"Stand Your Ground" laws, are they a good, or bad idea?

I'll bite. While I'm for them in theory and principle i.e. we should be able to protect ourselves with any means necessary the law must be clear. The problem I have with them especially Florida's is when they contain wording like this.

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

What does this mean? What is reasonable? who decides? imminent commission sounds too close to "future crime" to me. It's simply poorly written imo.

ginwilly said:

I'll bite. While I'm for them in theory and principle i.e. we should be able to protect ourselves with any means necessary the law must be clear. The problem I have with them especially Florida's is when they contain wording like this.

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

What does this mean? What is reasonable? who decides? imminent commission sounds too close to "future crime" to me. It's simply poorly written imo.

Click to expand...

The "reasonable belief" thing is a pretty standard test used in the law. What it means is: would a reasonable person look at the facts and conclude that the actions are reasonable, i.e. would a jury of peers conclude that a person acted reasonably under those circumstances?

For example, neighbor A is annoyed that neighbor B is playing hip hop music at ear shattering sound levels. Neighbor A pounds on neighbors B's door, demand that he turn the fucking music down. Upon refusal by neighbor B, neighbor A shoots neighbor B dead, then steps over his lifeless body and turns off the music and says, "there, fixed that for ya" as he exits neighbor B's domicile. Is that shooting "reasonable"? I think the answer is clearly no, and I fucking hate hip hop "music".

LOL ditto the loud hip hop.

I like your explanation of reasonable belief and would hope you are right. The way it's written though, a jury wouldn't have to come to the conclusion that the person acted reasonably, they would have to agree the person "felt" they were being reasonable. Whether or not you think their actions are reasonable is irrelevant. When is it clear there is an imminent commission of a forcible felony? when they take two steps toward my home with "that look" in their eyes? or when they have one leg in my window? or somewhere in between?Am I making sense? Legaleze pisses me off, I'm sure that's part of my problem.

The supreme court said it better than me:

""Stand your ground" governs U.S. federal case law in which right of self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Beard v. U.S. (158 U.S. 550 (1895)) that a man who was "on his premises" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."[SUP][2][/SUP]["

Extend that concept to "a man who was "on his premises", or any other place where had a legal right to be, when he came under attack"... and you have the SYG laws.

ginwilly said:

LOL ditto the loud hip hop.

I like your explanation of reasonable belief and would hope you are right. The way it's written though, a jury wouldn't have to come to the conclusion that the person acted reasonably, they would have to agree the person "felt" they were being reasonable. Whether or not you think their actions are reasonable is irrelevant. When is it clear there is an imminent commission of a forcible felony? when they take two steps toward my home with "that look" in their eyes? or when they have one leg in my window? or somewhere in between?Am I making sense? Legaleze pisses me off, I'm sure that's part of my problem.

Click to expand...

I feel your pain with legaleze.

What it boils down to from a juror's perspective is, "yeah, I think I would have done the same thing under the circumstances". If a juror can not come to that conclusion, then there was no "reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death" and the big iron door slams on the shooter. The law is literally filled with "reasonable belief", it is the essence of the jury system.

desert dude said:

Extend that concept to "a man who was "on his premises", or any other place where had a legal right to be, when he came under attack"... and you have the SYG laws.

Click to expand...

I don't think we can. Please excuse the obvious over the top example I'm giving but it's to prove a point.
Blood is vacationing with his wife in the keys and wanders into a local bar and gets shot. Turns out a crip was there with his wife and saw him first. His fear of imminent danger is justified in his mind. The law clearly states the He or She feels, not whether I would or you would but He would. He's not guilty if I'm on that jury interpreting that law. Guilty without that poorly written paragraph.

desert dude said:

I fucking hate hip hop "music".

Click to expand...

Amen, brother.
I think it's a shame that we need to pile law on top of law to clarify a simple concept. The same with "concealed carry".
But yet, when it comes to "noise" ordinances in general, the law, in most cases, is almost non existent. They may cover the usual noisy neighbor, especially between 11PM and 7AM but if there is a "pimp mobile" driving around and rattling the windows and doors loose, nothing, or the all day long barking dog, when the neighbor who works the night shift, is trying to sleep, sorry, you have no right to not be disturbed.

ginwilly said:

He's not guilty if I'm on that jury interpreting that law.

Click to expand...

I'd say "guilty" and it's too bad they didn't do us all a favor and kill each other.

ginwilly said:

I don't think we can. Please excuse the obvious over the top example I'm giving but it's to prove a point.
Blood is vacationing with his wife in the keys and wanders into a local bar and gets shot. Turns out a crip was there with his wife and saw him first. His fear of imminent danger is justified in his mind. The law clearly states the He or She feels, not whether I would or you would but He would. He's not guilty if I'm on that jury interpreting that law. Guilty without that poorly written paragraph.

Click to expand...

I love over the top examples, so no problem.

The determination of Blood's "reasonableness" is in the hands of a jury. Put me on that jury. Absent some other evidence, "crip pulled a gun, a knife, a crowbar and advanced on Blood in a menacing manner", for example, and I conclude that Blood was not "reasonable". Blood goes to jail, or "rides the lightning" as somebody in another thread said.

Mr Neutron said:

Amen, brother.
I think it's a shame that we need to pile law on top of law to clarify a simple concept. The same with "concealed carry".
But yet, when it comes to "noise" ordinances in general, the law, in most cases, is almost non existent. They may cover the usual noisy neighbor, especially between 11PM and 7AM but if there is a "pimp mobile" driving around and rattling the windows and doors loose, nothing, or the all day long barking dog, when the neighbor who works the night shift, is trying to sleep, sorry, you have no right to not be disturbed.

Click to expand...

I'm the only person I know that ever got a noise pollution ticket. Giving away my age here, I was cruising bishop park (wyandotte, MI) listening to this
[video=youtube;lUeuAnMNDhA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUeuAnMNDhA[/video]

I told the cop, but it's rock candy? I guess at the time I had such a Sammy mancrush I thought everyone else did too. Whenever I hear the thumping go by it makes me wonder if they are as stupid as I was .

sorry bout the temporary hijack, the thread will liven up when the against em crowd gets here.

Another quote from a Supreme Court justice, damn these are some insightful mofos when they want to be:

"Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. declared in Brown v. United States (256 U.S. 335, 343 (16 May 1921)), a case that upheld the "no duty to retreat" maxim, that "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife".[SUP][4]"[/SUP]

ginwilly said:

I'm the only person I know that ever got a noise pollution ticket. Giving away my age here, I was cruising bishop park (wyandotte, MI) listening to this
[video=youtube;lUeuAnMNDhA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUeuAnMNDhA[/video]

I told the cop, but it's rock candy? I guess at the time I had such a Sammy mancrush I thought everyone else did too. Whenever I hear the thumping go by it makes me wonder if they are as stupid as I was .

sorry bout the temporary hijack, the thread will liven up when the against em crowd gets here.

Click to expand...

Definitely one of the all time greatest stripper songs.

[video=youtube;uh4wrByTqD8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh4wrByTqD8[/video]

UncleBuck said:

[video=youtube;uh4wrByTqD8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh4wrByTqD8[/video]

Click to expand...

Come on, UB, you couldn't be bothered to write down your own thoughts on the subject?

desert dude said:

Come on, UB, you couldn't be bothered to write down your own thoughts on the subject?

Click to expand...

SYG is a pathway to legal murder.

if i want you dead, all i have to do is provoke you into assaulting me somehow. once i brush off one of your effeminate girly punches, i can then open fire on you.

hell, i can even chase around unarmed people for a while, shoot them dead after provoking them, and walk.

why didn't we think of this genius law earlier?

joe horn was in no fear of his life whatsoever. he was inside his house. some thieves were walking out of his neighbor's house while his neighbor wasn't home. cops were seconds away from arriving and arresting these thieves.

instead, we got two dead men. over stuff. stuff that was going to be apprehended anyway.

people that defend this mental retardation are psychopathic, homicidal idiots who value material objects over human life.

joe horn walked.

UncleBuck said:

SYG is a pathway to legal murder.

if i want you dead, all i have to do is provoke you into assaulting me somehow. once i brush off one of your effeminate girly punches, i can then open fire on you.

hell, i can even chase around unarmed people for a while, shoot them dead after provoking them, and walk.

why didn't we think of this genius law earlier?

Click to expand...

What if you provoke me into assaulting you and I cave in your head with a rock and the life drains out of you at my feet? Maybe not such a good plan in that case.

Is that your best objection? Honestly? America is filled with people just itching to murder somebody, constrained only by their current fear of the law? Now that SYG laws have been passed, all of us murderous Americans can finally go out and provoke some innocent, law abiding citizen into assaulting us so we can then murder them? Pretty weak argument, UB.

SYG is a gift from NRA lobbyists so they could sell more guns.



ya see the lady in the blue jacket? that hot little piece of cunt is marion hammer, top lobbyist for the NRA in florida. she seduced a mentally retarded person, jeb bush, with her womanly wiles so that he would sign an unwanted bill into law. she knows how to use her pussy.



no one asked for these laws.

UncleBuck said:

joe horn was in no fear of his life whatsoever. he was inside his house. some thieves were walking out of his neighbor's house while his neighbor wasn't home. cops were seconds away from arriving and arresting these thieves.

instead, we got two dead men. over stuff. stuff that was going to be apprehended anyway.

people that defend this mental retardation are psychopathic, homicidal idiots who value material objects over human life.

joe horn walked.

Click to expand...

I agree with your assessment of the Joe Horn incident. The prosecutor decided not to prosecute, so it never went before a jury. I think charges were warranted in that case, and I think Horn would have been convicted had the case gone to trial. Prosecutors are politicians and this was Texas...