• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Stand Your Ground Laws

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
EagleKeeper said:
The violence has already occurred well before the implementation/actual need for the law.

the intent of the law was that a person should not have to run for their life when threatened when on their own property.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. 'On their own property' is the 'castle doctrine'. 'Stand your ground' is about when you are not on your own property as well.

And the violence has not already occured. Someone in a dangerous situation who could retreat might not if they feel no legal danger.
 
ivwshane said:
No it's a horrible law that encourages more violence and unless there are witnesses it's almost impossible to prove a crime was committed.

It's a short sighted law and should be repealed but won't because the gun lobby will spin it into some kind of anti gun movement.
Click to expand...
I don't believe the purpose of the law was to encourage violence though. I think it was originally put in place to avoid punishment for a would-be victim who decided killing the offender would end the danger to himself quicker than attempting to retreat.

And in a case where a mugging occurs, or another such crime, does the potential victim have an obligation to avoid lethal force where retreat options exist, regardless of efficiency in either option.
 
Zodiark1593 said:
I don't believe the purpose of the law was to encourage violence though. I think it was originally put in place to avoid punishment for a would-be victim who decided killing the offender would end the danger to himself quicker than attempting to retreat.

And in a case where a mugging occurs, or another such crime, does the potential victim have an obligation to avoid lethal force where retreat options exist, regardless of efficiency in either option.
Click to expand...

The purpose of the law is irrelevant if the outcome of the law has un intended consequences.
 
SYG laws exist because 1) people were cooperating and still getting killed and 2) those that killed / harmed would-be assailants were getting sued in civil court.

Also there should be no reason one should have to retreat one's home or vehicle.
 
alkemyst said:
Also there should be no reason one should have to retreat one's home or vehicle.
Click to expand...

To repeat:

'On their own property' is the 'castle doctrine'. 'Stand your ground' is about when you are not on your own property as well.
Click to expand...

There are limits.

Imagine a kid burglarizing your home is caught, and unarmed immediately surrenders. Then you start torturing him as punishment, finally killing him slowly and painfully. That ok?
 
ivwshane said:
The purpose of the law is irrelevant if the outcome of the law has un intended consequences.
Click to expand...
You should place a little more care in your counter-argument. At this point, I can point out a fair number of laws and measures put into (and remain in) place that have resulted in unintended consequences, and by your argument, any law is irrelevant if unintended consequences occur.
 
Zodiark1593 said:
You should place a little more care in your counter-argument. At this point, I can point out a fair number of laws and measures put into (and remain in) place that have resulted in unintended consequences, and by your argument, any law is irrelevant if unintended consequences occur.
Click to expand...

He's right. He's not arguing the law is "irrelevant" because of unintended consequences, he's arguing that the consequences matter as to whether it's a good law.
 
ivwshane said:
So if someone is pounding on you should do what exactly? If you see or think someone is going to pull a gun or knife on you what do you do?

If you pull a gun on me and I don't think my chances of running away are good I'm going to attack you with everything I got. If you still shoot me am I now to blame? How would you prove a dead guy was fearing for his life and not the orher way around?
Click to expand...

Attacking a person who has a weapon does not seem as logical as running away from that person.

Was there a need for you to attack; Up to that point, based on your scenario, no.

Having a weapon does not force the need to attack to neutral the weapon.
The attack comes when there is no other choice and/or are cornered.

Other choice is subjective to common sense.
One reason why the laws are worded so loosely; because flexibility is allowed to analyze the situation
 
Craig234 said:
Imagine a kid burglarizing your home is caught, and unarmed immediately surrenders. Then you start torturing him as punishment, finally killing him slowly and painfully. That ok?
Click to expand...

I'm failing to see how that is a defensive act.

SYG is a modification of self-defense. It does not allow for offense, no matter what Dominion and Homer are whispering in your ear.
 
Craig234 said:
To repeat:



There are limits.

Imagine a kid burglarizing your home is caught, and unarmed immediately surrenders. Then you start torturing him as punishment, finally killing him slowly and painfully. That ok?
Click to expand...

Problem is is that many are lumping Castle Doctrine / SYG together.

I can guarantee if SYG gets illegalized you will see a big Castle Doctrine case involving the most outrangeous and racially charged version of it.

The agenda with the Martin case was one to remove the ability for an average citizen to defend themselves.
 
alkemyst said:
Problem is is that many are lumping Castle Doctrine / SYG together.

I can guarantee if SYG gets illegalized you will see a big Castle Doctrine case involving the most outrangeous and racially charged version of it.

The agenda with the Martin case was one to remove the ability for an average citizen to defend themselves.
Click to expand...

Texas doesn't have a SYG law, they have wording that is common to other state's SYG wording incorporated in the Castle Doctrine law. The big difference between Texas' Castle Doctrine and Florida's Justified Use of Force statute is in Texas some one who provokes* force can claim self defense.

*Provocation is a physical act/actions and not words.
 
Craig234 said:
He's right. He's not arguing the law is "irrelevant" because of unintended consequences, he's arguing that the consequences matter as to whether it's a good law.
Click to expand...

I did take to mind that he meant laws with negative side effects. I should have made that more clear.

Now, if anyone wants to argue as to whether or not the side effects outweigh the benefits of a given law, concrete numbers speak louder than opinion.

fyi I am nuetral in this topic.
 
Last edited:
Londo_Jowo said:
Texas doesn't have a SYG law, they have wording that is common to other state's SYG wording incorporated in the Castle Doctrine law. The big difference between Texas' Castle Doctrine and Florida's Justified Use of Force statute is in Texas some one who provokes* force can claim self defense.

*Provocation is a physical act/actions and not words.
Click to expand...

I get it all. I just don't think we need to change laws over one incident. People are beginning to think that way and probably worry about their little thug wannabes getting popped on the way home from their dealer at 2am.
 
EagleKeeper said:
Attacking a person who has a weapon does not seem as logical as running away from that person.

Except, as I stated, the person felt running away was not an option (I prefer not to be shot in the back).


Was there a need for you to attack; Up to that point, based on your scenario, no.

Having a weapon does not force the need to attack to neutral the weapon.
The attack comes when there is no other choice and/or are cornered.

Other choice is subjective to common sense.
One reason why the laws are worded so loosely; because flexibility is allowed to analyze the situation
Click to expand...

Yes loosely worded laws are usually a good idea /rollseys
 
Looking at states with a Duty to Retreat law, there seems to be little difference in wording compared to Stand Your Ground, and in some cases is only slightly more stringent as far as self defence is concered. I doubt repealing the Stand your Ground law will accomplish anything except a little more court time for those claiming self defence.
 
Zodiark1593 said:
Looking at states with a Duty to Retreat law, there seems to be little difference in wording compared to Stand Your Ground, and in some cases is only slightly more stringent as far as self defence is concered. I doubt repealing the Stand your Ground law will accomplish anything except a little more court time for those claiming self defence.
Click to expand...

And it would've made no difference in this case, as Zimmerman was unable to retreat.

Hence "classic self-defense."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top