YAGT: Stand your ground law...

[CLite]

Why do I have a duty to escape somewhere where I am not causing a problem and somewhere I'm legally allowed to be?

retreating is such BS from somewhere you're SUPPOSED TO BE, not legally allowed o be, such as the case in your own home. .. as i've repeated here and in other threads, don't try and rob my house and you won't get shot trying. yes cuda i do have firearms in the home.

Why should criminals have more rights in a situation that a law abiding citizen?

I will give an analogy that I think fits perfectly.

In boating you are required to avoid accidents even if you have the right of way. If you see a potential collision you can't merrily continue on your way even if you have the right of way when such a course will result in a collision. You will be found partially liable in such a situation because being an arrogant asshole doesn't avoid collisions.

You DO have a right to be wherever, but if you can avoid a potentially lethal confrontation over something as mundane as burglary then avoid it. Obviously if someone's life is in peril or they are under physical duress/violence then as a decent human being if you feel you have the weapons to arm yourself and competence/experience to confront the assailant then you should.

I don't see why this is such a tough concept to understand. Of course you are the more law-abiding citizen and of course you should be afforded all your due rights, but in general as good citizens you should avoid confrontations that lead to lethal force. In any escalating situation there are a lot of unknowns, a lot of assumptions are made, and in the end plenty of mistakes can occur even from the most noble-minded would be heroes. If you can avoid violence just avoid it. Duty to retreat is this common sense in a nutshell.

 

[PrinceofWands]

I will give an analogy that I think fits perfectly.

In boating you are required to avoid accidents even if you have the right of way. If you see a potential collision you can't merrily continue on your way even if you have the right of way when such a course will result in a collision. You will be found partially liable in such a situation because being an arrogant asshole doesn't avoid collisions.

You DO have a right to be wherever, but if you can avoid a potentially lethal confrontation over something as mundane as burglary then avoid it. Obviously if someone's life is in peril or they are under physical duress/violence then as a decent human being if you feel you have the weapons to arm yourself and competence/experience to confront the assailant then you should.

I don't see why this is such a tough concept to understand. Of course you are the more law-abiding citizen and of course you should be afforded all your due rights, but in general as good citizens you should avoid confrontations that lead to lethal force. In any escalating situation there are a lot of unknowns, a lot of assumptions are made, and in the end plenty of mistakes can occur even from the most noble-minded would be heroes. If you can avoid violence just avoid it. Duty to retreat is this common sense in a nutshell.

No. It's irrational, unsafe, unwarranted, and abusive to those who should most be revered while pandering to those who should be most detested. It is an abridgement of right and righteousness. It is an abomination to freedom and liberty. It is the essence of what allows festering evil to plague the world.

 

[Lithium381]

I will give an analogy that I think fits perfectly.

In boating you are required to avoid accidents even if you have the right of way. If you see a potential collision you can't merrily continue on your way even if you have the right of way when such a course will result in a collision. You will be found partially liable in such a situation because being an arrogant asshole doesn't avoid collisions.

You DO have a right to be wherever, but if you can avoid a potentially lethal confrontation over something as mundane as burglary then avoid it. Obviously if someone's life is in peril or they are under physical duress/violence then as a decent human being if you feel you have the weapons to arm yourself and competence/experience to confront the assailant then you should.

I don't see why this is such a tough concept to understand. Of course you are the more law-abiding citizen and of course you should be afforded all your due rights, but in general as good citizens you should avoid confrontations that lead to lethal force. In any escalating situation there are a lot of unknowns, a lot of assumptions are made, and in the end plenty of mistakes can occur even from the most noble-minded would be heroes. If you can avoid violence just avoid it. Duty to retreat is this common sense in a nutshell.

Duty to retreat puts more responsiblity in my court, and more rights in that of the criminals court. Besides, if he's chosen to break the law and burgle me, he may have a similar lack of respect for my life as he does for my property.
I don't see why this is such a tough concept to understand. don't violate me, and you won't get shot. maybe that's just too much common sense for me. i DON'T. WANT. TO. KILL. but if i think for one microsecond that you're threatening me in my home where myself and my wife and my daughter sleep, you're going to be taking a very long nap.

 

[CLite]

Duty to retreat puts more responsiblity in my court, and more rights in that of the criminals court. Besides, if he's chosen to break the law and burgle me, he may have a similar lack of respect for my life as he does for my property.
I don't see why this is such a tough concept to understand. don't violate me, and you won't get shot. maybe that's just too much common sense for me. i DON'T. WANT. TO. KILL. but if i think for one microsecond that you're threatening me in my home where myself and my wife and my daughter sleep, you're going to be taking a very long nap.

You are always allowed to defend yourself if a guy breaks into your home. However, SYG lets you open your front door to shoot someone who is knocking on your door. Duty to retreat means just lock the door and if the guy makes his way in then kill him.

SYG with the way it's being interpreted by law is really "bring your ground" to the would-be criminal.

 

[HumblePie]

You are always allowed to defend yourself if a guy breaks into your home. However, SYG lets you open your front door to shoot someone who is knocking on your door. Duty to retreat means just lock the door and if the guy makes his way in then kill him.

SYG with the way it's being interpreted by law is really "bring your ground" to the would-be criminal.

No it doesn't. Wow what a strawman.

If someone knocks on your door to sell you some cookies and you shoot them in the face there may be forensic or eye witnesses to that. In which case you are screwed. The law doesn't protect people doing that at all.

But our law is innocent until PROVEN guilty.

So could some shoot strange in the face that was at their door trying to sell them cookies and claim self defense? Sure. Does that make them any less guilty of the act? No. Does the law protect them for that act? No.

But without EVIDENCE that PROVES them guilty, they are assumed innocent. You seem to have a problem with this one basic concept of our law system. You aren't blaming SYG for being wrong, but are instead blaming the innocent until proven guilty concept.

 

[WackyDan]

There was an interesting article in the Washington Post today about this topic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...ound/2012/04/15/gIQAL458JT_story.html?hpid=z2

I have to say, I kind of agree with the OP. I had never even heard of these laws until the Trayvon Martin murder. They just seem to promote vigilantism.

BS... They cite that speech by Bloomberg which was filled with so much misinformation and had a specific anti-gun lean to it - which is pretty naive considering SYG has nothing to do with firearms specifically.

If you think they promote vigilantism then I suggest you look up the meaning of vigilante and come back here and see if you still agree. Once you look it up, I suggest you comment on Spike Lee's posting of what he thought was Zimmerman's address via a tweet and what he meant by it...That my friend is vigilantism, not SYG laws.

 

[WackyDan]

How do you sort out who the instigator is? When one party is dead it makes sorting out the details kind of hard don't you think?

Same way anyone is investigated under the plea of self defense. SYG laws do not change that at all.

 

[Lithium381]

You are always allowed to defend yourself if a guy breaks into your home. However, SYG lets you open your front door to shoot someone who is knocking on your door. Duty to retreat means just lock the door and if the guy makes his way in then kill him.

SYG with the way it's being interpreted by law is really "bring your ground" to the would-be criminal.

i'm not quite sure that's how SYG works, and yes, if he's not a threat to my life at that moment, seeing as how he's OUTSIDE a locked door, then theres no reason to shoot him

 

[CLite]

No it doesn't. Wow what a strawman.

If someone knocks on your door to sell you some cookies and you shoot them in the face there may be forensic or eye witnesses to that. In which case you are screwed. The law doesn't protect people doing that at all.

But our law is innocent until PROVEN guilty.

So could some shoot strange in the face that was at their door trying to sell them cookies and claim self defense? Sure. Does that make them any less guilty of the act? No. Does the law protect them for that act? No.

But without EVIDENCE that PROVES them guilty, they are assumed innocent. You seem to have a problem with this one basic concept of our law system. You aren't blaming SYG for being wrong, but are instead blaming the innocent until proven guilty concept.

I'm glad you thought this was a strawman.

http://news.yahoo.com/man-lives-tell-florida-shoot-first-horror-221208724.html

MIAMI (Reuters) - On June 5, 2006, not long after Florida enacted the first "Stand Your Ground" law in the United States, unarmed Jason Rosenbloom was shot in the stomach and chest by his next-door neighbor after a shouting match over trash.

Exactly what happened that day in Clearwater, Florida, is still open to dispute. Kenneth Allen, a retired police officer, said he shot Rosenbloom because he was trying to storm into his house.

Rosenbloom told Reuters in a telephone interview this week he never tried to enter the house and was in Allen's yard, about 10 feet from his front door, when he was shot moments after he put his hands up.

Allen was not arrested in the shooting of Rosenbloom. Sergeant Tom Nestor of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office said Allen was found to have acted in self-defense when he pumped two rounds into Rosenbloom with his 9mm semi-automatic pistol.

"He meant for me to be dead and he never called 911," said Rosenbloom, 36, adding that Allen, now 65, bent over him and using an expletive, warned him not to tangle "with an ex-cop" as he lay bleeding on the ground.

"The police closed it on his words alone," said Rosenbloom, explaining how the case that began with a complaint about him leaving eight trash bags on the curb instead of the regulation six, was closed after what he described as only a summary investigation.

 

[WackyDan]

Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with you on this one. See, I live in the real word where not everyone is moral and people lie all the time.

There is just so much potential for mistakes or abuse, Christ, someone could outright murder someone and get away with it simply by saying they were in fear for their lives... you know, kind of like the Zimmerman case?

Did a jury rule that already? Wow, justice is swift here in the USA.

Please refrain from making assumptions about something that has not yet had it's day in court and keep it out of this thread - when there is another thread specifically for it already.

 

[xBiffx]

Exactly what happened that day in Clearwater, Florida, is still open to dispute.

Did you miss that part? Or did it just get in the way of you trying to make a failure of a point? SYG isn't even mentioned in that article as far as its application. Self defense absent SYG was however mentioned as justification for the shooting. In other words, 404 SYG not found.

Police say Florida's Stand Your Ground law, which loosened formerly restrictive rules for using deadly force and gives people wide latitude to employ it in self-defense, was never officially cited in the Rosenbloom case.

 

[xj0hnx]

You are always allowed to defend yourself if a guy breaks into your home. However, SYG lets you open your front door to shoot someone who is knocking on your door. Duty to retreat means just lock the door and if the guy makes his way in then kill him.

SYG with the way it's being interpreted by law is really "bring your ground" to the would-be criminal.

lolwut!|?!?! How you get that from the SYG laws is beyond me. They say no such thing.

 

[CLite]

Did you miss that part? Or did it just get in the way of you trying to make a failure of a point?

Did you miss the point where just the shooter's words let him attempt to execute someone on his lawn? The law was invoked as a basis for not arresting the shooter and investigating the shooting.

The problem with Humble's point is that innocent until proven guilty isn't given to the victims of shootings, they are obviously already shot and in some cases victims of pre-judgement. Just because you have a gun automatically makes you the favorite in the law's eyes.

 

[WackyDan]

You are always allowed to defend yourself if a guy breaks into your home. However, SYG lets you open your front door to shoot someone who is knocking on your door. Duty to retreat means just lock the door and if the guy makes his way in then kill him.

SYG with the way it's being interpreted by law is really "bring your ground" to the would-be criminal.

"SYG lets you open your front door to shoot someone who is knocking on your door. "

Sigh... You have a wild imagination. NO IT DOES NOT. Do you grasp that at all? Go ahead and try that in a SYG/Castle Doctrine state and tell me what your charges are... Because at minimum, they would be manslaughter, but more likely a degree of murder.

 

[xBiffx]

Did you miss the point where just the shooter's words let him attempt to execute someone on his lawn? The law was invoked as a basis for not arresting the shooter and investigating the shooting.

The problem with Humble's point is that innocent until proven guilty isn't given to the victims of shootings, they are obviously already shot and in some cases victims of pre-judgement. Just because you have a gun automatically makes you the favorite in the law's eyes.

SYG was not applied in that case so your point is absolutely invalid.

 

[Fern]

You are always allowed to defend yourself if a guy breaks into your home. However, SYG lets you open your front door to shoot someone who is knocking on your door. Duty to retreat means just lock the door and if the guy makes his way in then kill him.
-snip-

No.

I got my CC permit while my state was under Retreat laws.

Retreat means retreat. If someone breaks into your house you are required to go out the back door, through a window etc.

Nor does SYG laws allow you "to shoot someone who is knocking on your door" That's so freakin absurdly wrong it's sad.

Fern

 

[CLite]

Well I rescind my comments about knocking on the door. There was a more definitive article, but everything points back to the pretty crappy article I just linked as being the first source which is obviously fairly meaningless. 5 minutes of googling yields no police reports so I give up.

I still maintain my boating analogy though.

 

[CLite]

No.

I got my CC permit while my state was under Retreat laws.

Retreat means retreat. If someone breaks into your house you are required to go out the back door, through a window etc.

Nor does SYG laws allow you "to shoot someone who is knocking on your door" That's so freakin absurdly wrong it's sad.

Fern

States w/out SYG do not require you to go out the back door or through a window. If you are in your own dwelling you are no obliged to retreat, except for maybe a place like NY or DC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

What SYG does is extends it to any location.

*edit* actually NY article 35.20 prevents you from having to retreat from your dwelling. I suppose my challenge to you would be to find a single state that forces you to retreat from your home.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Get away with it? Last I saw he was in jail awaiting trial. Besides, people have been 'getting away with it' since civilization began. Nothing new here.

It's a good law, and was very much needed.

Well, we'll see how that works out. He hasn't been tried yet and it took them weeks just to figure out there was enough of a case to take it to trial.

It's a shit law and has a huge potential for misuse. The law already allows people to defend themselves. This law is completely worthless.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Did a jury rule that already? Wow, justice is swift here in the USA.

Please refrain from making assumptions about something that has not yet had it's day in court and keep it out of this thread - when there is another thread specifically for it already.

Bite me. I was just using it as an example of a possible outcome. :whiste:

 

[PrinceofWands]

Well, we'll see how that works out. He hasn't been tried yet and it took them weeks just to figure out there was enough of a case to take it to trial.

It's a shit law and has a huge potential for misuse. The law already allows people to defend themselves. This law is completely worthless.

That's entirely on the police department that botched it, and the media frenzy and social pressure response that put it all under a microscope. Anywhere else it would have been open and shut.

There are THOUSANDS of laws that have the potential for misuse. Hasn't stopped them being laws since laws have existed. The law presumes guilt and ruins lives, allowing only the wealthy to have even a chance to go on. THAT's the corruption and abuse you should be tilting against.

 

[JulesMaximus]

BS... They cite that speech by Bloomberg which was filled with so much misinformation and had a specific anti-gun lean to it - which is pretty naive considering SYG has nothing to do with firearms specifically.

If you think they promote vigilantism then I suggest you look up the meaning of vigilante and come back here and see if you still agree. Once you look it up, I suggest you comment on Spike Lee's posting of what he thought was Zimmerman's address via a tweet and what he meant by it...That my friend is vigilantism, not SYG laws.

Wrong. Chasing down someone who "looks suspicious" and then shooting an unarmed kid is not SYG. It is murder.

We will see if he gets off in a few months.

Spike Lee is an idiot but as far as I know he hasn't killed anyone so he is no more a vigilante than I am. Pretty sure anyone with a computer could have found Zimmerman's address fairly easily.

 

[Lithium381]

No.

I got my CC permit while my state was under Retreat laws.

Retreat means retreat. If someone breaks into your house you are required to go out the back door, through a window etc.

Nor does SYG laws allow you "to shoot someone who is knocking on your door" That's so freakin absurdly wrong it's sad.

Fern

Which state are you in that your retreat laws are so "zero tolerance"??? In california so far as i know i have to retreat as far as i can reasonably at which point i can defend myself. so if i were to run to the back bedroom and close/lock the door and the guy came busted through the door, i would be able to defend myself . . .

 

[LunarRay]

States w/out SYG do not require you to go out the back door or through a window. If you are in your own dwelling you are no obliged to retreat, except for maybe a place like NY or DC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

What SYG does is extends it to any location.

*edit* actually NY article 35.20 prevents you from having to retreat from your dwelling. I suppose my challenge to you would be to find a single state that forces you to retreat from your home.

I don't think it is accurate to apply one state law to another. They incorporate the Castle Doctrine and SYG (if they have that) differently.

I think it is almost Universal that Self Defense IS an affirmative defense but... that depends too.

I rather doubt that during the commission of a crime that is a felony... say... robbing a store. The perp shoots the storekeeper and kills him and argues that he shot and killed him cuz the storekeeper had a gun and was trying to kill him.

I recall in New York a fellow shot a few folks on a train, however, the fellow apparently violated the Sullivan Law regarding firearms. As I recall he was acquitted of murder but convicted of firearm violation (not a felony, as I recall).

But, in any event, I feel that the '74 ish movie "Death Wish" and the Vigilante actions of Paul Kersey stimulated a lot of otherwise peaceful folks into adopting Kersey's modus operandi.
A few years after this movie, I was involved in a case study looking into the actions of a fellow in a fictitious State covered by simple Self Defense Laws. The question looked to the legality of someone placing themselves in harms way in order to provoke a situation that would justify deadly force.
The bringers of the indictment relied on the motive of the fellow... That he created the condition under which a reasonable person would know that their life might be in danger and thus invoking Self Defense is not an option for the perpetrator... His defenders relied on the notion that his alleged motive only became relevant AFTER the condition presented itself. That even reasonable people are not precluded from lawfully moving about a city and if there is the possibility of danger where they intend to go being armed is not only reasonable but prudent.

The Professor pointed out that the only place he knew of which was populated totally by dangerous folks was a prison and the guards are armed for a reason. Otherwise, a city is for all the people. Caution should be observed everywhere and not just the sections where the danger exists. Danger is not cemented in place. And, he proclaimed the doctrine of Self Defense should be argued whenever one is threatened with deadly force.

I guess he went on to become a neighborhood watch captain driving around in his tank.

 

[LunarRay]

Which state are you in that your retreat laws are so "zero tolerance"??? In california so far as i know i have to retreat as far as i can reasonably at which point i can defend myself. so if i were to run to the back bedroom and close/lock the door and the guy came busted through the door, i would be able to defend myself . . .

'Calyforyouna Penal Code § 198.5 sets forth that unlawful, forcible entry into one's residence by someone not a member of the household creates the presumption that the resident held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury should he or she use deadly force against the intruder. This would make the homicide justifiable under CPC § 197. Contained in that is an instruction, "A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his ground and defend himself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger ... has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating." However, it also states that "[People v. Ceballos] specifically held that burglaries which 'do not reasonably create a fear of great bodily harm' are not sufficient 'cause for exaction of human life.'” The court held that because the defendant had constructed a gun-firing trap, the doctrine did not apply because mechanical devices are without mercy or discretion.'

I think that is still the control for your scenario.