stand your ground

Status
Not open for further replies.
1

1hogfan83

New member
I do fully believe in stand your ground, no one should have to flee from your home when an intruder enters and shows aggresion, especially when armed. Are their any other views on this law?
 
Only a fool would disagree that one can't stand his ground in his own home. I would hope that the bad guy would not be able contradict you in any way?
 
http://tucsoncitizen.com/arizona-ne...florida-teenager-touches-emotions-in-arizona/

Mr Fish says:

Fish said his conviction soured him on prosecutors and “truth, justice and the American way.” He wishes he had taken a plea bargain that would have kept him out of prison, and he has a new perspective on standing your ground.

“My advice is to run like heck and get the heck out of there,” Fish said.
Click to expand...

While the abstract sounds nice and most agree that you should not have to flee an attack, we also must consider the practical.

Also, if this is a way to start discussing Zimmerman vs. Williams again in specifics - DON'T.
 
I do fully believe in stand your ground, no one should have to flee from your home when an intruder enters and shows aggression, especially when armed. Are their any other views on this law?


This is the "Castle Doctrine" not the SYG law.

Both law are completely valid

AFS
 
While there have been many changes in the laws to help a reasonable person to legally protect his/herself we must understand that after the short time of the actual event, each and every action we took, or did not take may be reviewed in extreme detail.

I am of the camp that, while it may be "legal" to use lethal force in some circumstances, it is still best to always use lethal force as THE last resort.
 
When I was in Middle School I got into a fight (was provoked) and my father heard about it from my sister and asked me "Did you win?" I proudly said "Yes."
He told me "There are no winners in fights, only loosers. The one that looses less we call a winner, but that's a lie."

I am firmly committed to avoidance whenever possible, deterence when avoidance is no longer possible and defense when the others are no longer possible. The last resort is to be a victim and no an option for me.

The question above is what would you do if someone armed attacked in your own home? It had noting to do with Zimmerman or Fish
 
Contact an attorney in your neck of the woods and request a legal opinion based on the laws of the state, county and city/town you live on. Anything else is misleading and can get you in a world of trouble.
 
In a clear-cut self defense situation, Stand Your Ground is perfectly reasonable. When your attacker has buddies (who may not even have been there) who will swear under oath that you started the fight and shot the poor innocent guy in cold blood, things get messy. And very expensive.

Shooting situations are seldom as black-and-white as our daydreams. It’s those common shades of gray that lead to loss of savings, massive debt and/or felony prison time.
 
Let God do the sort !!!

My understanding is that; "Stand Your Ground" is not a new concept or law. In fact, California has had it in their books for about 150 years. The original concept of Fleeing rather than stand your ground, came from the days of swords. Rather than fight, a sword, you were suppose to run away from it. Try that with a .45ACP. .... :eek:

The right of self protection is not only a Constitutional right but more important, a natural God given right. .... ;)

Be Safe !!!
 
1hogfan83 said:
Are their any other views on this law?
Click to expand...
Which law?

I believe there are approximately 20 states that have some form of "stand your ground" law currently on the books. I doubt very much that they all say the same thing. Which one did you wish to discuss?
 
Tom Servo said:
The interpretation that matters most is the one the grand jury chooses to apply. Even in states without such laws, the standard is often applied.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but I also must give a just due to Japle, beyond what he stated, there is also the emotional well being aspect.

While we may understand that no one wins a fight. Also that the cost to defend our actions may bankrupt our finances, we also must look at how we will be afterwards.

Tom, you are correct in each state, and jury applies things differently. To me, what matters most is the proof of the actions that end in the end result.

In self defense it is seldom easy. We must do all that we can to ensure we are in the right.
 
Without "stand your ground" (whether or not it is specifically stated in the law), you have no right to be where you are.
If you cannot protect your life when threatened, you have no right to life.
If you cannot protect your property, you have no right to hold your property.
A duty to retreat on public property, dissolves any right to common use of same.
If you are prevented from exercising your rights, you have no right to liberty.

Life, liberty, and property are inalienable rights that are supposedly protected and guaranteed in the US Constitution.
They are not granted by the Constitution, but inalienable from the individual man.
Inalienable in the sense that they cannot rightfully be separated from the individual man except by his own willful forfeiture.
Inalienable in the sense that without these rights (and innumerable others) an individual cannot fully function as a man.
Without them a person could, at most, be 3/5 ths of a man, and owned by those who regulate his actions.

That said, we must not always exercise our rights to their fullest, but we must retain that ability if we are to have liberty. The greatest part of human nature and another right inalienable to man is the ability to self-sacrifice. Whether it is the self-sacrifice of not exercising our rights to the fullest in order to show mercy, sacrificing property to show charity, or the ability to perform innumerable other good deeds; we must have the liberty to do so. Removal of liberty in the name of a more humane society removes our humanity in the process.
 
FL, stand your ground & avenue of escapes...

I agree with the basic points of the topic post but the problem nationwide is many people(gun owners & non-gun owners/left-wingers) do not fully understand the stated purpose/intent of "stand your ground" laws.
Prior to the 2005 Florida stand-your-ground law(s), sworn LE pushed citizens to use an; "avenue of escape" or do all required/available to avoid a lethal force event. These standards are not & were not practical to the armed citizen in all crimes(car jackings, armed robbery, home invasion, etc).
I agree though that; "stand your ground" laws do NOT condone or authorize license holders/armed citizens to chase subjects down the street or ambush/booby-trap them.
A USMC veteran & federal employee(Dept of Energy material courier) was arrested & prosecuted for using a firearm against a home-breaker in New Mexico. The former Marine shot at a subject as he fled from the property.

All US gun owners & armed professionals(security officers, military, LE, corrections, etc) should get skill training and learn the local use of force(lethal force) laws. 2nd hand stories, rumors, cop shows, and macho talk will not defend your actions in a criminal-civil court. Be smart! ;)

ClydeFrog
 
Actually, I think the better expression is that "self-preservation" is a natural right. I'm not so sure that standing your ground is always a good idea. Besides, with regards to public space, there is less and less of that all the time. The mall? Entirely private property. What's even funnier is that more often than not, a sign that says "public property" usually has the line "no trespassing" underneath. However, those are unrelated issues.

Are you willing to kill someone over what's in your wallet?
 
BlueTrain said:
Actually, I think the better expression is that "self-preservation" is a natural right. I'm not so sure that standing your ground is always a good idea. . . .
Click to expand...
But whether something is: (a) a right; or (b) a good idea . . . Those are entirely separate discussions. If I put on my thinking cap, I'm sure I could come up with lots and lots of monumentally bad ideas, each and every one of which I have a right to do.
 
Fish said his conviction soured him on prosecutors and “truth, justice and the American way.” He wishes he had taken a plea bargain that would have kept him out of prison, and he has a new perspective on standing your ground.

“My advice is to run like heck and get the heck out of there,” Fish said.
Click to expand...

While the abstract sounds nice and most agree that you should not have to flee an attack, we also must consider the practical.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a better plan.
 
While one can argue whether or not self-preservation is a right or not, I doubt anyone would say it is a bad idea. It's a selfish thing, to be sure, and everyday people do things for which self-preservation is not the first object.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top