Smeagol
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2012
- Messages
- 4,147
- Reaction score
- 1,694
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I'm listening to a talk show now where the host is making an interesting assertion with respect to stand you ground laws.
When I was a kid, I was regularly the victim of bullying by an older kid. This kid essentially harassed, taunted and annoyed me in non-violent ways in order to trigger some sort of physical response, albeit mild, by me such as gently pushing them out of my way or inadvertently bumping into them in efforts to get out of their way. Then, once "I made it physical", he had the justification he needed to proceed to beat the living crap out of me. Up until that point however, the bully was behaving completely in a non-violent way. Verbal taunting, violating my personal space as I defined it, etc. were all within his right to free speech and especially his right to movement.
The points the host made reminded my of the experiences with bullying as a kid, albeit at a far more consequential level. My question is, as it relates to stand your ground laws, may those who use such laws as a legal defense legally engage in actions that essentially escalate, instigate and/or lure another into conditions where stand your ground may be legally used with an immediately proceeding and separate interchange that then led to him having the legal right to kill the person? Those actions may include but not be necessarily limited to:
- Following someone for an extended period especially in an isolated area that my also not be well lit
- Making angry stares
- Coming within a certain radius of the person especially in isolated and unlit areas; violating "personal space"
- Starting a conversation of a hostile tone but no threats were made
- Initiating an interrogation with no obvious justification especially in a condescending tone
- Other acts of not violent agression
When I was a kid, I was regularly the victim of bullying by an older kid. This kid essentially harassed, taunted and annoyed me in non-violent ways in order to trigger some sort of physical response, albeit mild, by me such as gently pushing them out of my way or inadvertently bumping into them in efforts to get out of their way. Then, once "I made it physical", he had the justification he needed to proceed to beat the living crap out of me. Up until that point however, the bully was behaving completely in a non-violent way. Verbal taunting, violating my personal space as I defined it, etc. were all within his right to free speech and especially his right to movement.
The points the host made reminded my of the experiences with bullying as a kid, albeit at a far more consequential level. My question is, as it relates to stand your ground laws, may those who use such laws as a legal defense legally engage in actions that essentially escalate, instigate and/or lure another into conditions where stand your ground may be legally used with an immediately proceeding and separate interchange that then led to him having the legal right to kill the person? Those actions may include but not be necessarily limited to:
- Following someone for an extended period especially in an isolated area that my also not be well lit
- Making angry stares
- Coming within a certain radius of the person especially in isolated and unlit areas; violating "personal space"
- Starting a conversation of a hostile tone but no threats were made
- Initiating an interrogation with no obvious justification especially in a condescending tone
- Other acts of not violent agression
Last edited: