27
   

"STAND YOUR GROUND"--IS IT A GOOD LAW??

 
 
Reply Fri 19 Jul, 2013 02:54 pm
After the trial I really think we need to take a look at the law that seemingly makes it ok to stalk and kill people just for some trivial reason. I worry that this law may not be tested for its Constitutionality wrt "Due process" and "civil rights".
I can predict what some of us would say but Id like to hear you verbalize your reasons for support or rejection of the law itself.
"Stand Your Ground", in my thinking, goes beyond self defense. According to the Zimmerman verdict, its now ok to stalk and confront unarmed people and invoke the law. Mafia hits will now be considered Stand Your Ground demos no?.
About me-I own guns for self protection. I believe in the CASTLE DOCTRINE as originally defined (wherein I , upon retreating to my home, can kill an intruder since the intruder, by definition, has presented his credentials and intentions). I don't believe I have the license to take my weapon and chase the intruder into the street and gun him down. (The way the CASTLE DOCTRINE has been changed , the second scenario seems to be protected speech).
I do NOT believe in STAND YOUR GROUND because it is a ruthless depraved law that is gonna get innocent people killed by these vigilante types.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 27 • Views: 10,454 • Replies: 242

 
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Fri 19 Jul, 2013 02:59 pm
@farmerman,
Florida is just the leader of 25 other states...

http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/v2_article_large/public/2013/07/18/stand-your-ground_0.png

http://www.ibtimes.com/stand-your-ground-26-us-states-have-shoot-first-laws-1351127
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 19 Jul, 2013 03:03 pm
@Rockhead,
I understand. IS it a good law? I didn't know that, after passing the law in Fla, that homicides tripled. Certainly not an indication that weve become a more civilized country.
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Fri 19 Jul, 2013 03:04 pm
@farmerman,
it is very popular among the nun guts here.

I personally find it offensive...
maxdancona
 
  3  
Reply Fri 19 Jul, 2013 03:08 pm
@farmerman,
No. It is clearly not a good law... unless we start arming 17 year old Black kids.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Fri 19 Jul, 2013 03:11 pm
@maxdancona,
In Pa, we hve a similar law but deadly force can only be used IF THE ASSAILANT HAS A SIMILAR WEPON VISIBLE to the claimant.
This law was passed under the watch of our present governor who was already trying to round up his minions for 2014 re-election. Pa is a big hunting and fishing state. SOmehow that bag limit has extended into hunting armed people.

In Fla, their SYG law considered the pavement as a deadly weapon, and made it ok for Zimmerman to stalk his victim
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Fri 19 Jul, 2013 03:14 pm
I absolutely oppose these kind of laws. We ought to look for ways to deal with people instead of more ways to blow them away. In fact, I no longer look so favorably on private gun ownership, because people cannot handle the responsibility.
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Fri 19 Jul, 2013 03:18 pm
@farmerman,
It is ridiculous that amateur citizens have a lower barrier to the use of deadly force than trained law enforcement officers have.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  3  
Reply Fri 19 Jul, 2013 03:21 pm
@farmerman,
Saying you can't shoot unarmed people seems like a reasonable restriction.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Fri 19 Jul, 2013 03:23 pm
@maxdancona,
unless you attack someone with a "weaponized sidewalk" like Zimmerman.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Fri 19 Jul, 2013 03:28 pm
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
Quote:
because people cannot handle the responsibility.
sadly yo may be right. Im still gonna keep my guns in the house and I do carry when Im on a job in back country. Ive had to scare bears but a few times (I NEVER go into big back country like in Argentina or Canadia by myself ... NEVER)
Anybody who does is either looking for trouble or is nutz.

Carrying a gun around in my neighborhood--NEVER.(If Zimmerman wouldn't have been armed , he wouldn't have been stalking the kid )
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 19 Jul, 2013 03:28 pm
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
Quote:
because people cannot handle the responsibility.
sadly yo may be right. Im still gonna keep my guns in the house and I do carry when Im on a job in back country. Ive had to scare bears but a few times (I NEVER go into big back country like in Argentina or Canadia by myself ... NEVER)
Anybody who does is either looking for trouble or is nutz.

Carrying a gun around in my neighborhood--NEVER.(If Zimmerman wouldn't have been armed , he wouldn't have been stalking the kid )
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Fri 19 Jul, 2013 03:35 pm
When I owned guns I kept having reasons to take them out, although I never shot at somebody. Now that I don't own one these situations never arise - Knock on wood.
0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  3  
Reply Fri 19 Jul, 2013 05:35 pm
@farmerman,
Categorically, I'm against SYG laws. I need to think some more about the states that do allow someone to shoot in self-defense if someone is put in a life-and-death situation while the other person is equally armed. How and who determines these criteria if there is no neutral eye-witness? Seems next to impossible to ascertain without an eye witness.

Also, in the case of a trained cop in a shoot-out ... when possible, the cop is trained to warn first, then should fire a warning shot where possible before finally using deadly force.

Clearly (to me) the numbers don't lie; however, some interpretation might be in order. How much has gun ownership increased at the same time as the amount of killings has gone from 12 to 36.
JTT
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 19 Jul, 2013 06:08 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
I do carry when Im on a job in back country. Ive had to scare bears but a few times (I NEVER go into big back country like in Argentina or Canadia by myself


Farmerman the big wussy!
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  2  
Reply Fri 19 Jul, 2013 06:11 pm
@farmerman,
This SYG law is so loose the jury couldn't make a decision based on current law. Remarkably, if Zimmerman had been convicted of any of the charges there would be grounds for appeal. I don't think the right to bear arms should be changed, but since you can't legislate state of mind we certainly should have background checks. I own weapons, but they never leave the house. If I had to travel the places that farmerman travels, I would be stupid not to carry a weapon. One of my old co-workers shared a story he remembered vividly from his childhood. He grew up in a remote spot in North Dakota, and recalled a night the entire family was in the house but were being threatened by wolves. The animals were starving and desperate, were circling the home and his father had to reload over and over to either kill or discourage the wolves. I honestly don't remember how this came about, I was so overwhelmed by the idea wolves could actually be at your door, intent on eating. His father would have been irresponsible if he didn't have the weapons.




However, in a gated community, if you need a security watch, hire professionals. When my sons were Trayvon's age and younger, I warned then to pay attention to strangers who might be following them or approach them. If one was alone, I would have told them to avoid contact with any stranger who was following in the dark. If that idiot had not had a gun he wouldn't have followed the boy. But if he had followed unarmed, possibly the worst thing that happened would have been an angry confrontation the child could have reported to his father. Trayvon happened to be on his own ground as well, just not armed.

Sorry about the rambling, but to answer the original question, Stand Your Ground is a very bad law.
JTT
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 19 Jul, 2013 06:15 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Certainly not an indication that weve become a more civilized country.


You've got a long long long way to go before you could ever consider the US a civilized country, Farmer.

Civilized countries don't slaughter millions of people, all the while pretending that they are trying to save them.

Civilized countries don't spread chemical weapons on anyone, they don't scatter cluster bombs around for little kids to play with, they don't spread depleted uranium around.

Civilized countries don't steal from their neighboring countries, again, all the while pretending their are helping the oppressed.

But you go on, pretending you're a caring, concerned individual.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 19 Jul, 2013 06:24 pm
@glitterbag,
Quote:
One of my old co-workers shared a story he remembered vividly from his childhood. He grew up in a remote spot in North Dakota, and recalled a night the entire family was in the house but were being threatened by wolves. The animals were starving and desperate, were circling the home and his father had to reload over and over to either kill or discourage the wolves. I honestly don't remember how this came about, I was so overwhelmed by the idea wolves could actually be at your door, intent on eating. His father would have been irresponsible if he didn't have the weapons.


Was your co-worker's name Little Red Riding Hood?

Gullible much!
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Jul, 2013 06:29 pm
And right on cue, another reason the ignore button is sooooo useful.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Fri 19 Jul, 2013 06:33 pm
@glitterbag,
Peeking again, eh, notsoglitteringbag.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » "STAND YOUR GROUND"--IS IT A GOOD LAW??
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/20/2019 at 11:43:37