stand your ground

Status
Not open for further replies.
Big issue here in NJ. As most of you know we have NO right to defend our property and will face prosecution in the event we defend ourselves.
Its my understanding as explained to me by a NJSP officer friend;
If you have no way to retreat (IE: cornered) and you feel your life or the life of your family member is in immanent danger you have the right to use deadly force. His words of wisdom to me are very clear. If I ever have to fire on someone remember to tell all the investigators the same thing. I felt my life was in danger and I had no choice. I can remember several cases where people have woke up and shot an intruder at the end of there bed only to be prosecuted. I had an employee who was attacked with a knife, turns out he was a blackbelt and after being stabbed kicked the guy. He ended up doing 90 days for assault. Lets face it, even if you rightfully use deadly force the aggressor (criminal) still wins because you are going to spend your life savings on defense attorneys in order to preserve your freedom. I envy anyone in a CD state. I wouldn't shoot someone for steeling my blender but I would like it more clear that if I had to defend myself I wouldn't go to jail for doing so. My only comfort is thinking that its better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There’s also the perception vs. reality and "group think" aspects ... that I believe are more important. Many people are against the law while for it’s underlying principles.
Had a fun conversation the other day with three females vehemently opposed to "stand your ground". After establishing that they believed they had the right to defend themselves, roughly 30 minutes of Socratic questioning changed their minds on "stand your ground".
 
animal said:
There’s also the perception vs. reality and "group think" aspects ... that I believe are more important. Many people are against the law while for it’s underlying principles....
Click to expand...
I think that's correct. But there's another dynamic we should be aware of. There are people, including many influential people, who specifically oppose, on principle, the right of self defense.

See, for example, Armed by Gary Kleck and Don Kates (Prometheus Books, 2001). On pages 116 - 121, they discuss various liberal, moral objections to the notion that one may be justified in defending himself.

Feminist Betty Frienden is cited as denouncing the trend of women to arm themselves for self defense as, "...a horrifying, obscene perversion of feminism...." Her ridiculous notion that , "...lethal violence even in self defense only engenders more violence and that gun control should override any personal need for safety...." is probably widely held in liberal circles. Indeed, according to Kleck and Kates, Mario Cuomo avowed that Bernie Goetz was morally wrong in shooting even if it was clearly necessary to resist felonious attack.

Kleck and Kates also report that an article was published by the Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church condemning defensive gun ownership. In the article, Rev. Allen Brockway, editor of the board's magazine, advised women that it was their Christian duty to submit to rape rather than do anything that might imperil the attacker's life.

Kleck and Kates also note that the Presbyterian Church (U. S. A.) has taken a strict anti-self defense view. Rev. Kathy Young testified as a representative of that group before a Congressional Panel in 1972 in support of handgun control that the Presbyterian Church (U. S. A.) opposes the killing of anyone, anywhere for any reason (including, in the context of the testimony, self defense)

While these positions appear to us to be nonsense, they have some following. Note, for example that self defense is not considered in many countries to be a good reason to own a gun. Indeed in Great Britain, the natural right of self defense has been significantly curtailed by law. For an excellent study of the erosion of gun and self defense rights in Great Britain see Guns and Violence, the English Experience by Joyce Lee Malcolm (Harvard University Press, 2002).

The point of the foregoing is that the universal acceptance of the ethics of self defense can not be taken for granted.

On the other hand, it's interesting to note that Roman Catholic doctrine supports self defense. From the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church (footnotes omitted):
Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."...

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.... ​

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility....
Click to expand...
 
SYG laws protect homeowner/ legal shooters from costly prosecution and jail time. In Most of the time the shooter will plea to a lesser charge to avoid the time and money to fight. What I didn't know is the stats of plea bargains are the court system.

I was told it is 90-95% of all cases never make it court. So the chances of a homeowner getting burned for a legal shooting is very good without the SYG laws
 
Barstoolguru said:
SYG laws protect homeowner/ legal shooters from costly prosecution and jail time. In Most of the time the shooter will plea to a lesser charge to avoid the time and money to fight. What I didn't know is the stats of plea bargains are the court system.

I was told it is 90-95% of all cases never make it court. So the chances of a homeowner getting burned for a legal shooting is very good without the SYG laws
Click to expand...
Like other posts in this thread, you are confusing "stand your ground" with "castle doctrine." There are currently (IIRC) 20 states that have "stand your ground" (or "no duty to retreat") laws. But these laws address whether or not a person must attempt to retreat from a threat outside the home before he/she is allowed to use deadly force in self defense.

Castle doctrine applies IN your home, and I believe only one or two states require someone who is within his or her home to attempt to retreat before being allowed to use deadly force in self defense.
 
Like other posts in this thread, you are confusing "stand your ground" with "castle doctrine." There are currently (IIRC) 20 states that have "stand your ground" (or "no duty to retreat") laws. But these laws address whether or not a person must attempt to retreat from a threat outside the home before he/she is allowed to use deadly force in self defense.

Castle doctrine applies IN your home, and I believe only one or two states require someone who is within his or her home to attempt to retreat before being allowed to use deadly force in self defense.
Click to expand...

from what I read in an NRA and what I understand under other treads the SYG law is an extension of the castle doctrine (the castle doctrine extending back as far a 1000 ad a law that was brought from England)
Gives someone the right and protection of the law to defend themselves against a threat

SYG laws were just enabled in the last 7-8 years because people were being charged for murder BECAUSE they didn't try to run first just to be assault/gunned down /beaten.

the problem here is we have become a system of "live on another back" and the DA can't get re elected unless they prosecutor someone and keep up the numbers
 
I think it's more than just procecutors trying to get re-elected.

I think it is conflicting value systems, much of it highlighted in Frank Ettin's post but also I believe that the division on SYG law and laws like it, is an ideological one.

There are people who believe that individuals cannot be trusted, that they run amok. But the actions of groups - mitigated by a group decision making process, can be trusted and yield a better result.

It's about power being aggragated at the individual level or power being aggragated at the societal level.

Some SYG laws limits what a society can do to an individual by requiring probable cause before an arrest.

The people who don't like the idea of empowered individuals really hate that provision because it makes it very difficult for society embodied by government to enforce society's will upon the individual whom they disagree with. It makes it difficult for them to punish a shooter they don't like.
 
There are people who believe that individuals cannot be trusted, that they run amok. But the actions of groups - mitigated by a group decision making process, can be trusted and yield a better result.

It's about power being aggragated at the individual level or power being aggragated at the societal level.

The people who don't like the idea of empowered individuals really hate that provision because it makes it very difficult for society embodied by government to enforce society's will upon the individual whom they disagree with. It makes it difficult for them to punish a shooter they don't like.
Click to expand...

Interesting points, Count. Some would say that there is no rule of law where power resides with the individual. What you have is anarchy as opposed to a civilized society organized under the rule of law.

As for people not liking CD/SYG laws because it makes it difficult to use the law against persons they don't like, some would say that such laws make it easier for government to decline to punish individuals they like.
 
Last edited:
Anarchy, if it exists, is contained in the individual and is the only true freedom you have, freedom of mind.
It is the combination of an individual’s inalienable rights, and a duty to respect the rights of others; that prevents anarchy in society.

Government, when correctly constructed, is a contract between the people to create a government; which acts as a servant to the people as a whole.
Part of the individual’s duty to respect the rights of others is ceded to the government, and becomes the powers of government.
Additional rights stem from the creation of the government and are the privileges.
Inalienable rights are fully retained by the individual, and are the immunities from government regulation.
Government has no rights, only powers.
The purpose of that government is to form a system to enforce the "borders" of each individual(their rights) ; and regulate the interactions between them, according to the principle of willful equitable exchange.

The rule of law should be a construct to allow each to act according to his rights, but without infringing upon the rights of others
A necessary component is that the instant a person attempts to infringe upon a right of another person, he forfeits that right for himself. So, for example, killing a man in self defense is permissible since the attacker forfeited his right to life, the moment he initiated the attack.

Well, that's how it's supposed to work. I'd never accuse the govt. of actually operating that way.
 
Last edited:
Frank Ettin, Spot on! However, I wouldn’t call it nonsense per se. I would call it irresponsibility at its most basic level... Unless they also do not believe in life as an individual right.
Those that don’t believe self defense is a right are extremely hard to deal with, and bringing up "stand your ground" is pretty much pointless ... since there is no "common ground" on which both can stand.

Normally I don’t even try to "turn" those people. Well, unless it’s someone I care about. It can be done, but can take years to accomplish since you have to go all the way back to considering a single life as innately valuable; before you can find common ground with them. With the true collectivists, there isn’t even common ground there.

As COuntZero said, principled views on "stand your ground" is a classic example of individualism vs. collectivism.

However, emotionalism connected to "stand your ground" is a different matter. It involves logical inconsistencies and paradox in the minds of people on both sides. imo
 
I don't think there is ever any principle operating whereby government has a contract with the people. That just makes no sense. There may be obligations, often unwritten, but there is no contract. Likewise, government may not necessarily exist for the benefit of the people, although things work better that way. Personally, I think that the weaker the government is, the weaker the country is. Many current policies happen to weaken the country as a while even while they may be benefiting certain groups of people. Many contentious issues have no bearing at all on most people's lives.

While I can understand people's feelings about firearms, I have trouble believing that people deny that people, including themselves, have a right to self defense, or to put it another way, that people will not defend themselves. I also have trouble believing that you will be prosecuted for defending yourself, although the devil is in the details.

In many current cases, I am reminded again that things would be better if we could keep good people from shooting other good people. We assume that the bad (and the rich) we will always have.
 
I have trouble believing that people deny that people, including themselves, have a right to self defense
Click to expand...

I might be misunderstanding what you're saying but here is the case of Hale DeMar - his defense of his home and his children and what the city of Wilmette did to him afterwards is responsible for the Hale DeMar law in Illinois which precluded towns like Chicago, Wilmette and others from punishing a person with municipal ordinances:

http://reason.com/archives/2005/06/01/self-defense-vsmunicipal-gun-b/singlepage
 
A contract is nothing more than a binding agreement between 2 or more entities.

As such, the Constitution began as a contract between the States, and between the people as represented by the States ; to form a federal government. Originally, the States had rights as entities but now that’s debatable. Anyway, from their right to assemble, and by contract ; people can form entities and willfully cede portions of their rights to those entities. If the "contract" is not between the people and government, then no rights can be ceded to that government. This keeps government under the duty to respect the rights of entities(both individual and freely assembled) and leads to a government which operates under the rule of law.

Most other governments act as if a contract existed between a government and its people ... wherein its people can transfer their rights to the government... or, trading liberty for safety. These can operate by the rule of law, and appear to operate under that rule; but actually operate under the rule of decree. With increasing cession of rights to the government, the system degenerates to totalitarianism.

"Stand your ground" reasserts individual rights in the face of a government attempting to assert rights..., when the government should have no rights to assert.
Rousseau was iffy. Hume was a Tory. Locke unlocks the chains of oppression.:p:
 
Last edited:
I think this article illustrates one of the ways that antis are exploiting the "Stand Your Ground" law attack:

http://www.contactmusic.com/news/samuel-l-jackson-backs-gun-ownership_1321613

The article is basically about how Samuel Jackson supports gun ownership and gun rights; but is upset about the law in the Martin/Zimmerman shooting. He says "Who are these people running around the community with guns, pretending to be cops, who have a right to shoot somebody because of this bulls**t law? What's untenable is that nobody put the guy who shot this kid in custody (immediately)."

Mr. Jackson apparently has the perception that a "Stand Your Ground" law allows you to run around pretending to be a cop or that it was the reason Zimmerman was not arrested. Neither of those issues have anything to do with Stand Your Ground laws; but antis are exploiting that confusion and implying that Stand Your Ground law was the reason that happened.

If nothing else, I think this thread provides a good discussion of what "Stand Your Ground" does and does not do. Now it is just a question of getting that information out there to people who are probably not either well-informed on the issue or even all that interested in it.
 
There are also many members of the firearms community who seem to have unrealistic understandings of SYG. It's up to all of us to (1) more accurately understand the limits of what SYG is and does; and (2) explain those limitations when given the opportunity. We need to renounce chest thumping and bloodlust.
 
Bartholomew,

I am not going to discuss any particular case, but what Samuel L is saying truly relects the perception of many as what an SYG law, or perhaps a poorly written one, allows. Even the author of Florida's has come out and said that its SYG law isn't as broad as some believe. What the law actually says may not be as important as what it is perceived to say, especially should local law enforcement and prosecutors accept the perception as reality.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top