Stand Your Ground

Discussion in 'Second Amendment & Legal' started by rivalarrival, Apr 14, 2012.

  1. rivalarrival

    rivalarrival Are we there yet?

    glockrocker added this in another thread; rather than derail that thread, I brought it here:


    I am a shooter. I don't think I fit the stereotypical conservative definition of a liberal, but I do think that liberals would consider me liberal, and I consider myself more on the left side of the political spectrum.

    My stance on Stand Your Ground is that it is a good policy, but that its implementation will always be problematic. I believe that the problems are not sufficient to justify it not being in place.

    The general principle of self defense is 0. You have the right to protect yourself from others using force against you.

    Stand Your Ground says that 1. If you are legally allowed to be where you are and 2. force is used against you, and 3. You have the ability to escape, 4. You may legally choose to stand fast and use sufficient defensive force to stop the attack against you.

    Contrast with Duty To Retreat: 6. If force is used against you and 7. You have the ability to escape without using force in your defense, 8. You are obligated to escape.

    Castle doctrine is DTR in public places, SYG in your own home and certain other places defined in law.


    To address the elephant in the room:
    The Zimmerman/Martin case in Florida has, IMO, unjustly put blame on SYG. I believe the police statement that SYG required them to release Zimmerman was incorrect; I believe that SYG did not even apply to this case.

    For SYG to apply, 1, 2, 3, ALL had to apply before Zimmerman could use force under SYG.. #1 is fine; Martin supporters deny #2; there is no evidence suggesting #3. If #3 is absent, Martin is protected under #0: You have the right to defend yourself from force used against you.


    Moving on:
    The problem with SYG is apparent when a criminal claims its protections. "I shot and killed him. I was being attacked, and although I could have escaped, I was not legally required to do so.

    Where the evidence can't determine who initiated the use of force, the presumption must be that the shooter was attacked and defended himself; in this case, the law can let a criminal go free.

    The advantage of DTR is that a criminal-shooter would also have to demonstrate that he was unable to retreat from the situation. I think that these two issues, and the idea that a self-defense shooter would most likely be able to prove his case, are the main reason some people (regardless of political affiliation) are against SYG.


    Of course, this is also the problem with DTR: It puts the burden of proof on the shooter, forces him to justify in a court of law all actions that were taken in the heat of the moment. Suppose someone was attacked, was backed into a corner, and shot the attacker, only to discover the "corner" they were backed into had a posted "Emergency exit" sign, alarms would have gone off, help would have come running, and they could have potentially escaped without using force. In court, the prosecutor tells the jury the defendant had a duty to escape, escape was readily available, and the defendant failed to use it. The defendant's lawyer says the defendant didn't know escape was possible. The jury is left with an unclear position on what should be absolutely clear. When they look at the evidence of the prominently-marked exit, they apply the law, and they come to the conclusion that any reasonable person should have known about the exit, and they send the defendant-victim to prison.


    I stand by the principle that it is better that 10 guilty men go free than for one innocent to be punished for a crime he did not commit. As such, I support SYG over DTR.
     
  2. SHOOTER13

    SHOOTER13 RETIRED MODERATOR Sponsor Lifetime Supporting Member

    I agree that SYG is better DTR...and that principal goes all the way back to the Old Testament Bible.

    I'm sure some Bible scholar here will supply the necessary quotes from scripture...
     

  3. cvitter

    cvitter New Member

    217
    0
    That was very well reasoned and written.
     
  4. rivalarrival

    rivalarrival Are we there yet?

    Well, when a liberal says "SYG sucks, let's repeal it", it's entirely possible they believe the problems I've mentioned are too much to overcome the benefits. This is a rational, potentially defensible position. I think it behooves every intelligent person to follow Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by ignorance."

    I don't think that liberals are generally hostile to the responsible use of firearms. I do think that many simply don't know what we're talking about. I also think that the liberal view of gun owners in general is a big problem, and it's one that WE should address. Liberals aren't going to go away. Our focus as gun owners shouldn't be on enforcing conservative politics, it should be pushing gun ownership as a positive, bi-partisan attribute, and the only way we do that is by bringing them to the ranges, teaching them how to use guns, getting them "bit" by the gun-bug. That means leaving the politics at the door, and asking our gun-buddies to do the same.
     
  5. vaguy75

    vaguy75 New Member

    1
    0
    I live in Virginia and we are trying to get stand your ground here. I think any person in or out of their house should be able to use deadly force to stop an agressive person who wants to harm them or their family. Pretty soon people will think twice about commiting these types of crimes against law abiding citizens if their is a good chance they won't make it lol
     
  6. Eye_Peeled

    Eye_Peeled 8th Gen. Fla Cracker (not creepy though)

    I am all for Stand Your Ground. I think it is a less complex law than some people's view of it, it really just means one thing. However, you can't make everyone think the way they should think when it comes to SYG. If it is rationally looked upon, it is a good thing. The problem with some, is that they may tend to have the mentality to think it "gives them the right to kill someone". In my opinion, the proper view should be that it "gives me the right to defend myself when my life or the life of another is in imminent danger". There is a profound difference in the two views but both could potentially yield the same result.

    Simply because someone shoves their shopping cart into and starts driving you back into a corner, doesn't give you the right to whip out Sam Colt and shoot them. That's the problem. It could be that Zimmerman was just getting his ass kicked, I would hope that if my sons were in the same predicament in the dark they would do the same thing, Martin didn't know who was following him. Speaking of complex, I think the Zimmerman/Martin case will go down as one of the most complex in a long time. There are so many factors involved in this case. It makes you wonder where they will begin.

    Back to Zimmerman: he could have had the wrong view in his head. I doubt he would have ever left the safety of his car had he not had a firearm on his person. He may have had in the back of his mind that he was safe and in the event that things got ugly, he had the right to defend himself. I doubt he would have done that had he only been armed with some skittles. He has opened the door to make all law abiding/gun carrying citizens look very bad here. Not that we do, but it has opened a door. A door that liberals love to take advantage of (yeah, yeah, "not all liberals are against guns").

    This should be a lesson for people who think their weapon is a cure-all for every situation. I hope and pray that I never have to use my gun for anything other than shooting at the range. If you kill someone who is within seconds of causing you harm or causing harm to another, it will change your life forever, especially outside your home and especially if you are white and they are black. Sorry for the last part of that sentence, but that is the reality. Black people kill each other every Saturday night in inner-cities all across this country and a word is never spoken but when it's white on black, the sympathizers come out of the woodwork...not that Zimmerman is white...he isn't. Which proves my point even more. Because he wasn't black, he was automatically white. No, I'm not racially prejudice.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2012
  7. rivalarrival

    rivalarrival Are we there yet?

    This thread was spawned from this one: https://www.glockforum.com/forum/f14/house-approves-cross-country-permit-bill-34/

    Around #61, the thread turned to general liberal-bashing, and I called the bashers out in #65. I point this out now to explain the harshness of the reply you're about to get.

    "All liberals hate guns" is a stupid stereotype, and one that needs to die, if only because you're (indefinite "you" used throughout) alienating a group of pro-gun people who can both support your cause on guns *AND* present and support that point in a way their liberal brethren can understand. The same way that not all liberals are against guns, not all conservatives are for guns. Otherwise-conservative religious groups are among the leaders in calling for excessive, asinine gun control provisions.

    This mindset that liberals nearly invariably hate guns may have had a small grain of truth at one point in time, but today, it's a relatively small fringe group that hates guns, while the general liberal consensus is pro gun, or at worst, neutral on the issue.

    Hang out in some stereotypical liberal forums, and present an intelligent pro-gun argument. You'll find a hell of a lot more support than you might imagine right now. Sure, you'll find some dissent, you'll find some people who just don't get understand. But you'll be able to argue circles around them and convince undecided others that he's an idiot and to adopt your position. I know. I've seen me do it.

    I'm not saying you have to agree with me on the affordable care act, the Buffet rule, etc. What I'm saying is that when you attack all liberals as gun haters, you alienate the more than half of them who either agree with you, or have no position on guns. When I take one of my liberal friends to the range to introduce him to guns, and some jackass is making a piss-poor argument about how evil Obama is, it makes it harder for me to convince that friend that gun control is a bad idea. When he goes and speaks of his range trip to his friends, that liberal-hating jackass becomes the face of gun use.

    Leave your political opinions at the door.

    /Rant

    Yes, Zimmerman fouled up in getting out of the car. What he did wasn't illegal, even in a technical sense, but it wasn't smart. Basically, it seems like he walked into an ambush. Somehow, Martin "ran away" from Zimmerman - he had only 200 yards to get to the the safety of his home - but he was still present to get involved in the physical altercation.

    There are plenty of lessons to be learned from this. Never pursue a suspicious individual. If you do, never pursue a suspicious individual after you lose sight of him. Don't get off the phone with law enforcement unless you are safe. Carry a flashlight. Train for unarmed combat.

    The only racial aspect I'll address is this: Everyone knows the name "Trayvon Martin" - who among us recognizes the name "Daniel Adkins"?

    On 3 April 2012, in Arizona (which has SYG) A 22-year-old black man inside his own car shot Daniel Adkins, a mentally challenged white male, and was released after claiming self-defense. Where's the public outrage of a black man killing a handicapped white man?
     
  8. Eye_Peeled

    Eye_Peeled 8th Gen. Fla Cracker (not creepy though)

    Respectfully, when I write "A door that liberals love to take advantage of", I really mean obama and his radical agenda for this country. Which boils down to our LIBERTIES...not just gun rights. When you start stomping on our liberties, I don't trust you when it comes to any of them, not just gun rights. Also, when you mess with one of them, that's an indicator that you want to get to all of them. I am also writing of the liberal media; you can't argue with the fact that they use every opportunity to set their agenda. Their tools to achieve this? Untruths. Which causes the sheeple to open their brains-of-mush to believe anything they hear them say. That's why the networks twisted this Zimmerman/Martin case from the beginning, that and race.

    I certainly know and understand that not all liberals are against guns.
     
  9. rivalarrival

    rivalarrival Are we there yet?

    Speak in specifics, or you're just as guilty as the "sheeple" you speak of. What parts of Obama's "radical agenda" are impacting our liberties? The ACA that was originally designed by conservatives to solve the problem of a large percentage of Americans not having health care coverage but without making the US government the sole healthcare provider?

    The conservative media is just as guilty of using untruths to control "sheeple". I call out liberal authors when they write false statements. I've written a dozen emails in the past week, and I've challenged countless statements made in social media networks.

    At the end of the day, all we control is our own selves, and that's what I'm looking for. Screw the politics. Are we going to use our own behavior to alienate like-minded people? As gun owners, are we going to claim that they are destroying America with their "radical agendas", or are we going to ask them to modify their agendas to add "gun owner rights", and show them why they should adopt and support them?

    Pick a random liberal, and I'd give you twenty-to-one odds that the two of you have basically the same opinion on apple pie, free hot dogs, Osama Bin Laden. I suggest we do our damnedest to put "gun ownership" into that category, the category of Bipartisan American Truths. THAT needs to be our objective. THAT is the only way to protect our rights; to make them bipartisan issues that anyone, regardless of their political position, would recognize as anti-american to oppose.

    We don't have to fight liberals; we have to drag their asses, kicking and screaming if need be, down to the gun range, throw some eyes and ears on them, stick a boomstick in their hands, and watch them get bit by the bug. Then we drag them off the range, sit them down in a classroom and teach them everything they need to know about how and when to use a gun safely.
     
  10. jimmyalbrecht

    jimmyalbrecht Glockn Rollin

    Bravo rival, this is a very well thought-out and informative thread. I completely agree with your position. The reason people cannot get along in politics is because they are so determined to prove what their party of political stance tells them to. Issues in life are rarely black and white or good v. evil. So the whole "This is what a conservative believes, and this is what a liberal believes" arguments never pan out. Why? Because generally part of each side is correct, and part of each side is wrong. It is when we refuse to admit fault in our opinion and logic that things go awry. If only the politicians (liberal and conservative) in Washington could realize this and work things out like this.
     
  11. Eye_Peeled

    Eye_Peeled 8th Gen. Fla Cracker (not creepy though)

    [QUOTE
    We don't have to fight liberals; we have to drag their asses, kicking and screaming if need be, down to the gun range, throw some eyes and ears on them, stick a boomstick in their hands, and watch them get bit by the bug. Then we drag them off the range, sit them down in a classroom and teach them everything they need to know about how and when to use a gun safely.[/QUOTE]

    This is the second time you have alluded to this. No. I don't have to convince (I won't use the L word this time) ANYONE to agree or like the fact that guns are fun or safe or anything else. I don't care if they like it or not.

    The bottom line is, it is my right to keep and bear arms! Leave it and me alone...or as The Constitution says those RIGHTS of the people (that's you and me) "shall not be infringed". This is Amendment II from 1791! It's just as pertinent today or even more so.

    Since when should we be concerned with doing anything to pacify someone who wants to infringe upon our RIGHTS? Be it gun rights or any other kind of right.

    The concern should be, are we electing a President who will appoint judges who will uphold the Constitution? Not whether opponents of guns like them or not.
     
  12. jonm61

    jonm61 New Member

    1,348
    5
    Most states have covered this; you cannot claim self defense if the shooting occurred during the commission of a crime. Odds are, if a criminal shoots another criminal, it's going to be during the commission of a crime of some sort. Also, most criminals have a criminal record and will likely be in possession of a firearm illegally.

    I disagree. You are making an assumption that his courage was somehow linked to his gun. If that were the case, I wouldn't imagine that he would've been the only volunteer for the neighborhood watch, for example.

    Courage is rarely, if ever, dependent upon the tools of war. The men and women that wield them are the sole source of courage. They choose to act, armed or not, because they wish to do what's right and to protect those that they care about.

    Zimmerman didn't get out of the car only because he was armed. He got out of the car because he thought it was the action necessary to continue to do what's right.

    If Zimmerman were the cowardly cowboy people make him out to be, he would never have bothered to call 911; he may not have ever been out there to begin with and never would've helped prevent or solve so many crimes prior to this incident.
     
  13. Eye_Peeled

    Eye_Peeled 8th Gen. Fla Cracker (not creepy though)

    [quote


    I disagree. You are making an assumption that his courage was somehow linked to his gun. If that were the case, I wouldn't imagine that he would've been the only volunteer for the neighborhood watch, for example.

    Courage is rarely, if ever, dependent upon the tools of war. The men and women that wield them are the sole source of courage. They choose to act, armed or not, because they wish to do what's right and to protect those that they care about.

    Zimmerman didn't get out of the car only because he was armed. He got out of the car because he thought it was the action necessary to continue to do what's right.

    If Zimmerman were the cowardly cowboy people make him out to be, he would never have bothered to call 911; he may not have ever been out there to begin with and never would've helped prevent or solve so many crimes prior to this incident.[/quote]

    We can agree to disagree. I guess we can continue to speculate; neither of us really know. I can reason with some of what you said but some of it is illogical, but I digress. I just hope the ol' boy can get a fair trial; however, with all the hoopla and theatrics of the non-reverends Al & Jesse and the NBP party, it seems unlikely. Not to mention the distortions by the media.
     
  14. rivalarrival

    rivalarrival Are we there yet?

    I don't know. I think that the tide has turned on that. I see a hell of a lot of people defending Zimmerman's actions. The consensus seems to be that it was legal, but stupid, for him to approach Martin. There's a decent chance that the criminal case will be dismissed, and he'll ultimately end up losing a civil case. Frankly, I think that's what should happen.
     
  15. Everybody keeps saying Zimmerman approached Martin. How do we know that? None of us or the entire world was there!! Zimmerman said Martin ran, correct? Why dodn't he just keep running? Why stop and confront Zimmerman?
     
  16. Eye_Peeled

    Eye_Peeled 8th Gen. Fla Cracker (not creepy though)

    On a side note: Why is it that when I edit a quote (delete some of the content), then post, the "quote box" or whatever it's called is missing and it looks like the entire post is mine? That's the second time that's happened. I am obviously doing something wrong.
     
  17. rivalarrival

    rivalarrival Are we there yet?

    A quote needs to be wrapped with "quote" tags. Replace { and } with [ and ] in the following examples:

    {quote}
    Herp a derp!
    {/quote}

    gives you:
    If you hit the "quote" button, you'll get something like this:

    {QUOTE=Eye_Peeled;55351}On a side note: Why is it that when I edit a quote (delete some of the content), then post, the "quote box" or whatever it's called is missing and it looks like the entire post is mine? That's the second time that's happened. I am obviously doing something wrong.{/QUOTE}

    When you replace the curly braces for square, that will display as:
    In your post at #13, it looks like you didn't finish the "quote" tag - there's a "[quote " sitting at the top of the screen. It needs a "]" to finish the tag.

    Hopefully, that helps.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2012
  18. Eye_Peeled

    Eye_Peeled 8th Gen. Fla Cracker (not creepy though)

    I'm scared to try it :) If I just click "quote" and do not edit the content of the quote, I have had no problems. I wonder if it has anything to do with deleting the "=" just after the first quote? I have and understanding of how tags work for bold, italics, etc. but I am obviously doing something wrong. All I did to this one was change the "{" to "[" at the beginning. Sorry to highjack the SYG thread with my inadequacies.
     
  19. Eye_Peeled

    Eye_Peeled 8th Gen. Fla Cracker (not creepy though)

    All I did was this and now it makes it bold? Go figure.
     
  20. rivalarrival

    rivalarrival Are we there yet?

    The opening quote tag can do more than just open a quote. I've hilighted the entire tag in red.
    {QUOTE}
    Herp a derp
    {/QUOTE}

    gives you this:
    But you can also use the opening quote tag to attribute to someone/something:
    {QUOTE=RivalDERP}
    Herp a derp
    {/QUOTE}

    Hitting the quote button automatically attributes the quote to the user *and* provides a link back to the original comment (Look at the little blue arrow after the username:
    {QUOTE=Eye_Peeled;55522}All I did was this and now it makes it bold? Go figure.{/QUOTE}

    When you edit a quote, DON'T TOUCH ANYTHING INSIDE THE SQUARE BRACES and it will work as you expect it to.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2012