Should stand your ground laws be repealed?

MaggieD said:

I think others are misunderstanding my point; so I won't try to make it any further.

I agree with you.

Click to expand...

Heya Maggie. :2wave: No stand your ground laws don't need to be repealed. Also more than likely they wont be either. Despite the Push by Sharptones and Jackson.

Despite outcry, stand-ground law repeals unlikely.....

Despite an outcry from civil rights groups, a call for close examination by President Barack Obama and even a 1960s-style sit-in at the Florida governor's office, the jury's verdict that George Zimmerman was justified in shooting unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin is unlikely to spur change to any of the nation's stand-your-ground self-defense laws.

"I support stand your ground," Republican Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said last week.

"I do not see any reason to change it," said Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal, also a Republican.

At least 21 states have laws similar to that in Florida, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Many are conservative and lean toward laws that defend gun owners' rights. So far, there does not appear to be an appetite in Florida or other states to repeal or change the laws, which generally eliminate a person's duty to retreat in the face of a serious physical threat. In fact, some states are moving in the opposite direction.

"The debate about stand-your-ground laws largely reproduces existing divisions in American politics, particularly between blacks and whites and between Democrats and Republicans," said John Sides, associate professor of political science at George Washington University. <<<<< those, that need to know why Sharptones and Jackson were called upon. Then Obama with Sharptones calling his Speech Historic. )

Zimmerman, a 29-year-old former neighborhood watch volunteer, was acquitted this month of second-degree murder and manslaughter charges in the 2012 shooting of 17-year-old Martin in a gated community in Sanford, Fla. Zimmerman told police he shot Martin only after the African-American teenager physically attacked him; Martin's family and supporters say Zimmerman, who identifies himself as Hispanic, racially profiled Martin as a potential criminal and wrongly followed him.

Zimmerman's lawyers decided not to pursue a pretrial immunity hearing allowed by Florida's stand-your-ground law. But jurors were told in final instructions by Circuit Judge Debra Nelson that they should acquit Zimmerman if they found "he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary."

Before the stand-your-ground law was passed in 2005, the instruction would have read that Zimmerman "cannot justify his use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if by retreating he could have avoided the need to use that force."

Since the law was enacted, justifiable homicides in Florida have risen from an annual average of 13.2 between 2001 and 2005 to an average of 42 between 2006 and 2012, including a record 66 in 2012, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. FBI data have shown similar increases in some states that enacted similar laws, such as Texas, while others haven't seen an uptick.

Beyond Florida, these states have some form of a stand-your-ground law, according to the national group: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.....snip~

Despite outcry, stand-ground law repeals unlikely

rocket88 said:

IMO, if you had a hand in creating the situation, you weren't standing your ground.

Click to expand...

Being a concerned neighborhood and checking out a full-grown male stranger in ones own neighborhood does not constitute stalking and should in no way remove ones right to self defense.

Here in my neighborhood, we often check out strangers. We pretty much know everyone who lives here (and their regular visitors) and if there is a male wandering through, we will sometimes follow him to see what he is up to. Of course, we wouldn't follow a female or child (who are obviously guests of a resident), but a possible threat or criminal may be followed to ascertain their intentions. Generally, when the stranger is confronted, it's with a phrase something like "hey, man, what's up?" Do you think that removes ones right to self defense?

Why would you want to make confronting a stranger in ones own neighborhood a crime? Why would you want residents to lose their right to self defense just for being concerned neighbors? There is nothing wrong with following a full-grown male stranger in your own neighborhood to see what they are up to. If the stranger then attacks you, you have every right to defend yourself.

Fisher said:

I would not support the FL SYG law. I think Obama was correct when he pondered that if Martin had had a gun, the law may would have given him the right to shoot Zimmerman. There needs to some variation of the Clean Hands Doctrine applied outside the home.

As for the civil stuff, I am a supporter of contributory negligence in all civil tort cases, not just when it comes to this. For those not familiar, it means if you are partially at fault in what happened to you, you recover nothing. Likewise all defendants should be jointly and severally liable for torts. It would greatly simplify civil trials in a lot of place.

Click to expand...

Yes, Obama said African-Americans can shoot white people who call the police on them. But Obama is a grotesquely racist person. However, I've posted a couple dozen times that in my opinion once TM and GZ were struggling over that gun, either could have legally shot the other. What Obama is stating is that TM could have done a double take and gone back to GZ and shot him for GZ following. That would NOT be SYG and would NOT be self-defense. That would outright murder.

There is an extremely serious psychological disturbance with a President stating that African-Americans can shoot people who call the police on them or are following them. There is NO basis in law for that whatsoever other than the President thinking he can authorize murder on a national level as a retaliation for the verdict in the GZ trial.

But, then, we do have a president who likes to use his position to have people killed - and the first president to get himself a law that he can order anyone assassinated that he wants to. I suppose his view is "It's good to be the King."

ttwtt78640 said:

How is simply being on private property illegal unless it is posted? Had he tried to enter the house, that would be another story, but he did not leave the driveway. His actions were illegal because, being the initial aggressor, he cannot use deadly force.



Texas Gun Laws - Use of Force and Deadly Force - Self Defense

Click to expand...

That is no different than Florida in application. "provoked" does not mean "annoyed" as anti-GZers want it to mean.

joko104 said:

That is no different than Florida in application. "provoked" does not mean "annoyed" as anti-GZers want it to mean.

Click to expand...

Anti-GZers employ a most pathetic and ignorant dropping of context in order to push that position. They want us to pretend Martin was a female in a parking lot downtown in the middle of the night. Further, they want us to buy into the "stalking" routine (which is a disgusting belittling of the actual crime and victims of such). They want us to forget that this was a full-grown male stranger being followed by a concerned neighbor, in his residential neighborhood, at 7 pm, roadside, for the purpose of ascertaining what he was up to.

Their entire argument is a context drop.

Yes. If it's self-defense, courts should decide that, not state legislators. SYG oversteps the separation of powers.

Has any one noticed that SYG ground laws were not used in the defense at all?

MaggieD said:

Well, maybe another one of the benefits of the SYG laws is to allow a quick hearing to determine if it applies. So maybe that shouldn't go away. I don't know. And yes, I absolutely know that burglars have successfully sued homeowners for injuries they suffered during a break-in. Ludicrous.

But don't we just need a law that says, in all self-defense cases, the 'victim' can't sue? After all, if a person is found Not Guilty of injuring/killing someone, the only defenses are accident and self-defense. If it's an accident, that's something else again. But if it's ruled self-defense, why should anyone be allowed to sue?

Even if a person WINS a civil suit, it can cost tens of thousands of dollars to defend. Doesn't seem right. But seems like it could be handled with specific legislation that addressed all self-defense claims rather than have this controversial "stand your ground" wording.

Click to expand...

No, this would ONLY work if in the criminal case the judge/jury went on to affirmatively find it was self defense. The jury did not have the option to do that in the GZ case.

The standard in a criminal case is that the government (the victim has no say in that) must absolutely prove the person did it by a very, very strict standard. The standard in a civil suit is only by a preponderance of evidence, ie 51% certainty. In the criminal trial, the jury can believe it 99.9% that GZ murdered TM, but still must find him not-guilty.

So it is apples to oranges between not-guilty criminal verdicts and a civil finding of not liable. It is what the OJ case of not-guilty criminally but civilly liable is all about. In addition, in a civil trial the defendant generally cannot refuse to take the stand. For GZ, he could not claim a right against self-incrimination because he could not be prosecuted again. Thus, in a civil suit GZ could be required to take the stand and be cross examined too.

In addition, in the criminal case the victim (family on behalf of) has no say whatsoever in what evidence is put on or how the case proceeds.

THE OVERALL FLAW in civil law is that I believe if a Plaintiff LOSES the case, the Plaintiff should AUTOMATICALLY be liable to the Defendant for all attorney fees, court expenses and court costs of the Defendant. That would eliminate about 80% of civil lawsuits by my guess by ending turning lawsuits into crap-shoots in which no matter what the Plaintiff loses money no matter how it turns out. Under the current system, a Plaintiff never "wins" a lawsuit. Rather, it only a question of how much money the Plaintiff has lost even if just for successful defense.

AND trial and liabilities lawyers GO BERSERK if this is suggested for obvious reasons of their livelihood. Lacking any liability for a false or frivolous lawsuit is why any insurance company or business will just give $5K to $20K to anyone who claims they slipped and fell in a store. It will cost more than that in attorney fees to "win" the case. We know an old women who makes her living that way - literally. About every year she claims she fell and hurt herself on a "slippery floor" of some major chain store like Dillards, K-Mart, j C Pennys, etc. They give her about $20K to go away because she's in her late 70s and oh-how-sorry a jury could feel for her as she told of her terrible suffering. (She literally goes jet-biking on an 80 mph jet-bike she owns). H ler lawyer and her would face no risk in suing other than possibly not getting any money for the lawsuit.

Where the law is FLAWED is that in the criminal trial there is no opportunity for a jury to reach a finding of self defense, only a finding that the state didn't prove it's case.

Should stand your ground laws be repealed?

ABSOLUTELY NOT !!!

The Black Racists, and the Black Racist Enabling DEM Lib/Gay Swine have reached the point.....as illustrated by their OVERBEARING, BRAZEN, IDIOTIC PC MANIPULATION in the TM/GZ INCIDENT to try to COMPLETELY, or as HUMANLY POSSIBLE, ABROGATE ANY DEFENSES LEFT FOR THE NON-BLACK COMMUNITY . This the BLACK RACISTS are doing in spite of the the UBIQUITOUS DEPREDATIONS by the BLACK COMMUNITY.

The above is occurring WITH ALL THE OBVIOUSLY UNJUSTIFIED HOWLING & YOWLING BY THE BLACK RACISTS, ESPECIALLY THEIR NUMEROUS PROFESSIONAL RACE BAITERS, THEIR ENABLING DEM LIB/GAY SWINE, AND CORRUPT RACIST CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS WHICH RULES THE DEM PARTY.

ALL THIS IN SPITE OF THE BLACK COMMUNITY'S CRIME RATE BEING 13% OF THE TOTAL AMERICAN POPULATION, AND HAVING A MINDBOGGLING 51% + OF THE NATION'S CRIME TO ACCOUNT FOR !!!

A HELLUVA LOT MORE "BLACK PROFILING" is NECESSARY UNTIL THESE BLACKS CAN LEGITIMATELY HOWL & YOWL FOR LESS PROFILING.

The time for these ARROGANT, EGOMANIACAL Black Racists and their ENABLERS, to have a REASONABLE CAUSE to lower Black Profiling, or to prevent the "STAND YOUR GROUND" agenda is WHEN THE BLACKS HAVE AN EQUAL RATE OF CRIME PROPORTIONATE TO THEIR PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL POPULATION !!!

ecofarm said:

Being a concerned neighborhood and checking out a full-grown male stranger in ones own neighborhood does not constitute stalking and should in no way remove ones right to self defense.

Here in my neighborhood, we often check out strangers. We pretty much know everyone who lives here (and their regular visitors) and if there is a male wandering through, we will sometimes follow him to see what he is up to. Of course, we wouldn't follow a female or child (who are obviously guests of a resident), but a possible threat or criminal may be followed to ascertain their intentions. Generally, when the stranger is confronted, it's with a phrase something like "hey, man, what's up?" Do you think that removes ones right to self defense?

Why would you want to make confronting a stranger in ones own neighborhood a crime? Why would you want residents to lose their right to self defense just for being concerned neighbors? There is nothing wrong with following a full-grown male stranger in your own neighborhood to see what they are up to. If the stranger then attacks you, you have every right to defend yourself.

Click to expand...

That's the thing, you know your neighbors and their regular visitors. If Trayvon's Dad's girlfriend (is there a better way to say that?) lived there, which she did, it's not unreasonable to think that he would have been a relatively regular visitor. Knowing your neighbors would have led to someone saying, "Oh, it's that Trayvon kid..." I know who visits my neighbors and while I don't think they're always the most savory people, seeing them does not make me think they don't belong.

Once the altercation started, Z had the right to defend himself. But in as far as he created the situation is where I get uncomfortable.

rocket88 said:

That's the thing, you know your neighbors and their regular visitors. If Trayvon's Dad's girlfriend (is there a better way to say that?) lived there, which she did, it's not unreasonable to think that he would have been a relatively regular visitor. Knowing your neighbors would have led to someone saying, "Oh, it's that Trayvon kid..." I know who visits my neighbors and while I don't think they're always the most savory people, seeing them does not make me think they don't belong.

Once the altercation started, Z had the right to defend himself. But in as far as he created the situation is where I get uncomfortable.

Click to expand...

Trayvon was a rare (had he been there before?) and recent visitor. It might take a few days to become familiar with a newcomer.

There is nothing wrong with following a 6' male stranger in ones own neighborhood at 7 pm to ascertain their intentions. Referring to such as "stalking" (not that you, personally, do) is a disgusting belittling of the crime of stalking and an insult to the victims of stalking.

Should it be legal to park in my lawn in my neighborhood? Or should that ordinance be repealed.
Ya know, because it has as much to do with the trial as the Stand Your Ground laws.
Zimmerman was not really standing his ground, he was being beaten into the ground and had to act in self defense.

HoongLoong said:

!!!

Click to expand...

There is no racism possible from minorities. As an ism, it requires institutionalized backing. Racial bigotry by minorities is just racial bigotry, basically pissing in the wind... it's without transcending societal implications. Using sociological terms while ignoring sociology is rather lame.

ttwtt78640 said:

How is simply being on private property illegal unless it is posted? Had he tried to enter the house, that would be another story, but he did not leave the driveway. His actions were illegal because, being the initial aggressor, he cannot use deadly force.
Texas Gun Laws - Use of Force and Deadly Force - Self Defense

Click to expand...

He would be found guilty in Florida as well. Being the legal "aggressor" heightens the requirements for self-defense in Florida. The aggressor is legally compelled to make every reasonable effort to escape the confrontation before using lethal force. If the instigating neighbor did not make every reasonable attempt to escape the conflict before using deadly force, they are unable by law to claim self-defense.

joko104 said:

No, this would ONLY work if in the criminal case the judge/jury went on to affirmatively find it was self defense. The jury did not have the option to do that in the GZ case.

The standard in a criminal case is that the government (the victim has no say in that) must absolutely prove the person did it by a very, very strict standard. The standard in a civil suit is only by a preponderance of evidence, ie 51% certainty. In the criminal trial, the jury can believe it 99.9% that GZ murdered TM, but still must find him not-guilty.
So it is apples to oranges between not-guilty criminal verdicts and a civil finding of not liable. It is what the OJ case of not-guilty criminally but civilly liable is all about. In addition, in a civil trial the defendant generally cannot refuse to take the stand. For GZ, he could not claim a right against self-incrimination because he could not be prosecuted again. Thus, in a civil suit GZ could be required to take the stand and be cross examined too.

Where the law is FLAWED is that in the criminal trial there is no opportunity for a jury to reach a finding of self defense, only a finding that the state didn't prove it's case.

Click to expand...

There is a big difference between the OJ and GZ cases. OJ did not argue self-defense. GZ did. In several states, Florida included, one is immune from civil and criminal liability in cases of self-defense. In this case, GZ chose to not seek his criminal immunity, probably because the Judge most likely would not have granted it (arguably for political reasons). If a civil case is brought against him (wrongful death?), I imagine he will have a hearing to attempt to obtain his civil immunity. That would be decided by the judge. I would be mighty surprised if a civil suit was actually brought against Zimmerman considering the quantity, quality, and nature of the evidence in the case. If GZ is granted immunity from civil liability, the plaintiff (the Martins?) would be forced to cover court costs/attorney fees for GZ. I'm guessing O'Mara and West are not cheap.

HoongLoong said:

Should stand your ground laws be repealed?

ABSOLUTELY NOT !!!

The Black Racists, and the Black Racist Enabling DEM Lib/Gay Swine have reached the point.....as illustrated by their OVERBEARING, BRAZEN, IDIOTIC PC MANIPULATION in the TM/GZ INCIDENT to try to COMPLETELY, or as HUMANLY POSSIBLE, ABROGATE ANY DEFENSES LEFT FOR THE NON-BLACK COMMUNITY . This the BLACK RACISTS are doing in spite of the the UBIQUITOUS DEPREDATIONS by the BLACK COMMUNITY.

The above is occurring WITH ALL THE OBVIOUSLY UNJUSTIFIED HOWLING & YOWLING BY THE BLACK RACISTS, ESPECIALLY THEIR NUMEROUS PROFESSIONAL RACE BAITERS, THEIR ENABLING DEM LIB/GAY SWINE, AND CORRUPT RACIST CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS WHICH RULES THE DEM PARTY.

ALL THIS IN SPITE OF THE BLACK COMMUNITY'S CRIME RATE BEING 13% OF THE TOTAL AMERICAN POPULATION, AND HAVING A MINDBOGGLING 51% + OF THE NATION'S CRIME TO ACCOUNT FOR !!!

A HELLUVA LOT MORE "BLACK PROFILING" is NECESSARY UNTIL THESE BLACKS CAN LEGITIMATELY HOWL & YOWL FOR LESS PROFILING.

The time for these ARROGANT, EGOMANIACAL Black Racists and their ENABLERS, to have a REASONABLE CAUSE to lower Black Profiling, or to prevent the "STAND YOUR GROUND" agenda is WHEN THE BLACKS HAVE AN EQUAL RATE OF CRIME PROPORTIONATE TO THEIR PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL POPULATION !!!

Click to expand...

Easy there, big boy.

In my opinion, Zimmerman was not acquited because of SYG laws, he was acquited because of Constitutional law.

MaggieD said:

Would we need SYG laws if civil suit immunity were automatic in self-defense cases? Isn't what's "self defense" the job for a jury?

Click to expand...

I don't think we should get rid of them, if anything they should be strengthened. And I feel this civil suit crap has gone well over the line these days. With the fines and punishments involved, we're really looking at double jeopardy.