Is the stand your ground law, a good law?

[Flash]

I live in Florida and think it is a great law.

We have significantly reduced violent crime in the state and that is one of the factors.

If somebody threatens me I want to have the option to defend myself than to be required by the filthy government to try to run away like a little pussy.

I want to defend myself as well -- but I won't physically fight someone, I will just shoot them -- besides, if I physically fight someone and I win, they will shoot me because I beat them up -- might as well skip the fight and just shoot em

I am getting a little too old to go toe to toe in fisticuffs with some 20 year old gangbanger. Like you I would just prefer to shoot 'em.

 

[Rambunctious]

Its a good law but when you have video evidence that contradicts the shooters version of events an arrest is warranted...

 

[MacTheKnife]

It's not a matter of "good" or "bad."

The issue is whether the law is understood by law enforcement, the courts, and armed private citizens.

In many jurisdictions the law is still evolving, lacks comprehensive precedent, and is not being followed or applied consistently.

There is a lot of confusion about the law for sure--mainly generated and stirred up by the media and pc so called legal experts. Even law enforcement adds to the confusion. Why there is so much confusion is simply because of political correctness. Whenever a black gets killed by whites the lilberals, negroes, mass media try to blame the stand your ground law...and the powers that be trying to curry favor with the media and whoever go along with the charade of it being the fault of the stand your ground law.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's not a matter of "good" or "bad."

The issue is whether the law is understood by law enforcement, the courts, and armed private citizens.

In many jurisdictions the law is still evolving, lacks comprehensive precedent, and is not being followed or applied consistently.

So it's like most other new laws.

 

[martybegan]

It's a terrible law.

As was previously stated in this very thread, there's already standing laws for self-defense on the books.

Why add more laws on top of it?

Some of those laws used to require a "duty to retreat" placing the burden on the attacked, not the attacker.

All SYG laws do is clarify that you do not have a legal duty to retreat before you use deadly force.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Its a good law but when you have video evidence that contradicts the shooters version of events an arrest is warranted...

Videos are interpeted in different ways by biased folks. What the law requires is that the person being attacked must be in reasonable fear of his life or of sustaining grievious bodily harm.

Now due to political correctness many always seek to further their agenda of black victimhood by always claiming the black guy is always innocent...no matter how egregious his behavior is or how long his rap sheet is. Thus with the help of the media they are using the stand your ground law as a red herring to claim that white people use the stand your ground law unfairly in order to escape being convicted of murder. They also attempt to demonize Florida Law as being responsible when in fact Floridas law on self defense is similar to that of most states.

 

[candycorn]

It's a terrible law.

As was previously stated in this very thread, there's already standing laws for self-defense on the books.

Why add more laws on top of it?

It harkens back to the idea of the old west where you could shoot people for looking at you funny. Some folks never grow up and, unfortunately, they get to write laws sometimes.

 

[MacTheKnife]

It's a terrible law.

As was previously stated in this very thread, there's already standing laws for self-defense on the books.

Why add more laws on top of it?

Some of those laws used to require a "duty to retreat" placing the burden on the attacked, not the attacker.

All SYG laws do is clarify that you do not have a legal duty to retreat before you use deadly force.

Exactly....but why do so many have trouble understanding that? because of their bias...they want to assume that anytime a white kills a black and gets away it then it is because of a flawed law.

 

[MacTheKnife]

It's a terrible law.

As was previously stated in this very thread, there's already standing laws for self-defense on the books.

Why add more laws on top of it?

It harkens back to the idea of the old west where you could shoot people for looking at you funny. Some folks never grow up and, unfortunately, they get to write laws sometimes.

bwaaaaaaaaaaaa more 'confusion' being exhibited. That was never the law in the old west. Anyhow a very lame attempt to further coinfuse the already coinfused.

 

[martybegan]

It's a terrible law.

As was previously stated in this very thread, there's already standing laws for self-defense on the books.

Why add more laws on top of it?

Some of those laws used to require a "duty to retreat" placing the burden on the attacked, not the attacker.

All SYG laws do is clarify that you do not have a legal duty to retreat before you use deadly force.

Exactly....but why do so many have trouble understanding that? because of their bias...they want to assume that anytime a white kills a black and gets away it then it is because of a flawed law.

People assume it allows someone to start a confrontation and finish it with lethal force.

In some situations that is true, but only in very narrow circumstances.

The Zimmerman/Martin thing had nothing to do with "stand your ground" because at the point of the shooting Zimmerman was prone and martin was beating on him.

 

[Rambunctious]

Its a good law but when you have video evidence that contradicts the shooters version of events an arrest is warranted...

Videos are interpeted in different ways by biased folks. What the law requires is that the person being attacked must be in reasonable fear of his life or of sustaining grievious bodily harm.

Now due to political correctness many always seek to further their agenda of black victimhood by always claiming the black guy is always innocent...no matter how egregious his behavior is or how long his rap sheet is. Thus with the help of the media they are using the stand your ground law as a red herring to claim that white people use the stand your ground law unfairly in order to escape being convicted of murder. They also attempt to demonize Florida Law as being responsible when in fact Floridas law on self defense is similar to that of most states.

I agree with what you said but I watched the full video of the Florida shooting and the man on the ground did not have to shoot....the aggressor was backing up....no reasonable person could feel otherwise...
I'm a member of the NRA a former Marine and an avid hunter and gun collector...I am not biased against the stand your ground law...I support it...but I have eyes...

 

[MacTheKnife]

If it's used correctly it's a great law. An individual should have the absolute right to defend themselves

Well, of course we had the right to defend ourselves in Florida before the stand your ground statute was put in force. Yet what is happening in just about every case if not every case now where a white guy kills a black(very rarely happens anyhow...blacks kill most of the blacks killed) the media trots out the stand your ground law to use as a red herring like Florida law on self defense is just so different from all other states and that it is the stand your ground law that enables whites to kill blacks. Thus an attempt to demonize Florida and blame it when a negro gets killed by a white. Ridiculous.

Florida law on self defense is very similar to that of most states.

The media is bascially a bunch of assholes.

Yes, but unfortunately they have the power to deceive many,many folks. Thankfully, many are waking up to the reality of fake news.

 

[MacTheKnife]

No.

Fewer dead people is better than more dead people.

Correction..............fewer dead good people is desirable. More dead thugs and other assorted violent criminals is also a good thing.

 

[G.T.]

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.'

It's good in theory, but the part that's too subjective is "reasonably believes," and loose language in something as specific as a Law should be is kind of scary.

 

[MacTheKnife]

It's a terrible law.

As was previously stated in this very thread, there's already standing laws for self-defense on the books.

Why add more laws on top of it?

Some of those laws used to require a "duty to retreat" placing the burden on the attacked, not the attacker.

All SYG laws do is clarify that you do not have a legal duty to retreat before you use deadly force.

Exactly....but why do so many have trouble understanding that? because of their bias...they want to assume that anytime a white kills a black and gets away it then it is because of a flawed law.

People assume it allows someone to start a confrontation and finish it with lethal force.

In some situations that is true, but only in very narrow circumstances.

The Zimmerman/Martin thing had nothing to do with "stand your ground" because at the point of the shooting Zimmerman was prone and martin was beating on him.

Yes, and in the Zimmerman case the defense team made it quite clear they would not use the stand your ground law and they did not...it was a simple case of self defense. However the media continuously harped on it being a stand your ground case and so called legal experts that should have nown better went along with them.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

If only we can do something about the racial disparity of stand your ground defenses.....It should NOT be such a slam dunk when whites use stand your ground against blacks -- but an uphill battle when blacks use it against whites (1% success rate) - matter of fact, if you are white, you 300 times more likely to be justified in killing a black guy than another white guy...That's Awesome if you are into killing black guys.

Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ Convictions Have Racial Bias | Institute for Public Health | Washington University in St. Louis

 

[MacTheKnife]

Its a good law but when you have video evidence that contradicts the shooters version of events an arrest is warranted...

Videos are interpeted in different ways by biased folks. What the law requires is that the person being attacked must be in reasonable fear of his life or of sustaining grievious bodily harm.

Now due to political correctness many always seek to further their agenda of black victimhood by always claiming the black guy is always innocent...no matter how egregious his behavior is or how long his rap sheet is. Thus with the help of the media they are using the stand your ground law as a red herring to claim that white people use the stand your ground law unfairly in order to escape being convicted of murder. They also attempt to demonize Florida Law as being responsible when in fact Floridas law on self defense is similar to that of most states.

I agree with what you said but I watched the full video of the Florida shooting and the man on the ground did not have to shoot....the aggressor was backing up....no reasonable person could feel otherwise...
I'm a member of the NRA a former Marine and an avid hunter and gun collector...I am not biased against the stand your ground law...I support it...but I have eyes...

What you are missing is how fast it went down. Watch the video again and use your stopwatch...count how many seconds went by after the white guy managed to get his pistol out...and he shot the black.............and it is also quite obvious the black guy was continuing to advance after he knocked down the white guy until he saw the pistol come out and he sort of lurched backwards and to the side.

A big mistake a lot of folks make is to assume violence prone individuals(the black guy had been arrested for assault before) are logical or rational whereas in real life they are often governed by emotion aka anger. The black guy rushed out of the store fit to be tied and could hardly wait to attack the white guy based on what? Some white dude went into the store and told him something that enraged him...I have seen no reports on exactly what he told him if anyone knows.

If you are in fear of your life when you pull your pistol out you best use it and use it to the best of your ability if you value your life. Just pointing a pistol at someone is no gurantee they will cease their aggressive criminal behavior. Sure the black guy was supprised so see the pistol and his reflex action was to lurch backwards....but say the white guy did not shoot...what would the black guy have done next? No one knows. He was very close to the white guy on the ground which is critical. Anyhow most likely the black guy when he saw the white guy was not shooting and was just waving the gun around would most likely have attempted to engage him in conversation such as ...what you pointing that gun at me for? He might even be angrier now that a gun had been pulled on him....also his g/f was close by. Either one of them upon seeing the white guy was apparantly not going to use the weapon could have rushed him, taken the gun away and shot him with his own weapon. Not like it has never happened before. No just pointing or waving your gun around is no gurantee that it will end the assault. Now most guys might cease and desist when a weapon is pointed at them but not all violent prone thugs will...thus it was a good shoot.

 

[Flash]

It's a terrible law.

As was previously stated in this very thread, there's already standing laws for self-defense on the books.

Why add more laws on top of it?

Some of those laws used to require a "duty to retreat" placing the burden on the attacked, not the attacker.

All SYG laws do is clarify that you do not have a legal duty to retreat before you use deadly force.

Exactly....but why do so many have trouble understanding that? because of their bias...they want to assume that anytime a white kills a black and gets away it then it is because of a flawed law.

People assume it allows someone to start a confrontation and finish it with lethal force.

In some situations that is true, but only in very narrow circumstances.

The Zimmerman/Martin thing had nothing to do with "stand your ground" because at the point of the shooting Zimmerman was prone and martin was beating on him.

True. The defense did not even claim Stand Your Ground in the defense. It was self defense plain and simple and the jury agreed.

 

[MrShangles]

No.

Fewer dead people is better than more dead people.

Maybe the thugs didn’t get the memo!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MacTheKnife]

If only we can do something about the racial disparity of stand your ground defenses.....It should NOT be such a slam dunk when whites use stand your ground against blacks -- but an uphill battle when blacks use it against whites (1% success rate) - matter of fact, if you are white, you 300 times more likely to be justified in killing a black guy than another white guy...That's Awesome if you are into killing black guys.

Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ Convictions Have Racial Bias | Institute for Public Health | Washington University in St. Louis

If only we can do something about the racial disparity of stand your ground defenses.....It should NOT be such a slam dunk when whites use stand your ground against blacks -- but an uphill battle when blacks use it against whites (1% success rate) - matter of fact, if you are white, you 300 times more likely to be justified in killing a black guy than another white guy...That's Awesome if you are into killing black guys.

Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ Convictions Have Racial Bias | Institute for Public Health | Washington University in St. Louis

You are confused. Blacks kill more whites than whites kill blacks even though blacks compose only approx. l2 percent of the total pop. And, even worse of those blacks who do the killing (young black males) they compose only 2.5 per cent of the pop. Thus we have a group (young black males) that compose only 2.5 percent of the total pop. committing over half of all violent crimes in America aka...rape and murder.

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/race-and-homicide-in-america-by-the-numbers

Also, Washington Univ. in St. Louis is a hotbed of liberalism and poliltical correctness...such data as they collect can be assumed to be biased and with good cause.

Another factor that should be considered and it is not a matter of color....as in it is usually a matter of specific actions ...blacks are more prone to violence and crime and thus a good reason for their high rate of conviction...not based on their color but their behavior ie their specific action in each of these case...thus the Wash u study is flawed.