Stand your ground laws

[smith revolver cop]

I hope this is within the parameters of the 2A forum. (If not, one of the moderators can close it or delete it.) AG Holder has criticized states with "stand your ground" laws, alleging that they "senselessly expand the concept of self-defense." I guess I'm confused... how does one "senselessly" expand such a fundamental concept as self-defense? And, is this just another step in attempting to curtail 2A rights, such as CCW?

 

[CowboyKen]

They just want to take away your guns.

It has nothing to do with any law, or anything else, that might "senselessly expand the concept of self-defense." That statement is a non sequitur in and of itself. There is no logic behind their rhetoric.

They just hate all of us.

Ken

 

[adwjc]

I hope this is within the parameters of the 2A forum. (If not, one of the moderators can close it or delete it.) AG Holder has criticized states with "stand your ground" laws, alleging that they "senselessly expand the concept of self-defense." I guess I'm confused... how does one "senselessly" expand such a fundamental concept as self-defense? And, is this just another step in attempting to curtail 2A rights, such as CCW?

You nailed it SRC, just the opening salvo in the next round of restricting the rights of free Americans.

 

[S&W45Colt]

Look at who's saying it.

 

[jlrhiner]

You cannot have the ability to defend yourself. That makes you free. Free men cannot be controlled.

 

[Kelly Green]

It’s strange that he would say that because the stand your ground law was not even used in the Martin case.

 

[bluegrassarms]

This fight wasn't over when the Senate failed to pass universal background checks. It was just getting warmed up. The anti-gun forces haven't seen a hint of hope in a long time, and they think they see a crack in the door. They're trying to get through it like zombies after brains.

This just opened up another front for the much broader battle over the 2nd Amendment. If they make it a crime to USE the gun you carry in almost any circumstance, they've eliminated carry, now haven't they? Clever, those anti-gun folks.

 

[xray97]

One would think a person in his position would have a better understanding of the law.

 

[Nedroe]

AG Holder.....

If I had committed all the crimes he has under color of authority, I'd be strapped to a gurney in Terre Haute, getting' my last "fix". He is a LOSER, all caps. Jimmy nails it above, it's about control. They are in power now, they're gettin' old, & they aint gonna get out. Look at your history. Massive blood is comin' our way. Load your mags & good luck to ya. Life as we've known it is about to end.

Ned

 

[DigiRebel]

It’s strange that he would say that because the stand your ground law was not even used in the Martin case.

You mean like how they are trying to ban semi-automatic rifles because handguns are used in lots of crimes?

You're expecting sense or logic, its not likely to pan out for you on this one.

 

[DigiRebel]

One would think a person in his position would have a better understanding of the law.

Look at who hired him. You shouldn't be surprised when little things like the Constitution get in the way of some of these folks.

The mere fact that he's looking to cook up some federal charges to hit Zimmerman with seems to show his respect for the 5th Amendment's double jeopardy clause.

Its kinda scary to me, in the past few months I've seen attacks on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th Amendments in the papers... how long are we going to put up with this nonsense?

 

[HankG]

Holder was talking to the NAACP when he made the statement. He was expected by the NAACP to guarantee them that he would look into the Zimmerman/Martin case for racial profiling and find it. He new he couldn't do this legally because the FBI had already found there was no racial profiling as did the jury, so he switched horses so to speak and went into a completely different area...concealed carry. Deft maneuvering so to speak.

 

[Fishinfool]

Personally, I fully support Stand Your Ground type laws, and I'll tell you why.

Retreating from a threat, if possible, is always a good idea. Problem is, it is a judgement call as to what is a safe retreat, and what is not, putting you or loved ones at further risk. Making it a law means that almost every shooting in the name of self defense will be scrutinized (As in back seat quarterbacked) by folks who were not there at the time.

That's bad law. Deadly force, as applied to self defense has pretty clear definitions as to what conditions need to be met. The retreat if possible part becomes much a matter of judgement and opinion, opening the door for prosecution based on flawed opinion rather than strictly facts.

Just looking at the Zimmerman / Martin circus, where race and emotion took center stage, and facts meant little is a good example of what to expect.

CowboyKen said it best in his above post - The anti's have an agenda, come hell or high water.

Larry

 

[Riverbear]

The Zimmerman is the Scape Goat but America is the real loser.

At the NCAAP conference, the AG switched topics about a race crime and turned it into a topic of gun control...Stand Your Ground.

The Anti-Gunners are all over this now and we will have to continue defending (even stronger) the Second Amendment and all other aspects of gun ownership and self-defense.

Bring it on, I love a good fight.

 

[wnc wheelgun]

Just another example of Obama’s bait and switch, this is another way to divert the American public’s attention away from our miserable economy. When people have little good to look forward to, they look at what our unbiased media spoon feeds them, racism and inequality.

 

[CoMF]

The way I look at it, SYG laws came into being for two reasons:

1) They protect you in the event that retreating safely is not feasible without endangering life and limb, whereas under "duty to retreat" laws you'd likely still be charged despite extenuating circumstances.

2) They protect you from being "twice victimized" by civil suits initiated by the perpetrator or their family. This is an additional benefit of some SYG laws which doesn't get mentioned much.

But, as others have said, why let civil rights get in the way of an agenda?

 

[David Armstrong]

Well, at the risk of throwing water on a hot topic, SYG can be a bit of a problem, and we managed to do pretty good with self defense for a long time without SYG. SYG basically does away with the traditional preclusion test that historically has been a part of analyzing self defense.

Look at it this way: I go outside to get in my car. My neighbor starts yelling at me about my cats using his rose garden for a litter box. I sort of blow him off. He yells he is going to beat my brains out and comes toward me with a shovel across 40 yards of open space. I can get in the car and leave. I can go back in the house and call the police. But instead I go to the edge of my driveway, get a firm grip on my CCW, and when he is about 21' away I draw and shoot him.

Under traditional self defense I would need to show why it was reasonable and necessary for me to do what I did. Under SYG I just have to show that I was in reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury. Under SYG since I was where I was legally and what I was doing was legal I had no obligation to even try to come up with a lesser alternative or avoid the shooting.

I support SYG but it does create a new legal concept, essentially taking Castle Doctrine out of the castle and into the street. As I tend to support "shoot when you must" instead of "shoot when you can" I do see some issues with it, and that is why it is controversial.

 

[Malpasowildlifer]

They just want to take away your guns.

It has nothing to do with any law, or anything else, that might "senselessly expand the concept of self-defense." That statement is a non sequitur in and of itself. There is no logic behind their rhetoric.

They just hate all of us.

Ken

second....

 

[BobC357]

The Daily Caller has an interesting article on this topic...
Florida blacks benefit from Florida 'Stand Your Ground' | The Daily Caller

African Americans benefit from Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” self-defense law at a rate far out of proportion to their presence in the state’s population, despite an assertion by Attorney General Eric Holder that repealing “Stand Your Ground” would help African Americans.

Black Floridians have made about a third of the state’s total “Stand Your Ground” claims in homicide cases, a rate nearly double the black percentage of Florida’s population. The majority of those claims have been successful, a success rate that exceeds that for Florida whites.

Nonetheless, prominent African Americans including Holder and “Ebony and Ivory” singer Stevie Wonder, who has vowed not to perform in the Sunshine State until the law is revoked, have made “Stand Your Ground” a central part of the Trayvon Martin controversy.

 

[CowboyKen]

Well, at the risk of throwing water on a hot topic, SYG can be a bit of a problem, and we managed to do pretty good with self defense for a long time without SYG. SYG basically does away with the traditional preclusion test that historically has been a part of analyzing self defense.

Look at it this way: I go outside to get in my car. My neighbor starts yelling at me about my cats using his rose garden for a litter box. I sort of blow him off. He yells he is going to beat my brains out and comes toward me with a shovel across 40 yards of open space. I can get in the car and leave. I can go back in the house and call the police. But instead I go to the edge of my driveway, get a firm grip on my CCW, and when he is about 21' away I draw and shoot him.

Under traditional self defense I would need to show why it was reasonable and necessary for me to do what I did. Under SYG I just have to show that I was in reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury. Under SYG since I was where I was legally and what I was doing was legal I had no obligation to even try to come up with a lesser alternative or avoid the shooting.

I support SYG but it does create a new legal concept, essentially taking Castle Doctrine out of the castle and into the street. As I tend to support "shoot when you must" instead of "shoot when you can" I do see some issues with it, and that is why it is controversial.

I understand your POV, however I look at it through the lens of my own situation. I am 66 years old, not physically fit (but healthy even after a heart attack, and I have no fighting skills or experience. I cannot expect to successfully run away in most situations. I will not attempt to "fight back." If you attack me and I am in fear of being seriously hurt (and I most likely would be) I will use what means I have at hand to try to stop you. SYG laws may help me after that happens if it ever (God forbid) does.

But, please recognize that Mr. Holders comments have nothing to do with SYG laws. He, and his master, just want to take away your gun.

"You cannot have the ability to defend yourself. That makes you free. Free men cannot be controlled." jlrhiner

Ken