Is the stand your ground law, a good law?

[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.

You had that before stand your ground or are you saying it was mandatory to do nothing while people broke into your house?

Nope. I sure wouldn't stand around. I'd shoot the bastards. That's what a shotgun is for.

You can stand around if you want. But I sure won't.

Exactly....stand around wave your weapon and wait for the thug to take it away form you. If you value your life shoot the b.s.o.b. as in it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Do blacks have equal justification to be fearful of whites to the point they can just shoot them the minute they feel threatened?

I saw this black guy get followed home by this white guy in a van, the white guy was calling him racial slurs, yelling at him --- shouldn't the black guy have shot him?

It does not appear there is a reason for the black to fear his life was in danger....just insulting someone or following them home are not reasons in and of themselves to place one in reasonable fear of his life. However, if those following him say something like we are going to kill you or exhibit some threatening action like pointing a gun at him then the black could be said to be in reasonable fear of his life and entitled to use deadly force to preserve his life and limb.

 

[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.

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.

Well, you are short on particulars as in what is the situation you propose? What is it you could escape from? Is it possible to defuse the situation? Of course if it is possible one should defuse the situation. However you are not being clear.....is the subject in your theoretical equation really in fear of his life to begin with? You are not being explicit enough in your example.

The law of self defense does not prohibit anyone from fleeing, de-escalating, defusing or any other tactic you think could help the situation. Personally, if I had a chance to escape without encountering peril as in if I could get away without endangering myself...I would do that before I used deadly force....simply because you are opening up a big can of worms when you use deadly force. Best to avoid all that if you possibly can.

Unfortunately, and there have been cases of it documented ...some people simply cannot kill anyone...they can have a loaded gun in their hand and a thug could be advancing on them threatening to kill them and even have a knife or gun in his hand and they cannot shoot. In most cases women but it is a known phenomenon.

In combat units in Vietnam they had a problem with guys who would not shoot....to stop that problem when they got a new guy in the unit...at the first opportunity they would have him empty a clip into a dead body....this seemed to dispel the fear or reluctance to fire at the enemy.

 

[ricechickie]

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?

 

[MacTheKnife]

Do I have to retreat?
Have I retreated enough?
Now that I've retreated am I allowed to defend myself?

Technically, it can be argued that there's "hoops" to all laws.

Part of being part of a society.

No?

And the fewer hoops involved when your life is in danger, the better.

Unless the dead people are trying to attack you.

By the way, do you feel that less children killed on demand is better than more children killed on demand or do you only apply that standard to Black thugs that get killed when they attack Whites?

What the hell you are talking about? I have no idea. Could someone interpet this?

 

[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.

You had that before stand your ground or are you saying it was mandatory to do nothing while people broke into your house?

Nope. I sure wouldn't stand around. I'd shoot the bastards. That's what a shotgun is for.

You can stand around if you want. But I sure won't.

Exactly....stand around wave your weapon and wait for the thug to take it away form you. If you value your life shoot the b.s.o.b. as in it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Oh I'll be firing my weapon. Not waving it around. Of course my dogs could always chew the shit out of them. But my shotgun will make it permanent.

Good attitude and a shotgun is best for home defense I think...hard to miss with a load of buckshot. Good guard dogs are always a good thing to have especially in rural areas.

 

[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.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Its almost like a black guy can be confronted by a Klan or Neo Nazi member, and still be called a thug if he shoots that Klan member due to his reasonable fear of that Klan member -- geesh, no wonder we feel much better when our blacks are more subservient and docile

What prejudiced as in biased nonsense. First of all the klan has not been violent for decades...now your supposition might hold some water like about a hundred years ago....but even then few blacks were bothered unless they had comitted a heinious crime aka murder or rape...that is what got most of them strung up by vigilantes...whites as well as blacks.

 

[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.

My wife is a retired school teacher. She has true grit but she would have a hard time standing up to some 20 year old gang banger. She knows how to use a gun and she conceal carries.

Florida law allows her to have great leeway in protecting herself and that is a good thing. She doesn't have to worry about being second guessed if she is threatened.

Like yourself I would pity the guy the guy that would threaten her. She has the ability, skill and mental fortitude to do what is necessary and the law in Florida would give her the presumption of innocence.

Great post and it makes clear the value of being armed...especially women. More women should be armed and take classes on self defense and spend time on the range getting proficient in the use of a weapon.

 

[Flash]

[QUO


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.

There is a time and place for the use of deadly force. Like when Zimmerman had that idiot crazy kid on top of him trying to bash his head into concrete.

I will try to diffuse the situation and walk away if I can. However, if I can't then the person assaulting me better be prepared to have a bad day.

 

[MacTheKnife]

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.

As long as people think it's okay for criminals to do what they shouldn't be doing, then what difference does it make the hicks and billys are doing the same thing?

heheh exactly. Obviously she does not even understand what the law is. Being indoctrinated into believing blacks are always innocent...despite the fact that young black males comitt over half of all violent crimes in America including rape as well as murder and as previously documented blacks kill more whites than whites kill blacks even though blacks are a minority.

Even tho that is not entirely true -- it does help to have those type of inflammatory stats when you want to make it easier to kill black folks

In fact, since we all agree that blacks are just mostly violent savages -- like we have always characterized them since they've existed here -- wouldn't it be reasonable to find their very existence a threat?

Just shoot em on sight when you see one and them quote stats about how violent they are -- it worked for the jews when they wanted to stand their ground against --- oh wait

Nonsense. Jews and blacks have nothing in common.
chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html

Yea, fair point...even though Jews lived in a country where they had a very rational fear of being murdered by Germans -- apparently, that doesn't make Germans inherently violent


Meanwhile, blacks are just violent no matter what the conditions --- geesh, it must really suck to be black -- if only there were things "good" blacks could do to not make whites feel afraid when they bump into each other on the street

What utter rubbish you speak. First of all in Germany it was a state policy to eradicate Jews. Not anywhere near or close to the racial problem we have in America...quite the opposite in fact. In America we give extra protection to minorities ...it comes under civil rights. You are biased and coinfused and even worse than that such ignorance as you expound creates or helps created hate crimes against whites...blacks have been indoctrinated to believe the rubbish you preach aka black victimhood...no mater the facts...yes do not let the fact that blacks kill more whites than whites kill blacks even though blacks are a minority interfere with your story telling.........https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/race-and-homicide-in-america-by-the-numbers

 

[tycho1572]

While I don’t think he should’ve shot that guy for pushing him down, I do think it’s an excellent law.

 

[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?

 

[toobfreak]

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.

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.....

Hey DumberThan Shit,
It is EXACTLY because it hinges on a situation that YOU BELIEVE you are in danger of grave bodily harm and in fear of your life that THE VICTIM CHOOSES IT. What do you think Dickwad, that the ASSAILANT tells you: "Put that gun down, I intend you no harm yet!" and tells you when the danger is real? It works exactly the same way a woman does when she feels sexually harassed or in fear of abuse. The stand your ground law works exactly as it does for the police, when the victim feels he/she must act in order to save their life. Of course, with the cops, all they need is their word: "I saw a shadow. It was a cellphone. I shot and killed him because I thought it might be loaded." With you, you have to show reasonable grounds. It can't be in the back. Only cops get to shoot you in the back running away. But the victim decides when grievous danger has been reached.

 

[MacTheKnife]

While I don’t think he should’ve shot that guy for pushing him down, I do think it’s an excellent law.

He did not shoot the guy for pushing him down...he used deadly force because he was in fear of his life and or grievious bodily harm...if you watch the video carefully you will see the black guy continuing to advance on the fellow he put on the ground until he sees the pistol come out.

 

[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.

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.....

Hey DumberThan Shit,
It is EXACTLY because it hinges on a situation that YOU BELIEVE you are in danger of grave bodily harm and in fear of your life that THE VICTIM CHOOSES IT. What do you think Dickwad, that the ASSAILANT tells you: "Put that gun down, I intend you no harm yet!" and tells you when the danger is real? It works exactly the same way a woman does when she feels sexually harassed or in fear of abuse. The stand your ground law works exactly as it does for the police, when the victim feels he/she must act in order to save their life. Of course, with the cops, all they need is their word: "I saw a shadow. It was a cellphone. I shot and killed him because I thought it might be loaded." With you, you have to show reasonable grounds. It can't be in the back. Only cops get to shoot you in the back running away. But the victim decides when grievous danger has been reached.

You seem not to understand what I am saying....the victim does not choose to be put in a situation where his life is on the line.

The self defense law is there to protect those who use deadly force to preserve their life or prevent grievious bodily injury.

The stand your ground law adds to that by declaring you do not have to flee,retreat or run away before using deadly force if you are in reasonable fear of your life.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[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?

There are laws against vigilantism.

bwaaaaa obviously you do not even know what vigilantism is. Where do these morons come from?

but phuleeeze for shits and grins please feel free to expound on it. hehheh

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.