Jesse Jackson Challenges GA’s Stand Your Ground Law

B

BarryLee

New member
Jesse Jackson and his Rainbow PUSH Coalition have filed a law suit challenging Georgia’s Stand Your Ground law as being too vague and unconstitutional. They state that, “People are being killed and or punished arbitrarily” and that the law is not clearly defined.

While I support the concept of “stand your ground” I’m not familiar enough with the specifics of Georgia’s law and/or the associated Constitutional arguments to really say if this suit is frivolous or not.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/crime-law/jackson-to-file-suit-to-repeal-stand-your-ground-l/nbfNx/
 
Here's a copy of an email I received from GeorgiaCarry.org Vice President John Monroe related to this law suit. For those in the Atlanta area he’ll be on the Channel 11 evening news at 6:00pm then back on again at 7:00pm to debate plaintiff’s attorney Robert Pattilo.

From GeorgiaCarry.Org's Vice-President and Roswell Attorney John Monroe:


The Reverend Jesse Jackson, through the Rainbow Push Coalition has filed a lawsuit against the state of Georgia (Governor Nathan Deal and Attorney General Sam Olens). This lawsuit is similar to the lawsuit filed in August, 2012 by the Reverend Markel Hutchins and once again challenges Georgia's stand your ground law. On behalf of GeorgiaCarry.Org, I will file a motion to intervene and dismiss this case like we did last time.

I have given an interview that will be played on Channel 11 at 6:00 PM. I will also be a part of a live debate with the Plaintiff's Attorney, Robert Patillo at 7:00 PM on Channel 11. (Both times are guesstimates from the station but normally will air shortly after the top of the hour.
 
Last edited:
In case anyone's wondering, this is the relevant section of the GCA:

16-3-23.1. No duty to retreat prior to use of force in self-defense

A person who uses threats or force in accordance with Code Section 16-3-21, relating to the use of force in defense of self or others, Code Section 16-3-23, relating to the use of force in defense of a habitation, or Code Section 16-3-24, relating to the use of force in defense of property other than a habitation, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use force as provided in said Code sections, including deadly force.
Click to expand...

And no, Jackson doesn't have standing. Nor is he likely to have an argument that will sway a jury.
 
While I support the concept of “stand your ground” I’m not familiar enough with the specifics of Georgia’s law and/or the associated Constitutional arguments to really say if this suit is frivolous or not.
Click to expand...

Don't feel bad BarryLee , I doubt Jackson is either.

Just another way for him to possibly get a chance to get his mug on T.V. for a little publicity.
 
Last edited:
Illinois' self defense law is SYG in everything but name, as there is no duty to retreat (as interpreted by the courts, the law is silent on that) and allows deadly force if a person reasonably believes he is at risk of death or great bodily harm, or to stop a forcible felony.

And in 2004 Barack Obama co-sponsored an amendment to Illinois' self defense law granting civil immunity for lawful self defense.

Odd Jesse Jackson isn't suing Illinois, where he actually lives.
 
"Don't provoke & don't pursuit."....

My city's metro PD push a political agenda on the residents & neighborhood watch groups saying; "don't provoke & don't pursuit" :rolleyes:
This was a PC response to the recent high profile event in central Florida.

The written policy wasn't on the city website for very long.
I think the city atty or some legal scholar set the police chief straight on the state's gun & use of force statues. :rolleyes:
You can't be viewed as the aggressor or "pursuiting" a violent thug who trys to carjack you. Or if you use lethal force on a felon who lunges at you while you are using a ATM. Did you "pursue" the armed thug there?
Get real! :mad:

Clyde
 
Odd Jesse Jackson isn't suing Illinois, where he actually lives.
Click to expand...

No need to turn out the vote by promoting a false narrative that SYG is a racist law in Illinois. That wouldn't be helpful there. Now, Georgia, a state with a large urban population that has consistently supported the GOP the last 20 years or so? Jackson is just doing what he has always done.
 
vranasaurus said:
Unless he has a plaintiff with standing this wont make it very far. This seems frivolous on its face.
Click to expand...

Umm, the article cites multiple plaintiffs, and the reasons they are involved.

Atlanta Journal-Constitution article said:
The lawsuit is brought by the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, a man imprisoned for shooting someone in self defense and the parent of another man who was shot and his killer was acquitted.
Click to expand...

While Jackson doesn't have standing, it seems as though the other parties involved do.
 
I have found that about 98% of those who protest stand your ground laws have absoluetly no idea what it means or what it permits a person to do.
 
To paraphase TimSr's response above, I have found (and I expect many of you would agree) that 98% of Jesse Jackson's statements, actions, and activities are made & conducted with the express purpose of gathering publicity and press attention for himself. Rarely is there any other motive, regardless of what he might claim.
 
Every time Jackson stirs up trouble, he ends up making money from it. But he has no case here (and neither do his sons).
 
Last edited:
a law suit challenging Georgia’s Stand Your Ground law as being too vague and unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

This is the claim, as posted by the OP.

Too vague, hmmmm
Unconstitutional....hmmmm

I don't know the law in question (and it really doesn't matter) they have made claims, and if they have standing, a court will rule, eventually.

What Tom quoted of the Georgia law doesn't seem very vague to me. IT cites several sections and seems to say "if you are doing this, then you are not required to do that"...

I don't know the GA constitution, but I do have a passing familiarity with the US one, and can't seem to find any mention of a duty to retreat in it....
 
GeorgiaCarry.org has filed a motion to intervene and dismiss the Rainbow PUSH Coalition's law suit. GeorgiaCarry is seeking to represent the interest of their members which they do not feel are being adequately represented by the other parties.

http://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/2013/11/10/gco-files-motions-to-intervene-and-dismiss-the-rainbow-push-coalition-attack-on-stand-your-ground/

Also, please let’s focus on the specific case and not the motivation/backgrounds of the individuals involved. I assume the Court will rule on the merits of the case, so please focus on that or the thread may be closed.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top