Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Zimmerman's lawyers drop him
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Cue" data-source="post: 1772270" data-attributes="member: 1708"><p>You are missing the point. SYG is to protect people who feel they do not need to retreat. What Stephen is saying is that he tried to retreat. So SYG was not used. If that is the case then all of this is an attack on the SYG law by the media when it is totally irrelevant to this case. </p><p></p><p>Stephen and I teach this in our classes. If you retreat and are still attacked then you have more rights to defend yourself with deadly force because you do not have to meet for with force. With SYG, you have to meet force with for up to and including deadly force. If a single person attacks with with only his fists, you can only defend yourself with only fists while standing your ground. If you elevate the situation to a deadly force scenario, you did not follow SYG because you became the aggressor outside the protection of the law. If you attempt to retreat and an aggressor continues to attack you, it is obvious that he intends to cause great bodily harm and or death. So by law you are allowed to defend yourself with deadly force. </p><p></p><p>Does this make what he was trying to say clear?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Cue, post: 1772270, member: 1708"] You are missing the point. SYG is to protect people who feel they do not need to retreat. What Stephen is saying is that he tried to retreat. So SYG was not used. If that is the case then all of this is an attack on the SYG law by the media when it is totally irrelevant to this case. Stephen and I teach this in our classes. If you retreat and are still attacked then you have more rights to defend yourself with deadly force because you do not have to meet for with force. With SYG, you have to meet force with for up to and including deadly force. If a single person attacks with with only his fists, you can only defend yourself with only fists while standing your ground. If you elevate the situation to a deadly force scenario, you did not follow SYG because you became the aggressor outside the protection of the law. If you attempt to retreat and an aggressor continues to attack you, it is obvious that he intends to cause great bodily harm and or death. So by law you are allowed to defend yourself with deadly force. Does this make what he was trying to say clear? [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Zimmerman's lawyers drop him
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom