Stand your ground is just an excuse to blast away. [W:120]

[opendebate]

This is not the fault of the law. This is the fault of lazy or incompetent prosecutors.

It doesn't really matter. These examples are still a result of the law as it is currently written.

 

[opendebate]

The point is that individuals no longer feel the need to retreat in order to be found not guilty of doing nothing wrong. SYG laws allow a victim not to become a victim. It's that simple...

Oh Alabama, if everything were only as simple and black and white as you would like it to be. It is not that simple.

 

[opendebate]

No, I didn't read your article... because I am sick to death of talking about this case to people who don't appear to have the slightest capacity to be objective about this case.

First of all this is a conversation about stand your ground laws not the Zimmerman case and secondly you have no idea what I know. Hint...disagreeing with you does NOT mean I don't know anything about the case.

 

[ChrisL]

It doesn't really matter. These examples are still a result of the law as it is currently written.

Things like this happen with or without this particular law. Just recently there were two cases of forensic pathologists in laboratories skewing evidence, or actually stealing it in one case and replacing it with something else. Nothing is ever 100%, and I for one would rather have innocent people have the opportunity to defend themselves from intruders into their homes. I'm quite sure what you are talking about is a rare occurrence anyway.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Oh Alabama, if everything were only as simple and black and white as you would like it to be. It is not that simple.

I never implied things or situations were simple, but it is about time that individuals are allowed to take care of themselves without fear of repercussions...

 

[opendebate]

You will never save 100% of "innocent" life. This is statistical fact.

Of course not, but I believe we have an obligation to one another not only to provide as much freedom as is possible without creating mayhem but to protect innocent lives when and where we can. IE...you can't drive drunk. I am taking away our freedom because your poor choice could end my life or the life of someone I love.

 

[opendebate]

I never implied things or situations were simple, but it is about time that individuals are allowed to take care of themselves without fear of repercussions...

No one is arguing that point. I am arguing however, that is law as it written today is not the best way to do that.

 

[Thrilla]

It doesn't really matter. These examples are still a result of the law as it is currently written.

I think i would have to see the evidence in each of these cases in order to determine if the law was applied correctly or not..... the media and the blogoshere hasn't exactly been very good at telling us the truth about cases.

I immediately have doubt when someone sums up entire cases into 1 or 2 sentences...while simultaneously pushing a political agenda.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

No one is arguing that point. I am arguing however, that is law as it written today is not the best way to do that.

How would you suggest the laws be changed?

 

[opendebate]

I think i would have to see the evidence in each of these cases in order to determine if the law was applied correctly or not..... the media and the blogoshere hasn't exactly been very good at telling us the truth about cases.

I immediately have doubt when someone sums up entire cases into 1 or 2 sentences...while simultaneously pushing a political agenda.

Sure, and that's fair. I really don't see the point of going back and reviewing the cases to see if you agree with how the law was interpreted and applied though. If it is ambiguous enough to allow these people to interpret it as they did and get these people off then it seems to be riddled with problems and at the very least needs to be amended so it can not no longer be twisted to the defense of someone who wasn't actually protecting themselves.

 

[Thrilla]

Sure, and that's fair. I really don't see the point of going back and reviewing the cases to see if you agree with how the law was interpreted and applied though. If it is ambiguous enough to allow these people to interpret it as they did and get these people off then it seems to be riddled with problems and at the very least needs to be amended so it can not no longer be twisted to the defense of someone who wasn't actually protecting themselves.

well now wait a minute... you don't see the point in reviewing the facts of each case... but you are willing to use them as examples and presume the law was applied in manner that is coincidentally consistent with your political agenda?

yeah.... that's a recipe for a discussion going nowhere.

 

[opendebate]

well now wait a minute... you don't see the point in reviewing the facts of each case... but you are willing to use them as examples and presume the law was applied in manner that is coincidentally consistent with your political agenda?

yeah.... that's a recipe for a discussion going nowhere.

I am asking. It seems that the fact that it CAN BE twisted to cover these people is a pretty good indication that it is flawed. Perhaps not in its premise but in how it is written

 

[Goshin]

The problem, if there really is one, isn't SYG in general... it is how Florida re-wrote their self-defense laws, specifically how committing crimes in the lead-up may not be a bar to self-defense claims later in the incident. I'd agree THAT aspect of the law IN FLORIDA may need to be looked at again... BY Florida's legislature.

 

[Ikari]

Of course not, but I believe we have an obligation to one another not only to provide as much freedom as is possible without creating mayhem but to protect innocent lives when and where we can. IE...you can't drive drunk. I am taking away our freedom because your poor choice could end my life or the life of someone I love.

There are things to understand in this oversimplified example. We surely cannot act in a way that infringes upon the rights of others. Murder and thief, hell even bearing false witness are amongst those. So too is drinking and driving given its aggregated effects. But you want to talk to the statistical ramifications in one instance and hold those conclusions to the individual in the next; and that's where it breaks down. There is not a garuantee, there is nothing of the sorts in life. You live by your power and your power alone. And in a free society, there must be safeguards for trying to keep so. Free is not safe. Never has been, never will be. By very virtue, innate property of freedom, do we recognize danger. Do we need to run full steam towards the cliff? No. But that doesn't mean that all infringement is warranted, necessary, nor acceptable.

 

[opendebate]

There are things to understand in this oversimplified example. We surely cannot act in a way that infringes upon the rights of others. Murder and thief, hell even bearing false witness are amongst those. So too is drinking and driving given its aggregated effects. But you want to talk to the statistical ramifications in one instance and hold those conclusions to the individual in the next; and that's where it breaks down. There is not a garuantee, there is nothing of the sorts in life. You live by your power and your power alone. And in a free society, there must be safeguards for trying to keep so. Free is not safe. Never has been, never will be. By very virtue, innate property of freedom, do we recognize danger. Do we need to run full steam towards the cliff? No. But that doesn't mean that all infringement is warranted, necessary, nor acceptable.

I think we are closer to agreeing than you many realize. All infringement is of course not warranted. But as I recall, we were discussing the SYG law. Because so many people are able to kill someone without ACTUALLY being in a position of fighting for their life and because each and every situation where someone truly is threated will necessarily end with their death. It seems like the law is doing more harm then good as currently written.

 

[mike2810]

We already have the right to defend ourselves. We can already shoot an intruder in our home. We can shoot someone if we are being robbed or assalted. Why then do we need a law that says you do not have to back down even if you are in the wrong like Zimmerman. He was in the wrong. The kid had onlt candy,a soft drink in a bag and fourty bucks in his wallet. Stand your ground means you can provoke a fight and when you get you wussy ass kicked shoot the person. What an outrage. Other than smoking pot the kid was not a criminal and he only wieghed 158 lbs. When I was 28 years old like George Zimmerman I wieghed 225 ponds and I can assure you no 158 pound kid could throw me to the ground. You should not be able to provoke a fight then shoot the person who kicks your ass. That is redneck and wrong. It is time to end stand your ground.

why do we have hate crime laws? There are already laws against assault or killing someone? Politics and lawyers passed the SYG laws..

You can state any scenario you want. Your statements don't support the facts of the case you mentioned.

As far as redneck and wrong. I disagree. There is very few "very liberal" ideas I agree with.

 

[douglas]

Sure, and that's fair. I really don't see the point of going back and reviewing the cases to see if you agree with how the law was interpreted and applied though. If it is ambiguous enough to allow these people to interpret it as they did and get these people off then it seems to be riddled with problems and at the very least needs to be amended so it can not no longer be twisted to the defense of someone who wasn't actually protecting themselves.

SYG only drops the requirement to retreat before using lethal force in self defense. Retreat-first laws required people to put their lives in danger; even just turning to run is more than enough opportunity for an attacker. People should never be criminals for not letting themselves be victims.

If people were using deadly force without being in danger, that is a fault of the self-defense laws, not SYG. In most of the cases you mentioned, the main issue you seem to have was that the attacker was retreating. It's the difference between danger and immediate danger. In immediate danger, retreating would increase the chances of bodily harm (why we need SYG). In a vague sense of "danger" without an immediate threat, you have no claim to self-defense or SYG; you're supposed to retreat in that situation, even with SYG on the books. In these cases, it seems that they were successful in claiming that they were still in immediate danger. Whether that is true or not, we'll never know. I think the legal system fails us on a lot of these cases, but it's the prosecutor's that are failing at applying the law, not the law itself. The flaws in SYG are small in comparison to the flaws in Retreat-first.

If you could show me evidence that SYG is overwhelmingly being used by criminals whilst in their art vs. innocents trying to stay alive, I'll concede.

 

[Ikari]

I think we are closer to agreeing than you many realize. All infringement is of course not warranted. But as I recall, we were discussing the SYG law. Because so many people are able to kill someone without ACTUALLY being in a position of fighting for their life and because each and every situation where someone truly is threated will necessarily end with their death. It seems like the law is doing more harm then good as currently written.

On this case, I disagree. I believe it has been our aggregate behavior, our willingness to take to civil court that which was reasonable response, that ultimately has led us down this slippery path. I understand the SYG laws as necessity against the growing onslaught of extortion used against our rights through various lower courts. It's unfortunate that we've fallen so far towards Jersey Shore cry babies, but because we have we are going to need better protections; and those protections are assuredly going to cut into the efficiency and powers of government. Though government was not meant to be efficient anyway. Regardless, threats and dangers abound while in a free state. And while the vast majority of us aren't going to go out looking to shoot someone, there will be some tail end of the distribution that does. And out of that, there will be some distribution found to be not guilty. It's a consequence of freedom in a large, aggregate society. All statistics are going to be realized according to their probabilities. It doesn't excuse more government intrusion; it is but one of the many consequences and responsibilities of freedom we must bear.

 

[opendebate]

SYG only drops the requirement to retreat before using lethal force in self defense. Retreat-first laws required people to put their lives in danger; even just turning to run is more than enough opportunity for an attacker. People should never be criminals for not letting themselves be victims.

If people were using deadly force without being in danger, that is a fault of the self-defense laws, not SYG. In most of the cases you mentioned, the main issue you seem to have was that the attacker was retreating. It's the difference between danger and immediate danger. In immediate danger, retreating would increase the chances of bodily harm (why we need SYG). In a vague sense of "danger" without an immediate threat, you have no claim to self-defense or SYG; you're supposed to retreat in that situation, even with SYG on the books. In these cases, it seems that they were successful in claiming that they were still in immediate danger. Whether that is true or not, we'll never know. I think the legal system fails us on a lot of these cases, but it's the prosecutor's that are failing at applying the law, not the law itself. The flaws in SYG are small in comparison to the flaws in Retreat-first.

If you could show me evidence that SYG is overwhelmingly being used by criminals whilst in their art vs. innocents trying to stay alive, I'll concede.

First of all I must say that it seems to be really hard for people to grasp some of the subtleties on my positions on many issues. (argh) For instance, in this case, I am not suggesting that we abolish the law however, it seems that given the number of instances where it is used to justify a killing that someone went out of their way to execute....it seems wise to consider tightening it up a little so that is actually manages to provided the intended results without abolishing the law altogether.

 

[opendebate]

On this case, I disagree. I believe it has been our aggregate behavior, our willingness to take to civil court that which was reasonable response, that ultimately has led us down this slippery path. I understand the SYG laws as necessity against the growing onslaught of extortion used against our rights through various lower courts. It's unfortunate that we've fallen so far towards Jersey Shore cry babies, but because we have we are going to need better protections; and those protections are assuredly going to cut into the efficiency and powers of government. Though government was not meant to be efficient anyway. Regardless, threats and dangers abound while in a free state. And while the vast majority of us aren't going to go out looking to shoot someone, there will be some tail end of the distribution that does. And out of that, there will be some distribution found to be not guilty. It's a consequence of freedom in a large, aggregate society. All statistics are going to be realized according to their probabilities. It doesn't excuse more government intrusion; it is but one of the many consequences and responsibilities of freedom we must bear.

Okay, I think we will just agree to disagree then.

 

[MaggieD]

First of all I must say that it seems to be really hard for people to grasp some of the subtleties on my positions on many issues. (argh) For instance, in this case, I am not suggesting that we abolish the law however, it seems that given the number of instances where it is used to justify a killing that someone went out of their way to execute....it seems wise to consider tightening it up a little so that is actually manages to provided the intended results without abolishing the law altogether.

If you are talking about Zimmerman's case, SYG had nothing to do with his being found not guilty. Yeah, yeah, I know that's what that juror said. There was absolutely NOTHING in the instruction re Stand Your Ground that applied to Zimmerman and Martin. He wasn't standing his ground. He was PINNED to the ground. He couldn't have retreated had he wanted to. Once Martin popped him, he was done. I don't know why people have such a hard time understanding that.

 

[opendebate]

If you are talking about Zimmerman's case, SYG had nothing to do with his being found not guilty. Yeah, yeah, I know that's what that juror said. There was absolutely NOTHING in the instruction re Stand Your Ground that applied to Zimmerman and Martin. He wasn't standing his ground. He was PINNED to the ground. He couldn't have retreated had he wanted to. Once Martin popped him, he was done. I don't know why people have such a hard time understanding that.

No, not talking about the case. Just whether or not we need to take a second look that SYG laws. Nothing to do with case other than it brought the efficacy of this law into question.

 

[douglas]

First of all I must say that it seems to be really hard for people to grasp some of the subtleties on my positions on many issues. (argh) For instance, in this case, I am not suggesting that we abolish the law however, it seems that given the number of instances where it is used to justify a killing that someone went out of their way to execute....it seems wise to consider tightening it up a little so that is actually manages to provided the intended results without abolishing the law altogether.

That's a problem with application. The law as written seems fine. If prosecutors would pressure these cases with a more stringent application of the self-defense law, SYG wouldn't even come up. We really don't need to change SYG or self-defense laws, we just need less criminals.

How about we legalize drugs.

 

[opendebate]

That's a problem with application. The law as written seems fine. If prosecutors would pressure these cases with a more stringent application of the self-defense law, SYG wouldn't even come up. We really don't need to change SYG or self-defense laws, we just need less criminals.

How about we legalize drugs.

awesome

 

[Woodman909]

how much does a pond weigh?