Repeal stand your ground?

[Guest profgunner]

I just read this opinion piece (see below) published a couple of days ago in the Tampa Bay Times. In the article, it is stated that "the Times survey found "stand your ground" defenses used in gang shootings, bar fights and road rage incidents." But there is no indication as to which party "stood their ground". As far as I know, SYG applies ONLY to those who are NOT engaged in illegal activity at the time of the incident. If some law abiding citizen stood up to a bunch of gang-bangers, a knife wielding drunk, or some idiot who jumped out of his car with a baseball bat then I'm 100% OK with it. I'm sure we will see attempts to roll back SYG legislation in Tennessee. Hopefully we can convince our legislators that this would not be a good idea.

http://www.tampabay....agedypp/1221552

Edited March 26, 2012 by profgunner

[daddyo]

Even the NAACP President has said that the Stand Your Ground law is not to blame for the Sanford FL shooting.

[TMF]

I don't doubt that the SYG law is used as a defense but that doesn't mean it's used successfully. I could go out and shoot a quadriplegic elderly man and use the SYG defense, but that doesn't mean I'll being successful in doing so.

[Grunt67]

I can't see this being overturned. Stand Your Ground won't apply if you're chasing someone. Of course the Lib.

media has climbed all over this, as usual, as in the political cartoon in todays Tennessean. Ignorant bias, as usual.

It'll go away when the dust settles.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Sarah Brady would love to see everyone fleeing whenever they are threatened. I couldn't

get the Tampa Bay Times to cooperate so I'll read it later today, but the title says it all, I'll

bet.

Repealing your right to stand and defend yourself is something the government and God

definitely disagree on. Inalienable rights include self protection. How can you do this while

always being on the run? The Bible doesn't teach it and nor do rational, reasonable, and

thinking Americans who care about themselves and their families. It's also reasonable to

assume a criminal will be more brash in their journey to invade your space, knowing the

government forced you to give up everything and retreat.

Reading newspapers is dangerous nowadays. They trap you into reading them occasionally

by telling you there are coupons inside. Nah, not me.

[tnhawk]

Once the case works thru the court system, they should find that the SYG law isn't the problem.

[daddyo]

Sarah Brady would love to see everyone fleeing whenever they are threatened. I couldn't

get the Tampa Bay Times to cooperate so I'll read it later today, but the title says it all, I'll

bet.

Repealing your right to stand and defend yourself is something the government and God

definitely disagree on. Inalienable rights include self protection. How can you do this while

always being on the run? The Bible doesn't teach it and nor do rational, reasonable, and

thinking Americans who care about themselves and their families. It's also reasonable to

assume a criminal will be more brash in their journey to invade your space, knowing the

government forced you to give up everything and retreat.

Reading newspapers is dangerous nowadays. They trap you into reading them occasionally

by telling you there are coupons inside. Nah, not me.

Yes, the gun haters want everyone to live like sheep, just like they do.

[DaveTN]

Stand your ground is as misunderstood as the Castle Doctrine. If a jury believes you are in danger of death or great bodily harm; both are moot.

Stand your ground would only apply if a prosecutor agreed that the person was in danger of death or great bodily harm, but should have retreated. If there was a duty to retreat the shooter in Florida would have problems because he put himself in danger and caused the confrontation.

[RobertNashville]

Stand Your Ground laws are GOOD laws and not only need to be protected where they already exist but we need every state to recognize this basic right...if they had their way, the Brady bunch and their ilk would not even allow you to defend yourself in your own home, much less in places where you have a legal right to be.

There is nothing wrong with retreating when you can do so safely but no one should be automatically required to do so.

Anybody can claim anything as a defense but just because someone claims an otherwise legitimate defense to justify when it shouldn't apply doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with the defense.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Stand your ground is as misunderstood as the Castle Doctrine. If a jury believes you are in danger of death or great bodily harm; both are moot.

Stand your ground would only apply if a prosecutor agreed that the person was in danger of death or great bodily harm, but should have retreated. If there was a duty to retreat the shooter in Florida would have problems because he put himself in danger and caused the confrontation.

Maybe they are just misunderstood. What about that case in Chicago, a while back, involving

a black man, that made it to the Supreme Court? I know it had to do with other issues, but did

the DA consider his right to protect anything? No argument, DaveTN, just asking. And I know

you know more about Illinois law than I do. It's why I asked.

[DaveTN]

Maybe they are just misunderstood. What about that case in Chicago, a while back, involving

a black man, that made it to the Supreme Court? I know it had to do with other issues, but did

the DA consider his right to protect anything? No argument, DaveTN, just asking. And I know

you know more about Illinois law than I do. It's why I asked.

You need to give me more of a hint than a black man that made it to the SC.

Illinois doesn’t have a duty to retreat and hasn’t had in the 40 years I know about.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Wasn't it Chicago v Washington? The follow up case after the Heller case. I didn't know whether IL

was a retreat state or not.

[DaveTN]

Wasn't it Chicago v Washington? The follow up case after the Heller case. I didn't know whether IL

was a retreat state or not.

The follow-up case after Heller was McDonald.

[Guest profgunner]

Wasn't it Chicago v Washington? The follow up case after the Heller case. I didn't know whether IL

was a retreat state or not.

Here is a link to an article that relates to this case.

http://kennblanchard.com/chicago

Edited March 26, 2012 by profgunner

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yeh, I forgot his name. Thanks

[Erik88]

This case has nothing to do with the SYG law.

[wjh2657]

What happens in court due to the Zimmerman/Martin shooting is of no real consequence. The media is "trying" the SYG law in the Court of Public Opinion. Whether the law is a defense or not in this court case is already a dead issue before it ever gets to trial. The Court of Public Opinion is already making a "jury" decision on the SYG as a "good law" or a "evil law" and the courts are out of it. The legislatures make the laws and this is an election year. The public pressure will decide whether SYG stands as a legal option or not. Timing could not have been worse! So far as trying to sway the public opinion in our favor, using logic and history has never worked in the past, why hope it will this time?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I doubt SYG will change anywhere except any state in the north. Too many things are going on

everywhere else to raise this to the issue they are trying for. It will be lost in the clutter.

[Guest profgunner]

This case has nothing to do with the SYG law.

ouch! Edited March 27, 2012 by profgunner

[East_TN_Patriot]

The content of the original post is correct. The SYG law only removes the duty to retreat in the face of a threat. The Florida statute is 776.013 and subsection 3 is the pertinent provision of the statute for this case:

(3)A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

The entire statute can be seen here: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

Edited March 27, 2012 by East_TN_Patriot

[Worriedman]

I can't see this being overturned. Stand Your Ground won't apply if you're chasing someone.

Not necessarily, case in point:

http://latino.foxnew...d-as-justified/

From the article:

The man who pursued the other is Greyston Garcia, the man who died was Pedro Roteta. Last week, citing the state’s Stand Your Ground law, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Beth Bloom decided that Garcia was immune from prosecution in the January killing of Roteta.

So Bloom dismissed a murder charge against Garcia, who stabbed Roteta on Jan. 25 after he allegedly caught him stealing a radio from his truck.On Tuesday, she ruled that Garcia's actions were justified.

According to a Miami Herald story, Garcia grabbed a knife and chased Roteta, who took off running.

“After more than a block, Garcia caught up with Roteta,†the newspaper said. “Garcia's defense attorney said Roteta swung a bag filled with three stolen car radios at Garcia’s head.â€

The judge, the paper said, ruled that the action amounted to a legal threat and Garcia "was well within his rights to pursue the victim and demand the return of his property."

[eapking]

Not necessarily, case in point:

http://latino.foxnew...d-as-justified/

From the article:

In this case the chase was legit. The perp had stolen something from the "victim". I can see the SYG ruling applying here.

[TMF]

In this case the chase was legit. The perp had stolen something from the "victim". I can see the SYG ruling applying here.

Yep. If someone is stealing your stuff you should have the right to stop him. Doesn't mean you should be able to kill him, but if he decides to use force you should be able to meet that with force.

[Worriedman]

Do you suppose that the defendant had time to ascertain that the radio had been stolen from his truck, or was the mere fact that the perp was IN the truck enough to give him largess to chase what he perceived to be a thief? Unless the defendant is a world class sprinter, I suspect that he did not take the time to inspect his vehicle and see if anything was missing, because if he did, the thief would not have been caught inside a single block. I maintain that the actions which occurred at the END of the chase were the limiting factors, the swing of the bag of radios, which allowed the "stand your ground" defense to be used, the reason that the defendant and the perp were in proximity does not appear to the main focus of the court.