stand your ground

Status
Not open for further replies.
"Are you willing to kill someone over what is in your wallet" is a red herring to a discussion of natural rights and so is whether "standing your ground is always a good idea". How individual rights are actually exercised is a separate question and always involves valid or invalid actions chosen according to one’s personal morality and the situation in which one finds himself .

As far as rights and duties go with respect to retreat : The person who is operating within his rights has the right to retreat and the person infringing on another’s rights has the duty to retreat.

Personally, I believe it is morally wrong to use deadly force to protect my property unless failure to protect it would result in endangering my life or the life of another. I also believe it is morally wrong to infringe upon the property rights of another, or to impose my moral code upon another where their right to liberty does not conflict with the rights of another.
Private property extends the boundaries of "self". Your property is basically part of you as a person (not what you are as a man (except for the very core of your principles) but how you are considered in relation to others). I can’t force another to take action and change himself as a person. My only right in trying to change someone else is to use speech in hopes that he will listen and change himself.

Self preservation is not a selfish act as long as you recognize that others also have the right to self preservation. When one attempts to violate a particular right of another person, he forfeits that right for himself.

(use of "man" in this and previous post is not meant to be gender specific, but more in the sense of being human. If someone cannot act as a human, they are no longer fully human … just as an automobile without an engine could be considered a pile of scrap metal with the potential to be an automobile rather than being an automobile. It’s function and action define what it is to the world around it.)
 
We need to understand that our society frowns on one human intentionally killing or hurting another. However, our laws, going back to the Common Law of England on which our system is based (and even before then in other systems), recognize that there are situations in which an intentional act of extreme violence against another person can be justified -- for example when absolutely necessary to defend an innocent (whether oneself or another) against an otherwise unavoidable threat of being killed or gravely injured by another person's intention act.

The original rule was that before using force in self defense, one had a duty to retreat if he could do so in complete safety. And this did not apply in your home, because your home was your place of refuges; and no one should be able to force you to leave your place of refuges. And of course, the duty to retreat reflected the core societal value that intentionally hurting another human was inherently repugnant, and resort to violence was to be avoided when possible.

The real idea behind SYG laws is to avoid having to deal with a dispute about whether one could have safely retreated. That could often be a tough question. A difficult side question would be whether the actor, in the heat of the moment during a rapidly unfolding and dangerous emergent situation could even have been reasonably expected to have been aware of an available means of escape. So to have the protection of a SYG law, all other requirements need to legally justify your act of violence against another human still need to be satisfied.

And there remains the practical side of things. A fight avoided is a fight won.

animal said:
...Life, liberty, and property are inalienable rights that are supposedly protected and guaranteed in the US Constitution....
Click to expand...
An appeal to the Constitution is a red herring in this context. The Constitution regulates government and not private conduct. The private person attacking me is not violating my constitutional rights because he is not bound or regulated by the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
right & wrong...

The main problem I see with the "ave of escape" or flee type actions is that as an armed citizen or license holder, you do not honestly know who or what may be outside your home/property. As a recent gun magazine item stated, many violent crooks go in packs or pairs. If you flee a scene, could you realistically face more danger?
Consider the brutal attack-home invasion in CT with the 2 savage animals who restrainted the home owner(doctor) then raped & murdered the female family members. How would an "escape" or for the family to flee the property worked? I'd add that the violent subjects also burned the house before they left.
My point is that in a home or property, you can apply a castle doctrine or stand your ground a lot clearer than a street altercation or fight where you may have time or a way to avoid a conflict.
Criminal courts, civil court rooms and many prisons are filled with people who feel their actions were justified or prudent. ;)

CF
 
"Are you willing to kill someone over what is in your wallet"

in this case yes its mine and if someone trys to take it with force i will defend it with every thing and anything i have... now if they came to me and ask if i could help them without force i would try to help if i truly thought they need help.
 
I support and approve of the Stand Your Gound Law....In a public surrounding outside my home, when encountering danger to my health or life, I believe in retreating. BUT, if last resort is to fight back. I will....In my home, If anyone is not surely welcomed or an intruder...BANG!!!
 
the SYG laws protect the homeowner /shooter from being arrested when they are in the right. In the past people have been arrested and charged with murder and in a lot of cases excepted a lesser plea of man Slaughter to avoid a trial and the expenses.
 
I recall a case in my town where 4 young men confronted on young man in a park.The lone ,man fled,but was knocked down and was being beaten.The lone man had a Buck folding hunter knife in his pocket.He used it,and one of the attackers died.
All I have is what was in the paper,but for that the young man was sentenced to five years,the DA"He brought a knife to a fist fight".Seems like self defense to me,and the surviving attackers deserve jail time.

A more recent case in my town,after an evening of drinking,a man decided to end his evening with a fight.One punch,the man who was hit died.Jail time,with good reason.I call it murder.

Not specific to Z vs M,if you are carrying concealed ,IMO,it is a very good idea to not be in a position where an unarmed man would attack you with a beating.

In other words,IMO,do not let your weapon give you courage to enter an altercation.

I think most LEOs would agree scuffling on the ground is a good way to be shot with your own weapon.If an unarmed man is beating you senseless,you may have to shoot him to survive,but you will have shot an unarmed man.
That is not a popular thing to do.

An equal suggestion of restraint to those who think fists are a good idea.The guy you punch may shoot you dead.
 
I'm glad that Illinois never put any "stand your ground" or "Castle Doctrine" verbiage in their justifiable homocide statute.

It's a decent law and it isn't easily targeted with inflamatory hyperbole.
 
BlueTrain said:
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.
Click to expand...
I wasn't arguing over whether self-preservation was a right, or even whether it's a good idea. I think self-preservation is a great idea. I was just pointing out (on the stand your ground issue) that those are separate, sort of "analytically." Someone may have a right to stand his ground, but that does not necessarily make it a good idea. My apologies if that wasn't clear.
 
If your gift of situational awareness says a tactical retreat is what's appropriate to prevent the need to engage, please, beat your little feet. That will change your life a lot less than the gun option. Most of the action around my neighborhood involves multiple shooters. Repeat after me - I'm not Clint!
 
The WSJ had an interesting article in yesterday’s print edition dealing with SYG laws. I tried to link to it, but it is in their subscription only section.

Basically the main point of the article was that several states including Georgia, South Carolina, Wisconsin and Florida, have or will have bills submitted to repeal these laws. Whether there is enough support to actually repeal these laws remains to be seen, but some supporters have agreed to consider tweaking them. Also, they pointed out that two states, Alaska and I believe Iowa, had SYG bills up for consideration in this legislative session, but failed to bring them to a vote.

I hope we are not starting to see public opinion tilting away from legislation that protects and enhances the freedom of gun owners.
 
Training & use of force...

A major problem, in my opine, is the clear lack of focus or lack of skill training by many US gun owners RE: use of force, threat management, levels of force, etc.

Many US citizens buy a firearm, get ammunition, buy a case or a small safe then THAT'S IT! :mad:

I read a article a few years ago in a gun press publication of a guy who carefully unloaded & a secured a COCKED, fully loaded .357magnum revolver an older neighbor left in a bedroom drawer for 20 years! :eek:
These incidents & lack of proper(safe) methods will only allow left-wing and anti-2A groups to steamroll over gun owners/armed citizens in the next few years.
More responsible license holders & gun industry members(FFL holders, gun club members, etc) should teach safe gun use to new owners/hunters and be in front of the issue.
Classes & skill training cost $$$ but more armed citizens & 2A supporters should be aware of the laws, SOPs, safety, etc.

ClydeFrog
 
animal said:
If you cannot protect your property, you have no right to hold your property.
Click to expand...
"No duty to retreat" (or "stand your ground") laws in no way authorize the use of any level of force to protect property.

animal said:
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.
Click to expand...
"Stand your ground" laws do not establish any "right" to use public property.

animal said:
Life, liberty, and property are inalienable rights that are supposedly protected and guaranteed in the US Constitution.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty certain the wording I was taught in junior high was, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I do not recall any mention of property. And I believe that phrase was in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
 
barstoolguru said:
...the SYG laws protect the homeowner /shooter from being arrested when they are in the right...
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Sometimes, notwithstanding a SYG law, it's not all that easy to establish that you were in the right.

For example, there was Mark Abshire in Oklahoma: Despite defending himself against multiple attackers on his own lawn in a fairly gun-friendly state with a "Stand Your Ground" law, he was arrested, went to jail, charged, lost his job and his house, and spent two and a half years in the legal meat-grinder before finally being acquitted.

A SYG law may help you establish that you were in the right, but it's not a guarantee that you won't be arrested and have to establish that your use of force was justified.

Aguila Blanca said:
...I'm pretty certain the wording I was taught in junior high was, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I do not recall any mention of property. And I believe that phrase was in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
Click to expand...
You're correct about "pursuit of happiness." The phrase "life, liberty or property" shows up twice in the Constitution:

  • In the Fifth Amendment:
    No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;...
    Click to expand...

  • In the Fourteenth Amendment:
    ...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...
    Click to expand...
Of course neither has anything to do with defending your life or property against the acts of a private criminal.
 
"I read a article a few years ago in a gun press publication of a guy who carefully unloaded & a secured a COCKED, fully loaded .357magnum revolver an older neighbor left in a bedroom drawer for 20 years!"


Must be as safe as a .45 in Condition One then. It never went off, did it? :rolleyes:

Still... it's a good point.



Willie
 
Frank Ettin, If you’ll notice, the statement you quoted was not an appeal to the Constitution if you allow it to be qualified by statements which you did not quote. It was a mention that the government of the US was forbidden by the Constitution to infringe upon the preexistent, inalienable, and natural rights of man. The intention was to momentarily sweep away the relevance of the law concerning the topic (discard the law as a red herring to focus on the moral aspects).

The Constitution is, as you stated, a red herring from the standpoint of one man violating another’s Constitutional rights because it regulates the government rather than the people.

However, mentioning the Constitution was to point out that it recognized the rights of the people. The Constitution binds the government to act towards the people in the same way each of the people is bound by Natural Law to act towards each other. This suggests that the laws of this nation should mirror and reinforce a system of morality based upon the concept of individual liberty.

IMHO, The founders drew upon sources far beyond English common law. I think it can be shown they drew heavily from their own sense of morality, which in turn was shaped by early enlightenment thinking that treated morality as a science to be examined through logic and confirmed by investigation of real examples. They examined legal theory and examples of applied law (with English common law by far the most prevalent) through the lens of the moral sciences. I firmly believe their goal was to create a government that would act as a moral entity would under Natural Law. I would further suggest that their view of Natural Law, as applied to morality, was stated concisely by John Locke : "Reason, which is that Law, teaches all Mankind, who would but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions."
 
Aguila Blanca
Stand your ground laws do not establish any rights. The Constitution recognizes and guarantees our inalienable rights (immunities) and establishes other rights with respect to the government which would not exist without the existence of the government (privileges).

No law, government, or any other earthly authority granted you your inalienable rights. They are as much a part of you as your body or mind. The religious can thank God for being given them. The non-religious can be happy that they are part of their nature as human beings.

Pursuit of happiness/ right to property - The right to property includes all things (both tangible and intangible) which you can call "yours" : from your personal desires, ideas, sense of honor, and religious beliefs to your body and material possessions.
Pursuit of happiness includes your ability to extend your influence through these "things" by interaction with others. Among others, it includes the rights to free speech, to engage in commerce, and to peaceably assemble. The "pursuit of happiness" can be expressed as a right to growth in moral, spiritual, familial, social and financial concerns, but its aspects are innumerable.
The pursuit of happiness is reliant upon the right to property, since without the right to property ownership is dissolved, and you cannot even own yourself. True citizenship becomes impossible and citizens are reduced to subjects.
Self ownership is the essence of freedom and the only absolute freedom a person can rightfully have. (Until such time as he gets married, anyway…:D)

"Property" in the Constitution was already mentioned.
As an aside, the first right enumerated by the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress:"That they are entitled to life, liberty, and property, and they have never ceded to any sovereign power whatever a right to dispose of either without their consent."
I would submit that We the people of the United States, have still not ceded a right to dispose of these things without our consent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top