Law The problem with stand your ground law

[rob mafia]

When I say something, and then you try to make me defend something I didn't say, that is a straw man. Even if you do it twice.


What do you think I "centered my argument around"?


Did I use words that triggered your programming? My bad.

However, SYG is a bad law that hardly helps anyone and instead encourages unnecessary shootings, imo. Fist fights between neighbors or jealous boyfriend confrontations, or whatever petty shit people fight over, are more likely to be deadly, when they could just as easily end with someone backing off. No duty to retreat puts human pride or plain old bad intentions ahead of common sense. There’s no need for it, self defense and castle doctrine pretty much cover all the bases. Sounds like TS might have been legally shot in the states based on either of those other laws, btw.

because it's logically centered on it. it's the ONLY reason you give that isn't redundancy.

disingenuous, backpedaling hack.

 

[oldshadow]

You quoted my words and then created a straw man.

Victims of a violent attack don’t have to flee wherever SYG isn’t a thing. A felony in progress justifies deadly force.
I’m not sure there’s a use case for SYG that couldn’t be explicitly listed in the statutes. If there’s a clear definition of aggressor and victim, I’d be fine with no duty to retreat in such a scenario. What I am saying is that SYG as written in most or all states is too ambiguous. It is more likely to encourage *unjustified* shootings than to protect victims.

You would be wrong go to the state laws and read them.

 

[sickc0d3r]

You would be wrong go to the state laws and read them.

I have. Florida’s statute for example:

(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

What are you saying I am wrong about?

I am open to discussion (with people who aren’t just being dicks to be dicks). States with the law have seen an increase in homicides, often over petty shit, and court rulings have been wildly inconsistent. Statistics bear that out. I don’t disagree with it in spirit. I disagree with the results.

Definitely in favor of castle doctrine, extending that to vehicles, and where there is a clear aggressor and victim. Maybe I’m being unrealistic in thinking there’s a way cover those situations without encouraging idiots to shoot as a first response.

 

[oldshadow]

I have. Florida’s statute for example:

(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

What are you saying I am wrong about?

I am open to discussion (with people who aren’t just being dicks to be dicks). States with the law have seen an increase in homicides, often over petty shit, and court rulings have been wildly inconsistent. Statistics bear that out. I don’t disagree with it in spirit. I disagree with the results.

Definitely in favor of castle doctrine, extending that to vehicles, and where there is a clear aggressor and victim. Maybe I’m being unrealistic in thinking there’s a way cover those situations without encouraging idiots to shoot as a first response.

That wording sounds just fine to me. Why should anyone have to run from a attacker. It's clear when deadly force is justified.

Nothing says if someone calls you names or even slaps you you can use deadly force.

 

[sickc0d3r]

That wording sounds just fine to me. Why should anyone have to run from a attacker. It's clear when deadly force is justified.

Nothing says if someone calls you names or even slaps you you can use deadly force.

Reasonable fear of great bodily harm is subjective in the moment and people shoot first and ask questions later. That’s been the result of that wording.
Castle doctrine, imminent commission of a felony, those seem to cover it. Can probably identify a few others, but in an escalation of aggression there’s no reason to shoot when retreat is possible. What’s a use case for killing someone who’s not committing a violent crime in public space, when you can remove yourself from the situation?

 

[oldshadow]

Reasonable fear of great bodily harm is subjective in the moment and people shoot first and ask questions later. That’s been the result of that wording.
Castle doctrine, imminent commission of a felony, those seem to cover it. Can probably identify a few others, but in an escalation of aggression there’s no reason to shoot when retreat is possible. What’s a use case for killing someone who’s not committing a violent crime in public space, when you can remove yourself from the situation?

You should never be required to run from a criminal attacking you. The use of force is clear to everyone including the attacker . If you don't want to get shot don't attach people.

 

[rob mafia]

but in an escalation of aggression there’s no reason to shoot when retreat is possible.

dat "strawman," amirite?

 

[sickc0d3r]

You should never be required to run from a criminal attacking you. The use of force is clear to everyone including the attacker . If you don't want to get shot don't attach people.

I agree, but that’s covered in the part about a crime in progress.
What altercation in line at the grocery store makes shooting rather than walking away ok, when it doesn’t involve someone committing a crime like assault and battery or armed robbery, and when walking away is an option?

 

[oldshadow]

I agree, but that’s covered in the part about a crime in progress.
What altercation in line at the grocery store makes shooting rather than walking away ok, when it doesn’t involve someone committing a crime like assault and battery or armed robbery, and when walking away is an option?

Link specific case where you think it was misused and upheld. Right now it's just "I think this might happen ".

 

[SummerStriker]

The people who have a personality that demands they set people up for a fall, so they can shoot them, get a job as a cop. You can avoid what you are worried about by showing lots of respect to cops, and looking like someone who can afford lawyers. Being White helps.

 

[Ramon Antonio]

I'd like to see the neighbor's version of the story before I trust OP TBH.

 

[aries]

I was annoyed at my gf for losing her temper and escalating things but I couldn't let it go. So I stormed around there.

You started a fight like an adolescent douchebag. Then you put yourself in a situation where you could get hurt. Don’t be a dumbass. You don’t know what kind of psycho is on the other side of that door.

Wow thanks. That was great advice. I'll be sure to travel back in time and tell me 20 year old self. Yeah I had a lot of dumb unnecessary ego fights when I was young, that's the great thing about being young and hot-headed. Why don't you stop being a dumbass and learn how to read you condescending idiot? Again why are the most judgemental always the worst readers?

 

[aries]

I'd like to see the neighbor's version of the story before I trust OP TBH.

Yeah the neighbour who got me falsely arrested, charged, taken to court where it got thrown out immediately when an independent witness came forward? I'm sure their account would be mighty trustworthy lol

The police provided the witness statement btw which shut down their whole case. That's how convinced they were that the neighbour was telling the truth.

The neighbour would tell you exactly what they told the police. I kicked the door in, smashed the lock and attacked him in his own house, and then broke his nose whilst I choked him nearly to death in a one handed guillotine. And they weren't hoovering at 7am on a Sunday morning and they certainly didn't do it regularly and he never shouted back STFU to a 20 year 100lb girl. That's obviously why I got convicted of all 3 charges, oh wait a minute... that didn't happen....

What reason do I have to lie? It's hardly a heroic story where I ran in to save the day, taking on multiple trained attackers single handily to stop a little kid being abused and it was 20 years ago. If I wanted the moral high ground I would have just made up that he came around and tried to kick my door in.

 

[aries]

And I'm glad I don't like where rape and the now banned G-word gangs are allowed to go around raping anything in sight.

Rather than throw them in jail for life, the libtard SJWs apologise to the rapists for not understanding their culture.

Sick.

Forbes:

Why Did British Police Ignore Pakistani Gangs Abusing 1,400 Rotherham Children? Political Correctness

I agree they were scared of racially targeting a clearly fairly ethnically homogenous group, but I think it was mostly to do with cultural homogeneity BUT let's not forget the victims, no one, not the police or the authorities gave a shit about them. There have been plenty of grooming gangs going back down the years and whilst the ethnicity of the perpetrator's has changed the victims have remained pretty much the same. So yes the police clearly avoided going after the gangs because of being accused of racially profiling the attackers but they also ignored the crimes because of who the victims were.

If they were middle class school girls getting abused you can bet they would have move heaven and earth to do something about it regardless of the attackers skin colour. The vulnerable of society are often the victims of most crimes, that's never changed. And notice the focus of the outrage of these crimes? It's not about the victims other than they were mostly white it's the fact that it was Pakistani men doing it. I bet there wouldn't be nearly as much uproar if it was white men doing it.

In fact here's an article about just that, there are more white grooming gangs than asian in the UK.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...xual-abuse-gangs-white-men-home-office-report

Anyway what does any of this have to do with the thread??

 

[aries]

7am is not an “unsociable hour”

LOL ask any 20 something in the UK if it's unsociable on a Sunday morning? I'm not saying I'm 100% right, I just highlighted from my perspective at the time.
Even now personally I think hoovering loudly next to someone's bedroom is pretty unsociable at 7 in the morning even on a weekday when you know the walls are paper thin. I think you'd be a bit of an inconsiderate cunt for doing so.

Arguments aside ultimately I blame the building regulations for allowing them to be built like that. The most common issue that causes tension between neighbours in the UK is noise.

 

[cincymma79]

Wow thanks. That was great advice. I'll be sure to travel back in time and tell me 20 year old self. Yeah I had a lot of dumb unnecessary ego fights when I was young, that's the great thing about being young and hot-headed. Why don't you stop being a dumbass and learn how to read you condescending idiot? Again why are the most judgemental always the worst readers?

Yes you really seem to have grown

 

[aries]

Yes you really seem to have grown

That really means a lot to me coming from you lol
You throw out condescending insults as though it happened yesterday but failed to notice it happened 20 years ago. Way to go Mr. Observant, I'll be sure to ask your advice for any past life events when I need some judgemental hindsight to keep me on the straight and narrow.

 

[My Spot]

You violently confronted your neighbor all over him telling your GF to go fuck herself after she drew first blood?

 

[Chesten_Hesten]

This is entirely anecdotal but I wanted to use a real life example of where I see how things can easily go badly wrong with the stand your ground law. And when I say wrong I mean miscarriages of justice.

So first off I live in the UK where there is no strand your ground law. About 20 years ago I lived in new build flat, and the building regulations at the time were really bad. We had plasterboard walls separating next door flats. I could hear normal volume conversations through the walls crystal clear. And these weren't cheap flats.

One Sunday morning at 7am, our neighbours, as they would often do, would vacuum clean the adjourning room to our bedroom, which I assume was their lounge (bad layout). Being mid 20's we liked to lie in on Sunday mornings. So it was quite distressing to us to be regularly woken up at 7 in the morning after less than 4 hours of sleep.

My long-term girlfriend at the time lost it and shouted 'Will you STFU?!' The male neighbour yelled back through the wall, almost instantly 'Go fuck yourself!'. I was annoyed at my gf for losing her temper and escalating things but I couldn't let it go. So I stormed around there. I knocked on the door and got ignored and then I banged really hard on the door to get their attention.

The guy's reaction was to fling open the door and launch himself at me. He was mid to late 30's and was a similar height at 5'11" but had a good 40lbs on me. I'd been boxing for a couple of years and had also done some MMA. My reaction was to punch him in the face to stop his momentum. This caused him to dip his head and body lock me, charging me backward through a door to the communal stair well.

I locked him up in a guillotine and prevented him from sending me backwards done a long flight of stairs. Whilst I had him in the guillotine my gf uppercutted him full in the face busting his nose wide open. I had to yell at her to stop as I had him under control. A few seconds later whilst he was nearing unconsciousness I asked him if he'd had enough. He reluctantly submitted.

A few hours later the police arrived to arrest me. I spent the night in the cells. And I ended up going to court for actual bodily harm. The case eventually got dropped luckily because another neighbour had heard the whole incident and backed up my version of events that he was the aggressor, I was just defending myself and that I hadn't broken his nose. He also claimed that I'd broken the lock on his door by forcing entry whilst trying to kick it down, but I know that was a total lie, so he must have deliberately broken his own lock to fit me up. The police never even looked at that as an issue. They just took his word as verbatim.

The point is, if that was a stand your ground state, he could have probably got away with faking that I'd forced entry and shot me dead. How can that be ok? You just remonstrate with your neighbour about some noise, so my big mistake was banging on his door, and they can easily make out you were threatening them, fake forced entry and shoot you dead.

I'm genuinely interested in hearing responses as to how this situation could be avoided or mitigated. Maybe if I had known my neighbour had a gun I would have never dared to go around to confront him, but doesn't that allow people with guns to bully those that don't? He shouts 'Go fuck yourself!' and I do my best to keep my irate GF quiet?

Enjoyed the story.

Basis for stand your ground in Texas at least was drawn from the fact that its mostly not feasible to outrun gunfire and so, when a situation otherwise escalates to "Deadly-Force" then you are justified in standing your ground to defend yourself without having to retreat first.

Because in retreating you could get shot.

The requirement is imminent and immediate deadly force is coming at you.

 

[aries]

Enjoyed the story.

Basis for stand your ground in Texas at least was drawn from the fact that its mostly not feasible to outrun gunfire and so, when a situation otherwise escalates to "Deadly-Force" then you are justified in standing your ground to defend yourself without having to retreat first.

Because in retreating you could get shot.

The requirement is imminent and immediate deadly force is coming at you.

Thanks for reading.

Ok that's good information that I wasn't aware of, if it's limited to deadly force it seems pretty reasonable and logical too. If you know, how much does that vary amongst the stand your ground states?