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

[osterr1999]

If someone is in my house for some criminal purpose they will likely be shot, not because I am some bloodthirsty nut who has played too much Call of Duty, but because of the way my house is laid out. My kids rooms are at the other side of the house from ours, which is nice when they have friends spend the night, but not so good if someone breaks in. My first goal, if I know someone is in the house is to get to their side of the house as quickly as possible with my shotgun. Odds are that I will likely come across the perp, but I am not going to leave my kids at the other end of the house defenseless because I don't want to have to shoot someone.

 

[hermannr]

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?

Oregon and Washington both have court rulings that a person, minding their own business, in a place that they can legally be, cannot be forced to run when threatened, but have the RIGHT to defend themselves.

Don't even think about Zimmerman in this context, it does not fit. Zimmerman was on the ground, getting a beating by a larger, more fit person. That has nothing to do with "duty to retreat" or "stand your ground". In the position he was in, Zimmerman was incapable of doing either. However, he did have the natural right to defend himself in any manner available. That he is being persecuted is a purely political hack job.

I will tell you where these "stand your ground" laws came from. Places like MA and CT (RI too I think) have laws that when confronted by a potential deadly threat, you basically have to attempt to escape before you can defend yourself...this includes in your own home. People have gone to jail in those states for shooting a home invader, when they did not run away and vacate the premises to the invader, even after retreating into a place like the basement.

It was after the anger generated by one of these type of convictions that all of the states that passed "stand your ground", started work on their own versions so this could not happen in their state.

I have a perfectly legal, and very effective way to handle this. I Open Carry. If someone wishes to do me harm, he will not see an old man that may be a bit gimpy, but someone that is full prepared to defend himself and his loved ones. It works. The time I had Mr. young muscle beach party road rager screaming at me that he was going to beat me to a pulp...he stopped his rant very quickly, and left a quickly as he could..when he noticed I was armed...(my carry never left it's holster). That is because it was openly visible it did not need to leave it's holster.

I have no desire for the standard cc garbage about "the element of surprise". I very much prefer the deterrent effect of an open visible carry. I do not wish to have the "encounter" in the first place. Read the Idaho State Supreme Court's reasoning here: In re BRICKEY. I agree.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Its a natural right. I shouldn't have to be afraid OR try to walk away in order to defend myself. I don't go looking for a fight but Ill be damned if Im going to be afraid to take a walk, talk to someone or tell thugs to stop effing with my property.
Granted words mean nothing to me, talk is cheap and causes me no anger or harm.. but once someone lays hands on me or makes that charge like tough guys do, Ill defend myself any way I see fit. Ill draw if I feel the need, but that needs to be my right to do so, for when I actually draw Ive been pushed to the point that I feel like my life and the possible lives of others are are risk from the aggressor.

Granted the cops would be on the line either before, during or after.
But trying to appeal and appease the antis and gun grabbers is moronic.
I could give a flying bubblegum as to what their opinion is. It isn't our job to convince them of anything. Im sick of having to try and appease and appeal to these bubblegumtards. We've backed down so much that we're now the overall minority in this country as voters and firearm owners. It would seem by us allowing them to irresponsibly breed, dumb down, misinform and indoctrinate our youth they've won the masses. Low information voters. And with that they can just about pass anything because we've show the antis that we're cowards. Hopefully not anymore though.

Ive said it before and Ill say it again, nature NEEDS to take its course and when a hot headed would-be assailant try's to harm someone, his life should be extinguished.. Not assisted.
Those who are already willing to assault, rape or kill are no longer a part of humanity and thus should be put down for they'll only get worse and do it again. Laws help these jokers.. And those who are appeasers give into the rhetoric the liberal utopian pacifists preach and agree to unjust and unnatural regulations & laws that compromise not only their safety/life but the safety/lives of others.

 

[nwbobber]

I only bring Zimmerman up because the OP did, and the case is often framed in the media in the context of the stand your ground rule, which is unfortunate, as it will lead to broad misunderstanding of the laws purpose. Stand your ground laws, if I understand, are to prevent other laws from impeding a person from exercising their right of self defense.

 

[oknow]

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.

if the P A had a spine he wouldn't be there now in this trial

 

[Mikej]

If someone is in my house for some criminal purpose they will likely be shot, not because I am some bloodthirsty nut who has played too much Call of Duty, but because of the way my house is laid out. My kids rooms are at the other side of the house from ours, which is nice when they have friends spend the night, but not so good if someone breaks in. My first goal, if I know someone is in the house is to get to their side of the house as quickly as possible with my shotgun. Odds are that I will likely come across the perp, but I am not going to leave my kids at the other end of the house defenseless because I don't want to have to shoot someone.

This is the type of scenario the instructor used in my CC class. In his though,as the intruder entered his home he armed himself and positioned himself to protect the family(children), then gave loud warning to stop, back down and leave or be shot. That made a lot of sense, of course it's only one possibility. No body here is suggesting to run and hide, but putting yourself in a position to have your actions heavily scrutinized by a DA is foolish.

Mike

 

[osterr1999]

I look at it like this, if you are sitting in front of a jury because you shot someone who broke into your home and you did it because you say that you were afraid for your family there is no way that a jury will not have at least one person that will be a parent and understand that. Most DA's will know this as well.

 

[accessbob]

I've instructed my wife and my kids that if someone kicks in our door, and it isn't the police, don't ask questions as to why they are there - grab the gun and fire. Our house is so small that an intruder could cover the distance between the door and any other spot in the house in mere seconds.

 

[orygunmike]

my thoughts are that you don't understand the concept of SYG laws ... or you wouldn't be suggesting that it allows people to indiscriminately shoot people "on a whim" .....

And GZ getting out of his car really has absolutely nothing to do with his ability to use deadly force if the standards of such force are met ... and doubtful that this law or even the possession of his firearm "motivated" him to get out of the car.

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?

 

[Riot]

Stand your ground laws aren't stupid, they're designed to protect you (someone defending themselves) and your loved ones.

States without Stand Your Ground (SYG) laws leave a lot up to interpretation.

For example, you and your wife decide to go out for a night on the town. You decide to go to the mall to catch a movie and a bite to eat when someone pulls out a gun and comes toward you.

States without SYG laws basically would have you run from the situation...and if your wife/kids happens to be taken hostage or raped from the encounter then oh well- that's what the police are for. It's their job to deal with bad guys, not yours.

Now states with SYG laws protect you for using force on this individual instead of retreating. So basically you can't be found negligent for shooting a guy presenting a deadly threat as long as you were in an area you were allowed to be and there for a lawful purpose.

Now what is basically up for argument is the intent of the law and who it incompasses. Can I patrol outside a bar, following and profiling suspected DUIs? No? Then how can Zimmerman patrol a neighborhood and follow someone he thinks is going to commit a crime?

I think, legally, we're going to find out that Zimmerman did everything right until he got out of the car and followed Martin. If Martin would have attacked Zimmerman in his car, yanked him out and started beating Zimmerman up the ground- then got shot there would be no debate at all.

I think you all are placing yourselves in Zimmerman's shoes but not Martin's shoes. If you were walking home and being followed by a car, then that person got out and started following you on foot- what would you do? Doesn't SYG apply to Martin, as well as Zimmerman?

 

[DMax]

I only bring Zimmerman up because the OP did, and the case is often framed in the media in the context of the stand your ground rule, which is unfortunate, as it will lead to broad misunderstanding of the laws purpose. Stand your ground laws, if I understand, are to prevent other laws from impeding a person from exercising their right of self defense.

There is the entire problem Judged in the media before the trial is even started and the people that buy into it without actual facts but political bias. Just another step in dumbing down the rule of law along with the readers of said news.

 

[Brutus57]

If someone is in my house for some criminal purpose they will likely be shot, not because I am some bloodthirsty nut who has played too much Call of Duty, ....er can you really play too much Call of Duty...I mean those Nazi Zombies just keep coming..

Seriously though, I will shoot if me or mine feel threatened as well.

Brutus Out

 

[Ligito]

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.

Why don't you say what you really mean?

 

[U201491]

There is the entire problem Judged in the media before the trial is even started and the people that buy into it without actual facts but political bias. Just another step in dumbing down the rule of law along with the readers of said news.

People do not get trials any longer.
Guilt is pre determined by the media and mostly based on pc and political leanings.
This martin/zimmerman bs is the best example. Its like the oj case all over again. Its also used as diversion to take people's minds off off the criminal in the whitehouse.

 

[Ligito]

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.

If you "flashmob" for the purpose of doing harm to others, you deserve what you get.

 

[Jamie6.5]

I think, legally, we're going to find out that Zimmerman did everything right until he got out of the car and followed Martin. If Martin would have attacked Zimmerman in his car, yanked him out and started beating Zimmerman up the ground- then got shot there would be no debate at all.

I think you all are placing yourselves in Zimmerman's shoes but not Martin's shoes. If you were walking home and being followed by a car, then that person got out and started following you on foot- what would you do? Doesn't SYG apply to Martin, as well as Zimmerman?

Does being followed constitute the kind of threat of violence that would warrant "stand your ground?"

Now if Martin had turned and confronted Zimmerman at a distance, and asked why he was following, and Zimmerman attempted to take him into custody, you would have a case for that analogy.
But by all accounts thus far, that isn't the case.

Just because you are contacted visually and/or verbally (on someone else's private property) in a questioning manner, doesn't give you the right to escalate the contact into a physical confrontation.

Rest assured that if you are/were my neighbor, and you saw a stranger jump my fence into my back yard, and you asked them who they were and what their business was, you would have my full support regardless of how things turned out.
That's what good neighbors do.
I've done it for others, multiple times, as recently as last spring.

 

[U201491]

I've instructed my wife and my kids that if someone kicks in our door, and it isn't the police, don't ask questions as to why they are there - grab the gun and fire. Our house is so small that an intruder could cover the distance between the door and any other spot in the house in mere seconds.

I dont think many comprehend what a home invasion is.
They dont knock generally and come in small groups fully armed.
So the only way to stop one is if you are sitting behind cover facing the door when it happens, equally or better armed, or are so well tactically trained you can draw fire and hit 2, 3, 4...... within a very few seconds.
99.9% of the people will be psychologically strained they will freeze. That is precisely why these thugs use that tactic.
Thinking what you might do vs what you actually could do is a mile apart unless you spend every waking hr training and conditioning yourself to respond to a home invasion scenario. Do not kid yourself. They learned that tactic from LE..

 

[accessbob]

So the only way to stop one is if you are sitting behind cover facing the door when it happens,

That may be an optimal situation but there have been many, many home invasions warded off by residents who weren't sitting there ready to fire when the door was kicked open, nor were they drilling for such a situation. I'm not saying that we are guaranteed anything, especially if not actually practicing for it. But my family has at least a fighting chance. They each have a pistol within arm's reach when sitting out in the front room. And they are familiar with them and shoot them, which is more than most do.

Now, you may not stop someone who is highly determined and armed. But many who charge in find themselves not all that interested in staying around when bullets come flying at them.

 

[U201491]

Also.... I have not heard anyone mention the fact that when you carry, you have multiple things to be concerned with, and one simple one is, if an unarmed aggressive person confronts you and you are armed, you need to be very well trained in self defense AND firearms retention. You are a source for a weapon for them if you are not. Most of the bad guys have done some time and the biggest lesson they learn is to be quick and be brutal in any confrontation.
They are also taught that in the street gangs.
Most citizens that are civil and moral can't comprehend the degree they can go to in harming you nor how fast. So get trained in aggressive personal defense and how not to offer your firearm up on a silver platter to them, or avoid all confrontations. Living to an old age is a mindset you have to train for and practice often.
Most of what I hear people say out here sounds like its out of a Bruce Willis movie and life doesn't happen that way. Live smart or die dumb and always have cover options or retreat options to fight another day.
Unless you are better trained or were born with a rabbits foot growing out of your (fill in blank) you generally do not come in first place.

 

[orygunmike]

I think you all are placing yourselves in Zimmerman's shoes but not Martin's shoes. If you were walking home and being followed by a car, then that person got out and started following you on foot- what would you do? Doesn't SYG apply to Martin, as well as Zimmerman?

A person claiming self defense/SYG must past the test: Was their use of deadly force justifiable -- were they in *immediate*, *unavoidable* danger of *grave bodily harm* or *death*.

TM was not being faced with such a threat, and therefore the SYG does not apply. If he was, you have to ask why he didn't just run away ... I assume that TM could easily out run GZ.
On the otherhand, because GZ believed that his life was in immediate danger, and, being pinned beneath TM while having his head beat against the sidewalk didn't afford him the reasonable opportunity to escape, his claim of self defense likely meets that standard.