Just an observation about "Stand your Ground" and how utterly regressive it is

[1-Old-Man]

Stand your ground laws are those that make it lawful to shoot someone without first having taken all possible steps to avoid having to do so. In a state which has such a law a person may shoot someone whom they feel threatens their life, even if safe escape from the situation is available to them.

This law has had the effect of legalizing dueling.

Let is say that you and I have a great difference of philosophy and argue heatedly over a point. With no resolution at hand each of us threatens the other and agrees to meet at some place and time to 'settle the matter'. We intend to fight a duel to the death. So the appointed time arrives and we are both at the place. We are both armed and neither of us is willing to back down. In fact the state we are in does not require that either of us turn and leave because it has a "Stand your Ground" law. So there we stand, back to back. We take the requisite number of paces then turn to fire. At that moment each of us is clearly in a position in which he can reasonably believe his life is threatened - even thought that threat came about by mutual consent - and so have the right to stand our ground and use deadly force. If one of us is successful in shooting and killing the other the state, which has the 'Stand your Ground" law will sanction the event by holding the victor blameless.

Legalized dueling. My god, what have we become?

[Edweird]

1. Your post clearly indicates you have *ZERO* knowledge of 'stand your ground'.

Poutrage+no clue=a giant sack of fail.

[Kalidurga]

2. Um no...

There are plenty of things wrong with the Stand your Ground law. Not the least of which is the fact that studies have shown *gasp* that a minorities are less likely to be believed if they invoke it and it is much more likely to be used against them whether they are a real threat or not and if the person using the defense is white wow suddenly it becomes a more believable defense. Secondly it is a poorly written law. But, it is not so poorly written that any reasonable person could read it as legalized dueling in the scenario you have presented.

[Meiko]

3. Sir, there are some holes in your interpretation

may I suggest you become familiar with the actual law.

776.012?Use of force in defense of person.—

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1)?He or she reasonably believes that 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; or

(2)?Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-stand-your-ground-statute.html

[baldguy]

4. It's worse than that - it's legalized murder.

Since there's no "mutual consent" involved. It's one person deciding that another person deserves to be killed, and the first person deserves to do the killing.

[Meiko]

5. There are some pretty strong messages here for

people whether they are armed are not that's for sure.. If you become involved in any altercation at all when out on the street you had better just turn around and walk away as fast as possible.Just do not engage people anymore with any type of negative conversation, especially if there are no witnesses around. People have misinterpreted the law and are employing the shoot first ask questions later mentality. This is what happens when our elected officials are afraid to say no to lobbyists.

[safeinOhio]

6. One can plan the perfect crime of murder.

Just get your victim alone, shoot and kill that person. As long as there are no living witnesses, you can claim self-defense. Might even plant a knife or gun on the body to seal the deal.

[hack89]

8. You don't need SYG to do that.

The laws of self defense have not changed. SYG simply extended them to public places. Lets not forget there were plenty of justifiable homicides before SYG.

[safeinOhio]

9. The problem is that

an investigation and trial could be stopped from the get go with STG laws. Just the as the Trayvon Martin case would not have been carried on with out the public out cry that followed. As you may recall the officials, at first released him because of a claim of SYG.

[hack89]

10. Prosecutors routinely refuse to indict for self defense shootings

in states without SYG. If there is no evidence and only one side of the story, just how can a prosecutor prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt"?

[safeinOhio]

11. They can't if they don't investigate the killing of

a black man. Routinely they refuse to and now have another tool.

[hack89]

12. So it is all about race?

white men killing all those black men? OK.

[Meiko]

14. There are those that want to see it turned into a racial issue

things are so much easier that way. Hell it's not just this subject. I have never seen such hypersensitivity when it comes to matters or race.

[hack89]

15. It's very effective for ending any real discussion

they promptly brand anyone who disagrees with them as racists and tries to get them tombstoned.

[safeinOhio]

16. Starting to look a lot like it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-06-09/trayvon-martin-stand-your-ground/55480352/1
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights announced Friday that it will launch a special investigation into how race affects the enforcement of stand-your-ground laws across the nation. A task force Tuesday convened by Florida's governor shortly after the shooting of Trayvon will hold its first public hearing on the law in that state.

"There is an absolute lack of real data or information about how these stand-your-ground laws have been or are applied," said Michael Yaki, commissioner of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. "We need to make sure claims of justifiable homicide are not being granted or denied because of the color of someone's skin."
He also pointed out that, according to data by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 34% of cases involving a white shooter killing a black person were deemed as a justifiable homicide. Meanwhile, in similar situations, when the shooter was black and the victim was white, the homicide was ruled justifiable only 3.3% of the time.


http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/06/race_plays_complex_role_in_floridas_stand_your_ground_law.html

A Tampa Bay Times analysis of almost 200 cases — the first to examine the role of race in Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” or “Kill at Will” laws — found that people who killed a black person walked free 73 percent of the time, while those who killed a white person went free 59 percent of the time.
Questions of race have surrounded Florida’s controversial “Kill at Will” law since George Zimmerman killed unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin in February. The law made national headlines because it was part of a system of laws that helped keep Zimmerman out of jail for more than a month.

The study found that regardless of what race the killer was, if the victim was black they were more likely to walk free.
“Stand your ground laws shouldn’t be called that,” Victor Rios, a sociologist at the University of California at Santa Barbara, told Colorlines.com in March. “It’s essentially giving citizens permission to do what cops have been doing forever to black and brown men: shoot first.”



Naw, race has nothing to do with. We should never discuss race when dealing with gun laws.

[hack89]

17. Considering the racists roots of gun control laws in the first place

there is certainly room to discuss race.

But considering how gun control has always been used to oppress minorities I would say that the progress position should be towards more liberties not fewer.

[safeinOhio]

19. Minorities of the large major cities

elect mayors that support their views on gun laws.

[hack89]

20. Unfortunately for them

many of those views are unconstitutional

[safeinOhio]

23. I'm sure you and others always

know what is best for them..

[hack89]

24. So voters can vote away people's consitutional rights? They can vote to ban abortion?

Vote to ban gay marriage? Who am I to impose my values on their cities and towns?

[DanTex]

25. Unconstitutional according to who? Scalia?

Do you agree with all 5-4 Scalia decisions? Citizens United? Bush v Gore?

[hack89]

26. I agree with Heller. None of the others. nt

[safeinOhio]

27. Most agree Heller, in that the court held

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, con-
cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire-
arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.


Nothing about SYG(open season on minorities). Nothing about handguns outside the home.
Looks like cities can control handguns outside the home, also mentioned by Scalia in Chicago. So, as long as citizens of major cities support mayors that want to control handguns within their cities, they are not violating the Constitution, according to Scalia.

According to Hellor "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.". This is despite what you and the NRA Zealots think the Constitution "means".

[hack89]

29. There will be more court cases

and you will keep losing. Look at the past 20 years and try to tell me that I am on the radical side of the equation. Gun grabbers have had their assess handed to them time and time again in one state after another. It is because the American public has more trust in their fellow man than you do.

[safeinOhio]

31. But, you said you agree with Heller.

That and Chicago were written by Scalia, your gun rights hero. Better read his majority decisions.

The 5 to 4 current make up of the court may not last next term.

[hack89]

32. As a good first step

the tide of history is against you. Precedence has been set - it will not be set aside lightly.

[hack89]

34. If the Scalia court did not attempt to overturn Rove v Wade

why are you so certain a more liberal court will be willing or able to overturn Heller?

[safeinOhio]

35. Read the minority response to the courts decision.

5 to 4 was also the vote.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. You are willfully misreading the laws across the states

In any case involving the defensive use of deadly force, that the user was in imminent risk of Great Bodily Injury or Death needs to be established. It can be accepted by the DA in which case the matter is dropped. If it is not, it goes to trial.

All SYG does is remove the requirement to retreat. It does nothing to change the basic burden of self defense.

[hack89]

7. Agreeing to and meeting for a duel is consipiracy to commit a crime.

SYG doesn't apply to people commiting crimes. Fail.

[AlinPA]

21. I did some searching and it's not clear that dueling is outlawed everywhere. Seems it would be.

[hack89]

22. A simple and non-controversial fix

to outlaw dueling where needed.

[slackmaster]

18. You lost me at "each of us threatens the other"

Only assholes threaten people.

[safeinOhio]

28. I wonder if SYG laws may some day be found

a violation of the 14th Amendment. It now looks like if a Black man is killed by a person claiming the SYG law, the person claiming it is more likely to walk than a person that kills a White man. If that is found to be the case, those laws may become a violation of the Constitution.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

We have to ask if the tables were turned and Zimmerman was a black man and Trayvon was a white man, would the actions of the police and been different? If so, and the same thing is happening else where under SYG laws, Those laws would appear to violate the 14th Amendment.

[hack89]

30. By that standard every law in America is unconstitutional. nt

[Honeycombe8]

33. I think that anytime someone doesn't immediately protect himself, and takes time

to look for a window to crawl out of, or whatever, he is risking losing his life.

I think the law is intended simply to prevent laws that required people to take other actions before defending themselves, and in the course of things, run risking their lives even more.

SYG is for when someone comes onto YOUR territory or in YOUR face with the intent to harm or kill you.

Example: If I'm in bed, middle of night, I hear someone breaking in. I know why they're there, of course. I get my gun. So, do I have to break a window and try to get out, alerting the home invader of where I am, in order to avoid being prosecuted for shooting the guy when he comes through my bedroom door? I am required to leave my pets behind and all my belongings, and surrender my home, and risk being caught while trying to climb out of a window?

Now, I might choose to do that, anyway. I have that right. But SYG also gives me the right to stay put and wait and see if he comes through my bedroom door, to me and my pets. I can hide under my bed, if I want. But if he comes through the door, I'll shoot to kill. That's because I know why he's there. He made that clear when he broke into my house in the middle of the night.