Law The problem with stand your ground law

[cincymma79]

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?

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.

 

[terrapin]

I agree. BUT don't stand your ground laws make it a lot easier to frame someone?

You just avoided my point entirely.


Making some things illegal makes it possible to frame people with those things but you have the tail wagging the dog here. You don't take away someone's right to defend themselves because framing is possible. You don't make things legal so nobody can be framed with illegal activity......


LOL.
..

 

[sickc0d3r]

you are conflating two issues i think. stand your ground laws are just basic common sense laws. you are making the mistake of thinking that someone lying and framing a person would be a good reason not to have stand your ground laws. that doesn't make any sense to me. its illegal to frame people.... you dont need to get rid of every law (there are probably thousands) that could lead to someone getting framed.

shall we make theft, drugs, prostitution, and many other crimes legal because someone could frame you with them?

You’re right, and SYG technically doesn’t allow someone to provoke a fight and then shoot, so “framing” would not be easy. But, that’s assuming there are witnesses or video or sufficient physical evidence, since the dead guy can’t tell his side of the story. Unlike a drug or prostitution set up.

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.

 

[spamking]

No. The noise was annoying but I was aware that was just the problem with the way the flats were built. I am the type to keep to myself. My gf found it much more irritating. I hated the thin walls but just accepted it. My gf had more of a temper. My issue was I lost it when the neighbour told her to go fuck herself. I wasn't traditional really but when a grown man verbally attacks your nearest and dearest it just triggers something primal. If was living alone at the time I would not have reacted at all. I'm not blaming my gf for what happened, it's just the dynamic is different when loved ones are involved.

That's why I hate apartments.

 

[terrapin]

You’re right, and SYG technically doesn’t allow someone to provoke a fight and then shoot, so “framing” would not be easy. But, that’s assuming there are witnesses or video or sufficient physical evidence, since the dead guy can’t tell his side of the story. Unlike a drug or prostitution set up.

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.

I get you don't like the law but you have chosen a poor argument for why it shouldn't exist if you tie it to possible framing.

But you are totally wrong if you are saying a person can enter a home illegally without getting shot.

 

[rob mafia]

You’re right, and SYG technically doesn’t allow someone to provoke a fight and then shoot, so “framing” would not be easy. But, that’s assuming there are witnesses or video or sufficient physical evidence, since the dead guy can’t tell his side of the story. Unlike a drug or prostitution set up.

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.

let me get this straight... you start by conceding something and close by saying syg is bad because criminals may get shot during their assaults?

i mean, i'm down for consensual fights and etc, but that's not really relevant. if the best you can do is what i just paraphrased, you should probably rethink your position. because it's dumb.

 

[sickc0d3r]

I get you don't like the law but you have chosen a poor argument for why it shouldn't exist if you tie it to possible framing.

But you are totally wrong if you're are saying a person can enter a home illegally without getting shot.

I believe you did not actually read my post.

 

[sickc0d3r]

let me get this straight... you start by conceding something and close by saying syg is bad because criminals may get shot during their assaults?

i mean, i'm down for consensual fights and etc, but that's not really relevant. if the best you can do is what i just paraphrased, you should probably rethink your position. because it's dumb.

I wasn’t the guy he was talking to, so I conceded nothing. My position is that syg is more problematic than helpful. That said, you are dumb. Dummy.

 

[aunshi189]

An English man's home is his castle.
So TS's neighbour only has himself to blame for not building a moat.

 

[rob mafia]

I wasn’t the guy he was talking to, so I conceded nothing. My position is that syg is more problematic than helpful. That said, you are dumb. Dummy.

...so that was really the best you could do? claim it's bad because violent criminals may be more likely to be shot during assaults? great argument!



oof.

 

[shankmcgank]

I appreciate your candour. I'm genuinely interested in hearing other people's perspectives. I'm also very glad I don't live in such a society.

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

 

[terrapin]

I believe you did not actually read my post.

You would be correct!! I missed one word but irt changes the entire meaning.

 

[sickc0d3r]

...so that was really the best you could do? claim it's bad because violent criminals may be more likely to be shot during assaults? great argument!



oof.

Lol. Do you want to talk about what I actually said, though? I’m open to arguments.

 

[rob mafia]

Lol. Do you want to talk about what I actually said, though? I’m open to arguments.

...just did. you apparently would rather run from it.

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.

if you need me to state it in a dumbed down version: putting violent criminals above their victims is downright retarded. legally, ethically, logically... retarded.

 

[sickc0d3r]

...just did. you apparently would rather run from it.




if you need me to state it in a dumbed down version: putting violent criminals above their victims is downright retarded. legally, ethically, logically... retarded.

How did I excuse violent criminals again? Yes, dumb it down for me.

 

[rob mafia]

How did I excuse violent criminals again? Yes, dumb it down for me.

...by saying their victims need to try to flee. ffs, this isn't rocket surgery. i JUST quoted it. twice.

 

[sickc0d3r]

...by saying their victims need to try to flee. ffs, this isn't rocket surgery. i JUST quoted it. twice.

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.

 

[ChuckSteak]

No, my neighbours made some noise at an unsociable hour which they had been doing for several months. My gf yelled at them, and they yelled back at her. My gf was in the wrong but for me they are far more in the wrong.

OK, so how did I turn it into a violent fight and how did I get off with self-defence? I didn't realise that knocking on someone's door was an act of violence. And did you miss the part where the neighbour felt it necessary to break his own locks to fake that I had forced entry? Why did he feel the need to lie about that if he was justified in attacking me for knocking on his door? Now if I had gone around there threatening to batter him then I think you'd have a fair point. But if I had done that then I would have been convicted because the witness would have told the police that.

I'm fine with a difference of opinion but 100% wrong? I'm far from convinced by your argument.

7am is not an “unsociable hour”

 

[rob mafia]

You quoted my words and then created a straw man.

...lolz @ stating that you said something you DID say - while quoting it... twice, being a strawman.

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.

so you merely mentioned it and centered your argument around it, for no apparent reason? it's just irrelevant now?

protip: syg exists due to 'duty to retreat'

DUMBER, you seem to have known this (and lied about strawman) since you mentioned "backing off" AND "no duty to retreat" in back to back sentences. that i quoted. twice.

 

[sickc0d3r]

...lolz @ stating that you said something you DID say - while quoting it... twice, being a strawman.

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.

so you merely mentioned it and centered your argument around it, for no apparent reason? it's just irrelevant now?

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

protip: syg exists due to 'duty to retreat'

DUMBER, you seem to have known this (and lied about strawman) since you mentioned "backing off" AND "no duty to retreat" in back to back sentences. that i quoted. twice.

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