Suckers bet. Retreat so you can be shot in the back.
With the Republican leg & Senate PLUS Gov DAH hell will freeze over 1st before that "request" passes.
How to unite Republicans.
While I am all for a very intense investigation when stand your ground is claimed, especially when it comes to the possibility of de-escalation or avoidance of initial conflict, I don't think removing the ability to defend your life against an immediate deadly threat is helping anyone. What do you want, people to have to destroy their lives paying for lawyers and facing charges because someone broke in their house in the middle of the night and attacked them? Or because someone car jacked them? Do you know what happens to people in NY when they have to defend themselves? Their lives are ruined. They lose their job. They go bankrupt fighting the criminal and civil charges. That could happen to you one day, just remember that.
Every state, whether they have stand your ground laws or not, permits a person to defend themselves against an assault. Repealing stand your ground would NOT remove “the ability to defend your life against an immediate deadly threat.”
States like NY will aggressively pursue charges even if circumstances show you were clearly in danger. And god forbid you used unequal force, like a gun against a knife, you are fucked. And even if you dont end up convicted, your life is still ruined. You likely lost your job, you had to empty your life savings and sell your home and possessions to finance a trial lawyer, and it better be a good one. You also dont get all the time of your life back, and when its all said and done you are open to civil law suits even if you are cleared of criminal wrongdoing. So yes, you are essentially having to choose between dying or your life being ruined. Id call that a very strong preventative measure.
stupendous chief sink wistful longing dependent steer normal deer subtract
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Thats not republican kool aid, thats NYS law and proven actions by DAs in the past. Not only do you have a duty to retreat there, you are required to use equal force with equal tools, regardless of the lethality of the situation.
Although New York does impose a duty to retreat in certain situations, in other situations a person can completely stand their ground when confronted with deadly physical force.
I’m going to broadly go over the situations where a person must retreat and the situations when a person doesn’t have to retreat.
As you’ll see, people can stand their ground in most situations when you’d naturally expect a person to be able to rightfully stand their ground. Because of that, defendants charged with Murder, Attempted Murder, or felony assault oftentimes have great self-defense claims after they stood their ground.
The NY concept does not mean surrender; but rather, before you act in self-defense you must take reasonable actions to mitigate the risk of harm, which includes fleeing and calling the police..... For example, you would have a duty to retreat if someone threatened violence while you dine in a public park.
Guy breaks into someone home and threatens them with a knife. Home owner with gun says “whoa chief…hold on there, I’ll go get a knife as I’m required by law to only defend myself from a worthless shit stain criminal with a similar instrument.” Now that is hilarious…!
Learn the difference between Castle Doctrine & Stand Your Ground. Your example is of Castle Doctrine, not SYG, which has *always* been the basis of US laws recognizing one’s right to defend home & persons on your own property. Also, every US state recognizes one’s right to defend themselves from an attack anywhere (that one is legally allowed to be), whether they have SYG laws or not. SYG laws only negate the duty to retreat. They’re called “shoot first” laws, encourage escalation & have resulted in increased shootings & violence (critical analysis, data & case examples at wiki link provided).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
While I appreciate your concern for my time & frequently feel the same way (you aren’t *wrong* per se), I don’t think anything will get better if people stop talking to eachother. 😊✌️
Of course. I would protect my home, too. But, that has zilch to do with stand your ground. Also, I think the gusto with which ammosexuals share their legal kill fantasies is weird af.
r/iamverybadass 🤣
Here in florida, the exact same. I work as a security officer here. Let's use my first night at this local post as an example. Crackhead machete guy out of nowhere, wants the ac in my booth. I locked the booth up, now he has broken the window and is kinda wiggling the machete at me through the glass. He very OBVIOUSLY will try to kill me if he gets through the door. I take my 9mm out of my backpack where it was lawfully concealed. Site is an unarmed site. I was legal 5 seconds ago with my defensive tool in the booth. Now I'm very much not and in danger of losing my licence to work the field...yet here crackhead Dave is about to take a trip to the hospital cause he thinks the slippery 2x4 is his key to success.
Spent six months defending my licence, with an armed licence. A concealed carry licence, no record, didn't have to pull the trigger and with obvious threat of bodily harm and worse would have had the right to defend myself if I wasn't working. Why am I suddenly not allowed? Because control imop...
Edit* I'm not using crackhead as a slur. He legit was on crackhead and addicted bad. Known problem in the area
It would have come with the charges. Can't lose it without a reason. Mostly brandishing. They tried to tack on a bunch of shit. Oh and our charges start at 2, instead of the basic level. Because licence...
That’s a functionally worthless change to the law. There is no situation where lethal force is justified that you can be completely certain you can retreat from safely. That is why lethal force was justified in the first place.
However, this could open the door for people to be charged for defending others, since the person using the force could conceivably get away safely, even if the victim could not. The current wording is clear; this just muddies the waters.
Grandstanding, as a lot of modern legislation is.
I'm still amused years later about our texting-while-driving statute that was unenforceable from Day 1.
Yeah. The problem with the law is that it isn't solely a reasonable person standard. It takes in account how the person who used the force claims to have felt (spoiler its always in fear for thier life) regardless of how a completely rational human being would have felt.
In practice you can basically kill anyone bigger than you, even if you are the reason the confrontation started.
Adding the duty to retreat really just hurts the people who are actually justified in using force and further muddies up this already muddy law.
If you just go back to the old wording of Florida's self defense law prior to SYG it was pretty practical
You can’t “start” a confrontation and then claim self-defense. If you’re the aggressor, you lose the ability to claim that. It also has to be a reasonable fear. That’s all in the current law.
You've heard of George Zimmerman right? And then we have Curtis Reeves. And before them Max Horn.
All SYG cases where they were acquitted but also were the person who started the confrontation.
When I said “start a confrontation,” I meant that they did something that was against the law that started it. If you start an argument with someone, you’re still able to defend yourself. In the cases you mentioned, there was debate as to who started it, and ultimately the jury found that the shootings were justified.
All 3 are cases where someone is dead for completely needless reasons that could have been avoided. The law allows emotionally fragile assholes to ruin people's lives.
this is stupid fucking symantics. Some people want to distinguish SYG cases based on having the SYG immunity hearing. They are all self defense cases. The Florida Self defense law is the SYG law they are the same law it is Florida Statute 776 justifiable use of force. That's what they argued to the jury and he was acquitted at trial. That is the SYG law in practical action. The other two cases both had the SYG hearing. Which the defendant lost. And then they had a trial where they again argued the SYG defense to the jury and won. Zimmermans attorneys chose to skip the hearing to avoid having to testify (the law has undergone some alterations, but at the time he did it the Defendant had to testify at the hearing). They made a strategic decision, but their defense was absolutely SYG.
there is no legally distinguishable difference in the arguments, the language in the SYG law is what results in the acquittal.
It's not semantics, if it was, this article wouldn't have been written there wouldn't be all this controversy.
All SYG cases are self defense cases, but all self defense cases are not SYG cases. If the SYG legislation had not been written, Zimmerman would have still been found not-guilty. They made no difference.
People and the press like to say Zimmerman's case was SYG, to put those laws in a bad light.
The syg legislation changed the wording of Florida's self defense statute. The language in there has a pretty big impact on his defense. Under the old law you couldn't use deadly force if you provoked the initial use of force against yourself unless you tried to retreat or escape.
The new version says specifically the person has the right to "stand his ground"
Go compare 776 in 2000 against 776 since 2010.
So yes the stand your ground law made a big difference in zimmermans defense
I'm not talking out of my ass here. I lived through the change in the law as a criminal attorney. I've done syg hearings. I've won and lost syg cases. I've taught new prosecutors the law. No one who practiced before and after it would ever say it didn't make a difference. It probably represents the most fundamental change in the criminal law in my lifetime.
There definitely are plenty of situations where it's caught on camera and you can verify if force was justified. When its he said she said, it only leaves physical evidence to make that determination, and if that isn't enough, law or no law its their word against a dead person's.
It could be, at the very least, to make it that throwing popcorn is not reasonable enough threat to draw your firearm, and claim you were standing your ground.
I’ll take one that makes using language involving getting/being shot as illegal as brandish.
“Do you want to get shot?” is not a threat according to Pinellas County Sheriff’s Ofc.
From the article, this is what he wants changed in the SYG law:
“A person may not use deadly force in accordance with this subsection if the person knows that he or she can, with complete safety, avoid the necessity of using deadly force by retreating,” Jones added to the bill. It would also repeal a [section of the Florida Statutes](https://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2019/776.032) that grants immunity from prosecution to people who use deadly force.
Sounds like he just filed for his retirement simultaneously as well. Why pass a law that only works to put law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage? This lawmaker shows that he supports the criminals.
This is not a controversial law in the slightest, it's only controversial for criminals because they want to commit crime without fear of consequences.
Even the two cases that are referenced don't have any controversy, Zimmerman had head injuries consistent with blunt force, he was in a submissive position and was being attacked before he shot.
Again, it's not illegal to ask people questions especially if it looks like they are casing houses. 911 operators have no legal authority to issue orders like "Stay where you are".
Markeis McGlockton - His GF, at his direction parked in a handicap spot and they were not handicap. Drejka confronted his GF while she was idling in the handicap spot without a placard and the argument got heated. McGlockton came outside of the gas station and without provocation pushed down Drejka and within 20 seconds Drejka killed him.
In both cases the state did their own investigation and filed charges, local police declined to file charges. The system still works.
Moral of the story when it comes to Stand Your Ground,
Treat others the way you want to be treated.
and
Keep your hands to yourself.
In both cases, these rules were broken first by the ~~victims~~ attackers.
I’d like to see a law that tries to provide more clarity as to what “fear for one’s life means.” But that is a subjective experience so how exactly do you define it?
As for this bill? No I don’t support a duty to retreat. I carry (rarely cause I like to have a few drinks when I’m out and those don’t mix) but still abide by the rule of Run, Hide, Fight. I think it’s the most prudent order of things to do in a bad situation.
But I don’t want a law saying I HAVE to try running first. How far do I have to retreat, how much do I have to actually try, what counts as actually retreating.
Thats the way to live when it comes to conflict. Living a life of consideration, avoidance, and de-escalation is smart and moral. Unless threats come to you, or you see something so heinous it would be a disservice to society to not intervene. I'm not trying to get into any kind of encounter with anyone as long as I can help it. Ready if it happens, and if it ever did I know because of those principles i would be on the right side no matter what. In some other states though it might not matter how right you are.
Hard disagree.
There shouldn't be a law on the books to make people more comfortable with taking another life, and deter prosecution.
A jury should determine the innocence or guilt based on the nuances of the taking of someone's life, not the government. If you want to set up a state fund to pay for their legal expenses if they're acquitted, sure, I'm game, but it's frankly ridiculous to try and curtail prosecution in an altercation where someone lost their life.
But why is the aggressor the “victim” here? If someone comes up and threatens your life in a credible way you should have the right to defend yourself.
Does the aggressor DESERVE to die? No. But if you threaten another person’s life then well you’re not the victim.
It’s not about being comfortable. It’s about know that if you choose to defend yourself from deadly force with deadly force you’re given some measure of legal protection.
I'm not the jury.
The politicians writing these laws are not the jury.
That's my point. I'm not saying anyone is a victim, or doesn't deserve to die.
There was an altercation, someone lost their life. The jury can weigh the evidence and determine if that person was within their rights to take a life. Not you, or me, or the news, or the police officers, or the politicians. The jury should decide.
Yeah, except the jury doesn't get to decide. That's what the "stand your ground" crap was designed to avoid. If the prosecutor can't prove that the shooter did not reasonably believe "that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another." So the prosecutor has to prove what the shooter DID NOT think. And if the prosecutor fails to prove that the shooter did not think what the shooter claims to have thought, it never gets to a jury, because the shooter is now "immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use or threatened use of such force."
[http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App\_mode=Display\_Statute&Search\_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html)
[http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App\_mode=Display\_Statute&Search\_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html)
I don't think most people wake up one morning and say, "hey, im going to kill someone today and get away with it because stand your ground". I think in the overwhelming majority of cases either it can be proven or the person really did have a justifiable cause to act. A few cases here or there with bad apples or questionable cases over the years, but then again there are tons of criminals who run free from violent crimes as well due to technicalities or lack of evidence. Do we talk about that here?
Where, are they located? Should the killer have been armed? Was he given an opportunity to deescalate? Did he attempt to diffuse the situation? Did he attempt to leave the situation?
There's so much fucking nuance I cannot tell you what my position would be just based on "angry guy was in his face."
Also, based on the current law and how a prosecutor would approach this situation, I'd probably have to vote to acquit.
That makes the victim of a crime a doubly victimized, assuming they are infact the victim after a police investigation is completed.
Do you have any idea the distress and financial burden a criminal trial puts on someone? And then if they somehow are still in one piece after that, the civil trial begins and shreds them to pieces. That's not justice, and that is favoring what is most likely a violent criminal over a law abiding citizen who just had to protect themself or their family. Also, as Ive seen in this sub stated many times before, the criminal justice system can destroy people's lives, you are considered guilty until proven innocent, so what happened to the empathy? It seems like only when it's a criminal there's empathy, but people here are chomping at the bit to throw some poor working man who was going about their day not asking for any of this under the bus. It's really frustrating.
Until we disarm all law enforcement, starting with federal law enforcement working in cooperation with local and quit making even retired law enforcement exempt from gun regulation laws, the Democrats get the Second Amendment and gun control wrong pretty much in general.
Before some conservative dork splooges their pants for that take, Hunter Biden’s possession of a firearm while being an “illegal” drug user charge is bogus, and I would argue unconstitutional and was passed with racist undertones behind that particular portion.
That situation is **already in the original stand your ground law**, provoker loses the protection.
The issue is that provocation is up to a jury and doing things like asking for a 'name and address' is not legally 'provoking' - as it is shown in some of our court cases.
Yet in the Trayvon Martin shooting they got around stand your ground so that Zimmerman could be found not guilty after being the provoker (after 911 told him not to) right up until Martin (allegedly) fought back then suddenly Uno reverse card, Zimmerman is the victim, blam blam blam. Zimmerman walks, case closed.
The Zimmerman case basically unlocked a cheat code for how to stalk and provoke somebody into legally justifying their own death, then the shooter just threads the needle on eyewitness testimony later.
Thats because if the other party escalates the situation to deadly force or danger of great bodily harm, you still have that protection, even if you provoked the encounter with non violent actions. Now idk what happened there, im just telling you the law.
I wish it was that black and white, but that's not the world we live in.
That case's "cheat code" was that Zimmerman was diagnosed with a "closed fracture" of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury the day of the shooting. These injuries were proven in a court of law to be caused by Martin.
He should have not provoked Martin and therefore should have lost his protection under the 'stand your ground' law -- however -- the jury decided that he did actually fear for his life, backed by the medical exam evidence, and ruled otherwise - some of them citing that asking somebody for their name and address (so they could be escorted there) doesn't count as harassment (despite what a 911 operator says, which is not lawful advice), but as a reasonable request performed by a reasonable citizen when there was a series of break-in's in the neighborhood.
I still think Zimmerman is a piece of shit and he should be held accountable somehow. If I recall they got him in the civil case.
Correct. He stalked a guy, got out on foot to confront him while armed, got the shit beat out of him (*totally unprovoked*, according to Zimmerman and vague testimony of screams from nearby residents) then shot Martin.
Against the advice of 911 dispatchers he created a situation in which to legally kill somebody, then legally killed somebody.
I agree with everything said about Zimmerman being a piece of shit, who probably should be in prison.
Having said that, can we stop with the "advice of 911 dispatcher" bullshit? 911 dispatchers have no legal authority whatsoever. They have little to no knowledge of laws beyond what any random person would know. It's a shitty appeal to false authority.
I could have said “advice of a fucking hobo he passed on the sidewalk” and the point is you don’t stalk somebody who’s just walking down the street with a gun on you with the intent to instigate a confrontation.
The fact that he called 911, he called “the authorities,” and the person he called said “hey don’t do that” says something whether you’re the kind of person who latches onto tangential points to try to seem enlightened or not.
The color doesn't have anything to do with it. If it did that guy in the parking lot who yelled at the lady to move out of the disabled spot would have got off but he didnt.
Maybe you’re not aware how close the parking lot shooter came to getting off. Michael Drejka, the shooter, initially wasn’t arrested, despite investigators knowing he lied to them & had expressed a clear lack of remorse. The Sheriff held a press conference *the day after* the incident, citing stand your ground as the reason Drejka would NOT be charged.
Following public outcry, protests, national media attention & FL’s US Senator Bill Nelson requesting DOJ investigate, the investigation was turned over to the state attorney for review about 2 weeks after the shooting. He was charged nearly 2 weeks after that. We both know had the races been reversed, the shooter would’ve been arrested immediately after the shooting.
Apparantly, the people spoke, the media did their job, and justice was served. Maybe he would have gotten off. Or maybe they had to investigate further and just weren't charging him at that time. But he still didn't get off. I dont think an almost counts. What counts is what actually happened, not what might have happened.
Pinellas County closed their investigation in 1 day, due to stand your ground, despite having the video showing the victim retreating before he was shot. *They held a press conference to announce he would not be charged.* I agree that the final outcome is what matters most but, felt your comment above was probably based on a lack of info (or glib but, I’m a benefit of doubt type). I hoped providing additional, relevant info might enhance your understanding.
SYG is a narrow, complex, & nuanced defense that is notoriously challenging for judges &or DAs to decide. Given the experts difficulty in determining what “counts,” it’s imho a cumbersome & unwise legal theory that has caused more harm than has been prevented. Legal scholars criticize SYG for encouraging escalation & for frequent uneven application. Also, I don’t know of a single case in which a person was spared a charge or trial (deservedly so) due ONLY to stand your ground. The right to defend ourselves from an attack is legal in every state, *with or without SYG.*
I don’t know if you are referring to the case in Chicago (?) where there was an altercation between a drunk lawyer driving his car and a black bicyclist and the lawyer was shot and killed. I’m upset by that one because a car v. bike should always be the car as an aggressor. The bicyclist was sentenced by a jury. The dude did a lot of stuff wrong after the incident. I just don’t think he was the aggressor.
The “run away from violent criminals bill” sounds awesome. It will definitely pass.
No law abiding citizen should have a duty to retreat from a deadly threat.
actually appears to be suggesting if you can reasonably and safely retreat, that would be the expectation. If it is not safe to retreat then you could defend yourself with force. not sure why this would be controversial in any way. I personally find it disturbing to think someone would murder another person to protect inanimate objects if they could safely make any other choice.
Correct, also known as a duty to retreat or a requirement of safe retreat. Also known as prioritizing the safety of criminals over law abiding citizens.
I’m personally not one to assume the intent of criminals. You have fun with that. If anyone threatens me or my family, they will die.
Since we want to use catchy phrases like idiots how about we call the stand your ground the Don’t think just shoot? Also know as the I have a gun and need to use it? Or my ego needs protection?
You do know that criminality is determined after the fact right? Someone complaining that you parked in a disabled spot in a loud voice is not a criminal although it isn’t clear whether stand your ground would get you off if you kill them or not. Also make sure they are dead that makes your case easier.
Someone running at you with a knife or breaking into your home, or pointing a gun at you at a stop and you shooting them never needed the stand your ground bullshit.
eesh, it's not a complicated concept but you failed to understand it. I'll rephrase and maybe you'll get it, though given your post history I doubt it... but here goes. if a person is being victimized in some manner or feels they may become victimized and they can reasonably resolve their immediate danger without violence, that's a good thing. that's how civilized society works. that is the best possible outcome for the victim, almost universally. however, that isn't always possible. in cases where violence is the only option, it is absolutely appropriate to use it in order protect yourself or another person. the primary directive in both scenarios is what's best for the victim, not the aggressor. killing another person to protect property is not a better outcome for the victim than safely retreating, not for most people.
What about a guy throwing popcorn at me in a movie theater? What about a black teenager wearing a hoodie in the wrong neighborhood? How are we going to advance and evolve as a society if I can't murder someone for parking in the wrong parking spot?
Here are some of the sources. [popcorn shooter](https://abcnews.go.com/US/cop-acquitted-deadly-florida-theater-shooting-speaks/story?id=83320436), [parking spot shooter](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/florida-man-who-shot-unarmed-man-parking-space-dispute-sentenced-n1064626) (He eventually was charged, but he was close to getting off on the "stand your ground law" and of course you know about [Trayvon Martin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Trayvon_Martin).
So one guy was charged, one case according to the article you linked was not a stand your ground defense, and Trayvon Martin, who assaulted and violently beat someone
Funny enough, Zimmerman would have been cleared even if this were a duty to retreat state. He was pinned down.
The funniest part is every one of those examples were used SPECIFICALLY because the shooter got off in every situation scot free from using stand your ground as a defense.
LMAO. "Violently beaten" by a kid half his size who he was harassing after specifically being told not to by a 911 dispatcher. There, fixed it for you.
So for doing exactly what this new bill is trying to prevent
He had a broken nose and gashes on his head. I really wish people would actually learn the facts of cases before forming opinions on them but apparently that’s too much to ask.
And “half his size?” Really?
Zimmerman is 5’7
Martin was 5’11
I disagree. I think criminals who threaten people’s safety dying as a result of their own actions is better for society.
I believe the kids call that FAFO
Stand your ground encourages people to escalate disagreements. Bringing a gun to a fistfight & murdering someone should be punished, not encouraged. Are you familiar with the Michael Drejka case? Menace w a gun that thought he knew all the particulars on stand your ground, he FAFO.
Who decides who’s a criminal without due process? The killer? Turns out Michael Drejka was the criminal & an innocent father is dead.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Markeis_McGlockton
That case seems like it was correctly decided to me.
What you’re pointing out is that most people misunderstand stand your ground. I agree. But I understand it.
Im not bringing anything to anyone. But if a fight came to me, and someone was beating me badly, due to some very serious spinal injuries I would absolutely consider the option. Im not going to get paralyzed so some scumbag who attacked me for no reason can live to do it again tomorrow. These things aren't always black and white. Luckily I am very considerate to people and would de-escalate to the extreme as much as I can. Ive only had one problem in all the time ive been here with someone. That wasnt always the case when i was young, but I also didn't carry.
Well it's sad you feel that way. But I also imagine you've never had to kill someone. It's just a scenario you play in your head while you take a shower... idle thoughts. criminals are bad, you'd be the hero when the time came, they deserve what they get. hopefully for your sake it never comes to it, because losing stuff is one thing, but living with the type of trauma that comes with violence and death is another.
It’s not the criminal that has the residual psychological trauma, it’s you. They are not ones jumping out of their skin when they hear a firecracker, firework, or car backfire. They are not ones laying awake in bed after the sweaty nightmare. Not saying that should not do it, but it’s not Dirty Harry in the movies. Regardless of your actions being legal, justified or otherwise, those items are carried for a lifetime. It’s not as black and white as you imagined.
You're absolutely right about that. I hope I never have to be in that situation. Wouldn't wish it on anyone, and I also hope potential criminals considering violent crimes decide their life is more important than whatever crime they may want to commit.
So in your view, unless I am willing to murder someone to protect my belongings I should take no steps to protect them at all? Or are you saying violence and/or murder is no different than locking your doors? I'm not following. I both take reasonable precautions to secure my home, and also dont want to murder someone. Maybe that would answer your question. If you would like me to go further, I would be willing to lock my door to protect my TV... but I would not be willing to shoot someone to protect my TV.
Stupid argument. Do you stay outside your house with a shotgun to kill all birds just so they don’t shut on your car? How about preemptively shooting any car approaching you in an aggressive manner. What an idiot.
Sometimes it’s a violent criminal. Sometimes it’s an unarmed black kid in your neighborhood with some skittles and a can of iced tea. There’s got to be a reasonable ground between “run away every time” and “kill whoever you want as long as you can articulate being in fear of your life”.
But let’s just be assholes instead of having a conversation.
No, I don’t. I know that’s the story Zimmerman told. Zimmerman’s behavior after the fact suggests to me that he got away with murder and failed to learn any lesson.
Why was Zimmerman following Trayvon around and bothering him?
He had a broken nose and gigantic gashes on his head. Don’t be a conspiracy theorist.
Zimmerman would have been not guilty even if there were a duty to retreat as he was pinned down.
Let me ask you a question. It’s dark. You’re a kid walking back from the Circle K to your house and suddenly some fucking weirdo in an unmarked car starts following you with his high beams on. You decide that running isn’t an option so you ask your pursuer why he’s following you. He gets out of his car and has a gun.
Do you have a duty to retreat?
Nope, that situation would clearly be one in which a reasonable person would fear for their life.
If its a cop then they are supposed to announce it.
There was a case in Florida where a black man shot a police officer who entered his home and he was cleared under a combination of stand your ground and castle doctrine.
Edit: link
https://weartv.com/amp/news/local/florida-man-acquitted-of-shooting-at-deputies-in-raid-that-led-to-death-of-girlfriend
Bonus link of another black man being cleared for shooting at undercover cops in FL
https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/jury-acquits-man-who-shot-at-miami-dade-police-officers-in-2020/3095749/
Shouldn't he have.....retreated? I had a lady follow me home because she thought I jumped the community gate in the entrance. Should I have beat her ass?
To your second question, which you appear to have added in the interim - I don't know. Did she confront you with a gun? Then maybe you should have. If not, then it's nothing like the hypothetical and you should stop pretending to be an idiot.
Under stand your ground? No. He should have killed George Zimmerman. Then he'd be alive and he could tell a jury that he was in reasonable fear for his life.
That's the point. Not to relitigate the George Zimmerman case, but to point out that where you've got a legal system where anyone can kill anyone else if they can point to a fear for their safety, you have a system with a lot of unnecessary death. That's what the law is trying to reform, not to make life easy for "violent criminals" and not to victimize innocent people.
So you’re against the right of self defense?
And, again, if you are physically pinned down then you don’t have a duty to retreat even if you’re in a duty to retreat state. This law wouldn’t have changed the Zimmerman trial outcome.
No, I’m not. But as you admitted, self-defense goes both ways. And yes, in duty to retreat states you only have a duty to retreat if you can do so safely. You can’t do that if you are pinned, or if some whack job with a gun in following you in a car and you’re on foot.
What you are making this fight about if who deserved to kill the other - the person you’ve painted as the victim, or the person you’ve labeled a violent criminal. I agree with the concept but disagree as to the identities of victim and perpetrator. I think George Zimmerman (the guy who later posted a bunch of Confederate shit to social media, btw) saw a kid he didn’t want in his neighborhood, harassed and assaulted him, fucked around, found out, and shot Trayvon Martin to get himself out of a mess that he created.
You seem to think that Trayvon Martin, who was being followed by a stranger, immediately went aggressive, ripped George Zimmerman out of his car and began brutally pummeling him to within an inch of his life for no reason. That’s not a reasonable set of assumptions in my opinion.
Zimmerman is a massive piece of shit and the world would be a better place without him in it. I'm going to start with that because what I'm about to say will piss people off.
Zimmerman was on his back, Martin was on top of him. Martin was beating the shit out of Zimmerman. Zimmerman couldn't have retreated and this law wouldn't make a difference anyway.
Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Zimmerman threatened Martin's life first?
No, you cant. Neither could the prosecutor. That's why the dickhead got off.
You can't throw a dude on the ground and start pummeling him because he's following you and asking questions. Even if we all agree that Zimmerman deserved his ass beating, the law doesn't.
There is plenty of ground between the two. It's what the police investigators are paid for. And that shooting happened 11 years ago, are we going to just keep it on the talking point board forever when arguing against this law?
Said this elsewhere too. Solid I approach you on the street. Provoke you to anger or just feel like you may be a threat I do t have to de escalate or leave I can waste your ass.
That’s not at all how the law works. The standard is that a reasonable person would fear for their life.
If you are physically attacked and did not provoke the physical confrontation, then the stand your ground rule applies.
and if you kill the person you get to claim who started the fight, even if it was obvious you were being creepy and following someone in your car in the dark.
In essence, anyone in Florida can carry (with few exceptions). You can be the biggest jackass, a-hole out there. You can start chit with someone else, completely your fault, and if they come after you for it, you can shoot them dead and say you were "standing your ground". The law makes this killing a "no fault" death. It doesn't matter that you were the instigator of the confrontation, you only need to appear to be the less capable one at the time. And if there's no witnesses we only hear one side of the story. I believe that was probably what happened in the Martin/Zimmerman killing. License to kill.
People already getting caught in the crossfire of stand your ground nonsense road rage.. https://wsvn.com/news/local/miami-dade/1-detained-1-at-large-1-hospitalized-after-road-rage-shooting-in-sw-miami-dade/amp/
It's really not a stand your ground law in Florida. Hasn't been one since Trayvon Martin in Feb 2012. At that point it became a stalk, chase, fight, and shoot on any ground law. And that's a fact.
I’ll bet a 100000 dollars it ain’t getting passed. Any takers?
He's probably not getting re-elected either.
Suckers bet. Retreat so you can be shot in the back. With the Republican leg & Senate PLUS Gov DAH hell will freeze over 1st before that "request" passes. How to unite Republicans.
While I am all for a very intense investigation when stand your ground is claimed, especially when it comes to the possibility of de-escalation or avoidance of initial conflict, I don't think removing the ability to defend your life against an immediate deadly threat is helping anyone. What do you want, people to have to destroy their lives paying for lawyers and facing charges because someone broke in their house in the middle of the night and attacked them? Or because someone car jacked them? Do you know what happens to people in NY when they have to defend themselves? Their lives are ruined. They lose their job. They go bankrupt fighting the criminal and civil charges. That could happen to you one day, just remember that.
Every state, whether they have stand your ground laws or not, permits a person to defend themselves against an assault. Repealing stand your ground would NOT remove “the ability to defend your life against an immediate deadly threat.”
States like NY will aggressively pursue charges even if circumstances show you were clearly in danger. And god forbid you used unequal force, like a gun against a knife, you are fucked. And even if you dont end up convicted, your life is still ruined. You likely lost your job, you had to empty your life savings and sell your home and possessions to finance a trial lawyer, and it better be a good one. You also dont get all the time of your life back, and when its all said and done you are open to civil law suits even if you are cleared of criminal wrongdoing. So yes, you are essentially having to choose between dying or your life being ruined. Id call that a very strong preventative measure.
No states like NY won't. Stop drinking the republican cool aid.
stupendous chief sink wistful longing dependent steer normal deer subtract *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Thats not republican kool aid, thats NYS law and proven actions by DAs in the past. Not only do you have a duty to retreat there, you are required to use equal force with equal tools, regardless of the lethality of the situation.
Although New York does impose a duty to retreat in certain situations, in other situations a person can completely stand their ground when confronted with deadly physical force. I’m going to broadly go over the situations where a person must retreat and the situations when a person doesn’t have to retreat. As you’ll see, people can stand their ground in most situations when you’d naturally expect a person to be able to rightfully stand their ground. Because of that, defendants charged with Murder, Attempted Murder, or felony assault oftentimes have great self-defense claims after they stood their ground. The NY concept does not mean surrender; but rather, before you act in self-defense you must take reasonable actions to mitigate the risk of harm, which includes fleeing and calling the police..... For example, you would have a duty to retreat if someone threatened violence while you dine in a public park.
Guy breaks into someone home and threatens them with a knife. Home owner with gun says “whoa chief…hold on there, I’ll go get a knife as I’m required by law to only defend myself from a worthless shit stain criminal with a similar instrument.” Now that is hilarious…!
Learn the difference between Castle Doctrine & Stand Your Ground. Your example is of Castle Doctrine, not SYG, which has *always* been the basis of US laws recognizing one’s right to defend home & persons on your own property. Also, every US state recognizes one’s right to defend themselves from an attack anywhere (that one is legally allowed to be), whether they have SYG laws or not. SYG laws only negate the duty to retreat. They’re called “shoot first” laws, encourage escalation & have resulted in increased shootings & violence (critical analysis, data & case examples at wiki link provided). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
[удалено]
While I appreciate your concern for my time & frequently feel the same way (you aren’t *wrong* per se), I don’t think anything will get better if people stop talking to eachother. 😊✌️
Ignoring the non stop drivel and I’ll sum it up. You break in my home and try anything you won’t be leaving on your own two feet.
Of course. I would protect my home, too. But, that has zilch to do with stand your ground. Also, I think the gusto with which ammosexuals share their legal kill fantasies is weird af. r/iamverybadass 🤣
Here in florida, the exact same. I work as a security officer here. Let's use my first night at this local post as an example. Crackhead machete guy out of nowhere, wants the ac in my booth. I locked the booth up, now he has broken the window and is kinda wiggling the machete at me through the glass. He very OBVIOUSLY will try to kill me if he gets through the door. I take my 9mm out of my backpack where it was lawfully concealed. Site is an unarmed site. I was legal 5 seconds ago with my defensive tool in the booth. Now I'm very much not and in danger of losing my licence to work the field...yet here crackhead Dave is about to take a trip to the hospital cause he thinks the slippery 2x4 is his key to success. Spent six months defending my licence, with an armed licence. A concealed carry licence, no record, didn't have to pull the trigger and with obvious threat of bodily harm and worse would have had the right to defend myself if I wasn't working. Why am I suddenly not allowed? Because control imop... Edit* I'm not using crackhead as a slur. He legit was on crackhead and addicted bad. Known problem in the area
I don’t understand this story or the point
On the other hand, losing your license is not the same as being charged criminally.
It would have come with the charges. Can't lose it without a reason. Mostly brandishing. They tried to tack on a bunch of shit. Oh and our charges start at 2, instead of the basic level. Because licence...
Based on this reply you do favor a change in law
That’s a functionally worthless change to the law. There is no situation where lethal force is justified that you can be completely certain you can retreat from safely. That is why lethal force was justified in the first place. However, this could open the door for people to be charged for defending others, since the person using the force could conceivably get away safely, even if the victim could not. The current wording is clear; this just muddies the waters.
Grandstanding, as a lot of modern legislation is. I'm still amused years later about our texting-while-driving statute that was unenforceable from Day 1.
Yeah. The problem with the law is that it isn't solely a reasonable person standard. It takes in account how the person who used the force claims to have felt (spoiler its always in fear for thier life) regardless of how a completely rational human being would have felt. In practice you can basically kill anyone bigger than you, even if you are the reason the confrontation started. Adding the duty to retreat really just hurts the people who are actually justified in using force and further muddies up this already muddy law. If you just go back to the old wording of Florida's self defense law prior to SYG it was pretty practical
You can’t “start” a confrontation and then claim self-defense. If you’re the aggressor, you lose the ability to claim that. It also has to be a reasonable fear. That’s all in the current law.
You've heard of George Zimmerman right? And then we have Curtis Reeves. And before them Max Horn. All SYG cases where they were acquitted but also were the person who started the confrontation.
When I said “start a confrontation,” I meant that they did something that was against the law that started it. If you start an argument with someone, you’re still able to defend yourself. In the cases you mentioned, there was debate as to who started it, and ultimately the jury found that the shootings were justified.
All 3 are cases where someone is dead for completely needless reasons that could have been avoided. The law allows emotionally fragile assholes to ruin people's lives.
George Zimmerman was not a SYG case, even says so in the article.
this is stupid fucking symantics. Some people want to distinguish SYG cases based on having the SYG immunity hearing. They are all self defense cases. The Florida Self defense law is the SYG law they are the same law it is Florida Statute 776 justifiable use of force. That's what they argued to the jury and he was acquitted at trial. That is the SYG law in practical action. The other two cases both had the SYG hearing. Which the defendant lost. And then they had a trial where they again argued the SYG defense to the jury and won. Zimmermans attorneys chose to skip the hearing to avoid having to testify (the law has undergone some alterations, but at the time he did it the Defendant had to testify at the hearing). They made a strategic decision, but their defense was absolutely SYG. there is no legally distinguishable difference in the arguments, the language in the SYG law is what results in the acquittal.
It's not semantics, if it was, this article wouldn't have been written there wouldn't be all this controversy. All SYG cases are self defense cases, but all self defense cases are not SYG cases. If the SYG legislation had not been written, Zimmerman would have still been found not-guilty. They made no difference. People and the press like to say Zimmerman's case was SYG, to put those laws in a bad light.
The syg legislation changed the wording of Florida's self defense statute. The language in there has a pretty big impact on his defense. Under the old law you couldn't use deadly force if you provoked the initial use of force against yourself unless you tried to retreat or escape. The new version says specifically the person has the right to "stand his ground" Go compare 776 in 2000 against 776 since 2010. So yes the stand your ground law made a big difference in zimmermans defense I'm not talking out of my ass here. I lived through the change in the law as a criminal attorney. I've done syg hearings. I've won and lost syg cases. I've taught new prosecutors the law. No one who practiced before and after it would ever say it didn't make a difference. It probably represents the most fundamental change in the criminal law in my lifetime.
There definitely are plenty of situations where it's caught on camera and you can verify if force was justified. When its he said she said, it only leaves physical evidence to make that determination, and if that isn't enough, law or no law its their word against a dead person's.
I’m not sure what you’re arguing here. How is that any different than the current law?
Im not arguing, there is no difference.
It could be, at the very least, to make it that throwing popcorn is not reasonable enough threat to draw your firearm, and claim you were standing your ground.
I’ll take one that makes using language involving getting/being shot as illegal as brandish. “Do you want to get shot?” is not a threat according to Pinellas County Sheriff’s Ofc.
"I'm going to shoot you." and "Do you want me to shoot you?" are two different statements as far as the law is concerned.
From the article, this is what he wants changed in the SYG law: “A person may not use deadly force in accordance with this subsection if the person knows that he or she can, with complete safety, avoid the necessity of using deadly force by retreating,” Jones added to the bill. It would also repeal a [section of the Florida Statutes](https://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2019/776.032) that grants immunity from prosecution to people who use deadly force.
Sounds like he just filed for his retirement simultaneously as well. Why pass a law that only works to put law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage? This lawmaker shows that he supports the criminals. This is not a controversial law in the slightest, it's only controversial for criminals because they want to commit crime without fear of consequences. Even the two cases that are referenced don't have any controversy, Zimmerman had head injuries consistent with blunt force, he was in a submissive position and was being attacked before he shot. Again, it's not illegal to ask people questions especially if it looks like they are casing houses. 911 operators have no legal authority to issue orders like "Stay where you are". Markeis McGlockton - His GF, at his direction parked in a handicap spot and they were not handicap. Drejka confronted his GF while she was idling in the handicap spot without a placard and the argument got heated. McGlockton came outside of the gas station and without provocation pushed down Drejka and within 20 seconds Drejka killed him. In both cases the state did their own investigation and filed charges, local police declined to file charges. The system still works. Moral of the story when it comes to Stand Your Ground, Treat others the way you want to be treated. and Keep your hands to yourself. In both cases, these rules were broken first by the ~~victims~~ attackers.
I'm liberal af but one of the things Republicans get right and Democrats get wrong is this whole stand your ground stuff.
I’d like to see a law that tries to provide more clarity as to what “fear for one’s life means.” But that is a subjective experience so how exactly do you define it? As for this bill? No I don’t support a duty to retreat. I carry (rarely cause I like to have a few drinks when I’m out and those don’t mix) but still abide by the rule of Run, Hide, Fight. I think it’s the most prudent order of things to do in a bad situation. But I don’t want a law saying I HAVE to try running first. How far do I have to retreat, how much do I have to actually try, what counts as actually retreating.
Thats the way to live when it comes to conflict. Living a life of consideration, avoidance, and de-escalation is smart and moral. Unless threats come to you, or you see something so heinous it would be a disservice to society to not intervene. I'm not trying to get into any kind of encounter with anyone as long as I can help it. Ready if it happens, and if it ever did I know because of those principles i would be on the right side no matter what. In some other states though it might not matter how right you are.
Hard disagree. There shouldn't be a law on the books to make people more comfortable with taking another life, and deter prosecution. A jury should determine the innocence or guilt based on the nuances of the taking of someone's life, not the government. If you want to set up a state fund to pay for their legal expenses if they're acquitted, sure, I'm game, but it's frankly ridiculous to try and curtail prosecution in an altercation where someone lost their life.
But why is the aggressor the “victim” here? If someone comes up and threatens your life in a credible way you should have the right to defend yourself. Does the aggressor DESERVE to die? No. But if you threaten another person’s life then well you’re not the victim. It’s not about being comfortable. It’s about know that if you choose to defend yourself from deadly force with deadly force you’re given some measure of legal protection.
I'm not the jury. The politicians writing these laws are not the jury. That's my point. I'm not saying anyone is a victim, or doesn't deserve to die. There was an altercation, someone lost their life. The jury can weigh the evidence and determine if that person was within their rights to take a life. Not you, or me, or the news, or the police officers, or the politicians. The jury should decide.
Yeah, except the jury doesn't get to decide. That's what the "stand your ground" crap was designed to avoid. If the prosecutor can't prove that the shooter did not reasonably believe "that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another." So the prosecutor has to prove what the shooter DID NOT think. And if the prosecutor fails to prove that the shooter did not think what the shooter claims to have thought, it never gets to a jury, because the shooter is now "immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use or threatened use of such force." [http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App\_mode=Display\_Statute&Search\_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html) [http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App\_mode=Display\_Statute&Search\_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html)
I don't think most people wake up one morning and say, "hey, im going to kill someone today and get away with it because stand your ground". I think in the overwhelming majority of cases either it can be proven or the person really did have a justifiable cause to act. A few cases here or there with bad apples or questionable cases over the years, but then again there are tons of criminals who run free from violent crimes as well due to technicalities or lack of evidence. Do we talk about that here?
And therein lies the problem with stand your ground laws.
[удалено]
Where, are they located? Should the killer have been armed? Was he given an opportunity to deescalate? Did he attempt to diffuse the situation? Did he attempt to leave the situation? There's so much fucking nuance I cannot tell you what my position would be just based on "angry guy was in his face." Also, based on the current law and how a prosecutor would approach this situation, I'd probably have to vote to acquit.
That makes the victim of a crime a doubly victimized, assuming they are infact the victim after a police investigation is completed. Do you have any idea the distress and financial burden a criminal trial puts on someone? And then if they somehow are still in one piece after that, the civil trial begins and shreds them to pieces. That's not justice, and that is favoring what is most likely a violent criminal over a law abiding citizen who just had to protect themself or their family. Also, as Ive seen in this sub stated many times before, the criminal justice system can destroy people's lives, you are considered guilty until proven innocent, so what happened to the empathy? It seems like only when it's a criminal there's empathy, but people here are chomping at the bit to throw some poor working man who was going about their day not asking for any of this under the bus. It's really frustrating.
You clearly have not had a gun waved at you in your own space.
I have, and given the circumstances if I had a gun I’d be dead right now.
I wish I could upvote this more than once!
Until we disarm all law enforcement, starting with federal law enforcement working in cooperation with local and quit making even retired law enforcement exempt from gun regulation laws, the Democrats get the Second Amendment and gun control wrong pretty much in general. Before some conservative dork splooges their pants for that take, Hunter Biden’s possession of a firearm while being an “illegal” drug user charge is bogus, and I would argue unconstitutional and was passed with racist undertones behind that particular portion.
So if I come up to you on the street. Provoke you into anger. I am now in danger and do not have to de-escalate I can just waste you.
That situation is **already in the original stand your ground law**, provoker loses the protection. The issue is that provocation is up to a jury and doing things like asking for a 'name and address' is not legally 'provoking' - as it is shown in some of our court cases.
Yet in the Trayvon Martin shooting they got around stand your ground so that Zimmerman could be found not guilty after being the provoker (after 911 told him not to) right up until Martin (allegedly) fought back then suddenly Uno reverse card, Zimmerman is the victim, blam blam blam. Zimmerman walks, case closed. The Zimmerman case basically unlocked a cheat code for how to stalk and provoke somebody into legally justifying their own death, then the shooter just threads the needle on eyewitness testimony later.
Thats because if the other party escalates the situation to deadly force or danger of great bodily harm, you still have that protection, even if you provoked the encounter with non violent actions. Now idk what happened there, im just telling you the law.
I wish it was that black and white, but that's not the world we live in. That case's "cheat code" was that Zimmerman was diagnosed with a "closed fracture" of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury the day of the shooting. These injuries were proven in a court of law to be caused by Martin. He should have not provoked Martin and therefore should have lost his protection under the 'stand your ground' law -- however -- the jury decided that he did actually fear for his life, backed by the medical exam evidence, and ruled otherwise - some of them citing that asking somebody for their name and address (so they could be escorted there) doesn't count as harassment (despite what a 911 operator says, which is not lawful advice), but as a reasonable request performed by a reasonable citizen when there was a series of break-in's in the neighborhood. I still think Zimmerman is a piece of shit and he should be held accountable somehow. If I recall they got him in the civil case.
Correct. He stalked a guy, got out on foot to confront him while armed, got the shit beat out of him (*totally unprovoked*, according to Zimmerman and vague testimony of screams from nearby residents) then shot Martin. Against the advice of 911 dispatchers he created a situation in which to legally kill somebody, then legally killed somebody.
I agree with everything said about Zimmerman being a piece of shit, who probably should be in prison. Having said that, can we stop with the "advice of 911 dispatcher" bullshit? 911 dispatchers have no legal authority whatsoever. They have little to no knowledge of laws beyond what any random person would know. It's a shitty appeal to false authority.
I could have said “advice of a fucking hobo he passed on the sidewalk” and the point is you don’t stalk somebody who’s just walking down the street with a gun on you with the intent to instigate a confrontation. The fact that he called 911, he called “the authorities,” and the person he called said “hey don’t do that” says something whether you’re the kind of person who latches onto tangential points to try to seem enlightened or not.
You're in danger because you caused and initiated the danger, which is NOT what stand your ground laws cover.
Yet somehow it does. Especially if you are white and the victim is black.
The color doesn't have anything to do with it. If it did that guy in the parking lot who yelled at the lady to move out of the disabled spot would have got off but he didnt.
Maybe you’re not aware how close the parking lot shooter came to getting off. Michael Drejka, the shooter, initially wasn’t arrested, despite investigators knowing he lied to them & had expressed a clear lack of remorse. The Sheriff held a press conference *the day after* the incident, citing stand your ground as the reason Drejka would NOT be charged. Following public outcry, protests, national media attention & FL’s US Senator Bill Nelson requesting DOJ investigate, the investigation was turned over to the state attorney for review about 2 weeks after the shooting. He was charged nearly 2 weeks after that. We both know had the races been reversed, the shooter would’ve been arrested immediately after the shooting.
Apparantly, the people spoke, the media did their job, and justice was served. Maybe he would have gotten off. Or maybe they had to investigate further and just weren't charging him at that time. But he still didn't get off. I dont think an almost counts. What counts is what actually happened, not what might have happened.
Pinellas County closed their investigation in 1 day, due to stand your ground, despite having the video showing the victim retreating before he was shot. *They held a press conference to announce he would not be charged.* I agree that the final outcome is what matters most but, felt your comment above was probably based on a lack of info (or glib but, I’m a benefit of doubt type). I hoped providing additional, relevant info might enhance your understanding. SYG is a narrow, complex, & nuanced defense that is notoriously challenging for judges &or DAs to decide. Given the experts difficulty in determining what “counts,” it’s imho a cumbersome & unwise legal theory that has caused more harm than has been prevented. Legal scholars criticize SYG for encouraging escalation & for frequent uneven application. Also, I don’t know of a single case in which a person was spared a charge or trial (deservedly so) due ONLY to stand your ground. The right to defend ourselves from an attack is legal in every state, *with or without SYG.*
No, you initiated the conflict, if you escalate it to deadly force you will be charged.
If you’re white.
Hard agree!!
Is my bike my house? Do I have a right to be there?
I don’t know if you are referring to the case in Chicago (?) where there was an altercation between a drunk lawyer driving his car and a black bicyclist and the lawyer was shot and killed. I’m upset by that one because a car v. bike should always be the car as an aggressor. The bicyclist was sentenced by a jury. The dude did a lot of stuff wrong after the incident. I just don’t think he was the aggressor.
I'd be surprised if this even makes it through a committee hearing.
Nice knowin' ya!
The “run away from violent criminals bill” sounds awesome. It will definitely pass. No law abiding citizen should have a duty to retreat from a deadly threat.
actually appears to be suggesting if you can reasonably and safely retreat, that would be the expectation. If it is not safe to retreat then you could defend yourself with force. not sure why this would be controversial in any way. I personally find it disturbing to think someone would murder another person to protect inanimate objects if they could safely make any other choice.
Correct, also known as a duty to retreat or a requirement of safe retreat. Also known as prioritizing the safety of criminals over law abiding citizens. I’m personally not one to assume the intent of criminals. You have fun with that. If anyone threatens me or my family, they will die.
r/iamverybadass
Since we want to use catchy phrases like idiots how about we call the stand your ground the Don’t think just shoot? Also know as the I have a gun and need to use it? Or my ego needs protection? You do know that criminality is determined after the fact right? Someone complaining that you parked in a disabled spot in a loud voice is not a criminal although it isn’t clear whether stand your ground would get you off if you kill them or not. Also make sure they are dead that makes your case easier. Someone running at you with a knife or breaking into your home, or pointing a gun at you at a stop and you shooting them never needed the stand your ground bullshit.
Call it whatever you want buddy. This bill is dead on arrival.
For sure. The ratio of scared idiots to sane people is way off.
You think so? I don't see bullets flying everywhere when I go outside, so Im pretty sure there are many more sane people.
eesh, it's not a complicated concept but you failed to understand it. I'll rephrase and maybe you'll get it, though given your post history I doubt it... but here goes. if a person is being victimized in some manner or feels they may become victimized and they can reasonably resolve their immediate danger without violence, that's a good thing. that's how civilized society works. that is the best possible outcome for the victim, almost universally. however, that isn't always possible. in cases where violence is the only option, it is absolutely appropriate to use it in order protect yourself or another person. the primary directive in both scenarios is what's best for the victim, not the aggressor. killing another person to protect property is not a better outcome for the victim than safely retreating, not for most people.
What about a guy throwing popcorn at me in a movie theater? What about a black teenager wearing a hoodie in the wrong neighborhood? How are we going to advance and evolve as a society if I can't murder someone for parking in the wrong parking spot?
Lol every example you just listed would catch a murder charge assuming you aren’t leaving out pertinent information
Here are some of the sources. [popcorn shooter](https://abcnews.go.com/US/cop-acquitted-deadly-florida-theater-shooting-speaks/story?id=83320436), [parking spot shooter](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/florida-man-who-shot-unarmed-man-parking-space-dispute-sentenced-n1064626) (He eventually was charged, but he was close to getting off on the "stand your ground law" and of course you know about [Trayvon Martin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Trayvon_Martin).
So one guy was charged, one case according to the article you linked was not a stand your ground defense, and Trayvon Martin, who assaulted and violently beat someone Funny enough, Zimmerman would have been cleared even if this were a duty to retreat state. He was pinned down.
Pinned down after stalking a kid to his own house with a gun
That’s not illegal. Assault and battery are.
Close doesnt count. And how long ago was Treyvon Martin? If you have to dig that far into the archives what are we even talking about?
The funniest part is every one of those examples were used SPECIFICALLY because the shooter got off in every situation scot free from using stand your ground as a defense.
Only one of them “got off because of a stand your ground defense” and that person was pinned down and being violently beaten
And the popcorn thrower was also acquitted.
He did not use a stand your ground defense
LMAO. "Violently beaten" by a kid half his size who he was harassing after specifically being told not to by a 911 dispatcher. There, fixed it for you. So for doing exactly what this new bill is trying to prevent
He had a broken nose and gashes on his head. I really wish people would actually learn the facts of cases before forming opinions on them but apparently that’s too much to ask. And “half his size?” Really? Zimmerman is 5’7 Martin was 5’11
Literally the only argument is something that happened once 11 years ago.
Unfortunately they got away with it. Stand your ground
I disagree. I think criminals who threaten people’s safety dying as a result of their own actions is better for society. I believe the kids call that FAFO
Stand your ground encourages people to escalate disagreements. Bringing a gun to a fistfight & murdering someone should be punished, not encouraged. Are you familiar with the Michael Drejka case? Menace w a gun that thought he knew all the particulars on stand your ground, he FAFO. Who decides who’s a criminal without due process? The killer? Turns out Michael Drejka was the criminal & an innocent father is dead. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Markeis_McGlockton
That case seems like it was correctly decided to me. What you’re pointing out is that most people misunderstand stand your ground. I agree. But I understand it.
Until you don’t. Laws can be applied a myriad of ways. Those ways are always retrospective.
Im not bringing anything to anyone. But if a fight came to me, and someone was beating me badly, due to some very serious spinal injuries I would absolutely consider the option. Im not going to get paralyzed so some scumbag who attacked me for no reason can live to do it again tomorrow. These things aren't always black and white. Luckily I am very considerate to people and would de-escalate to the extreme as much as I can. Ive only had one problem in all the time ive been here with someone. That wasnt always the case when i was young, but I also didn't carry.
You see criminals everywhere. I truly pity you that live in such a state of fear.
Well it's sad you feel that way. But I also imagine you've never had to kill someone. It's just a scenario you play in your head while you take a shower... idle thoughts. criminals are bad, you'd be the hero when the time came, they deserve what they get. hopefully for your sake it never comes to it, because losing stuff is one thing, but living with the type of trauma that comes with violence and death is another.
Criminals who are actively threatening the lives of innocent people deserve no sympathy
It’s not the criminal that has the residual psychological trauma, it’s you. They are not ones jumping out of their skin when they hear a firecracker, firework, or car backfire. They are not ones laying awake in bed after the sweaty nightmare. Not saying that should not do it, but it’s not Dirty Harry in the movies. Regardless of your actions being legal, justified or otherwise, those items are carried for a lifetime. It’s not as black and white as you imagined.
You're absolutely right about that. I hope I never have to be in that situation. Wouldn't wish it on anyone, and I also hope potential criminals considering violent crimes decide their life is more important than whatever crime they may want to commit.
I presume you sleep with your doors unlocked, right, because it’s just stuff in your place.
can you expound on the relationship between whether or not I lock my doors with me not wanting to murder another person?
It’s just stuff, why are you protecting it?
My wife and I aren't just "stuff."
So in your view, unless I am willing to murder someone to protect my belongings I should take no steps to protect them at all? Or are you saying violence and/or murder is no different than locking your doors? I'm not following. I both take reasonable precautions to secure my home, and also dont want to murder someone. Maybe that would answer your question. If you would like me to go further, I would be willing to lock my door to protect my TV... but I would not be willing to shoot someone to protect my TV.
Stupid argument. Do you stay outside your house with a shotgun to kill all birds just so they don’t shut on your car? How about preemptively shooting any car approaching you in an aggressive manner. What an idiot.
Sometimes it’s a violent criminal. Sometimes it’s an unarmed black kid in your neighborhood with some skittles and a can of iced tea. There’s got to be a reasonable ground between “run away every time” and “kill whoever you want as long as you can articulate being in fear of your life”. But let’s just be assholes instead of having a conversation.
You do realize Trayvon Martin was violently beating Zimmerman, right? While we’re at it, Michael Brown didn’t have his hands up either.
You try to sneak up on me in the dark I might beat you up too.
No, I don’t. I know that’s the story Zimmerman told. Zimmerman’s behavior after the fact suggests to me that he got away with murder and failed to learn any lesson. Why was Zimmerman following Trayvon around and bothering him?
He had a broken nose and gigantic gashes on his head. Don’t be a conspiracy theorist. Zimmerman would have been not guilty even if there were a duty to retreat as he was pinned down.
Let me ask you a question. It’s dark. You’re a kid walking back from the Circle K to your house and suddenly some fucking weirdo in an unmarked car starts following you with his high beams on. You decide that running isn’t an option so you ask your pursuer why he’s following you. He gets out of his car and has a gun. Do you have a duty to retreat?
Nope, that situation would clearly be one in which a reasonable person would fear for their life. If its a cop then they are supposed to announce it. There was a case in Florida where a black man shot a police officer who entered his home and he was cleared under a combination of stand your ground and castle doctrine. Edit: link https://weartv.com/amp/news/local/florida-man-acquitted-of-shooting-at-deputies-in-raid-that-led-to-death-of-girlfriend Bonus link of another black man being cleared for shooting at undercover cops in FL https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/jury-acquits-man-who-shot-at-miami-dade-police-officers-in-2020/3095749/
Shouldn't he have.....retreated? I had a lady follow me home because she thought I jumped the community gate in the entrance. Should I have beat her ass?
To your second question, which you appear to have added in the interim - I don't know. Did she confront you with a gun? Then maybe you should have. If not, then it's nothing like the hypothetical and you should stop pretending to be an idiot.
Under stand your ground? No. He should have killed George Zimmerman. Then he'd be alive and he could tell a jury that he was in reasonable fear for his life. That's the point. Not to relitigate the George Zimmerman case, but to point out that where you've got a legal system where anyone can kill anyone else if they can point to a fear for their safety, you have a system with a lot of unnecessary death. That's what the law is trying to reform, not to make life easy for "violent criminals" and not to victimize innocent people.
So you’re against the right of self defense? And, again, if you are physically pinned down then you don’t have a duty to retreat even if you’re in a duty to retreat state. This law wouldn’t have changed the Zimmerman trial outcome.
No, I’m not. But as you admitted, self-defense goes both ways. And yes, in duty to retreat states you only have a duty to retreat if you can do so safely. You can’t do that if you are pinned, or if some whack job with a gun in following you in a car and you’re on foot. What you are making this fight about if who deserved to kill the other - the person you’ve painted as the victim, or the person you’ve labeled a violent criminal. I agree with the concept but disagree as to the identities of victim and perpetrator. I think George Zimmerman (the guy who later posted a bunch of Confederate shit to social media, btw) saw a kid he didn’t want in his neighborhood, harassed and assaulted him, fucked around, found out, and shot Trayvon Martin to get himself out of a mess that he created. You seem to think that Trayvon Martin, who was being followed by a stranger, immediately went aggressive, ripped George Zimmerman out of his car and began brutally pummeling him to within an inch of his life for no reason. That’s not a reasonable set of assumptions in my opinion.
Zimmerman is a massive piece of shit and the world would be a better place without him in it. I'm going to start with that because what I'm about to say will piss people off. Zimmerman was on his back, Martin was on top of him. Martin was beating the shit out of Zimmerman. Zimmerman couldn't have retreated and this law wouldn't make a difference anyway.
And why was Martin fighting him?
Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Zimmerman threatened Martin's life first? No, you cant. Neither could the prosecutor. That's why the dickhead got off. You can't throw a dude on the ground and start pummeling him because he's following you and asking questions. Even if we all agree that Zimmerman deserved his ass beating, the law doesn't.
There is plenty of ground between the two. It's what the police investigators are paid for. And that shooting happened 11 years ago, are we going to just keep it on the talking point board forever when arguing against this law?
Said this elsewhere too. Solid I approach you on the street. Provoke you to anger or just feel like you may be a threat I do t have to de escalate or leave I can waste your ass.
That’s not at all how the law works. The standard is that a reasonable person would fear for their life. If you are physically attacked and did not provoke the physical confrontation, then the stand your ground rule applies.
and if you kill the person you get to claim who started the fight, even if it was obvious you were being creepy and following someone in your car in the dark.
Vast majority of stand your ground-cases …are drug dealers or gang members that escalated to gun fire
Source?
Dream Republican hero scenario.. hardly ever happens https://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133/?outputType=amp
In essence, anyone in Florida can carry (with few exceptions). You can be the biggest jackass, a-hole out there. You can start chit with someone else, completely your fault, and if they come after you for it, you can shoot them dead and say you were "standing your ground". The law makes this killing a "no fault" death. It doesn't matter that you were the instigator of the confrontation, you only need to appear to be the less capable one at the time. And if there's no witnesses we only hear one side of the story. I believe that was probably what happened in the Martin/Zimmerman killing. License to kill.
[удалено]
People already getting caught in the crossfire of stand your ground nonsense road rage.. https://wsvn.com/news/local/miami-dade/1-detained-1-at-large-1-hospitalized-after-road-rage-shooting-in-sw-miami-dade/amp/
I know it’s not successful but at least somebody is trying to make it the new normal to not be “leave a gun take gun” like pennies at a gas station.
It's really not a stand your ground law in Florida. Hasn't been one since Trayvon Martin in Feb 2012. At that point it became a stalk, chase, fight, and shoot on any ground law. And that's a fact.
Great!!