Eric Holder denounces ‘stand your ground’ laws.

If there is a push to repeal the SYG laws (and I think that's coming), it won't come from the federal level. It'll be a state-by-state effort. As such, I can't see what real authority Holder will have in the matter.

This battle will likely be taking place in the various state legislatures.
 
Tom,

I would say that if Holder showed up in many states, especially ones with castle law, he would probably be shown the door. It's funny that he preaches what he does, when in Ohio, a castle law state, we have none of the problems he likes to preach about, and as a matter of fact, myself and my neighbors look at it as a great crime deterrent. I would say that there are several states that he wouldn't want to venture into with that attitude, and try to change the way things are done. I wouldn't mind being a spectator if he went to Texas.
 
What the AG and majority of people screaming over the Zimmerman case really want...is for self defense laws to be re-written, (legislated). Left to them, any civilian using a firearm for self defense would be subject to jail time.:eek:
 
Is it y'alls understanding that SYG and Castle Doctrine laws are being treated as the same here?
Click to expand...
In the uproar, no one seems to be making any sort of distinctions. Ask me, they are going after the entire notion of legal self-defense.
 
In the uproar, no one seems to be making any sort of distinctions. Ask me, they are going after the entire notion of legal self-defense.
Click to expand...

Legal self-defense with a firearm is more like it.

This attack on STG and Self-Defense with a firearm is a simple stepping stone to their ultimate goal, the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Without the right to defend ones self and property there will be no need for the 2nd Amendment and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
 
The reason why they are being treated this way, is that some states wanted people to retreat, even inside their homes, before protecting themselves. Here, if they're trying to break down your door, you can shoot them through it. In another state, a young man was shot trying to come through a window, and they found him dead a block away, and castle law saved the homeowner from being charged (he didn't retreat). Stand your ground and castle law stands hand in hand.
 
In the uproar, no one seems to be making any sort of distinctions. Ask me, they are going after the entire notion of legal self-defense.
Click to expand...


Bingo!!!

They are attacking folks who would use guns to protect themselves and their loved ones from the violent predators who prey on our society.
 
Is it y'alls understanding that SYG and Castle Doctrine laws are being treated as the same here?
Click to expand...
It'll all be lumped together. The first aim will be to reinstate a very strict duty to retreat, possibly even in the home.

The second will be to switch things back to a point in which a self-defense plea is an affirmative defense.
 
Before SYG was passed, wasn't self defense an affirmative defense in Florida? In other words, if you had a claim of self defense, wasn't the burden of proof on the defendant to prove it was self defense? That the standard wasn't reasonable doubt, but more likely than not (preponderance of evidence)? has that changed as a result of SYG?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The second will be to switch things back to a point in which a self-defense plea is an affirmative defense.
Click to expand...
:confused:

It's my understanding that in most places, it is an affirmative defense; and that's is as it should be, IMO. I find it appropriate that a person who claims self-defense should be required to substantiate that claim in court.

Florida's law is a glaring exception to that, insofar as it places the burden on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant's claim of self-defense isn't valid.
 
Last edited:
In Ohio, we are protected from suit after the incident.

Quote:

"(2) Recovery on a claim for relief in a tort action is barred to any person or the person's legal representative if the any of the following apply:

"(a) The person has been convicted of or has pleaded guilty to a felony, or to a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, arising out of criminal conduct that was a proximate cause of the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action.

"(3) Division (b) The person engaged in conduct that, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence and that conduct was a proximate cause of the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action, regardless of whether the person has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to or has been charged with committing the felony, the misdemeanor, or the attempt to commit the felony or misdemeanor.

"(c) The person suffered the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action as a proximate result of the victim of conduct that, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence acting against the person in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of the victim's residence, regardless of whether the person has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to or has been charged with committing the felony, the misdemeanor, or the attempt to commit the felony or misdemeanor. Division (B)(2)(c) of this section does not apply if the person who suffered the injury or loss, at the time of the victim's act of self-defense, defense of another, or defense of residence, was an innocent bystander who had no connection with the underlying conduct that prompted the victim's exercise of self-defense, defense of another, or defense of residence.

"(3) Recovery against a victim of conduct that, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, on a claim for relief in a tort action is barred to any person or the person's legal representative if conduct the person engaged in against that victim was a proximate cause of the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action and that conduct, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, regardless of whether the person has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to or has been charged with committing the felony, the misdemeanor, or the attempt to commit the felony or misdemeanor."

Also,

"(B) For purposes of determining the potential liability of a person in a tort action related to the person's use of force alleged to be in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of the person's residence, if the person lawfully is in that person's residence, the person has no duty to retreat before using force in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of that person's residence, and, if the person lawfully is an occupant of that person's vehicle or lawfully is an occupant in a vehicle owned by an immediate family member of the person, the person has no duty to retreat before using force in self-defense or defense of another."

End quote.

However, Ohio's stand your ground only counts in ones home, or automobile, and under castle law, which is tied to it in this way. Unless they have changed it, and I know nothing of it.

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=127_SB_184
 
Last edited:
Dixie Gunsmithing said:
In Ohio, we are protected from suit after the incident....
Click to expand...
No, you are only protected when the circumstances giving raise to the protection have been established.

In other words, you can still be sued. You might need then to show with competent evidence that you are entitled to the protection afforded by the statute. If there is any dispute regarding your entitlement to that protection, the court will need to decide. That's what courts do.

Note that no immunity law is necessarily self executing. You can be sued, in which case you will need to claim immunity and produce evidence that you have satisfied the requirements for immunity.
 
Frank,

They might bring suit themselves, without stating all the facts in the suit, but their attorney should not do it, unless they lie to them about the facts behind it, and he is totally ignorant to it. That is because it barred the one who did it or for an attorney to try to collect damages, if they claimed an injury while committing the crimes listed. "Recovery on a claim for relief in a tort action is barred to any person or the person's legal representative if any of the following apply".

If he is deceased, then their immediate family can't gain anything, "injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action, recovery against a victim of conduct that, if prosecuted..". (not prosecuted, but if prosecuted).

Nor, do they need to be found guilty, or even charged, "regardless of whether the person has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to or has been charged with committing the felony, the misdemeanor, or the attempt to commit the felony or misdemeanor."

Yes, they can try to sue, but it would be thrown out, and we are allowed to sue for the damages they did, ask for court costs, and or bring a counter-suit if needed. All it takes is the police report, if it even went that far, and I do not see any attorney foolish enough to sue, knowing they can't collect.
 
Glenn,

I tried to steer them that way from the beginning. I hope they might listen now. However, I'll try to state it again.

All,

Again, do not bring up the case in question, only about Holders remarks, and what he may plan to do. That is why I started this post, not about the case, as I carefully worded it to not mention it.
 
Dixie Gunsmithing said:
They might bring suit themselves, without stating all the facts in the suit, but their attorney should not do it, unless they lie to them about the facts behind it, and he is totally ignorant to it. That is because it barred the one who did it or for an attorney to try to collect damages, if they claimed an injury while committing the crimes listed. "Recovery on a claim for relief in a tort action is barred to any person or the person's legal representative if any of the following apply"...
Click to expand...
Sorry, but you simply don't understand how these things can work. You are not a lawyer. I am.

The operative phrase in your quote above from the law is (emphasis added):
...Recovery on a claim for relief in a tort action is barred to any person or the person's legal representative if any of the following apply...
Click to expand...
If there is a dispute about whether "any of the following apply" that will be tested and resolved as part of the civil suit.

Dixie Gunsmithing said:
...Yes, they can try to sue, but it would be thrown out, and we are allowed to sue for the damages they did, ask for court costs, and or bring a counter-suit if needed....
Click to expand...
Swell. Of course if the guy you're suing has no money, which is likely, you'll get nothing even if you win.

Dixie Gunsmithing said:
...All it takes is the police report,...
Click to expand...
No. A police report is mere hearsay and can't be used as evidence for such a purpose.

For a thorough discussion of civil immunity, see here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top