The Firing Line Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old April 19, 2012, 12:31 PM   #26
graysmoke
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2011
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 378
I support and approve of the Stand Your Gound Law....In a public surrounding outside my home, when encountering danger to my health or life, I believe in retreating. BUT, if last resort is to fight back. I will....In my home, If anyone is not surely welcomed or an intruder...BANG!!!
__________________
"Keep your powder dry, and eyes on the target". -R. Lee Ermey
graysmoke is offline  
Old April 19, 2012, 12:50 PM   #27
barstoolguru
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 31, 2011
Posts: 180
the SYG laws protect the homeowner /shooter from being arrested when they are in the right. In the past people have been arrested and charged with murder and in a lot of cases excepted a lesser plea of man Slaughter to avoid a trial and the expenses.
barstoolguru is offline  
Old April 19, 2012, 12:51 PM   #28
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 3,561
I recall a case in my town where 4 young men confronted on young man in a park.The lone ,man fled,but was knocked down and was being beaten.The lone man had a Buck folding hunter knife in his pocket.He used it,and one of the attackers died.
All I have is what was in the paper,but for that the young man was sentenced to five years,the DA"He brought a knife to a fist fight".Seems like self defense to me,and the surviving attackers deserve jail time.

A more recent case in my town,after an evening of drinking,a man decided to end his evening with a fight.One punch,the man who was hit died.Jail time,with good reason.I call it murder.

Not specific to Z vs M,if you are carrying concealed ,IMO,it is a very good idea to not be in a position where an unarmed man would attack you with a beating.

In other words,IMO,do not let your weapon give you courage to enter an altercation.

I think most LEOs would agree scuffling on the ground is a good way to be shot with your own weapon.If an unarmed man is beating you senseless,you may have to shoot him to survive,but you will have shot an unarmed man.
That is not a popular thing to do.

An equal suggestion of restraint to those who think fists are a good idea.The guy you punch may shoot you dead.
HiBC is offline  
Old April 19, 2012, 12:54 PM   #29
Eppie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2010
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 795
Thank you barstoolguru for making that critical difference clear. It is one that many people overlook.
__________________
"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 19, 2012, 01:09 PM   #30
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
I'm glad that Illinois never put any "stand your ground" or "Castle Doctrine" verbiage in their justifiable homocide statute.

It's a decent law and it isn't easily targeted with inflamatory hyperbole.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old April 19, 2012, 01:12 PM   #31
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
Well, if nothing else, I guess everyone has a right to be wrong, if only momentarily. I often am.
__________________
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, 01:20 PM   #32
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueTrain
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.
I wasn't arguing over whether self-preservation was a right, or even whether it's a good idea. I think self-preservation is a great idea. I was just pointing out (on the stand your ground issue) that those are separate, sort of "analytically." Someone may have a right to stand his ground, but that does not necessarily make it a good idea. My apologies if that wasn't clear.
__________________
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, 03:45 PM   #33
Strafer Gott
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,125
If your gift of situational awareness says a tactical retreat is what's appropriate to prevent the need to engage, please, beat your little feet. That will change your life a lot less than the gun option. Most of the action around my neighborhood involves multiple shooters. Repeat after me - I'm not Clint!
Strafer Gott is offline  
Old April 19, 2012, 03:54 PM   #34
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,698
The WSJ had an interesting article in yesterday’s print edition dealing with SYG laws. I tried to link to it, but it is in their subscription only section.

Basically the main point of the article was that several states including Georgia, South Carolina, Wisconsin and Florida, have or will have bills submitted to repeal these laws. Whether there is enough support to actually repeal these laws remains to be seen, but some supporters have agreed to consider tweaking them. Also, they pointed out that two states, Alaska and I believe Iowa, had SYG bills up for consideration in this legislative session, but failed to bring them to a vote.

I hope we are not starting to see public opinion tilting away from legislation that protects and enhances the freedom of gun owners.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is offline  
Old April 19, 2012, 04:30 PM   #35
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
Training & use of force...

A major problem, in my opine, is the clear lack of focus or lack of skill training by many US gun owners RE: use of force, threat management, levels of force, etc.

Many US citizens buy a firearm, get ammunition, buy a case or a small safe then THAT'S IT!

I read a article a few years ago in a gun press publication of a guy who carefully unloaded & a secured a COCKED, fully loaded .357magnum revolver an older neighbor left in a bedroom drawer for 20 years!
These incidents & lack of proper(safe) methods will only allow left-wing and anti-2A groups to steamroll over gun owners/armed citizens in the next few years.
More responsible license holders & gun industry members(FFL holders, gun club members, etc) should teach safe gun use to new owners/hunters and be in front of the issue.
Classes & skill training cost $$$ but more armed citizens & 2A supporters should be aware of the laws, SOPs, safety, etc.

ClydeFrog
ClydeFrog is offline  
Old April 19, 2012, 04:42 PM   #36
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by animal
If you cannot protect your property, you have no right to hold your property.
"No duty to retreat" (or "stand your ground") laws in no way authorize the use of any level of force to protect property.

Quote:
Originally Posted by animal
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.
"Stand your ground" laws do not establish any "right" to use public property.

Quote:
Originally Posted by animal
Life, liberty, and property are inalienable rights that are supposedly protected and guaranteed in the US Constitution.
I'm pretty certain the wording I was taught in junior high was, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I do not recall any mention of property. And I believe that phrase was in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 19, 2012, 06:30 PM   #37
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by barstoolguru
...the SYG laws protect the homeowner /shooter from being arrested when they are in the right...
Not necessarily. Sometimes, notwithstanding a SYG law, it's not all that easy to establish that you were in the right.

For example, there was Mark Abshire in Oklahoma: Despite defending himself against multiple attackers on his own lawn in a fairly gun-friendly state with a "Stand Your Ground" law, he was arrested, went to jail, charged, lost his job and his house, and spent two and a half years in the legal meat-grinder before finally being acquitted.

A SYG law may help you establish that you were in the right, but it's not a guarantee that you won't be arrested and have to establish that your use of force was justified.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
...I'm pretty certain the wording I was taught in junior high was, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I do not recall any mention of property. And I believe that phrase was in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
You're correct about "pursuit of happiness." The phrase "life, liberty or property" shows up twice in the Constitution:
  • In the Fifth Amendment:
    Quote:
    No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;...
  • In the Fourteenth Amendment:
    Quote:
    ...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...
Of course neither has anything to do with defending your life or property against the acts of a private criminal.
__________________
"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
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old April 19, 2012, 07:33 PM   #38
Willie Sutton
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2012
Posts: 1,066
"I read a article a few years ago in a gun press publication of a guy who carefully unloaded & a secured a COCKED, fully loaded .357magnum revolver an older neighbor left in a bedroom drawer for 20 years!"


Must be as safe as a .45 in Condition One then. It never went off, did it?

Still... it's a good point.



Willie
Willie Sutton is offline  
Old April 19, 2012, 11:29 PM   #39
animal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2000
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 705
Frank Ettin, If you’ll notice, the statement you quoted was not an appeal to the Constitution if you allow it to be qualified by statements which you did not quote. It was a mention that the government of the US was forbidden by the Constitution to infringe upon the preexistent, inalienable, and natural rights of man. The intention was to momentarily sweep away the relevance of the law concerning the topic (discard the law as a red herring to focus on the moral aspects).

The Constitution is, as you stated, a red herring from the standpoint of one man violating another’s Constitutional rights because it regulates the government rather than the people.

However, mentioning the Constitution was to point out that it recognized the rights of the people. The Constitution binds the government to act towards the people in the same way each of the people is bound by Natural Law to act towards each other. This suggests that the laws of this nation should mirror and reinforce a system of morality based upon the concept of individual liberty.

IMHO, The founders drew upon sources far beyond English common law. I think it can be shown they drew heavily from their own sense of morality, which in turn was shaped by early enlightenment thinking that treated morality as a science to be examined through logic and confirmed by investigation of real examples. They examined legal theory and examples of applied law (with English common law by far the most prevalent) through the lens of the moral sciences. I firmly believe their goal was to create a government that would act as a moral entity would under Natural Law. I would further suggest that their view of Natural Law, as applied to morality, was stated concisely by John Locke : "Reason, which is that Law, teaches all Mankind, who would but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions."
__________________
Keep smiling ... it'll just make 'em wonder what you're up to...
animal is offline  
Old April 19, 2012, 11:45 PM   #40
animal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2000
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 705
Aguila Blanca
Stand your ground laws do not establish any rights. The Constitution recognizes and guarantees our inalienable rights (immunities) and establishes other rights with respect to the government which would not exist without the existence of the government (privileges).

No law, government, or any other earthly authority granted you your inalienable rights. They are as much a part of you as your body or mind. The religious can thank God for being given them. The non-religious can be happy that they are part of their nature as human beings.

Pursuit of happiness/ right to property - The right to property includes all things (both tangible and intangible) which you can call "yours" : from your personal desires, ideas, sense of honor, and religious beliefs to your body and material possessions.
Pursuit of happiness includes your ability to extend your influence through these "things" by interaction with others. Among others, it includes the rights to free speech, to engage in commerce, and to peaceably assemble. The "pursuit of happiness" can be expressed as a right to growth in moral, spiritual, familial, social and financial concerns, but its aspects are innumerable.
The pursuit of happiness is reliant upon the right to property, since without the right to property ownership is dissolved, and you cannot even own yourself. True citizenship becomes impossible and citizens are reduced to subjects.
Self ownership is the essence of freedom and the only absolute freedom a person can rightfully have. (Until such time as he gets married, anyway…)

"Property" in the Constitution was already mentioned.
As an aside, the first right enumerated by the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress:"That they are entitled to life, liberty, and property, and they have never ceded to any sovereign power whatever a right to dispose of either without their consent."
I would submit that We the people of the United States, have still not ceded a right to dispose of these things without our consent.
__________________
Keep smiling ... it'll just make 'em wonder what you're up to...
animal is offline  
Old April 19, 2012, 11:51 PM   #41
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,185
Quote:
The Constitution is, as you stated, a red herring from the standpoint of one man violating another’s Constitutional rights because it regulates the government rather than the people.
Ignoratio elenchi or not, I can't make heads or tails of that sentence. In any case, this thread is about various states' "Stand Your Ground" laws, not a general civics primer. As such, yes, posting broadly about Locke and Blackstone is a bit of a red herring.

Let's stay on topic.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old April 19, 2012, 11:53 PM   #42
animal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2000
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 705
Bluetrain, that’s kinda what I was getting at. Not quite the right to be wrong, but the right to have the freedom to make mistakes. Without that, there is no virtue in doing the right thing. We would be mindless creatures that were just following orders, and no better than ants.
Concerning my own mistakes, I can only hope that there is some virtue in striving to be right, making amends for mistakes, and asking forgiveness when there is no way to make amends. Otherwise, I probably deserve to get stepped on.

An well, sorry if I offended you, or anyone else..
__________________
Keep smiling ... it'll just make 'em wonder what you're up to...
animal is offline  
Old April 20, 2012, 12:03 AM   #43
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by animal
...No law, government, or any other earthly authority granted you your inalienable rights. They are as much a part of you as your body or mind. The religious can thank God for being given them. The non-religious can be happy that they are part of their nature as human beings...
That's very nice, but in the real world laws mean something and governments can do things.

One is well advised to understand how things actually work in real life and to conduct oneself accordingly.
__________________
"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
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old April 20, 2012, 12:20 AM   #44
animal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2000
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 705
no argument there (Ignoratio elenchi ? .. just kidding ! )

but one can also strive to convince others to change laws which infringe upon liberties and hold onto those that preserve liberty. There are many people that don’t respond to a legal argument but do respond to moral basis of law argument, and vice-versa.

Ok. Ok, I’ll shut up
__________________
Keep smiling ... it'll just make 'em wonder what you're up to...
animal is offline  
Old April 20, 2012, 07:50 AM   #45
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,650
Ken Blackwell wrote an excellent piece explaining "Stand Your GRound" laws here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ken-bl...b_1414676.html

I think it does a great job of explaining why they are a benefit and I think an overwhelming majority of Americans would agree. I think one problem though is few Americans understand how such laws work and the antis are using that confusion to lie about what Stand Your Ground laws cover.

They are essentially using deception to try and get people to make a choice (for or against Stand Your Ground Laws). If they can get them to make that choice, even uninformed, the chances that they will rationalize and continue to support that choice regardless of later information go up.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old April 20, 2012, 08:11 AM   #46
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,185
Quote:
I think one problem though is few Americans understand how such laws work and the antis are using that confusion to lie about what Stand Your Ground laws cover.
You can tell that from some of the comments, as well as Josh Sugarmann's articles on the same site. One of my reservations about the law at inception was the very name. "Stand Your Ground" was a bit over-the-top, and it's telling that Georgia chose instead to name their version "No Duty to Retreat."

In any case, it's unavoidable that the antis will do what they can to distort fact and intent. Heck, in this climate, they're grabbing for whatever fading relevance they can, and this is an opportunity for them to gain some mindshare. I'm not sure they'll have much success, but it's up to us (as usual!) to counter emotional distortions with calm facts.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old April 20, 2012, 10:03 AM   #47
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,641
We can not forget that in the case of any contentious issue, your opposition will always use whatever ammunition is available and try to turn any event in public eye to their advantage if at all possible.
__________________
"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
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old April 20, 2012, 11:32 AM   #48
animal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2000
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 705
(Edited to remove response to deleted post)


IMO "no duty to retreat" is a far better way to state the same idea as "stand your ground" : Most people don't like the idea of the law forcing you to run away, especially when running away could put you in further danger.

Yeah, I know "running away" isn't precise, but it's a easier to get the point across to those ruled by emotion.
__________________
Keep smiling ... it'll just make 'em wonder what you're up to...

Last edited by animal; April 20, 2012 at 11:42 AM.
animal is offline  
Old April 20, 2012, 11:36 AM   #49
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,075
Quote:
For example, there was Mark Abshire [thefiringline.com] in Oklahoma: Despite defending himself against multiple attackers on his own lawn in a fairly gun-friendly state with a "Stand Your Ground" law, he was arrested, went to jail, charged, lost his job and his house, and spent two and a half years in the legal meat-grinder before finally being acquitted.
Abshire is an idiot: Instead of calling the cops, Abshire got a gun and went back outside where he confronted some folks driving on a public street. According to deputies who investigated, Abshire had been drinking. Abshire was lucky to be found not guilty.
thallub is online now  
Old April 21, 2012, 03:35 AM   #50
tipoc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 11, 2004
Location: Redwood City, Ca.
Posts: 2,347
Under SYG laws or "No Duty to Retreat laws" we still do have a duty or obligation to avoid a bad shooting. In other words we still have a duty to retreat if possible. There is a misconception that SYG will make a bad shooting somehow a good one.

There is also a misconception that "a duty to retreat" means that you cannot defend yourself.

What Frank says here is about right...

Quote:
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.
SYG laws, like similar statutes in California, do not protect a person in a bad shooting but can provide a measure of protection in a good one where some things are off a bit or questionable.

tipoc
tipoc 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 07:24 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 0.14750 seconds with 7 queries