The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old April 18, 2012, 11:25 AM   #1
1hogfan83
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2011
Location: Fayetteville AR
Posts: 367
stand your ground

I do fully believe in stand your ground, no one should have to flee from your home when an intruder enters and shows aggresion, especially when armed. Are their any other views on this law?
__________________
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe—and shudder. James 2:19
"I do not fear the man that practices ten thousand kicks one time, I fear the man that practices one kick ten thousand times." Bruce Lee
1hogfan83 is offline  
Old April 18, 2012, 11:48 AM   #2
Eppie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2010
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 795
Only a fool would disagree that one can't stand his ground in his own home. I would hope that the bad guy would not be able contradict you in any way?
__________________
"Socialized Medicine is the Keystone to the Arch of the Socialist State.” -Vladimir Lenin
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson (An early warning to Obama care)
Eppie is offline  
Old April 18, 2012, 12:08 PM   #3
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,526
http://tucsoncitizen.com/arizona-new...ns-in-arizona/

Mr Fish says:

Quote:
Fish said his conviction soured him on prosecutors and “truth, justice and the American way.” He wishes he had taken a plea bargain that would have kept him out of prison, and he has a new perspective on standing your ground.

“My advice is to run like heck and get the heck out of there,” Fish said.
While the abstract sounds nice and most agree that you should not have to flee an attack, we also must consider the practical.

Also, if this is a way to start discussing Zimmerman vs. Williams again in specifics - DON'T.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old April 18, 2012, 12:11 PM   #4
AirForceShooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2005
Location: Sarasota (sort of) Florida
Posts: 1,185
I do fully believe in stand your ground, no one should have to flee from your home when an intruder enters and shows aggression, especially when armed. Are their any other views on this law?


This is the "Castle Doctrine" not the SYG law.

Both law are completely valid

AFS
__________________
'Qui tacet consentit': To remain silent is to consent.
AirForceShooter is offline  
Old April 18, 2012, 12:26 PM   #5
Fishing_Cabin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 706
While there have been many changes in the laws to help a reasonable person to legally protect his/herself we must understand that after the short time of the actual event, each and every action we took, or did not take may be reviewed in extreme detail.

I am of the camp that, while it may be "legal" to use lethal force in some circumstances, it is still best to always use lethal force as THE last resort.
Fishing_Cabin is offline  
Old April 18, 2012, 12:49 PM   #6
Eppie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2010
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 795
When I was in Middle School I got into a fight (was provoked) and my father heard about it from my sister and asked me "Did you win?" I proudly said "Yes."
He told me "There are no winners in fights, only loosers. The one that looses less we call a winner, but that's a lie."

I am firmly committed to avoidance whenever possible, deterence when avoidance is no longer possible and defense when the others are no longer possible. The last resort is to be a victim and no an option for me.

The question above is what would you do if someone armed attacked in your own home? It had noting to do with Zimmerman or Fish
__________________
"Socialized Medicine is the Keystone to the Arch of the Socialist State.” -Vladimir Lenin
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson (An early warning to Obama care)
Eppie is offline  
Old April 18, 2012, 04:11 PM   #7
Fleabag
Member
 
Join Date: November 1, 2011
Posts: 70
Contact an attorney in your neck of the woods and request a legal opinion based on the laws of the state, county and city/town you live on. Anything else is misleading and can get you in a world of trouble.
Fleabag is offline  
Old April 18, 2012, 06:28 PM   #8
Japle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 12, 2004
Location: Viera, Florida
Posts: 1,186
In a clear-cut self defense situation, Stand Your Ground is perfectly reasonable. When your attacker has buddies (who may not even have been there) who will swear under oath that you started the fight and shot the poor innocent guy in cold blood, things get messy. And very expensive.

Shooting situations are seldom as black-and-white as our daydreams. It’s those common shades of gray that lead to loss of savings, massive debt and/or felony prison time.
Japle is offline  
Old April 18, 2012, 07:22 PM   #9
Pahoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: IOWA
Posts: 5,455
Let God do the sort !!!

My understanding is that; "Stand Your Ground" is not a new concept or law. In fact, California has had it in their books for about 150 years. The original concept of Fleeing rather than stand your ground, came from the days of swords. Rather than fight, a sword, you were suppose to run away from it. Try that with a .45ACP. ....

The right of self protection is not only a Constitutional right but more important, a natural God given right. ....

Be Safe !!!
__________________
'Fundamental truths' are easy to recognize because they are verified daily through simple observation and thus, require no testing.
Pahoo is offline  
Old April 18, 2012, 07:43 PM   #10
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1hogfan83
Are their any other views on this law?
Which law?

I believe there are approximately 20 states that have some form of "stand your ground" law currently on the books. I doubt very much that they all say the same thing. Which one did you wish to discuss?
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 18, 2012, 08:13 PM   #11
hermannr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
WA has better than state law, it has WA State Supreme Court opinion...
hermannr is offline  
Old April 18, 2012, 08:31 PM   #12
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,049
Quote:
Are their any other views on this law?
The interpretation that matters most is the one the grand jury chooses to apply. Even in states without such laws, the standard is often applied.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old April 18, 2012, 10:05 PM   #13
Fishing_Cabin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 706
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
The interpretation that matters most is the one the grand jury chooses to apply. Even in states without such laws, the standard is often applied.
Agreed, but I also must give a just due to Japle, beyond what he stated, there is also the emotional well being aspect.

While we may understand that no one wins a fight. Also that the cost to defend our actions may bankrupt our finances, we also must look at how we will be afterwards.

Tom, you are correct in each state, and jury applies things differently. To me, what matters most is the proof of the actions that end in the end result.

In self defense it is seldom easy. We must do all that we can to ensure we are in the right.
Fishing_Cabin is offline  
Old April 18, 2012, 10:28 PM   #14
animal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2000
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 705
Without "stand your ground" (whether or not it is specifically stated in the law), you have no right to be where you are.
If you cannot protect your life when threatened, you have no right to life.
If you cannot protect your property, you have no right to hold your property.
A duty to retreat on public property, dissolves any right to common use of same.
If you are prevented from exercising your rights, you have no right to liberty.

Life, liberty, and property are inalienable rights that are supposedly protected and guaranteed in the US Constitution.
They are not granted by the Constitution, but inalienable from the individual man.
Inalienable in the sense that they cannot rightfully be separated from the individual man except by his own willful forfeiture.
Inalienable in the sense that without these rights (and innumerable others) an individual cannot fully function as a man.
Without them a person could, at most, be 3/5 ths of a man, and owned by those who regulate his actions.

That said, we must not always exercise our rights to their fullest, but we must retain that ability if we are to have liberty. The greatest part of human nature and another right inalienable to man is the ability to self-sacrifice. Whether it is the self-sacrifice of not exercising our rights to the fullest in order to show mercy, sacrificing property to show charity, or the ability to perform innumerable other good deeds; we must have the liberty to do so. Removal of liberty in the name of a more humane society removes our humanity in the process.
__________________
Keep smiling ... it'll just make 'em wonder what you're up to...
animal is offline  
Old April 18, 2012, 10:52 PM   #15
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
FL, stand your ground & avenue of escapes...

I agree with the basic points of the topic post but the problem nationwide is many people(gun owners & non-gun owners/left-wingers) do not fully understand the stated purpose/intent of "stand your ground" laws.
Prior to the 2005 Florida stand-your-ground law(s), sworn LE pushed citizens to use an; "avenue of escape" or do all required/available to avoid a lethal force event. These standards are not & were not practical to the armed citizen in all crimes(car jackings, armed robbery, home invasion, etc).
I agree though that; "stand your ground" laws do NOT condone or authorize license holders/armed citizens to chase subjects down the street or ambush/booby-trap them.
A USMC veteran & federal employee(Dept of Energy material courier) was arrested & prosecuted for using a firearm against a home-breaker in New Mexico. The former Marine shot at a subject as he fled from the property.

All US gun owners & armed professionals(security officers, military, LE, corrections, etc) should get skill training and learn the local use of force(lethal force) laws. 2nd hand stories, rumors, cop shows, and macho talk will not defend your actions in a criminal-civil court. Be smart!

ClydeFrog
ClydeFrog is offline  
Old April 19, 2012, 08:55 AM   #16
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,957
1hogfan83, I suspect that, somewhere out in the wide, wide world, there are "other views" on SYG laws. Fortunately, our General Assembly expressed its view on these matters in 1975. Its view can be found at Ark. Code Ann. 5-2-607, though please bear in mind that other laws may apply. If you want to see the statute, go here: http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/arcode/Default.asp
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old April 19, 2012, 09:25 AM   #17
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
Actually, I think the better expression is that "self-preservation" is a natural right. I'm not so sure that standing your ground is always a good idea. Besides, with regards to public space, there is less and less of that all the time. The mall? Entirely private property. What's even funnier is that more often than not, a sign that says "public property" usually has the line "no trespassing" underneath. However, those are unrelated issues.

Are you willing to kill someone over what's in your wallet?
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old April 19, 2012, 09:39 AM   #18
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,957
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueTrain
Actually, I think the better expression is that "self-preservation" is a natural right. I'm not so sure that standing your ground is always a good idea. . . .
But whether something is: (a) a right; or (b) a good idea . . . Those are entirely separate discussions. If I put on my thinking cap, I'm sure I could come up with lots and lots of monumentally bad ideas, each and every one of which I have a right to do.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old April 19, 2012, 09:50 AM   #19
Slamfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 4,010
Quote:
Quote:
Fish said his conviction soured him on prosecutors and “truth, justice and the American way.” He wishes he had taken a plea bargain that would have kept him out of prison, and he has a new perspective on standing your ground.

“My advice is to run like heck and get the heck out of there,” Fish said.
While the abstract sounds nice and most agree that you should not have to flee an attack, we also must consider the practical.
Sounds like a better plan.
__________________
If I'm not shooting, I'm reloading.
Slamfire is offline  
Old April 19, 2012, 10:34 AM   #20
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
While one can argue whether or not self-preservation is a right or not, I doubt anyone would say it is a bad idea. It's a selfish thing, to be sure, and everyday people do things for which self-preservation is not the first object.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old April 19, 2012, 10:58 AM   #21
animal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2000
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 705
"Are you willing to kill someone over what is in your wallet" is a red herring to a discussion of natural rights and so is whether "standing your ground is always a good idea". How individual rights are actually exercised is a separate question and always involves valid or invalid actions chosen according to one’s personal morality and the situation in which one finds himself .

As far as rights and duties go with respect to retreat : The person who is operating within his rights has the right to retreat and the person infringing on another’s rights has the duty to retreat.

Personally, I believe it is morally wrong to use deadly force to protect my property unless failure to protect it would result in endangering my life or the life of another. I also believe it is morally wrong to infringe upon the property rights of another, or to impose my moral code upon another where their right to liberty does not conflict with the rights of another.
Private property extends the boundaries of "self". Your property is basically part of you as a person (not what you are as a man (except for the very core of your principles) but how you are considered in relation to others). I can’t force another to take action and change himself as a person. My only right in trying to change someone else is to use speech in hopes that he will listen and change himself.

Self preservation is not a selfish act as long as you recognize that others also have the right to self preservation. When one attempts to violate a particular right of another person, he forfeits that right for himself.

(use of "man" in this and previous post is not meant to be gender specific, but more in the sense of being human. If someone cannot act as a human, they are no longer fully human … just as an automobile without an engine could be considered a pile of scrap metal with the potential to be an automobile rather than being an automobile. It’s function and action define what it is to the world around it.)
__________________
Keep smiling ... it'll just make 'em wonder what you're up to...
animal is offline  
Old April 19, 2012, 11:13 AM   #22
Wag
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 22, 2010
Location: Rio Rancho, NM
Posts: 572
Animal, both of your posts are well stated.

--Wag--
__________________
"Great genius will always encounter fierce opposition from mediocre minds." --Albert Einstein.
Wag is offline  
Old April 19, 2012, 11:23 AM   #23
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,530
We need to understand that our society frowns on one human intentionally killing or hurting another. However, our laws, going back to the Common Law of England on which our system is based (and even before then in other systems), recognize that there are situations in which an intentional act of extreme violence against another person can be justified -- for example when absolutely necessary to defend an innocent (whether oneself or another) against an otherwise unavoidable threat of being killed or gravely injured by another person's intention act.

The original rule was that before using force in self defense, one had a duty to retreat if he could do so in complete safety. And this did not apply in your home, because your home was your place of refuges; and no one should be able to force you to leave your place of refuges. And of course, the duty to retreat reflected the core societal value that intentionally hurting another human was inherently repugnant, and resort to violence was to be avoided when possible.

The real idea behind SYG laws is to avoid having to deal with a dispute about whether one could have safely retreated. That could often be a tough question. A difficult side question would be whether the actor, in the heat of the moment during a rapidly unfolding and dangerous emergent situation could even have been reasonably expected to have been aware of an available means of escape. So to have the protection of a SYG law, all other requirements need to legally justify your act of violence against another human still need to be satisfied.

And there remains the practical side of things. A fight avoided is a fight won.

Quote:
Originally Posted by animal
...Life, liberty, and property are inalienable rights that are supposedly protected and guaranteed in the US Constitution....
An appeal to the Constitution is a red herring in this context. The Constitution regulates government and not private conduct. The private person attacking me is not violating my constitutional rights because he is not bound or regulated by the Constitution.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper

Last edited by Frank Ettin; April 19, 2012 at 12:32 PM. Reason: grammar and spelling
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old April 19, 2012, 11:26 AM   #24
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
right & wrong...

The main problem I see with the "ave of escape" or flee type actions is that as an armed citizen or license holder, you do not honestly know who or what may be outside your home/property. As a recent gun magazine item stated, many violent crooks go in packs or pairs. If you flee a scene, could you realistically face more danger?
Consider the brutal attack-home invasion in CT with the 2 savage animals who restrainted the home owner(doctor) then raped & murdered the female family members. How would an "escape" or for the family to flee the property worked? I'd add that the violent subjects also burned the house before they left.
My point is that in a home or property, you can apply a castle doctrine or stand your ground a lot clearer than a street altercation or fight where you may have time or a way to avoid a conflict.
Criminal courts, civil court rooms and many prisons are filled with people who feel their actions were justified or prudent.

CF
ClydeFrog is offline  
Old April 19, 2012, 12:03 PM   #25
tom49
Junior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2012
Posts: 10
"Are you willing to kill someone over what is in your wallet"

in this case yes its mine and if someone trys to take it with force i will defend it with every thing and anything i have... now if they came to me and ask if i could help them without force i would try to help if i truly thought they need help.
tom49 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14212 seconds with 7 queries