There is no controversy with a "stand your ground" law...

[itsforthekids]

That's what the guy with the handicap parking peeve did. He finally got to shoot someone.

I wouldn't look for trouble, but if some a-hole decides to bull-rush me and punch my lights out, this old man would take that as a direct threat on my life and I'd do my best to put a .40 between his eyes. The difference between myself and the Florida shooter is, I take a knee and pray to God that day will never happen. The Florida shooter straps one on and goes out to look for the opportunity. I suppose that's one down-side to the Stand Your Ground law.

So you're saying that he's made a habit out of this?

 

[Praxas]

I'm talking about natural law, not bureaucratic law. I, as a human being, am allowed to defend myself by any means necessary.

As already was pointed out, there are STILL stipulations that must be met, otherwise you will wind up in a Bureaucratic jail. Enjoy.

 

[itsforthekids]

If you're out in the wilderness then natural law will allow for that, but while you are living amongst people there will be the laws of the land which outline the parameters for self defense. I see no issue with someone killing another if the attacker leaves the person with no choice but to use lethal force, but if the attacker is disabled or backs off the responsibility should be on the defender to spare the life.

I certainly wouldn't have shot, but there in lies the issue...you never know who you're going to push over the edge.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Well, if I understood the circumstances regarding the last stand your ground incident in Florida, that's pretty much exactly what happened. The guy/shooter was known to offensively approach people for illegal parking, or whatever, start some **** and then fall back on ol' Roscoe if he gets any push back. This time, he got push back. So, BANG!

No charges filed. Or is that not the case?

Not that I got any problem with that, per se.

If a cop was to approach someone parked illegally in a handicap space and get in their grill about it, as cops do, then someone bull-rushed that cop and commence to whipping his/her ass, I'm pretty sure the cop could use lethal force and be justified. Why couldn't a civilian do the same?

But I do kinda think it sucks that someone would use the law to allow them to go around, starting trouble, and then end up shooting someone. No need to go LOOK for trouble.

An alleged parking violation is not grounds for making a citizen's arrest. A CHL is not permission to play convenience store cop or to try to monitor/correct the public behavior of other citizens.

 

[itsforthekids]

As already was pointed out, there are STILL stipulations that must be met, otherwise you will wind up in a Bureaucratic jail. Enjoy.

That's a different story...

 

[Praxas]

That's a different story...

No, it's reality.

 

[Captain America]

If you think shooting someone because they shoved you onto the ground in the middle of a stupid parking spot dispute is justified you're ****ing wrong.

I'm in the military where dudes get drunk and fight each other all the time, and guess what, people aren't allowed to pull out a ****ing Glock and shoot someone just because they got in a little tussle. Because shooting another person, unless in actual self defense, is treated as homicide under the UCMJ.

If the stand your ground law protects acts like this it is completely nonsensical and needs to be done away with.

You're ****ing wrong.

Stupid can get you killed.

I am an older gent. I do not have the piss and vinegar I used to have when I was tussling around in the military.

I survived a C-4/C-5 vertebrae fracture(s) and, after a couple years, the grace of God and some good therapy, I walk upright today.

A simple head-lock could cost me my life. A hard hook to the jaw could put me back in a circle-electric bed paralyzed from the neck down. You goddamn right that I am going to fear for my life if someone wants to get froggy in a parking lot. I don't think I would hesitate to put a bullet in their brain to protect my life.

Like I said, stupid can get you killed. You might want to ponder that a while.

That being said, the incident we are talking about, it is clear to me that the shooter was looking for trouble and is taking advantage of the law.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

I think that a weapon gives a false sense of toughness, instead of trying to find ways to avoid an intruder. I also understand the need for self defense, aside from any particular case. I.e., women in an abusive relationship, people who live in rural areas.

Yeah, the law gives people the perception there is nothing wrong with killing another human being, or they will be protected by the law. Instread of not escalating a situation and walking away. I see it like with pedestrian laws. yeah, the law says they have the right of way but then these people just think they can go into the street at any time and take their sweet ass time. Well, they are the ones that are going to get hit, and pedestrians continue to get hit by cars.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So you're saying that he's made a habit out of this?

I read of a similar incident (playing parking lot cop) at that same location. It certainly appears that the shooter tried to correct the public behavior of others in situations where no citizen's arrest would have been possible. Having a CHL does not make that nonsense OK and it was only a matter of time before he got 'attacked' by someone not in the mood to deal with his declaring himself to be behavior boss of the parking lot.

 

[Captain America]

An alleged parking violation is not grounds for making a citizen's arrest. A CHL is not permission to play convenience store cop or to try to monitor/correct the public behavior of other citizens.

I couldn't agree more. AND, this guy had a history of starting ****.

I would have like to see that taken more into consideration. I think he is taking advantage of the law to be a prick.

 

[Captain America]

So you're saying that he's made a habit out of this?

I dunno. I suppose that depends on what one considers a habit. Or, if the info reported on this is truthful and I read it correctly.

I am simply saying that it is reported this person had a history of this. According to the store staff, both he, and the guy who got shot, were regulars at the store. The shooter has approached handicap parkers there before, got in their grill, and threatened to use gun to, "stand his ground" in the past. It was said this guy was a hot head with a gun.

I mean, at a minimum, that should make one rub one's chin and go, "Hmmmmm?"

Personally, I wasn't there. I don't know the guy. But, if memory serves me correctly, I might have driven by, or perhaps even stopped, at that convenience store before.

 

[HowardBThiname]

In Florida, I can walk around with a chip on my shoulder and if I see something I don't like, I can go get in the person's grill about it and if they punch me in the face, I can kill 'em.

What's there not to love about that?

Incorrect.

With SYG laws you must still be able to show that (a reasonable person) would have felt that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. A single punch to the face would not qualify. You still must make a case for true self defense.


SYG laws follow the simple concept of who should have the most rights -- the attacker or the intended victim. Plus, the laws benefit minorities and the marginalized most.

African Americans, women, and the elderly are more likely to benefit from the controversial "stand-your-ground" laws than other groups, according to John Lott Jr., president of the Crime Prevention Research Center.

"Blacks are more likely to be successful in making claims using stand-your-ground than any other racial group. They benefit in many ways," Lott told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.

"Blacks who live in high-crime urban areas are the people most likely to be victims of violent crime in the U.S. and it would be great if the police were able to protect them all the time but they can't," Lott said.

https://www.newsmax.com/us/crime-expert-stand-your/2013/07/23/id/516624/

 

[itsforthekids]

I think that a weapon gives a false sense of toughness, instead of trying to find ways to avoid an intruder. I also understand the need for self defense, aside from any particular case. I.e., women in an abusive relationship, people who live in rural areas.

How does one "avoid an intruder"? I might add that urban areas are far more dangerous than rural...it just takes police longer to arrive at the scene in rural areas.

 

[itsforthekids]

I dunno. I suppose that depends on what one considers a habit. Or, if the info reported on this is truthful and I read it correctly.

I am simply saying that it is reported this person had a history of this. According to the store staff, both he, and the guy who got shot, were regulars at the store. The shooter has approached handicap parkers there before, got in their grill, and threatened to use gun to, "stand his ground" in the past. It was said this guy was a hot head with a gun.

I mean, at a minimum, that should make one rub one's chin and go, "Hmmmmm?"

Personally, I wasn't there. I don't know the guy. But, if memory serves me correctly, I might have driven by, or perhaps even stopped, at that convenience store before.

Fair enough.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I couldn't agree more. AND, this guy had a history of starting ****.

I would have like to see that taken more into consideration. I think he is taking advantage of the law to be a prick.

Being a prick to her verbally, however, is no excuse for the boyfriend taking it up a notch to assault/battery. Once a perceived felony is in progress that changes things legally quite a bit. IMHO, it would be very hard for the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy thrown (shoved?) to the parking lot, by someone that he had not even spoken with, felt no threat of serious injury.

This is a prime example of why just being the bigger guy does not mean that one will prevail in a fight that they start.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Incorrect.

With SYG laws you must still be able to show that (a reasonable person) would have felt that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. A single punch to the face would not qualify. You still must make a case for true self defense.


SYG laws follow the simple concept of who should have the most rights -- the attacker or the intended victim. Plus, the laws benefit minorities and the marginalized most.


https://www.newsmax.com/us/crime-expert-stand-your/2013/07/23/id/516624/

I believe that the FL SYG law now requires the opposite - the state not the shooter must prove that a reasonable person would not perceive the physical attack on them to be a threat of serious injury or death.

 

[VanceMack]

Of COURSE there is controversy surrounding the Stand Your Ground laws. I dont believe the laws were ever intended to protect people that antagonize a situation, then shoot someone in response to the antagonization THEY caused. In the Treyvon Martin shooting, the 'controversy' came about not because Zimmerman shot Martin...but because Zimmerman was told by police dispatchers to stop following him, yet he did it anyway. Did he have the right, under Florida law, to shoot a man kneeling on his chest pounding his head into the pavement? Yes. Did Zimmerman at least share responsibility for the incident occurring? Sure. In this latest incident...the shooter antagonized the incident by playing parking lot attendant (and this was apparently NOT his first rodeo). Was the victim wrong for initiating a physical assault? Yes. But it didnt need to happen in the first place. By law...what he did can be justified, but like the Zimmerman/Martin shooting...the shooter was the instigator.

The reality is that incidents like this put the SYG laws in jeopardy and that will be a shame. Black Americans in Florida actually use the SYG laws at a higher rate than white Americans, and considering the reality that by percentage they are at greater risk than white Americans, if the SYG law is cancelled, there will be more black American victims as a result.

 

[HowardBThiname]

I believe that the FL SYG law now requires the opposite - the state not the shooter must prove that a reasonable person would not perceive the physical attack on them to be a threat of serious injury or death.

That could very well be right.

Thanks.

 

[Lovebug]

How does one "avoid an intruder"?[/url]
It depends. If someone breaks into the house in the middle of the night, and he/she is after my TV, I let them have the TV. I might even walk out the back door and let them at it. If he/she threaten my family with bodily harm, I reserve the right to defend them, starting by showing a weapon or even shooting in the air, before pointing the gun at them.

I might add that urban areas are far more dangerous than rural...it just takes police longer to arrive at the scene in rural areas.

Exactly.

 

[Mr Person]

Of COURSE there is controversy surrounding the Stand Your Ground laws. I dont believe the laws were ever intended to protect people that antagonize a situation, then shoot someone in response to the antagonization THEY caused. In the Treyvon Martin shooting, the 'controversy' came about not because Zimmerman shot Martin...but because Zimmerman was told by police dispatchers to stop following him, yet he did it anyway. Did he have the right, under Florida law, to shoot a man kneeling on his chest pounding his head into the pavement? Yes. Did Zimmerman at least share responsibility for the incident occurring? Sure. In this latest incident...the shooter antagonized the incident by playing parking lot attendant (and this was apparently NOT his first rodeo). Was the victim wrong for initiating a physical assault? Yes. But it didnt need to happen in the first place. By law...what he did can be justified, but like the Zimmerman/Martin shooting...the shooter was the instigator.

The reality is that incidents like this put the SYG laws in jeopardy and that will be a shame. Black Americans in Florida actually use the SYG laws at a higher rate than white Americans, and considering the reality that by percentage they are at greater risk than white Americans, if the SYG law is cancelled, there will be more black American victims as a result.

Why is that a shame?

SYG advocates tend to act like a person isn't allowed to defend himself in a blue state, but that simply is not the truth. I don't know these guys personally but it sounds like a reasonable overview here:




Basics

Under Massachusetts law, if you are attacked or reasonably believe that you are about to be attacked, placing your physical safety in immediate danger, you have a right to defend yourself. However, you are obligated to take reasonable steps, if available, to avoid physical combat before resorting to force. Moreover, you are not allowed to use more force than is reasonably necessary to defend yourself. You may use deadly force – force intended or likely to result in the death or great bodily harm of an assailant – only where you reasonably believe your assailant poses a threat to cause you great bodily harm or death.

Duty to Retreat

Unless you are within your home or a place where you are temporarily residing, you may use physical force in self-defense only where you are unable to escape without exposing yourself to further danger, summons immediate help, or hold the assailant at bay until help arrives. Under the Massachusetts Castle Rule, you are not required to retreat from your home or to attempt to avoid combat with an unlawful intruder. You are allowed to use deadly force on an intruder if you believe he may kill or badly injure you or another person within the home or dwelling.

Resorting to Deadly Force

https://www.relentlessdefense.com/what-should-i-do/right-to-self-defense/




A jury ultimately decides these cases, so if someone punches you, you're not going to jail for punching them back. However, you're probably going to jail if you lay them out flat, straddle them, and hit them until bystanders pull you off. Reasonableness is the key.

Juries will also consider body size, etc. If a big man punches a woman and she shoots him dead before he can swing again, she's probably in the clear.....unless he punched her, raised his hands, and backed up 10 steps. You just can't go overboard. If this shooting happened here, that guy would go to jail.


I really don't understand the need for SYG laws. They tend to protect aggressors much more than defenders.

 

[justabubba]

But you have to admit that a gun in the hands of a trigger happy and jumpy person is not necessarily a good combination.

but doesn't 2A provide for the right of a trigger happy/jumpy person to own a firearm?

 

[Lursa]

What SYG law does not require that a legal shooting be in self defense or to stop a crime in progress?

The wording often (usually?) implies that you dont have to retreat if you can. If you can retreat...it's not self defense. At least not from an imminent lethal threat.

 

[Lursa]

Interestingly enough in the Clearwater FL incident that's exactly what the shooter did. By your logic, should the woman who was in the car with her kids have shot the man if she perceived him to be a threat? The subjective aspect is what makes it controversial because what a person perceives as a threat can vary and can also be used as an excuse to shoot someone even if they are no longer a threat. Looking at the Clearwater incident as an example, the shooter had the option of keeping the weapon pointed and had someone call the cops to sort everything out. The victim had backed away, so was he a threat because he didn't magically disappear?

She had much more grounds for a SYG shooting than the guy. He was yelling at her, escalating a confrontation, and wouldnt stop. If she reasonably felt threatened, trapped in a car with her children, then she would be justified in using a SYG defense if she shot him.

IMO before it ever got to that point, if I could back out and leave, I would. But the law (in FL) doesnt seem to require it.

 

[ataraxia]

In Texas, individuals have no duty to retreat when they have a reasonable belief they are in danger of bodily harm or death if they’re threatened in their home, in their vehicle, or at their job. To raise the Texas stand your ground law defense, the person must be able to show that they didn’t provoke the person who attacked them. They must also be able to show that they weren’t breaking any laws at the time of the incident.

It's about protecting yourself or others not, open season on people you don't agree with.

The problem is that situations like this are never very clear-cut. Even highly trained and experienced policemen have a tough time with making the right judgment call sometimes, as numerous news stories show. Now leave this to the average gun-totin' Joe Public with a chip on his shoulder, and.... hey, what could go wrong?

 

[Lursa]

It is often a 'big problem' to determine what constitutes a 'perceived threat' of serious injury or death which is why police shooting cases are often controversial. The bottom line is that if you see a person arguing with your friend do not physically attack them simply because they are not a police officer and you feel confident that you could beat them up.

It's usually the 'reasonable man' standard...and it's not always so 'reasonable,' depending on the jury.