stand your ground

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...

Ignoratio elenchi or not, I can't make heads or tails of that sentence. In any case, this thread is about various states' "Stand Your Ground" laws, not a general civics primer. As such, yes, posting broadly about Locke and Blackstone is a bit of a red herring.

Let's stay on topic.
 
Bluetrain, that’s kinda what I was getting at. Not quite the right to be wrong, but the right to have the freedom to make mistakes. Without that, there is no virtue in doing the right thing. We would be mindless creatures that were just following orders, and no better than ants.
Concerning my own mistakes, I can only hope that there is some virtue in striving to be right, making amends for mistakes, and asking forgiveness when there is no way to make amends. Otherwise, I probably deserve to get stepped on.

An well, sorry if I offended you, or anyone else..
 
animal said:
...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...
Click to expand...
That's very nice, but in the real world laws mean something and governments can do things.

One is well advised to understand how things actually work in real life and to conduct oneself accordingly.
 
no argument there (Ignoratio elenchi ? .. just kidding !:D )

but one can also strive to convince others to change laws which infringe upon liberties and hold onto those that preserve liberty. There are many people that don’t respond to a legal argument but do respond to moral basis of law argument, and vice-versa.

Ok. Ok, I’ll shut up:D
 
Ken Blackwell wrote an excellent piece explaining "Stand Your GRound" laws here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ken-blackwell/stand-your-ground-law_b_1414676.html

I think it does a great job of explaining why they are a benefit and I think an overwhelming majority of Americans would agree. I think one problem though is few Americans understand how such laws work and the antis are using that confusion to lie about what Stand Your Ground laws cover.

They are essentially using deception to try and get people to make a choice (for or against Stand Your Ground Laws). If they can get them to make that choice, even uninformed, the chances that they will rationalize and continue to support that choice regardless of later information go up.
 
I think one problem though is few Americans understand how such laws work and the antis are using that confusion to lie about what Stand Your Ground laws cover.
Click to expand...
You can tell that from some of the comments, as well as Josh Sugarmann's articles on the same site. One of my reservations about the law at inception was the very name. "Stand Your Ground" was a bit over-the-top, and it's telling that Georgia chose instead to name their version "No Duty to Retreat."

In any case, it's unavoidable that the antis will do what they can to distort fact and intent. Heck, in this climate, they're grabbing for whatever fading relevance they can, and this is an opportunity for them to gain some mindshare. I'm not sure they'll have much success, but it's up to us (as usual!) to counter emotional distortions with calm facts.
 
We can not forget that in the case of any contentious issue, your opposition will always use whatever ammunition is available and try to turn any event in public eye to their advantage if at all possible.
 
(Edited to remove response to deleted post)


IMO "no duty to retreat" is a far better way to state the same idea as "stand your ground" : Most people don't like the idea of the law forcing you to run away, especially when running away could put you in further danger.

Yeah, I know "running away" isn't precise, but it's a easier to get the point across to those ruled by emotion.
 
Last edited:
For example, there was Mark Abshire [thefiringline.com] 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.
Click to expand...

Abshire is an idiot: Instead of calling the cops, Abshire got a gun and went back outside where he confronted some folks driving on a public street. According to deputies who investigated, Abshire had been drinking. Abshire was lucky to be found not guilty.
 
Under SYG laws or "No Duty to Retreat laws" we still do have a duty or obligation to avoid a bad shooting. In other words we still have a duty to retreat if possible. There is a misconception that SYG will make a bad shooting somehow a good one.

There is also a misconception that "a duty to retreat" means that you cannot defend yourself.

What Frank says here is about right...

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.
Click to expand...

SYG laws, like similar statutes in California, do not protect a person in a bad shooting but can provide a measure of protection in a good one where some things are off a bit or questionable.

tipoc
 
"No duty to retreat" laws mean just that .. not "we still have a duty to retreat if possible"

You can stay where you are, if you are rightfully there.
You cannot threaten. You cannot instigate. You cannot attack.
You can defend.
 
tipoc said:
Under SYG laws or "No Duty to Retreat laws" we still do have a duty or obligation to avoid a bad shooting. In other words we still have a duty to retreat if possible.
Click to expand...
The above statement is self-contradictory, and a logical impossibility. Please explain how, in a jurisdiction where the law plainly states that one does NOT have a duty to retreat, one nevertheless has a duty to retreat.
 
There is no fleeing in my home!


I have a 3yr old and a 9 yr. old in a top bunk on the 2nd floor. I can hardly get them out of bed on a good school day.


This is completely mute point. If there is a home invasion - the only one I could forsee is someone breaking into my attached garage and trying to steal tools (happened before). Im not going to shoot them dead trying to take my 30.00 skill saw.


HOWEVER, if someone tries to break into my house with my kids in it....well lets just say they better not. End of story.
 
I Thought it might be useful if some people saw an actual example of a law that has "no duty to retreat", and a provision preventing "duty to retreat" from being considered when deciding whether or not a shooting was justified. IMO a very good law allowing you to protect your life, the life of another, and your places of refuge. Mississippi’s version is commonly stated as "castle doctrine" (because that was how it was billed politically), but as you can see in the text, it’s a little more. Of course, this is just one example, and others differ.

It does not remove the need for justifying the use of force. It does remove unjust demands that you try to escape.

MISSISSIPPI
§ 97-3-15. Homicide; justifiable homicide; use of defensive force; duty to retreat.

(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement or omission of another shall be justifiable in the following cases:
(a) When committed by public officers, or those acting by their aid and assistance, in obedience to any judgment of a competent court;
(b) When necessarily committed by public officers, or those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, in overcoming actual resistance to the execution of some legal process, or to the discharge of any other legal duty;
(c) When necessarily committed by public officers, or those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, in retaking any felon who has been rescued or has escaped;
(d) When necessarily committed by public officers, or those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, in arresting any felon fleeing from justice;
(e) When committed by any person in resisting any attempt unlawfully to kill such person or to commit any felony upon him, or upon or in any dwelling, in any occupied vehicle, in any place of business, in any place of employment or in the immediate premises thereof in which such person shall be;
(f) When committed in the lawful defense of one's own person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished;
(g) When necessarily committed in attempting by lawful ways and means to apprehend any person for any felony committed;
(h) When necessarily committed in lawfully suppressing any riot or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.

(2) (a) As used in subsection (1)(c) and (d) of this section, the term "when necessarily committed" means that a public officer or a person acting by or at the officer's command, aid or assistance is authorized to use such force as necessary in securing and detaining the felon offender, overcoming the offender's resistance, preventing the offender's escape, recapturing the offender if the offender escapes or in protecting himself or others from bodily harm; but such officer or person shall not be authorized to resort to deadly or dangerous means when to do so would be unreasonable under the circumstances. The public officer or person acting by or at the officer's command may act upon a reasonable apprehension of the surrounding circumstances; however, such officer or person shall not use excessive force or force that is greater than reasonably necessary in securing and detaining the offender, overcoming the offender's resistance, preventing the offender's escape, recapturing the offender if the offender escapes or in protecting himself or others from bodily harm.
(b) As used in subsection (1)(c) and (d) of this section the term "felon" shall include an offender who has been convicted of a felony and shall also include an offender who is in custody, or whose custody is being sought, on a charge or for an offense which is punishable, upon conviction, by death or confinement in the Penitentiary.
(c) As used in subsections (1)(e) and (3) of this section, "dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind that has a roof over it, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, including a tent, that is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night, including any attached porch;

(3) A person who uses defensive force shall be presumed to have reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily harm, or the commission of a felony upon him or another or upon his dwelling, or against a vehicle which he was occupying, or against his business or place of employment or the immediate premises of such business or place of employment, if the person against whom the defensive force was used, was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or if that person had unlawfully removed or was attempting to unlawfully remove another against the other person's will from that dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof and the person who used defensive force knew or had reason to believe that the forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. This presumption shall not apply if the person against whom defensive force was used has a right to be in or is a lawful resident or owner of the dwelling, vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or is the lawful resident or owner of the dwelling, vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or if the person who uses defensive force is engaged in unlawful activity or if the person is a law enforcement officer engaged in the performance of his official duties;

(4) A person who is not the initial aggressor and is not engaged in unlawful activity shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force under subsection (1) (e) or (f) of this section if the person is in a place where the person has a right to be, and no finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the person's failure to retreat as evidence that the person's use of force was unnecessary, excessive or unreasonable.

(5) (a) The presumptions contained in subsection (3) of this section shall apply in civil cases in which self-defense or defense of another is claimed as a defense.
(b) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant acted in accordance with subsection (1) (e) or (f) of this section. A defendant who has previously been adjudicated "not guilty" of any crime by reason of subsection (1) (e) or (f) of this section shall be immune from any civil action for damages arising from same conduct.
 
Aguila,

What is the difference between a good shooting and a bad?

In a bad shooting SYG will not apply, or may not apply. That's the point. If you are the clear instigator of the confrontation, and chose not to de-escalate, SYG either won't or may not help. SYG is not a free pass.

The law starts by assuming folks try to avoid killing or maiming each other and retreat from the possibility of that. SYG does not change that.

If a person tries to car jack you and in the course of defending yourself you shoot a bystander; SYG may help avoid a lawsuit by the injured bystander. It may also protect you in the shooting of the car jacker. Though in many states you would already be protected by other statutes.

tipoc
 
If you are the clear instigator of the confrontation,
Click to expand...

That's not standing your ground. That's attempting to wrongfully advance your ground.

Of course it isn't a free pass. You still have to be in the right.
 
The California Criminal Code (CALCRIM 3470) contains the following regarding instructions which should be given to juries whenever a claim of self defense has been made by a defendant:

"He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself, and if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of death or great bodily injury has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating."

This has been a part of the California Criminal Code for over a century.

In 2005 Lenard Rhodes, a convicted felon who had no legal right to possess a firearm, was convicted of attempted manslaughter and had his conviction overturned under this provision of the law. Rhodes was sitting in a car when an armed man approached him and Rhodes shot the man in self defense. The judge in his first trial had failed to give the jury the proper instruction as per the above. The court in Santa Ana, Ca. ruled that Rhodes..."had the right to defend himself, stand his ground and use the amount of force reasonable under the circumstances". Even though Rhodes could possibly driven away, he may also have been shot while doing so. Safe retreat was not a reasonable option.

tipoc
 
The original poster seems to have confused "stand your ground" with "castle doctrine".

Although there should be a fundamental right to self defense, as Harold Fish notes, in the real world you would sometimes be better off running like hell.
 
An issue that will always be with us concerning stand your ground or duty to retreat will be that situations involving these laws will always be second-guessed by opponents to each law.

No set of laws, no system is going to be perfect. We know our justice system is not perfect, however, we've generally agreed as a society that it is a greater evil to wrongly punish an innocent man than to allow a guilty one to remain free. Our justice system is skewed to minimize the number of false positives (finding an innocent person guilty), and the cost of that is a higher number of false negatives (finding the guilty innocent).

Stand your ground versus duty to retreat sits at the heart of an ideological debate. People who oppose stand your ground laws are perfectly capable of living with a high number of people who will lose their lives at the hands of criminals and they are comfortable with incarcerating people who use firearms to defend themselves. When people are robed, killed or raped, they express sadness at the tragic and senseless violence - but they don't feel outrage and anger. They're willing to live with crime as a fact of life. What sparks outrage in them is when a person uses a gun against an assailant severely wounding or killing the assailant. Then they are outraged. That to them is something intolerable that they cannot live with.
On the other side of the debate, people who oppose “duty to retreat” laws feel that it is intolerable that even one person should lose their life at the hands of an attacker because they opted not to defend themselves for fear of legal repercussions, or they attempted to retreat when they had the opportunity to win the conflict and died in the process of retreating. Two groups in society that look at this same event very differently – one group is able to tolerate it and the other group is not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top