Is the stand your ground law, a good law?

[2aguy]

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

That's why I say it's a terrible law.

Because the law isn't the law, for blacks, if you get my meaning.

Just like how blacks get harsher sentences, for doing the same things whites do, we tend to get the brown end of the stick, if you get my meaning.

America has a lot of issues it's still grappling with, because they fail to be honest with their past, they can't recon with the present, and won't be able to recon w/their future, if you get my meaning.

Until things are equitable, it will remain a terrible law, basically a license for hicks and billys to shoot blacks and get away w/it.

Yeah, you don't know what you are talking about...

Blacks benefit from Florida ‘Stand Your Ground’ law at disproportionate rate

African Americans benefit from Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” self-defense law at a rate far out of proportion to their presence in the state’s population, despite an assertion by Attorney General Eric Holder that repealing “Stand Your Ground” would help African Americans.

Black Floridians have made about a third of the state’s total “Stand Your Ground” claims in homicide cases, a rate nearly double the black percentage of Florida’s population. The majority of those claims have been successful, a success rate that exceeds that for Florida whites.

------

But approximately one third of Florida “Stand Your Ground” claims in fatal cases have been made by black defendants, and they have used the defense successfully 55 percent of the time, at the same rate as the population at large and at a higher rate than white defendants, according to a Daily Caller analysis of a database maintained by the Tampa Bay Times. Additionally, the majority of victims in Florida “Stand Your Ground” cases have been white.

African Americans used “Stand Your Ground” defenses at nearly twice the rate of their presence in the Florida population, which was listed at 16.6 percent in 2012.

One hundred thirty three people in the state of Florida have used a “Stand Your Ground” defense. Of these claims, 73 were considered “justified” (55 percent), while 39 resulted in criminal convictions and 21 cases are still pending.

Forty four African Americans in the state of Florida have claimed a “Stand Your Ground” defense. Of these claims, 24 were considered “justified” (55 percent), while 11 resulted in convictions and nine cases are still pending.

Of the 76 white people who have used the defense, 40 were considered “justified” (less than 53 percent), while 25 were convicted and 11 cases are still pending.

Ten Hispanics have used the defense, seven of them successfully, according to the database, which included George Zimmerman as a “Stand Your Ground” defendant.

Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” cases have resulted in 78 white victims against 40 black victims, including Martin, and 10 Hispanic victims.
------

“For a defense attorney, it (stand your ground) is an excellent tool. Even if your client is not found legal under stand your ground, it helps you flesh out the issues as the case proceeds to trial… It’s an opportunity to push forward with that position while also forcing the state to show their hand,” said defense attorney Chuck Hobbs, whose 20-year-old African-American client Earl Jackson was found not guilty of murder but was convicted on lesser charges after a 2009 gang shootout in a Tallahassee parking lot that left an innocent bystander dead.

Then-19-year-old African American Tony Hayward of Palm Beach County also benefited from the “Stand Your Ground” defense when he was acquitted in the shooting death of 22-year old Jyron Miles.

“Besides the shooter’s word and a grainy surveillance video, jurors had little to go on when deciding if Tony Hayward was defending his life when he shot and killed Jyron Miles, 22. Hayward, then 19, and his father were delivering newspapers when Miles appeared at about 3 a.m., according to newspaper reports. They said Miles aggressively demanded ‘is you straight?’ a phrase sometimes used to see if someone has drugs,” according to the Tampa Bay Times database. “The father and son said Miles then reached for what they thought was a gun, so the teen fired. The video did not show whether Miles had a gun, but police did not find one when they arrived…At his second trial in early 2011, Hayward was acquitted. His public defender argued that Hayward was standing his ground during the confrontation.”

 

[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...

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.

I'll watch it again....

 

[2aguy]

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.

Stand Your Ground doesn't apply in your home, that would be the Castle Doctrine. Stand Your Ground comes into play when you are out in public.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

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.

It is a good law if the people know when to use it.

 

[2aguy]

SYG Laws aside, anyone who shoots in self defense must justify the act.

There is no presupposition of innocence because it is admitted that the person acting in self defense did indeed shoot someone.

What Stand Your Ground does is remove the requirement that you, as the victim, have to justify why you did not run away when attacked. That was the law before Stand Your Ground....before anything else was figured out, you would have to show you were incapable, in any way, of running away..... then, once you, the victim showed that, then they went on to wether it was self defense. If you got the wrong prosecutor, he would arrest you if he thought there was any way you could have escaped.....like jumping a fence and out running the bad guy...

 

[ricechickie]

It seems like the law makes it easier on those wbo would rather escalate, than defuse, an altercation.

 

[there4eyeM]

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.

 

[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

That's why I say it's a terrible law.

Because the law isn't the law, for blacks, if you get my meaning.

Just like how blacks get harsher sentences, for doing the same things whites do, we tend to get the brown end of the stick, if you get my meaning.

America has a lot of issues it's still grappling with, because they fail to be honest with their past, they can't recon with the present, and won't be able to recon w/their future, if you get my meaning.

Until things are equitable, it will remain a terrible law, basically a license for hicks and billys to shoot blacks and get away w/it.

Yeah, you don't know what you are talking about...

Blacks benefit from Florida ‘Stand Your Ground’ law at disproportionate rate

African Americans benefit from Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” self-defense law at a rate far out of proportion to their presence in the state’s population, despite an assertion by Attorney General Eric Holder that repealing “Stand Your Ground” would help African Americans.

Black Floridians have made about a third of the state’s total “Stand Your Ground” claims in homicide cases, a rate nearly double the black percentage of Florida’s population. The majority of those claims have been successful, a success rate that exceeds that for Florida whites.

------

But approximately one third of Florida “Stand Your Ground” claims in fatal cases have been made by black defendants, and they have used the defense successfully 55 percent of the time, at the same rate as the population at large and at a higher rate than white defendants, according to a Daily Caller analysis of a database maintained by the Tampa Bay Times. Additionally, the majority of victims in Florida “Stand Your Ground” cases have been white.

African Americans used “Stand Your Ground” defenses at nearly twice the rate of their presence in the Florida population, which was listed at 16.6 percent in 2012.

One hundred thirty three people in the state of Florida have used a “Stand Your Ground” defense. Of these claims, 73 were considered “justified” (55 percent), while 39 resulted in criminal convictions and 21 cases are still pending.

Forty four African Americans in the state of Florida have claimed a “Stand Your Ground” defense. Of these claims, 24 were considered “justified” (55 percent), while 11 resulted in convictions and nine cases are still pending.

Of the 76 white people who have used the defense, 40 were considered “justified” (less than 53 percent), while 25 were convicted and 11 cases are still pending.

Ten Hispanics have used the defense, seven of them successfully, according to the database, which included George Zimmerman as a “Stand Your Ground” defendant.

Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” cases have resulted in 78 white victims against 40 black victims, including Martin, and 10 Hispanic victims.
------

“For a defense attorney, it (stand your ground) is an excellent tool. Even if your client is not found legal under stand your ground, it helps you flesh out the issues as the case proceeds to trial… It’s an opportunity to push forward with that position while also forcing the state to show their hand,” said defense attorney Chuck Hobbs, whose 20-year-old African-American client Earl Jackson was found not guilty of murder but was convicted on lesser charges after a 2009 gang shootout in a Tallahassee parking lot that left an innocent bystander dead.

Then-19-year-old African American Tony Hayward of Palm Beach County also benefited from the “Stand Your Ground” defense when he was acquitted in the shooting death of 22-year old Jyron Miles.

“Besides the shooter’s word and a grainy surveillance video, jurors had little to go on when deciding if Tony Hayward was defending his life when he shot and killed Jyron Miles, 22. Hayward, then 19, and his father were delivering newspapers when Miles appeared at about 3 a.m., according to newspaper reports. They said Miles aggressively demanded ‘is you straight?’ a phrase sometimes used to see if someone has drugs,” according to the Tampa Bay Times database. “The father and son said Miles then reached for what they thought was a gun, so the teen fired. The video did not show whether Miles had a gun, but police did not find one when they arrived…At his second trial in early 2011, Hayward was acquitted. His public defender argued that Hayward was standing his ground during the confrontation.”

I was very explicit about what I said -- it is easier for anyone -- especially a white guy to launch a successful stand your ground defense against a black victim -- it is HARDER for anyone, especially a black guy to launch a successful stand your ground defense against a white victim..

Racial bias and 'stand your ground' laws: what the data show

Now the article is from the Christian Science Monitor, that liberal rag -- and the study was conducted by the equally liberal Texas A&M -- the study states:

"In states with stand-your-ground laws, the shooting of a black person by a white person is found justifiable 17 percent of the time, while the shooting of a white person by a black person is deemed justifiable just over 1 percent of the time, according to the study. In states without stand-your-ground laws, white-on-black shootings are found justified just over 9 percent of the time."

Such findings "show that it's just harder for black defendants to assert stand-your-ground defense if the victim is white, and easier for whites to raise a stand-your-ground defense if the victims are black," says Darren Hutchinson, a law professor and civil rights law expert at the University of Florida in Gainesville. "The bottom line is that it's really easy for juries to accept that whites had to defend themselves against persons of color."

Let me know if you can point anything out from the links you posted that refutes the whole racial disparity concerns I addressed..

 

[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.

It is a good law if the people know when to use it.

I agree with you.

I am very familiar with firearms being a NRA Certified Firearms Instructor and Range Officer.

When I teach a class to beginners I always stress safety. When I teach concealed carry I stress restraint.

Just because you can shoot somebody doesn't mean you should. The fallout, including legal fees, can be enormous even when you did everything according to the law.

Even if the person was a lowlife scumbag that needed to be wasted I wouldn't do it unless it was an imminent threat of him killing me.

I know how to use a firearm in self defense and I have a valid Florida carry license. However, I very seldom carry because I know that there is the possibility to over react when I am armed. I only carry like if I am going to inner city Tampa or Orlando or be out in a potentially bad area at night. My wife actually carries more than I do.

 

[whitehall]

Like most laws pertaining to self defense it's the best compromise lawmakers could come up with that takes into account the sanctity of someone's home. The left has the primary voice in the media so we mostly hear about the (few) tragedies and almost never the (many) victories of armed self defense.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

 

[MacTheKnife]

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.

It is a good law if the people know when to use it.

I agree with you.

I am very familiar with firearms being a NRA Certified Firearms Instructor and Range Officer.

When I teach a class to beginners I always stress safety. When I teach concealed carry I stress restraint.

Just because you can shoot somebody doesn't mean you should. The fallout, including legal fees, can be enormous even when you did everything according to the law.

Even if the person was a lowlife scumbag that needed to be wasted I wouldn't do it unless it was an imminent threat of him killing me.

I know how to use a firearm in self defense and I have a valid Florida carry license. However, I very seldom carry because I know that there is the possibility to over react when I am armed. I only carry like if I am going to inner city Tampa or Orlando or be out in a potentially bad area at night. My wife actually carries more than I do.

Excellent analysis....bottom line as you say....do not use your weapon unless you are in reasonable fear of your life and even then (especially if you kill a negro)the world being the way it is today--as in so many hyper sensistive types that think anyone who carries or uses a gun is already a criminal --if you live in a area where such types have political influence you may be brought up on some kind of charge. So it comes down really to had you rather be judged by l2 instead of carried by six.

I also have weapons but I rarely carry like you ...only if I know I am going to be in a dangerous area...but I always carry a knife...and this is a good option for self defense...not nearly as controversial and very effective at close quarters if you know how to use it.

 

[toobfreak]

Is the stand your ground law, a good law?
'

Break into my house Dickwad and try taking my stuff and I'll let you know.

 

[Dragonlady]

Is the stand your ground law, a good law?
'

Break into my house Dickwad and try taking my stuff and I'll let you know.

You don’t have a gun. Guns are illegal in Russia.

 

[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.

Sir, with all due respect you are either misinformed or a liar. Zimmerman did not ignore dispatch...yet we see folks like you get on the board and say stuff about the Z case that is not true. The call between dispatch and zimmerman was recorded and is available to all who want to listen...it is even posted on this board. Once again...here is the truth....Dispatch asked Z if he was following the suspect....Z had followed the suspect a short distance after telling Dispatch that Trayvon had taken off running....and dispatch asked which way was Trayvon running to...so Z followed him for just a short few seconds to try and determine which way he had run off to...it being a dark and rainy night and dispatch heard the wind in Z's phone and asked him if he was following Trayvon...Z said yes...dispatch said we do not need you to do that and Z replied o.k. and stopped This has all been documented, presented at the trial and is availabe for anyone to listen to yet....folks like you keep spreading lies and disinformation.

Also,,,Z nor any citizen needs any legal authority to follow someone they think is suspicious or a suspect of some nature. Thus you do not know what the hell you are talking about. And your drivel about the stand your ground law is extremely flawed also.....all it says and means is that one is not required to retreat aka flee, aka run away before using deadly force.....and it is quite simple yet many are coinfused about it just like you are....why is that? because you listen to fake news who mislead and confuse you.

Everyone should just strike through everything you posted above....just pure b.s.

BTW any evaluating that needs to be done can be done by the investigative team or by a jury if a trial is deemed appropriate. Folks want to complicate things too much and when you add their ignorance to it...a lot of confusion is the result.

 

[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'

 

[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

That's why I say it's a terrible law.

Because the law isn't the law, for blacks, if you get my meaning.

Just like how blacks get harsher sentences, for doing the same things whites do, we tend to get the brown end of the stick, if you get my meaning.

America has a lot of issues it's still grappling with, because they fail to be honest with their past, they can't recon with the present, and won't be able to recon w/their future, if you get my meaning.

Until things are equitable, it will remain a terrible law, basically a license for hicks and billys to shoot blacks and get away w/it.

Yeah, you don't know what you are talking about...

Blacks benefit from Florida ‘Stand Your Ground’ law at disproportionate rate

African Americans benefit from Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” self-defense law at a rate far out of proportion to their presence in the state’s population, despite an assertion by Attorney General Eric Holder that repealing “Stand Your Ground” would help African Americans.

Black Floridians have made about a third of the state’s total “Stand Your Ground” claims in homicide cases, a rate nearly double the black percentage of Florida’s population. The majority of those claims have been successful, a success rate that exceeds that for Florida whites.

------

But approximately one third of Florida “Stand Your Ground” claims in fatal cases have been made by black defendants, and they have used the defense successfully 55 percent of the time, at the same rate as the population at large and at a higher rate than white defendants, according to a Daily Caller analysis of a database maintained by the Tampa Bay Times. Additionally, the majority of victims in Florida “Stand Your Ground” cases have been white.

African Americans used “Stand Your Ground” defenses at nearly twice the rate of their presence in the Florida population, which was listed at 16.6 percent in 2012.

One hundred thirty three people in the state of Florida have used a “Stand Your Ground” defense. Of these claims, 73 were considered “justified” (55 percent), while 39 resulted in criminal convictions and 21 cases are still pending.

Forty four African Americans in the state of Florida have claimed a “Stand Your Ground” defense. Of these claims, 24 were considered “justified” (55 percent), while 11 resulted in convictions and nine cases are still pending.

Of the 76 white people who have used the defense, 40 were considered “justified” (less than 53 percent), while 25 were convicted and 11 cases are still pending.

Ten Hispanics have used the defense, seven of them successfully, according to the database, which included George Zimmerman as a “Stand Your Ground” defendant.

Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” cases have resulted in 78 white victims against 40 black victims, including Martin, and 10 Hispanic victims.
------

“For a defense attorney, it (stand your ground) is an excellent tool. Even if your client is not found legal under stand your ground, it helps you flesh out the issues as the case proceeds to trial… It’s an opportunity to push forward with that position while also forcing the state to show their hand,” said defense attorney Chuck Hobbs, whose 20-year-old African-American client Earl Jackson was found not guilty of murder but was convicted on lesser charges after a 2009 gang shootout in a Tallahassee parking lot that left an innocent bystander dead.

Then-19-year-old African American Tony Hayward of Palm Beach County also benefited from the “Stand Your Ground” defense when he was acquitted in the shooting death of 22-year old Jyron Miles.

“Besides the shooter’s word and a grainy surveillance video, jurors had little to go on when deciding if Tony Hayward was defending his life when he shot and killed Jyron Miles, 22. Hayward, then 19, and his father were delivering newspapers when Miles appeared at about 3 a.m., according to newspaper reports. They said Miles aggressively demanded ‘is you straight?’ a phrase sometimes used to see if someone has drugs,” according to the Tampa Bay Times database. “The father and son said Miles then reached for what they thought was a gun, so the teen fired. The video did not show whether Miles had a gun, but police did not find one when they arrived…At his second trial in early 2011, Hayward was acquitted. His public defender argued that Hayward was standing his ground during the confrontation.”

I was very explicit about what I said -- it is easier for anyone -- especially a white guy to launch a successful stand your ground defense against a black victim -- it is HARDER for anyone, especially a black guy to launch a successful stand your ground defense against a white victim..

Racial bias and 'stand your ground' laws: what the data show

Now the article is from the Christian Science Monitor, that liberal rag -- and the study was conducted by the equally liberal Texas A&M -- the study states:

"In states with stand-your-ground laws, the shooting of a black person by a white person is found justifiable 17 percent of the time, while the shooting of a white person by a black person is deemed justifiable just over 1 percent of the time, according to the study. In states without stand-your-ground laws, white-on-black shootings are found justified just over 9 percent of the time."

Such findings "show that it's just harder for black defendants to assert stand-your-ground defense if the victim is white, and easier for whites to raise a stand-your-ground defense if the victims are black," says Darren Hutchinson, a law professor and civil rights law expert at the University of Florida in Gainesville. "The bottom line is that it's really easy for juries to accept that whites had to defend themselves against persons of color."

Let me know if you can point anything out from the links you posted that refutes the whole racial disparity concerns I addressed..

You are entitled to your opinion but that is all you have and it is not enough. Opinions are like assholes....everyone has one and yours is extremely biased all wrapped up in your liberal do gooder nonsense of black victimhood....oh da poor darkies they are just so discriminated against......meanwhile back the ranch they are running around (young black males) comitting over half of all violent crimes in America.... whilst only composing 2.5 percent of the total pop. that is what you need to focus on along with the mayhem in chicago of particular note where blacks slaughter each other at rates unprecedented in our entire history...and no one gives a damn...why is dat dearie?

 

[MacTheKnife]

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.

It is a good law if the people know when to use it.

Unfortunately, I think you are a tad coinfused. The stand your ground law is not something you keep up on your shelf and suddenly decide one day to use it.

The stand your ground law comes into play if you are subjected to a situation that puts you in fear of your life and or of grievious bodily harm...that is not something a victim chooses....it is something inflicted on them by a situation they have no control over other than to use whatever means they have to defend themselve including deadly force.

That is the law of self defense and has been around forever....aka...you are entitled to use deadly force anytime you are placed in fear of your life.

The stand your ground law merely adds to the self defense law by declaring one does not have to retreat as in flee or run away before they use deadly force.

I think you probably understand this but you just did not use good terminology.

 

[MacTheKnife]

It seems like the law makes it easier on those wbo would rather escalate, than defuse, an altercation.

Well, your example is very nebulous and in you really do no have an example. You need to expound a bit on what your point is....assuming you have one?

 

[ricechickie]

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.

It is a good law if the people know when to use it.

Unfortunately, I think you are a tad coinfused. The stand your ground law is not something you keep up on your shelf and suddenly decide one day to use it.

The stand your ground law comes into play if you are subjected to a situation that puts you in fear of your life and or of grievious bodily harm...that is not something a victim chooses....it is something inflicted on them by a situation they have no control over other than to use whatever means they have to defend themselve including deadly force.

That is the law of self defense and has been around forever....aka...you are entitled to use deadly force anytime you are placed in fear of your life.

The stand your ground law merely adds to the self defense law by declaring one does not have to retreat as in flee or run away before they use deadly force.

I think you probably understand this but you just did not use good terminology.

But why?

Isn’t trying to defuse or escape the situation a better choice than just pulling out the deadly force?

Deadly force can’t be taken back. I couldn’t take back shooting someone over what might have been a misunderstanding.