Is this the kind of scenario that "Stand Your Ground" was intended to cover.

The Inspector said:
Like a good health debate but the name calling is just starts a fight.

It would be good if we could collect more info. on why people have guns and usage. So on
Click to expand...

Plenty of that type of info on the web. Lots of data from the US government and other groups. Lots of emotional posts and some just straight data. Most likely everyone will say something about why they want to own guns. Some are hunters, some collectors, some for personal reasons like self defense, some belong to gun clubs for shooting competitions, some other personal reasons that make sense to them but maybe not to others. One big reason is that in the US it is legal to own guns by part of the 2nd amendment. When the US folks tire of the 2nd amendment they can change that with the approved amendment procedure which requires 3/4 of the states to agree with it. A tough go for those that wish to change something such as the US Constitution.
 
The U.S. Supreme Court has given people the right to own guns and the government the right to regulate them. The 2nd amendment has little to do with it. The 2nd amendment just implies the feds can't ban the states from having them.
 

But with so many gun owners it just sounds like this deadly security blankie they like to carry around. Knowing they have it makes them feel safe and they feel everybody should have the right to their own deadly security blankie. And if bad people start shooting they can whip out their blankies and save the day. Even armed if you get caught in crossfire it's not way likely you're going to get off a clean shot or three before being disabled yourself. And even if you can shoot, in a panic situation how do you know exactly who to shoot?
 
fureverywhere said:
But with so many gun owners it just sounds like this deadly security blankie they like to carry around. Knowing they have it makes them feel safe and they feel everybody should have the right to their own deadly security blankie. And if bad people start shooting they can whip out their blankies and save the day. Even armed if you get caught in crossfire it's not way likely you're going to get off a clean shot or three before being disabled yourself. And even if you can shoot, in a panic situation how do you know exactly who to shoot?
Click to expand...

I've asked this question.. with no response. Everyone walking around packing would be more deadly in a shooting situation. Many more would be killed by "friendly fire" than by the one instigating the shooting. In essence.. it would be a circular firing squad.
 
The Inspector said:
The U.S. Supreme Court has given people the right to own guns and the government the right to regulate them. The 2nd amendment has little to do with it. The 2nd amendment just implies the feds can't ban the states from having them.
Click to expand...

Not sure where you got your information as this is what it says. Regulate does not mean take away. To change these words means a complete amendment situation must be started and completed.

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 2

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
 
Meanwhile, back to the topic.

I did not start this thread to argue once again about the 2nd Amendment.

I am interested is a law that seems to say that if you are afraid that someone is going to kill you or do you serious injury then you can defend yourself by shooting them. Apparently you don't have to say "Stop of I'll shoot" or give any other warning and you are then immune to prosecution for murder, manslaughter or civil damages.

The location doesn't seem to matter. In your own home or in the street late at night I understand but in a darkened movie theatre where there are other people and where you are able to remove yourself from danger is beyond my comprehension. At the very least I would consider this to be reckless endangerment of the public.

It also doesn't seem to matter whether or not you yourself provoked or escalated a confrontation because there will be no trial to establish all the facts if the charges are dismissed.

I will be following this case with interest because I find it totally incomprehensible. I would welcome any clarification from members who do understand this law and its application to real life situations.
 
There stands another comparison...you have a gun to guard your home. I have two dogs. I also have prominent "Beware of Dog" signs...one of the more playful " I Can Make It to the Fence in 2.8 Seconds, Can You?". First off my dogs would be aware of outside activity before it would be humanly possible to hear it. If someone were foolish enough to enter front or backyard they would hear the hounds from Hell. If that same prowler was desperate enough or perhaps armed themselves and decided to enter our home...all bets would be off. Dog law where we live is if someone trespasses even into your backyard the dog is permitted to guard his property. Even if my dog removes the prowler's arm the dog is not at fault. I believe the law is different if you shoot the prowler. IMHO dogs are a much better alternative to firearms.
 
:lol: fureverywhere.

I have no dog, no gun and not even a front fence.
How have I managed to live to the ripe old age of 72?
I must have a guardian angel.
 
Warrigal said:
:lol: fureverywhere.

I have no dog, no gun and not even a front fence.
How have I managed to live to the ripe old age of 72?
I must have a guardian angel.
Click to expand...

Seventy two is just a young age for some folks. I am 82.

To answer your comments above. Each state has different gun laws and usage requirements. As far as I know their is no one 'Stand your ground law' for everyone in the US. Do you know of one like that yourself? If so enlighten me. Being a Republic the US is different from many nations where the rules come from the federal control. Here it is 'intended' to be mostly state and local control for the people. But with some of the current politicians they are trying hard to change that to all federal control over all.
 
This isn't so uncommon a practice in Fl we've had more than one of these such cases where the line of Stand your ground law has come into question, they've yet to have been able to make it clear where the fine line is sometimes pick and choose sporadically who to apply it to. In one case a woman fired a warning shot when she tried to invoke the law when she felt threatened at her residence, she didn't even shoot the person and she received a 20 year sentence, she was eventually let out after three years after the case was later revisited.

This was another case where a man shot his neighbors over mail then invoked the stand your ground law, but, we've had quite a few others. It's insane how many cases exist like this and their fighting to get open carry here, that will surely improve the situation. Maybe it will, someone will be less likely to draw on the other person carrying, unless of course they think they can draw quicker :rolleyes:. Not saying one way or the other about the gun carrying laws, just a statement on this situation in FL and how it may affect our stand your ground situation as it is in the environment now.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/florida-veteran-invokes-stand-ground-law-killing-neighbors-30669068

BTW, seems they want to make it even harder to convict so lots to look forward to.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/os-stand-ground-defense-scott-maxwell-20151003-column.html
 
Bobf, the case that prompted this thread relates to the law in Florida.
I am aware that the states have different laws regarding stand you ground and that it doesn't apply in the majority of states.

Perhaps members who live in states where SYG applies will be able to shed light on the way it is applied where they live. ???
 
fureverywhere said:
But with so many gun owners it just sounds like this deadly security blankie they like to carry around. Knowing they have it makes them feel safe and they feel everybody should have the right to their own deadly security blankie. And if bad people start shooting they can whip out their blankies and save the day. Even armed if you get caught in crossfire it's not way likely you're going to get off a clean shot or three before being disabled yourself. And even if you can shoot, in a panic situation how do you know exactly who to shoot?
Click to expand...

I don't carry around my security blankie with me -- it is at home, where I could use it to defend myself. I DO take it with me (legal here) if I'll be driving a far distance -- a lot of our area here in NM is vast stretches of desert, where a woman my age could certainly be at risk in the instance of, say, a breakdown or flat while waiting for help to arrive. If I still went camping, I would still take it with me then. Otherwise, no.
 
The Inspector said:
The U.S. Supreme Court has given people the right to own guns and the government the right to regulate them. The 2nd amendment has little to do with it. The 2nd amendment just implies the feds can't ban the states from having them.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree that the US Supreme Court has given people the right to own guns. The Second Amendment does that. The Supreme Court has elaborated on the right, but certainly did not convey the right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imp
I found this explanation of the general evolution of stand your ground on a criminal law website:

DUTY TO RETREAT
English Common Law required that an individual, when threatened, must "retreat to the wall at one's back" before justifiably killing someone. Only the crown could kill someone and justify it. Everyone else had to get a pardon from the king if they killed someone. The only way to do that was to prove that you did everything you could not to kill someone.
"private persons are not to be trusted to take capital revenge one of another." - Sir Matthew Hale, Jurist
This English Common Law became America's Common Law and is the starting point for all self defense laws to follow.

CASTLE DOCTRINE

Castle Doctrine is another English Common Law adopted in America to remove people from the "duty to retreat" when attacked in their own home. Every state supports the Castle Doctrine through legislation, case law, or common law.
"A man's house is his castle -- et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium" (and where shall a man be safe if it be not in his own house?) -Sir Edwar Coke, The Institutes of the Laws of England, 1628.
Everywhere else, one must try to retreat when threatened if it is safe to do so, before committing to killing someone in self defense.

STAND YOUR GROUND

Stand Your Ground laws are renovations to the Castle Doctrines already found in the states. In fact, they are often called Castle Doctrine Expansions. They are also called 'Shoot First', 'The Right to Commit' Murder', 'Line in the Sand', and 'Make My Day' laws.
These are laws that extend the castle doctrine in several different ways:

Location - Nobody has ever had to retreat when threatened in the home. SYG laws remove the 'duty to retreat' from outside the home as well.


Presumption - Justifiable homicide requires a 'reasonable belief' that a serious threat has been posed, and the threat must be 'imminent'. SYG laws presume that the surviving party had 'reasonable belief' or that the threat was 'imminent' or simply that the survivor killed legally in self defense. In other words, it's up to the non-survivor's party to prove otherwise.


Immunity - Generally speaking, criminal law punishes wrongdoers, and civil law attempts to restore what was damaged to whoever has been wronged. SYG laws give the survivor immunity from civil law suits and sometimes criminal law suits and even arrest.


Threat - Some states don't require there to be a 'reasonable belief' that a serious threat has been posed or that the danger be 'imminent'.
 
"Castle Law" doctrine was significantly strengthened in New Mexico, back in the 1990s, I believe, by Gov. Gary Johnson. Subsequently, Gov. Bill Richardson publicly strongly supported it. The question then had become is an individual's vehicular device, car or truck, any different from his home, with respect to invasion from without. Generally, it was decided to be the same. This concept may have (but likely did not), opened up the can of worms allowing defensive "drive-by shootings". imp
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top