Really, I've actually enforced the law, testified in court, worked with DA's etc. I do not need your help to know how the system works. Traditional law and society in every place, except blue states, has not, nor never has been, on the side of the aggressor. SYG has not removed the requirement for justifying the use of deadly force as you and the NAACP seem to think, all it's done is codify self defense rights and protect gun owners from being bankrupted by lawyers and perps.
Stand your ground laws
- Thread starter smith revolver cop
- Start date
Really, I've actually enforced the law, testified in court, worked with DA's etc. I do not need your help to know how the system works. Traditional law and society in every place, except blue states, has not, nor never has been, on the side of the aggressor. SYG has not removed the requirement for justifying the use of deadly force as you and the NAACP seem to think, all it's done is codify self defense rights and protect gun owners from being bankrupted by lawyers and perps.
David Armstrong
Member
Gee, now you want to make it personal. OK, really, I've actually enforced the law, testified in court, worked with DA's, etc. also
. If you want to have a contest I'm a court certified expert witness in tactics and firearms use, I been teaching CCW classes for over 20 years, teach various classes related to law, crime, LE, etc at the university, and so on. So with that out of the way I don't think you can find anyplace I have said the law was on the side of the aggressor or that I think SYG has removed the requirement for justifying the use of deadly force. So please argue what I have said, not something you have made up. And SYG has done quite a bit more than codify SD rights and protect gun owners. That is only one part of it.Gee, now you want to make it personal. OK, really, I've actually enforced the law, testified in court, worked with DA's, etc. also
You skipped half of my responses.
Your whole argument, which you either refuse to see or admit boils down to, gun owners are aggressively looking for the chance to use them and SYG somehow makes it easier to use deadly force. Both are wrong.
I've made my points, further discussion is not productive. You say you support SYG, but it doesn't comes off that way to me. I'm not going to do anymore tit for tat, I have my opinion on your thoughts, you have yours, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one and let it go.
David Armstrong
Member
That is because half of your responses are made-up "here, this is what yousaid" stuff. If you want to discuss what I said I'll be glad to do that, but I see no need to respond to imagined responses that are not mine.
If that is what you got out of my points you clearly did not understand what I wrote or I did not present it clearly, as neither of those points are part of my position.
Fair enough, but if you are going to present my thoughts please present my thoughts, not what you think my thoughts might be.
David,
The internet is certainly not conducive to conveying nuances, so who knows, maybe we both are missing something. You've got your thoughts, I have mine, neither of them are going to be on 60 Minutes.
Either way, I'm from the school that believes we can thoroughly disagree on something and as long as it's not family, our personal religious beliefs or something else sacred, it's not a big deal. Too many people on some forums think this stuff is combat to the death, if you know what I mean. We can go have a beer two hours later under my philosophy, life's to short to hold on to things. Who knows, we may both be on the same side the next debate. My point being, no hard feelings here, we just disagreed, that doesn't make either of us bad people in my book. I hope you have a good weekend.
The internet is certainly not conducive to conveying nuances, so who knows, maybe we both are missing something. You've got your thoughts, I have mine, neither of them are going to be on 60 Minutes.
Either way, I'm from the school that believes we can thoroughly disagree on something and as long as it's not family, our personal religious beliefs or something else sacred, it's not a big deal. Too many people on some forums think this stuff is combat to the death, if you know what I mean. We can go have a beer two hours later under my philosophy, life's to short to hold on to things. Who knows, we may both be on the same side the next debate. My point being, no hard feelings here, we just disagreed, that doesn't make either of us bad people in my book. I hope you have a good weekend.
Last edited:
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
David,
Just to be clear, how would you prefer the law deal with the specific situation?
Do you think the shooter should be found guilty of something, or otherwise not justified in shooting someone who was coming after him with a shovel to beat his brains in? Or would you prefer this be viewed as self defense and left at that?
Delos
Member
Add 5 feet for shovels handle
In California not all that long ago they had the duty to retreat in the law. Someone breaks in your front door the court might ask why you did not run out your back door. Or run and lock yourself in furthest room and call police. You could only defend yourself if your back was against the wall or you have run as far as possible.
Up in the Sierra’s some people get 8 feet of snow and only shovel to front door. They might need to jump out an upstairs window barefoot in pajamas perhaps? Even with a few inches why be required to run out the back door into the snow barefoot with no coat or gloves.
Anyway the stand your ground law got rid of the craziness of needing to prove you had no place to retreat, or prove you had tried to retreat.
As you know the 21 foot rule was about the time it takes to draw your handgun when someone with a primitive weapon is rushing you. Presumably a knife. If he is running at you with a shovel you need to add the 4 or 5 foot reach of the shovels length, so as to be able to draw and get a shot off just before he hits you.
If he is still 21 feet away when you get your handgun out you might want to kill time shouting help to appease the witnesses that often see and hear things wrong.
In California not all that long ago they had the duty to retreat in the law. Someone breaks in your front door the court might ask why you did not run out your back door. Or run and lock yourself in furthest room and call police. You could only defend yourself if your back was against the wall or you have run as far as possible.
Up in the Sierra’s some people get 8 feet of snow and only shovel to front door. They might need to jump out an upstairs window barefoot in pajamas perhaps? Even with a few inches why be required to run out the back door into the snow barefoot with no coat or gloves.
Anyway the stand your ground law got rid of the craziness of needing to prove you had no place to retreat, or prove you had tried to retreat.
As you know the 21 foot rule was about the time it takes to draw your handgun when someone with a primitive weapon is rushing you. Presumably a knife. If he is running at you with a shovel you need to add the 4 or 5 foot reach of the shovels length, so as to be able to draw and get a shot off just before he hits you.
If he is still 21 feet away when you get your handgun out you might want to kill time shouting help to appease the witnesses that often see and hear things wrong.
DigiRebel
Member
Except now he's holding on to Zimmerman's gun when he potentially needs it the most...
Of course, this is the problem with a lot of this stuff, they start with a conclusion then craft a study to prove the point... Using this tactic I could "prove" the sky is orange, up is down, and that guns, not people, kill people.
DigiRebel
Member
I support stand your ground because it is a law that protects the victim not the criminal.
The supposition that it removes the "need" to find alternatives to shooting suggests that a CCW holder is packing and looking for a reason to take another person's life. Your example shows the point where the CCW holder calmly squares up, gets a comfortable grip then hangs out waiting to pop the gun out at the last second and kill someone.
Its probably also worth noting that the average healthy human runs the 100yard dash in 15 seconds. Which means that your shovel madman, would be bashing your head in in about 6 seconds. Figuring about 2 seconds to see the guy charging, realize that he's planning to kill you, drop your stuff, yank your CCW out and point it at him, that leaves 4 seconds. In those 4 seconds you lose another 2 seconds, figuring that you don't want to wait to see how shovel feels, so you'll fire before he is actually beating on you with his weapon. Which leaves a whopping 2 seconds to yell "HELP!" or "STOP!" or pray that the nutjob sees he's bringing a shovel to a gun fight and veers off. But in all of this you're definitely NOT spending those 2 seconds sauntering to the edge of your drive way, or getting a comfortable grip, or thinking that you, "FINALLY" get to USE your CCW.
The supposition that it removes the "need" to find alternatives to shooting suggests that a CCW holder is packing and looking for a reason to take another person's life. Your example shows the point where the CCW holder calmly squares up, gets a comfortable grip then hangs out waiting to pop the gun out at the last second and kill someone.
Its probably also worth noting that the average healthy human runs the 100yard dash in 15 seconds. Which means that your shovel madman, would be bashing your head in in about 6 seconds. Figuring about 2 seconds to see the guy charging, realize that he's planning to kill you, drop your stuff, yank your CCW out and point it at him, that leaves 4 seconds. In those 4 seconds you lose another 2 seconds, figuring that you don't want to wait to see how shovel feels, so you'll fire before he is actually beating on you with his weapon. Which leaves a whopping 2 seconds to yell "HELP!" or "STOP!" or pray that the nutjob sees he's bringing a shovel to a gun fight and veers off. But in all of this you're definitely NOT spending those 2 seconds sauntering to the edge of your drive way, or getting a comfortable grip, or thinking that you, "FINALLY" get to USE your CCW.
Delos
Member
What I miss most after leaving California
There are still those in California that think the “duty to retreat” laws were the best. That the homeowner who had his door broken down really should still be required to prove why he did not run out his back door before using lethal force.
The only thing I miss about California is the occasional barefoot walk along the beach on a warm day with salt water occasionally splashing up to my ankles after a wave.
There are still those in California that think the “duty to retreat” laws were the best. That the homeowner who had his door broken down really should still be required to prove why he did not run out his back door before using lethal force.
The only thing I miss about California is the occasional barefoot walk along the beach on a warm day with salt water occasionally splashing up to my ankles after a wave.
David Armstrong
Member
No problem from my end. You said "The internet is certainly not conducive to conveying nuances" with which I totally agree and which is why I generally try to avoid the "you said this" arguments or discussions unless it is something that I really said. Other than that, sure, it's just the internet and it is hard to get too excited about it. I'm quite happy to debate vigorously but I don't get too excited about it as long as everyone plays fair. So we're cool on my end, and the first beer is on me.
David Armstrong
Member
I like the traditional "reasonable and apparently necessary" doctrine that is still used by the majority of the states. Again, SYG really opens the door to "Yeah, I know I could have avoided it but I didn't want to" philosophy that I don't particularly like AND that I think lots of folks misunderstand. SYG only removes the preclusion part of the test for self defense, is does not remove the reasonable part of the test. Inside the home is different, I don't think there is any real reason for preclusion. It's my house, get out and leave me alone. Outside the home, not so much. So, for the shovel thing...is it reasonable to stand there and wait 30 seconds while a person who has the ability to injure you and has expressed a desire to injure you comes over to injure you? Probably not. Would you stand there and wait if you didn't have a gun, or would you go in the house, or get in the car, etc? As I said before, I tend to support SYG, but there are some areas where it really isn't clear and opens the door for some big misunderstandings that tend to fuel the "I can" mentality as opposed to the "I must" way of thinking.
Last edited:
David Armstrong
Member
No. The law was essentially if you could SAFELY retreat you had an obligation to retreat. There was no obligation to retreat no matter what.
In which case one could not safely retreat and thus self defense would be appropriate.
California does not have SYG, California has the Castle Doctrine with an interesting modification, that if you are attempting to prevent a felony you have no duty to retreat no matter where it is.
It's called the Tueller Drill, and there is far more to it than that. The Tueller is simply an expression of the concept that "safe space" is greater than most people realize and that often standing and drawing is not the best response in such a situation. Not sure what that has to do with this, but I'll be happy to discuss Tueller if you'd like. By definition, if you are in a Tueller Drill situation there can be no preclusion, so SYG isn't applicable.
Fear not, I teach verbalization as an important part of ANY altercation, witnesses or not.
Last edited:
DigiRebel
Member
Re reading over this... I think some of us may have missed that David says he supports stand your ground. Which would seem to indicate that you're more worried about the "Sheepdog" type who is going to go for the gun first and ask questions later.
The point is a good one. We've all encountered the guy on the forums somewhere who's the first to comment, "He should have shot!" when viewing a video, or who likes to comment how he doesn't run from anything anymore.
Something that's worthwhile for all of us to remember is that running is ALWAYS the better option as long as it exists. (Though one of thing things I've seen here is there tends to be less of the false bravado I find in other places... so I am probably preaching to the choir)
The difference lies in the codification of that rule into a law, which means that there will be people who weren't there at the scene judging your actions with 20/20 hindsight, not with the limited scope of vision you had when making your decision. The TM case made a lot of to-do about a bag of skittles and a bottle of tea, and how GZ shouldn't have fired because TM was unarmed. I am going to note however, that GZ had no idea that ALL TM has was candy. What he did know, was that he was sucker punched, assaulted, knocked to the ground, and was put in a position where his life was in danger. The view from the courtroom can be VASTLY different from the one where someone needs to decide are they in danger. Looking down the barrel of that gun, you have no access to an investigative team, or a lawyer, or all the stuff that ended up involved in the trial.
Stand Your Ground is worded the way it is to remove some of the doubt placed on the self-defender and say if you have a reasonable belief that your life is endangered you are allowed to do what you need to do to survive.
The point is a good one. We've all encountered the guy on the forums somewhere who's the first to comment, "He should have shot!" when viewing a video, or who likes to comment how he doesn't run from anything anymore.
Something that's worthwhile for all of us to remember is that running is ALWAYS the better option as long as it exists. (Though one of thing things I've seen here is there tends to be less of the false bravado I find in other places... so I am probably preaching to the choir)
The difference lies in the codification of that rule into a law, which means that there will be people who weren't there at the scene judging your actions with 20/20 hindsight, not with the limited scope of vision you had when making your decision. The TM case made a lot of to-do about a bag of skittles and a bottle of tea, and how GZ shouldn't have fired because TM was unarmed. I am going to note however, that GZ had no idea that ALL TM has was candy. What he did know, was that he was sucker punched, assaulted, knocked to the ground, and was put in a position where his life was in danger. The view from the courtroom can be VASTLY different from the one where someone needs to decide are they in danger. Looking down the barrel of that gun, you have no access to an investigative team, or a lawyer, or all the stuff that ended up involved in the trial.
Stand Your Ground is worded the way it is to remove some of the doubt placed on the self-defender and say if you have a reasonable belief that your life is endangered you are allowed to do what you need to do to survive.
Delos
Member
Castle Doctrine
And I thank you very much. Obvious to me is that I am remembering the arguments leading up to Castle Doctrine.
One news article mentioned that under current law, when a person breaking in front door, a person would be required to run to furthest room, lock the door and call police. If running out the back door was the only option he must do it, presumably even if snow on the ground.
Naturally we all often argue like the lawyers where each takes an extreme position the opposite way assuming the jury will compromise. If ones argument is normal and the other extreme the jury will to often compromise toward the extreme.
So I chose the position of one further up the mountain in deeper snow and the only way out being the upstairs window. Why, because I know how goofy California courts and lawmakers can be.
So now I must read a bit more about the Stand Your Ground Law and see how California fits in. I have not been there in about 8 years but still browse a few California newspapers on the internet on occasion.
Yes I also would like to discuss the Tueller Drill, Has it yet entered at least case-law, or is it still just a reason to bring in expert witnesses.
(I am not claiming Wikipedia is always right, just pretty good)
Castle doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Scrolling about a third of the way down where it begins “State-By-State Positions”)
California (Stand-your-ground exists in case law. Criminal jury instructions affirm no duty to retreat both in the home (CALCRIM 506) and elsewhere (CALCRIM 3470 and 505). Castle Doctrine appears in California Penal Code § 198.5, which creates a presumption of reasonable fear of imminent peril when force is used against an unlawful intruder in one's residence.
And I thank you very much. Obvious to me is that I am remembering the arguments leading up to Castle Doctrine.
One news article mentioned that under current law, when a person breaking in front door, a person would be required to run to furthest room, lock the door and call police. If running out the back door was the only option he must do it, presumably even if snow on the ground.
Naturally we all often argue like the lawyers where each takes an extreme position the opposite way assuming the jury will compromise. If ones argument is normal and the other extreme the jury will to often compromise toward the extreme.
So I chose the position of one further up the mountain in deeper snow and the only way out being the upstairs window. Why, because I know how goofy California courts and lawmakers can be.
So now I must read a bit more about the Stand Your Ground Law and see how California fits in. I have not been there in about 8 years but still browse a few California newspapers on the internet on occasion.
Yes I also would like to discuss the Tueller Drill, Has it yet entered at least case-law, or is it still just a reason to bring in expert witnesses.
(I am not claiming Wikipedia is always right, just pretty good)
Castle doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Scrolling about a third of the way down where it begins “State-By-State Positions”)
California (Stand-your-ground exists in case law. Criminal jury instructions affirm no duty to retreat both in the home (CALCRIM 506) and elsewhere (CALCRIM 3470 and 505). Castle Doctrine appears in California Penal Code § 198.5, which creates a presumption of reasonable fear of imminent peril when force is used against an unlawful intruder in one's residence.
TexasArmed
Member
Well all of the laws are in a state of flux in a lot of states. When I lived in Tennessee one had to retreat. I like our SYG laws and I also like strong castle doctrine laws we have in Texas and right to protect property. I am hearing bad things about California law and recent changes.
Castle Doctrine applies to your home or vehicle if your in it in Texas and if outside the home SYG. In my home I sleep less than 7 feet from the dead bolted door. There is no back door, one way in and one way out, unless you count windows that would take awhile to get thru. So if the law changes in Texas I would have to be a tunnel rat or an outlaw. I for one would hate to see the nation disintegrate, but I would rather see that than see SYG repealed. I think at least in Texas it will not change.
David Armstrong
Member
Don't know when that was, but about a dozen states still had retreat statutes in the home around 20 years ago. Since then they have all pretty much gone to Castle Doctrine of some sorts.
It gets a little worse!
SYG is a broad concept, and different states have incorporated it in different ways. So you have the umbrella law for SYG but then you also have the individual tweaking given to it by different state legislatures.It cannot and will not become case law as it is not a issue that can be adjudicated. It is a concept that can be used to help establish reasonableness of your response.
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
You said earlier that you generally support SYG. If I'm reading the above correctly, you don't so much support the removal of preclusion outside the home, is that right?
The guiding principle of SYG is removal of preclusion (no duty to retreat). I don't quite understand how one can generally support SYG with the exception of standing your ground.
-------------
Inside the home-- You don't see any reason for preclusion.
Let's use your shovel thing. Same circumstances, but the only difference is the man is now looking out the front window of his home as the guy with the shovel is screaming death threats and bashing in the front door with a shovel. The man in his home stands for 30 seconds with gun in hand until the door is broken down and then shoots as the man charges in. The man lives in a townwhome with the garage at the rear of the house. During that 30 seconds he could have jumped in his car and driven away.... which coincidently is one of the options you suggested be taken when the man was outside to separate the "can do" from the "must do" concerns you have.
----------------------
You suggested that stand your ground leads to confusion. It appears to me that the confusion is inconsistencies with duty to retreat which SYG helps to eliminate.
Last edited:
David Armstrong
Member
I think the issue of preclusion outside the home needs to be clarified and possibly revised, yes.
I support standing your ground as long as standing your ground is a logical and sensible act and not based on other criminal behaviors.
-------------
Sorry, I see a difference between defending your home from an intruder breaking into your private space and standing your ground in a public place. The two are very different historically and traditionally.
----------------------
No, so far the confusion has been that SYG eliminates the reasonableness test. At least that is what I have seen in the cases I've looked at.
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
Nah... what you're continuing to describe is the same duty to retreat for anything and everything that a zealous prosecutor or ambulance chaser can dream up. Just like you are doing with your shovel thing here... stood for too many seconds without retreating, could have retreated to the car, the house...wherever... blah blah blah. That it the type of confusion and nonsense that SYG is designed to help eliminate and protect those who are defending themselves. No thanks.
Enjoyed the discussion.
Last edited:
Similar threads
