to his vehicle when he was attacked by the crazy racist asshole Martin. Martin, who had been on the phone with this ugly fat girlfriend making racist comments about Zimmerman being a "Cracker", which is just as racist coming from a Negro as a White using the N word.

Zimmerman never threatened that Martin asshole one bit but Martin viciously attacked Zimmerman and that is why the jury found in favor of the defendant.

Excellent post...but I think you mistakenly were replying to the wrong poster. That is why I hate this format with the little arrow thingies...so easy to make a mistake. This is the worst format I have ever been on. Why on earth did they go with this type of format with all the little arrow thingies....gets very coinfusing.

 

[Flash]

Well to begin with let us examine exactly what the stand your ground law says.

'A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.'

In nearly every case the defendant in a murder trial claims s/he was afraid for his/her life. This stand your ground law is too subjective, and when the victim is killed with a handgun carried in public, one must consider if such an act is premeditated.

The one exception I would find just, is the Castle Doctrine, See:

Castle doctrine - Wikipedia

The use of force in a stand your grand case must be evaluated, and the Zimmerman Syndrome needs to be considered. Zimmerman ignored dispatch and did not break off following what he considered - or said he did - a suspect, when he had no legal authority to do so.

Zimmerman ignored dispatch and did not break off following what he considered - or said he did - a suspect, when he had no legal authority to do so.

Did he disobey his commanding officer? Did he break a law?
Is there a law in that area against following suspicious punks?

You are confused. You must not have listened to the court testimony. Either that or you are one of these Moon Bats that believed the fake news race bating Libtard narrative of what happen.

I did listen to the trial so I will educate you.

Even though he was under no requirement to do so Zimmerman did follow the advice of the dispatcher and was on his way back to his vehicle when he was attacked by the crazy racist asshole Martin. Martin, who had been on the phone with this ugly fat girlfriend making racist comments about Zimmerman being a "Cracker", which is just as racist coming from a Negro as a White using the N word.

Zimmerman never threatened that Martin asshole one bit but Martin viciously attacked Zimmerman and that is why the jury found in favor of the defendant.

Excellent post...but I think you mistakenly were replying to the wrong poster. That is why I hate this format with the little arrow thingies...so easy to make a mistake. This is the worst format I have ever been on. Why on earth did they go with this type of format with all the little arrow thingies....gets very coinfusing.

I was responding to this comment:

"Zimmerman ignored dispatch and did not break off following what he considered - or said he did - a suspect, when he had no legal authority to do so."

If I screwed up who it was attributed to then I apologize. I think you mistakenly did the same thing earlier.

I have an excuse. I am recovering from eye surgery and my vision is not exactly perfect right now.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well to begin with let us examine exactly what the stand your ground law says.

'A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.'

In nearly every case the defendant in a murder trial claims s/he was afraid for his/her life. This stand your ground law is too subjective, and when the victim is killed with a handgun carried in public, one must consider if such an act is premeditated.

The one exception I would find just, is the Castle Doctrine, See:

Castle doctrine - Wikipedia

The use of force in a stand your grand case must be evaluated, and the Zimmerman Syndrome needs to be considered. Zimmerman ignored dispatch and did not break off following what he considered - or said he did - a suspect, when he had no legal authority to do so.

Zimmerman ignored dispatch and did not break off following what he considered - or said he did - a suspect, when he had no legal authority to do so.

Did he disobey his commanding officer? Did he break a law?
Is there a law in that area against following suspicious punks?

There are laws against vigilantism.

Really? Can you post the Florida law that says following suspicious punks is vigilantism?
Is the punishment for following severe? What if you follow and then yell? Double the punishment?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well to begin with let us examine exactly what the stand your ground law says.

'A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.'

In nearly every case the defendant in a murder trial claims s/he was afraid for his/her life. This stand your ground law is too subjective, and when the victim is killed with a handgun carried in public, one must consider if such an act is premeditated.

The one exception I would find just, is the Castle Doctrine, See:

Castle doctrine - Wikipedia

The use of force in a stand your grand case must be evaluated, and the Zimmerman Syndrome needs to be considered. Zimmerman ignored dispatch and did not break off following what he considered - or said he did - a suspect, when he had no legal authority to do so.

Zimmerman ignored dispatch and did not break off following what he considered - or said he did - a suspect, when he had no legal authority to do so.

Did he disobey his commanding officer? Did he break a law?
Is there a law in that area against following suspicious punks?

First of all the dispatcher had no legal authority to order Z to do anything. Z broke no law by following trayvon a suspect.

As previously pointed out the dispatcher merely said we do not need you to do that. Z replied ok and stopped following trayvon and he had only followed him a short distance...at that point it was fruitless any way as he had completely lost sight of trayvon.

He killed a kid. He was acting as a vigilante motivated by the color of the kids skin. Any other spin supports that sort of behavior, and the bigotry of the spinner.

He killed a kid.

Yup, got that thug good.

He was acting as a vigilante

Defending yourself against a thug bashing your head against the sidewalk ≠ vigilantism.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well to begin with let us examine exactly what the stand your ground law says.

'A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.'

In nearly every case the defendant in a murder trial claims s/he was afraid for his/her life. This stand your ground law is too subjective, and when the victim is killed with a handgun carried in public, one must consider if such an act is premeditated.

The one exception I would find just, is the Castle Doctrine, See:

Castle doctrine - Wikipedia

The use of force in a stand your grand case must be evaluated, and the Zimmerman Syndrome needs to be considered. Zimmerman ignored dispatch and did not break off following what he considered - or said he did - a suspect, when he had no legal authority to do so.

Zimmerman ignored dispatch and did not break off following what he considered - or said he did - a suspect, when he had no legal authority to do so.

Did he disobey his commanding officer? Did he break a law?
Is there a law in that area against following suspicious punks?

You are confused. You must not have listened to the court testimony. Either that or you are one of these Moon Bats that believed the fake news race bating Libtard narrative of what happen.

I did listen to the trial so I will educate you.

Even though he was under no requirement to do so Zimmerman did follow the advice of the dispatcher and was on his way back to his vehicle when he was attacked by the crazy racist asshole Martin. Martin, who had been on the phone with this ugly fat girlfriend making racist comments about Zimmerman being a "Cracker", which is just as racist coming from a Negro as a White using the N word.

Zimmerman never threatened that Martin asshole one bit but Martin viciously attacked Zimmerman and that is why the jury found in favor of the defendant.

I did listen to the trial so I will educate you.

Rest your eyes.
Trayvon got what he deserved.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I live in Florida and love that law.

Anyone breaking into my house will meet my shotgun up close and personal.

I will have no problem blowing off a head or two.

This misses the point, as usual.

No one takes issue with SYG/castle doctrine – anyone who unlawfully enters another’s home places his own life in jeopardy, and is alone responsible for what happens.

Do you go to sleep dreaming about killing some "bad" guy, and being credited as a hero? AKA, do you suffer the Zimmerman Syndrome?

You’re generally better than this sort of post.

Actually I was kind to her, I'll leave it at that.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

This kind of law is easily manipulated. Scenarios are simple to create in which a person could be lured into doing something that could be interpreted as aggressive. Bystanders and witnesses, not seeing the context, could be easily fooled. The intent of the law is understood, but the consequences are too variable.

You may have a point but you need to expound on what you are trying to say....not clear at all....what you are trying to say as in ....'incoherent'

It’s not clear?

My point isn’t example-based. My point is that I feel the best course is to defuse an altercation, rather than exacerbate it. I don’t want to use deadly force, and truly think it should be a last resort.

That clear?

O.K. Yes, now you are making some sense and I agree with you...I would only use deadly force as a last resort. However, all situations are different. A lot of folks are placed in situations where they have no choice...aka kill or be killed. Again...yes if you can defuse a situation by all means defuse it.

However, some folks have a problem really understanding when their life is in danger or maybe they just do not want to believe it. That is how some innocent folks wind up dead. Good judgement is a necessity in life...if you do not have it then you will suffer because of it.

The problem with wanting to use deadly force as a last resort is, you are usually facing someone who uses deadly force first.

good point....but how I define last resort may be diffrent than how you would define it....I would define it as recognizing I had no other option and the quicker one realizes that the better of course.....using deadly force or attempting to use deadly force does not always work out for the victim. It depends in a lot of cases on how fast he is and how accurate he is with his weapon. Too many believe just by displaying a weapon the perp will stop and or run away...perhaps in some cases but not all.

It's all in the resolve.