Stand Your Ground Law

[Monster]

First of all, this thread is not about George Zimmerman. It's about the law that seems to be causing so much controversy. As I understand it, it's pretty basic. If you feel your life is threatened, you do not have to flee. You are allowed to use any level of force to save your own life.

I keep seeing all of these protests and people like AL Sharpton talking about it being a violation of civil rights. What? Why do we keep playing the race card? The law does not say that you can kill black people for fun. It says that if your life is in danger, you are authorized to kill. Sure, it's a stupid law because just about any murder could realistically use this escape based on the fact that they were scared.

I was just watching CNN and they were saying that out of the 200 or so cases in which stand your ground was evoked, it seemed that most of the black or minorities who used this defense were still convicted, while the whites mostly were freed.

Of course, this is bullshit. It could also be a case of being used by actual bad guys who tried to use it as a get of jail free card. Who knows? It seems there is a rush to demonize this law as a civil rights violator. I say it's fairly easy to correct this law by adding a clause that says you can't intentionally put yourself in danger and then claim "stand your ground". This is exactly what Zimmerman did (sorry, had to drop the name as an example) and with that clause, he would have been found guilty.

I'm sick of watching the news and all of these idiots that are paraded around. There is no reason that this law can't be implemented effectively and people should make a push to have it changed, not killed.

I'm a proud democrat, but when I see 90% of my party screaming about civil rights violations regarding this law, it makes me want to drop them completely. Only problem is the lack of options.

 

[Sbee]

First of all, this thread is not about George Zimmerman. It's about the law that seems to be causing so much controversy. As I understand it, it's pretty basic. If you feel your life is threatened, you do not have to flee. You are allowed to use any level of force to save your own life.

I keep seeing all of these protests and people like AL Sharpton talking about it being a violation of civil rights. What? Why do we keep playing the race card? The law does not say that you can kill black people for fun. It says that if your life is in danger, you are authorized to kill. Sure, it's a stupid law because just about any murder could realistically use this escape based on the fact that they were scared.

I was just watching CNN and they were saying that out of the 200 or so cases in which stand your ground was evoked, it seemed that most of the black or minorities who used this defense were still convicted, while the whites mostly were freed.

Of course, this is bullshit. It could also be a case of being used by actual bad guys who tried to use it as a get of jail free card. Who knows? It seems there is a rush to demonize this law as a civil rights violator. I say it's fairly easy to correct this law by adding a clause that says you can't intentionally put yourself in danger and then claim "stand your ground". This is exactly what Zimmerman did (sorry, had to drop the name as an example) and with that clause, he would have been found guilty.

I'm sick of watching the news and all of these idiots that are paraded around. There is no reason that this law can't be implemented effectively and people should make a push to have it changed, not killed.

I'm a proud democrat, but when I see 90% of my party screaming about civil rights violations regarding this law, it makes me want to drop them completely. Only problem is the lack of options.

In a criminal trial, I don't see how you can convict given the law. there isn't a provision about you creating the situation where your life is threatened. I could find some guy who's 6'5" and 300 lbs, call him an asshole and then shoot him when he starts to pummel me because my life is threatened.

It's all but guaranteed that Zimmerman will be convicted in a civil trial. the burden of proof for wrongful death is nowhere near as strict as a criminal case

 

[Michchamp]

Sharpton's calling it a violation of civil rights because have you SEEN the statistics of convictions/acquittals when it's white people shooting black people and using SYG as a defense?

off the charts.

 

[Monster]

Sharpton's calling it a violation of civil rights because have you SEEN the statistics of convictions/acquittals when it's white people shooting black people and using SYG as a defense?

off the charts.

yes, but the law is not the problem. if the law was carried out correctly, the percentage would be about the same. the main problem are the people involved in the court system. Jurors, included. Their bias is what makes this a race issue, not the law.

it does have a flaw in that it can be an excuse for murder, but it's not a racist law. nowhere does it say that blacks are the target, nor is it implied.

 

[redandguilty]

yes, but the law is not the problem. if the law was carried out correctly, the percentage would be about the same. the main problem are the people involved in the court system. Jurors, included. Their bias is what makes this a race issue, not the law.

it does have a flaw in that it can be an excuse for murder, but it's not a racist law. nowhere does it say that blacks are the target, nor is it implied.

Racial bias is a persistent factor in lots of things. It's not conscious or intentional and minorities even do it to themselves in some cases. I think the consequences of unconscious bias dramatically outweigh overt racism. It's not just fair to make an effort to correct for that where it pops up, it's wrong not to.

So what was so horrible about self defense laws before stand your ground? What problem did it fix that was worse than the problems it creates?

 

[Monster]

Racial bias is a persistent factor in lots of things. It's not conscious or intentional and minorities even do it to themselves in some cases. I think the consequences of unconscious bias dramatically outweigh overt racism. It's not just fair to make an effort to correct for that where it pops up, it's wrong not to.

So what was so horrible about self defense laws before stand your ground? What problem did it fix that was worse than the problems it creates?

This law is different than self defense. Self defense is when you have no other choice but to kill. Stand your ground says that you don't have to flee from danger, but can actually kill at any point you feel in danger. SYG is ok, but you shouldn't be able to intentionally put yourself in danger in order to claim SYG. That's the big loophole.

 

[Michchamp]

yes, but the law is not the problem. if the law was carried out correctly, the percentage would be about the same. the main problem are the people involved in the court system. Jurors, included. Their bias is what makes this a race issue, not the law.

it does have a flaw in that it can be an excuse for murder, but it's not a racist law. nowhere does it say that blacks are the target, nor is it implied.

you can't excuse the law, just because it's unbiased on its face when the practical result is that it's justified far more murders in general, and of African Americans in particular.

whites are ~68% of the population in general, and so they're going to make up the majority on most juries. this makes it clear you're going to have persistent problems with racial bias, and those are only going to be exaggerated in Stand Your Ground shootings, where almost by definition, half the story is missing because the person who knows have the story is DEAD. there have been overwhelmingly clear studies that show the majority of people are more likely to believe members of their own race.

and on a slightly related note... have you read the comments from one of those jurors in the Zimmerman trial? the more I read about this, the more I'm convinced the state sandbagged their own case. the jury instructions included a clause taken right from the Stand Your Ground statute, even though Zimmerman didn't use it as a defense. and the juror (the clod who announced she'd write a book, then backtracked) sounds about as intelligent as a lump of coal.

the more you leave laws up to subjective testimony - as Stand Your Ground laws do - the more shocking and insane results you will have.

the old Duty to Retreat standard wasn't perfect (no law is), but at least it created more objective and reasonable standards to weigh during trial.

 

[redandguilty]

This law is different than self defense. Self defense is when you have no other choice but to kill. Stand your ground says that you don't have to flee from danger, but can actually kill at any point you feel in danger. SYG is ok, but you shouldn't be able to intentionally put yourself in danger in order to claim SYG. That's the big loophole.

I get the difference. What was wrong with the old ways? What's wrong with requiring people to not kill if they can?

 

[Michchamp]

I get the difference. What was wrong with the old ways? What's wrong with requiring people to not kill if they can?

It's not fair that hot-heads have to refrain from killing anyone who gets on their nerves... like this guy.

plus... gun manufacturers can sell more guns when it's de facto legal to open fire the split second you feel "threatened." Don't you know what's important and what's not???

 

[Thumb]

I get the difference. What was wrong with the old ways? What's wrong with requiring people to not kill if they can?

I think the biggest difference is the old "justifiable homicide" style self defense laws used to hinge on you being attacked and having your life threatened in your home, where you can legally have a gun in every room, on every coffee table. It was pretty rare outside of hollywood to see a situation where someone had to shoot an attacker in a public place.

SYG laws apply more to the gun-totin' crowd who love the idea that they can carry a concealed firearm and play Wyatt Earp if they see the opportunity, because it really takes self defense out of the equation, as all you have to do is say you believed you felt you were in danger. A convenient escape clause.

 

[Michchamp]

one problem to overcome: as the trayvon martin case showed, there are alarmingly large numbers of Americans who feel shooting a kid (or anyone for that matter) because he might be involved in committing a crime, or might punch you when you challenge him, or because of his race, or because you "feel threatened" is perfectly reasonable!

they apparently have confused Hollywood movies with real life.

these people need a serious attitude adjustment. maybe some Bible studies where they learn the teachings of Jesus Christ would help? also, "thou shalt not kill" ...

 

[TheVictors]

First of all, this thread is not about George Zimmerman. It's about the law that seems to be causing so much controversy. As I understand it, it's pretty basic. If you feel your life is threatened, you do not have to flee. You are allowed to use any level of force to save your own life.

I keep seeing all of these protests and people like AL Sharpton talking about it being a violation of civil rights. What? Why do we keep playing the race card? The law does not say that you can kill black people for fun. It says that if your life is in danger, you are authorized to kill. Sure, it's a stupid law because just about any murder could realistically use this escape based on the fact that they were scared.

I was just watching CNN and they were saying that out of the 200 or so cases in which stand your ground was evoked, it seemed that most of the black or minorities who used this defense were still convicted, while the whites mostly were freed.

Of course, this is bullshit. It could also be a case of being used by actual bad guys who tried to use it as a get of jail free card. Who knows? It seems there is a rush to demonize this law as a civil rights violator. I say it's fairly easy to correct this law by adding a clause that says you can't intentionally put yourself in danger and then claim "stand your ground". This is exactly what Zimmerman did (sorry, had to drop the name as an example) and with that clause, he would have been found guilty.

I'm sick of watching the news and all of these idiots that are paraded around. There is no reason that this law can't be implemented effectively and people should make a push to have it changed, not killed.

I'm a proud democrat, but when I see 90% of my party screaming about civil rights violations regarding this law, it makes me want to drop them completely. Only problem is the lack of options.

I saw the same stats on CNN regarding the law and it was 65% of black defendants and 61% of white and something like 19% conviction -- I thought to myself, it was a surprise that the numbers weren't reversed.

 

[Michchamp]

... It was pretty rare outside of hollywood to see a situation where someone had to shoot an attacker in a public place.

...

it still is. exceedingly rare. so rare, in fact, that even in the instances where it might have occurred, the harm caused by changing the laws to allow it is not justified by the statistics.

"may issue" should never have become "shall issue." you really don't need to carry a gun unless you're a licensed body guard, security guard, or you carry large amounts of cash on a regular basis as part of a (legal) job, or a handful of other instances. not every personal injury justifies killing someone over. that's just what "society" is all about. cooler heads need to prevail! this is like... the very definition of being civilized.. it comes down to things like this!

you can still own guns... to hunt... for sport... to join a well-regulated militia if you want. you just can't carry wherever you want, and blast away the split second you "feel threatened."

I know, I know "it's not fair," but hundreds of years of human experience and common sense tells us otherwise... Monster & KAWDUP.

 

[Michchamp]

I saw the same stats on CNN regarding the law and it was 65% of black defendants and 61% of white and something like 19% conviction -- I thought to myself, it was a surprise that the numbers weren't reversed.

trying to get to the bottom of this.

I saw stats that saw one thing, and others that claim another. not sure which are accurate or the methodology.

 

[Michchamp]

one study claims that states with SYG laws saw an 8% rise in shootings (or maybe it's 8% homicides, and even more shootings I forget) after they passed... so far.

 

[TheVictors]

I'm going from memory and having seen a segment on CNN yesterday with a "comedian" who posted some rant that went viral - comparing the 700 dead black teens in Chicago, killed since Treyvon was shot. Another guest was Mo Ivory, who was rather indignant about the notion of nobody caring about the kids in Chicago and another man who barely got a word in, who was either with the NAACP or another civil rights group.

The stats about SYG being used and used successfully were on the screen and then there were comments about how the NRA is saying SYG has resulted in a drop in violent crome in Florida (no mention about the stats in the other 30-something states with similar laws)

Seems like a lot of vague info and interest on both sides to manipulate the data

 

[lostleader]

Just to interject here and I am sure most of you will disagree with me, but I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

As far as the Zimmerman case goes, he should of been convicted of something. Probably not murder but I am sure Florida has less charges. When you carry a weapon you take on a responsibility and you have must accept the consequences for your actions. Right or wrong if it comes down to a situation where either myself or the other person is going home I would have no hesitation in using what ever means needed to ensure I am going home. Each person has a choice to make and Zimmerman made his. He was judged.

 

[redandguilty]

Just to interject here and I am sure most of you will disagree with me, but I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Our laws allow for that without stand your ground.

 

[TheVictors]

Last year right after the mass murder at the Aurora, CO theater so many people asserted that lives would have been saved if someone with a carry/conceal had simply shot the gunman.

No consideration for conditions ...panic, dark theater, heavily armored gunman, nerves, adrenaline, bad aim, misfiring/malfunction or ....the very likely outcome of simply adding to the carnage by shooting an innocent moviegoer.

 

[Thumb]

Last year right after the mass murder at the Aurora, CO theater so many people asserted that lives would have been saved if someone with a carry/conceal had simply shot the gunman.

No consideration for conditions ...panic, dark theater, heavily armored gunman, nerves, adrenaline, bad aim, misfiring/malfunction or ....the very likely outcome of simply adding to the carnage by shooting an innocent moviegoer.

Yeah, the people who think more lives would be saved if more guns were on the street and on peoples bodies really are showing a serious lack of intelligence.