Why "stand your ground" is good law

[abajaj11]

People in Great Britain and Australia have been convicted if they used a gun or in any way severely injured anyone who was attacking them...because over zealous prosecutors said they did not fulfill their duty to retreat.
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110113130440AA79Xit

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1473779__ARCHIVED_THREAD____the_australia_gun_arguement.html&page=2


Duty to retreat puts the burden on you, the person defending themselves against deadly force, to try and find all possible "reasonable" methods of retreat. Try doing that kind of analysis in a life and death situation!
Here is an example I just made up to illustrate. Say you are in a store that is being held up. You are near the door and can run out becuase the perps' back is towards you. You could have run out of the store but you chose to stay. The perpetrator starts getting violent, maybe stabs a customer with his knife as he screams at the proprietor to open his safe. You pull your gun out and shoot the perp. Now you are screwed. You could have retreated, but you did not. Stand your ground is Good law that protects law abiding gun owners, people who are not prone to breaking the law, from perpetrators who break laws all the time.
Without it, gunowners can use their firearms in name only, since they will almost certainly go to jail. In a society where common sense is becoming less common (example, the George Zimmerman case), explicity stand your ground laws are a MUST.

 

[abajaj11]

People in Great Britain and Australia have been convicted if they used a gun or in any way severely injured anyone who was attacking them...because over zealous prosecutors said they did not fulfill their duty to retreat.
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110113130440AA79Xit

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1473779__ARCHIVED_THREAD____the_australia_gun_arguement.html&page=2


Duty to retreat puts the burden on you, the person defending themselves against deadly force, to try and find all possible "reasonable" methods of retreat. Try doing that kind of analysis in a life and death situation!
Here is an example I just made up to illustrate. Say you are in a store that is being held up. You are near the door and can run out becuase the perps' back is towards you. You could have run out of the store but you chose to stay. The perpetrator starts getting violent, maybe stabs a customer with his knife as he screams at the proprietor to open his safe. You pull your gun out and shoot the perp. Now you are screwed. You could have retreated, but you did not. Stand your ground is Good law that protects law abiding gun owners, people who are not prone to breaking the law, from perpetrators who break laws all the time.
Without it, gunowners can use their firearms in name only, since they will almost certainly go to jail. In a society where common sense is becoming less common (example, the George Zimmerman case), explicity stand your ground laws are a MUST.

here is a cool video by Mas that describes when deadly force may be used and why stand your ground came about. The end part of he video is especially interesting, since SYG was partially motivated to PROTECT minorities from being unjustly prosecuted!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EsQeTKnD_f0

 

[prather]

I've got a bad neck, bad back, author in my knees if I run away I'm in trouble if I stand and fright I could loss use of arms because of my bad neck. If I get kicked in my back it could paralyze me. Should I stand my ground ? Or just hope for the best?

 

[abajaj11]

People in Great Britain and Australia have been convicted if they used a gun or in any way severely injured anyone who was attacking them...because over zealous prosecutors said they did not fulfill their duty to retreat.
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110113130440AA79Xit

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1473779__ARCHIVED_THREAD____the_australia_gun_arguement.html&page=2


Duty to retreat puts the burden on you, the person defending themselves against deadly force, to try and find all possible "reasonable" methods of retreat. Try doing that kind of analysis in a life and death situation!
Here is an example I just made up to illustrate. Say you are in a store that is being held up. You are near the door and can run out becuase the perps' back is towards you. You could have run out of the store but you chose to stay. The perpetrator starts getting violent, maybe stabs a customer with his knife as he screams at the proprietor to open his safe. You pull your gun out and shoot the perp. Now you are screwed. You could have retreated, but you did not. Stand your ground is Good law that protects law abiding gun owners, people who are not prone to breaking the law, from perpetrators who break laws all the time.
Without it, gunowners can use their firearms in name only, since they will almost certainly go to jail. In a society where common sense is becoming less common (example, the George Zimmerman case), explicity stand your ground laws are a MUST.

The only "debate" on stand your ground is as follows: Do you believe that a person who or whose loved ones are in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm has a duty to retreat, or are they allowed to use lethal force immediately to alleviate this imminent danger?

Keep in mind, the danger is imminent, meaning you have seconds or less to react. What would you rather do if you felt you or your loved ones had only seconds or less to live or risk grave bodily harm? Look around for retreat avenues, or neutralize the threat?

That's the only debate. The anti-2A folks clearly want you to not use lethal force. If you do, they will sue you. Of course, many of them have bodyguards and will not encounter a situation where they have seconds or less to decide. But if you believe in 2A and the empowerment of the common person, then where is the debate?

 

[BIG_MIKE2005]

The only "debate" on stand your ground is as follows: Do you believe that a person who or whose loved ones are in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm has a duty to retreat, or are they allowed to use lethal force immediately to alleviate this imminent danger?

Keep in mind, the danger is imminent, meaning you have seconds or less to react. What would you rather do if you felt you or your loved ones had only seconds or less to live or risk grave bodily harm? Look around for retreat avenues, or neutralize the threat?

That's the only debate. The anti-2A folks clearly want you to not use lethal force. If you do, they will sue you. Of course, many of them have bodyguards and will not encounter a situation where they have seconds or less to decide. But if you believe in 2A and the empowerment of the common person, then where is the debate?

I'll say it, if I'm out with my family & someone starts to attack us I will shoot them dead on the spot, regardless of the laws on the books. It will always be my families safety over a criminals life. I will not let lawmakers set the standards for my families safety, I will not let them take away my rights to ensure that safety. It's a god given right, not a government approved right. They have no right to dictate how or when I protect my family with whatever means required.

 

[KOPBET]

I'm not understanding what SYG has to do with GZ.

 

[BIG_MIKE2005]

I'm not understanding what SYG has to do with GZ.

Absolutely nothing but since Obama & Holder said it does then it suddenly does. Zimmerman did not use SYG for a defense yet that is the only thing politically they can attack & opens the door to more attacks on gun rights. It's a basic redirection. They didn't get the verdict they needed to pursue this route so now they found a new avenue.

 

[KOPBET]

Absolutely nothing but since Obama & Holder said it does then it suddenly does. Zimmerman did not use SYG for a defense yet that is the only thing politically they can attack & opens the door to more attacks on gun rights. It's a basic redirection. They didn't get the verdict they needed to pursue this route so now they found a new avenue.

Exactly.

I suppose if you're on your back they would expect you to dig a hole to retreat...

 

[Dale00]

Aren't "stand your ground" laws in the hands of state legislatures? Can't the POTUS or the Congress do anything about them other than try to sway the opinions of the public?

 

[abajaj11]

Aren't "stand your ground" laws in the hands of state legislatures? Can't the POTUS or the Congress do anything about them other than try to sway the opinions of the public?

Great point. My guess is that, with Bloomberg's money, they are trying to go after individual states. IMHO, their strategy is to create furor and doubt at the national level using the media, make low information people believe stand your ground is bad law, then to pick state legislators who would be promised Bloomberg's money, if they stood up against this law.
If they can get away with it in one state, like Florida, then they believe other states will follow.

One congressman in OK is testing the waters here.
See: https://www.okshooters.com/showthread.php?179272-Vote-out-Mike-Shelton-State-Rep

What can we do?

1. Educate everyone that Stand your ground (SYG) started in response to discrimination against african Americans who were being convicted wrongfully in many cases for defending themselves. So the roots of SYG are actually to protect minorities from being sued.
2. Educate everyone that SYG is actually being used disproprtionately more by African Americans to protect themselves even now.
See: http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/16/b...and-your-ground-law-at-disproportionate-rate/
Another one: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/17/NPR-Misleads-About-Stand-Your-Ground

3. Make a swift example of people like the democrat congressman in our state so that our beloved politicians are not so attracted to Bloomberg's millions.
Primary them or defeat them in the polls. Primarying may be a better idea since Shelton's district is predominantly democrat IMHO.

4. Donate to the NRA and GOA and SAF....maybe the price of a 100 rounds of 9mm/223 ammo every year?

The anti-2As are usng every crisis they can to keep the pressure up. Now they have Bloomberg's millions to play with and I believe they will be targeting state races. We need to make sure our ideas are heard as well.