Does anyone else out there think the "Stand Your Ground" law is stupid?

[Phillyfan]

Personally, I like the fact that if a person takes on the responsibility of carrying that that person also takes on the responsibility of being the better man (or woman), cooler head.

When I speak with people who are borderline anti-gun about the fact that I can carry it is so nice to see the look on their face when I tell them that if I am carrying, no matter the reason for the dispute, I am obligated by law to try to get away from a conflict that may result in my having to defend myself. When I tell them that even if a guy comes up and picks a fight with me that by law I have to try to walk away it seems to open them up more to the idea of carrying for self-defence.

What they are afraid of is "little man syndrom." That I am going to be more aggressive because I have a gun in my pocket, and I have to say there are some out there like that. I originally got my concealed carry so that I wouldn't have to leave my handgun in the truck when I went in to eat at a diner when hunting. Honestly, after taking the class I was more apt to carry to defend myself from some of the other loonies in the class. It seemed, by their questions, that they were looking for any excuse to shoot somebody down.

To me "Stand Your Ground" gives the anti-gunners way too much of an arguement against the public carrying. It leaves us at the whims of people with a serious lack of judgement, maturity, and common sense. Zimmerman should never gotten out of his car, and under our law maybe he wouldn't have. Thoughts?

Read More

 

[The B]

What's this "law" you refer to preventing you from getting into a fight?

 

[Lange22250]

You probably need to read what the laws actually do instead of making assumptions.

 

[Stomper]

I think you speak of that which you know not. The Oregon Supreme Court ruled some time ago that one has no duty to retreat from a threat, so your "obligated by law" statements are false.

On a side note, you are more likely to be injured, maimed, or killed by an untrained, irrational, immature, baggy pants wearing, "little man" driving an Acura, or Honda with one of those rediculous over-sized tin cans posing as a tail-pipe, and a gigantic bolt-on rear spoiler thinking their on a race track.

 

[Phillyfan]

Well, hell. I guess it was just something my instuctor said that seemed to make sense. So what is the difference between what we have and Stand your ground?

 

[Phillyfan]

No ego involved here, really just curious. I'd taken my instructors word on the matter.

 

[Morpheus]

Castle Law and Stand-your-ground laws tend to protect people who choose to protect themselves and loved ones. It isn't about being a tough guy, it is about if your are pushed into corner you have the legal ability to resist with lethal force.

I don't wish a situation like this on anyone, but the fact the law may protect my rights over an attacker's rights gives is nice to know.

Oh, and unless your instructor is a lawyer, and willing to go on record as a legal advice you may want to do your own research as well.

 

[U201491]

A simple rule. Know when to hold em know when to fold em,
but the real stand your ground law comes from a source far
more powerful than any state or federal legislature.

 

[Misterbill]

"Stand your ground" laws are just incapacitating the old "duty to retreat" laws that put innocent citizens on trial because they couldn't "prove" that they had retreated prior to use of deadly force.

Look, if I'm walking down the street and confronted by a violent criminal, requiring me to retreat before I use deadly force to defend myself, and PROVING that I did retreat, is just stupid on a stick.

Moreover, in some states, the duty to retreat even extended to your home! Where the Hell else are you going to go exactly?

Stand your ground simply states that if you are confronted by serious violent force that may do injury pr death to you, you have the right to employ any and all methods of self defense in response.

It's not up to you to prove to a jury that you tried to run away first.

In practice, who the F**** DOESN'T already try to back off? How many cases are there where anyone with a remotely legit self-defense claim DOESN'T say they tried to back off or de-escalate the situation? Answer: almost none.

Stand your ground simply serves to protect the good guys from the overzealous prosecution of prosecutors who should be disbarred for malfeasance.

Anyone decrying this basic premise of law either doesn't know what the F they are talking about or is deliberately lying to make a political point.

 

[Nightcrawler]

Stand Your Ground laws are there to provide the person confronted/attacked with a legal basis to protect themselves and their families. They will probably still try to sue you, but if you convey those key thoughts, like being afraid for your life, you felt you had no other choice, well, it's meant to be some legal protection.

 

[Bruin]

No.

 

[Dunerunner]

^^^^ That! ^^^^

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

Methinks you need to find another instructor....

 

[Mikej]

I see Phillyfan's point. Before I took the CC I was of a mind set that anyone shows up in my house at night with the intent on illegal activities gets SHOT dead! The only thing I was going to worry about was the blood stains on the carpet. One of the things the instructor said and really stuck with me and changed my outlook. (personally I though the class was lame and really should have more to it other than what it did). The number of $$ to defend yourself in court if need be. I realized it just wouldn't be worth it to go off and shoot without looking for any possible way to avoid pulling that trigger. And Philly's opinion of the attitudes of SOME of the people's perception, of SOME of us concealed carriers. There was a woman in the back of the class that was amazed, and somewhat disgruntled that she wasn't going to be able to shoot dead someone coming into her home uninvited! That isn't what the instructor said though, he warned of the ramifications IF you shot someone.

Having said all that, IMO we do need the stand your ground/castle laws to protect us as Morpheus stated.

Any time these discussions come up I think back to the guy with the CCP here in the Northwest somewhere a few years ago that tried to shoot a tire of a fleeing robber of some kind.

Mike

 

[nwbobber]

The NRA teaches to try to evade an invader in your own home. That is good advice if your primary goal is to stay alive. The stand your ground law is probably misunderstood because of the picture it inspires of a guy with chest puffed out taunting his adversary.... whyn'ch come over here and MAKE ME.... Which if I understand correctly is not what it means, and is not what it is for. Zimmerman appears to be one who's primary purpose was not to protect himself, but to try to control someone he assumed something about. He is defending himself in court because it APPEARS that he intentionally escalated the situation. Since most folks don't have a good grasp of what the law actually says or means, maybe what the question should be is.... is it stupid to give it the "Stand your ground" title.

 

[unklekippy]

Zimmerman defended himself. Any "laws" that tell you to run and hide or to do anything but defend yourself are for the very weak of mind and spine. There is not a "law" out there that will require me to die or be a victim. The rest of you looking to die or be a victim need not try to take rational Americans with you. Pump that bullbubblegum on an anti-gun board. This idea that your only obligation is to DIE(while police officers are told every day that their only obligation is to go home to their families) comes from weak, sick individuals that have no concern for your freedom, only concern for your control. Not for me, thanks.

 

[nwbobber]

I agree Zimmerman defended himself. He had to. But he likely made some unfortunate decisions and ultimately put himself in a bad situation. I think he could have been more intelligent.

No one here looking to be a victim. The fight will have to come to me, I will not go looking for it. I don't think that makes me weak of mind or spine.

 

[unklekippy]

When you are appointed "watchman" or, "neighborhood watch" it is in fact your responsibility to "watch" the premises that you signed up for. If that isn't the case, every police detention or arrest is by definition "not minding your own business". Because the police are there, your right to defense does not disappear. The same as just because the Army hands out firearms to those that sign up does not preclude my right to bear arms. When you throw off the shackles of brainwashing, it is amazing how many rights we deny ourselves because evil people plant the seed that it is "wrong". Protecting your home is not looking for a fight. That is what Zimmerman did. He defended his home in the post that his community placed him in. Almost like hiring a security guard. When me and my homies "flashmob" Lloyd Center, those security guards had better mind their own business. Racist bastards.

 

[oknow]

The NRA teaches to try to evade an invader in your own home. That is good advice if your primary goal is to stay alive. The stand your ground law is probably misunderstood because of the picture it inspires of a guy with chest puffed out taunting his adversary.... whyn'ch come over here and MAKE ME.... Which if I understand correctly is not what it means, and is not what it is for. Zimmerman appears to be one who's primary purpose was not to protect himself, but to try to control someone he assumed something about. He is defending himself in court because it APPEARS that he intentionally escalated the situation. Since most folks don't have a good grasp of what the law actually says or means, maybe what the question should be is.... is it stupid to give it the "Stand your ground" title.

He is in court because of a spineless prosecutor that was pushed into charging g z by being P. C.

 

[nwbobber]

He is in court because of a spineless prosecutor that was pushed into charging g z by being P. C.

I agree, but Mr. Zimmerman made choices that made him appear to be a vigilante, who pursued the young man. Had he been more intelligent regarding his own actions, he would not be in court at all.