Stand your ground laws: A license to kill?

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by leogator, Jul 21, 2013.

  1. Tasselhoff
    Offline

    Tasselhoff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +400
    Oh. Your link says nothing about a ratio between justifiable homicides and homicides in any state. It just says justifiable homicides are up in states with syg. To which most reasonable people would say...well duh. Of course they are.
  2. bludigal
    Offline

    bludigal New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,973
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +2
    It shouldn't matter if it is reasonable to you, or if you would do the same thing. It matters if the person is reasonable. So unless you can show the person is insane or crazy a reasonable person did it. It does't say would the majority of people do the same thing in that given situation, it says would a reasonable person. So, is the defendant reasonable? Yes? They walk. Easy.
  3. leogator
    Offline

    leogator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,446
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Melbourne, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +175
    Really, why is it so logial to you that justifiable homicides are up. Don't you think that they might be other reasons? Maybe like a lot more concealed weapons permits have been issued to people that are not psychologically qualified to have them? People with twitchy fingers?

    And just in case anybody misinterprets, I own guns, I'm a crack shot, I don't have a concealed weapons permit and have never ever found myself in a situation that required use of a gun, even when I was a bouncer!

    If you are a white man and feel like it's your legal right to drive through the hood at 1:00 am in the morning, you need to have our head examined. Same goes if you're a metrosexual and show up at a country and western bar in Midland, Texas. Rule number of survival: Don't be an effing idiot!
  4. Tasselhoff
    Offline

    Tasselhoff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +400
    Again. Show me a case where someone who is psychologically disturbed used syg sucessfully to defend themself after killing someone. Give me a case where a white guy was drivong through the the hood at 3 in the morning and use syg to get a not guilty verdict after killing someone. You want to make hypotheticals. You want to jump to conclusions. You want to postulate. If there are so many of these psychos running around...show us some examples.
  5. wcj786
    Offline

    wcj786 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,341
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +232
    Here is what I don't understand from you liberals. Why is it MY RESPONSIBILITY to attempt to defuse a situation by turning tail and running? Why do you not assign that same responsibility to the ACTUAL CRIMINAL??? Is it because you think that bullying, harassing, and/or battery are actually things that should be legal?

    If some jackass wants to harass, assault, or attempt to rob or kill me, I say they no longer deserve the right to live. I shouldn't have to turn tail and flee. I have every right to be where I am (as long as I am not breaking the law by trespassing), so screw the !@#$ criminal who comes at me. They deserve nothing BUT to be killed.

    I would love to see that SYG average go up by 400, 1000, 10000 per year. Then, maybe, we could get rid of all the damn violent criminals and make those who contemplate committing violent crimes think better about it.

    You use the strawman argument that the SYG defense should be declared illegal because it MIGHT be misused. So, instead of allowing LAW-ABIDING citizens to defend themselves with SYG, you would rather allow criminals the right to attack with only allowing the defendent the right to run. Why should the defender have to make any attempt to flee? Why should they not be able to just pull a gun and kill when that situation arises?

    Please make the case that a victim should NOT have the right to defend themselves without attempting to flee first. Don't give the strawman that the law could be misused. Defend your position that a victim should NOT have the right to defend themselves without attempting to flee first.
  6. wcj786
    Offline

    wcj786 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,341
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +232
    He was a Seminole, enough said!!!

    On a more realistic note, that is the breaks of the game. Both were in the wrong when they got into the shoving match (i.e. started fighting). But, if the Seminole was reaching into his pocket and the Gator felt his life was in danger, then he ABSOLUTELY had the right to pull and shoot himself. (This is true, irregardless of whether the two were sports fans or not.)

    Based on your scenario, where you state that everybody started ducking and thought the Seminole had a gun, then the Gator would and SHOULD be able to get out of any criminal charge in response to the shooting itself. The shoving match/fighting would be a different charge.

    On a different note, if I was the Gator in that scenario, I would, in all likelihood, never carry again and the killing would haunt me. But, not because of the actual shooting, but because I would know that I could have avoided it by not arguing or just walking away before I got into the fight.

    But, your entire scenario is not an SYG case, so we can discuss it all you want, but it does not meet the SYG criteria. They were already in a physical altercation, so SYG does not apply. Since there was already a physical interaction between them, when the Seminole reached into his pocket, the Gator would have been justified, based on the previous immediate altercation, to feel threatened and have not time to retreat. In that case, it is strictly a Self Defense issue, not an SYG issue.
  7. wcj786
    Offline

    wcj786 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,341
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +232
    Please, if you are going to start stating that "Many criminals have gotten off with this law....not exactly something one wants to hear.", provide proof of your assertion. Otherwise, it is nothing more than speculation and, at worst, outright lies.
  8. Tasselhoff
    Offline

    Tasselhoff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +400
    Because if we defend ourselves we often use...gasp...gu s. And every good liberal knows that guns are bad.
  9. Gator515151
    Offline

    Gator515151 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    19,139
    Likes Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +256
    Wow Justifiable homicides have gone up from an average of 13.2 to 42. That is awesome, that means there are 29 people per year that under the old system would have been in prison for defending themselves.
  10. wcj786
    Offline

    wcj786 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,341
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +232
    Why do you interpret the word justifiable in the term justifiable homicide as a negative? Why do you automatically assume that those justifiable homicides could have been avoided if SYG was not around?

    WAIT!!! I will answer that last question for you!!! The justifiable homicides would have been avoided because the reverse would have been what happened, murders!!!

    You don't like the law. We all understand that. You don't think there is any situation in which you could perceive that the law is justified. You previously used a scenario. Well, I will give you another one.

    You are on vacation in Orlando (or any other city you do not live). You are driving and get a flat tire AT NIGHT. Your wife and kids (2.5) are with you. All of the sudden, you see 5 males that look to be in their early 20's coming towards the car. They are dressed in what you know in YOUR CITY to be gang colors. One of them has a chain in his hands. Another, a tire iron. They are making disparaging remarks about your wife and what they would do if she was their woman.

    Now, would you have a reasonable justification for WORRYING that something may happen at this point??? But, let's continue...

    Your daughter is 16 and has a very well developed body. They start commenting on her and how they want to do things to her. All the while, they continue to walk towards the car.

    Now, you still have, at this point, the option to flee your vehicle with your wife and kids. Are you going to to that??? My thought, based on your previous posts, is you would not. But, now to continue...

    These young men are now right up to the car, continuing their talk about what they want to do to your wife and daughter. They have yet to raise a hand against anybody, but would a reasonable person have a justifiable feeling of imminent danger in this situation, to either themselves or their family? If you answer YES, then they have the right to pull their weapon and shoot. If you answer No, in this situation, then you are flat out LYING to everybody, including yourself.
  11. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,053
    Likes Received:
    515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,222
    I think thats a lot closer call than you are making it out to be. It would depend on what they were saying (i.e., "I'd like to" or "I would" vs "I'm going to"), but even as a pretty strong supporter of the law I could see myself potentially voting to convict you of something on those facts depending on some specifics you haven't provided.
  12. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,518
    Likes Received:
    596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,808
    Castle and SYG laws are not meant to turn any given crime against even your person, let alone your property, into a de facto capital crime. They speak only to when (and where) citizens deserve the most benefit of the doubt for their use of force, especially deadly force.

    To wit, if it is time to shoot, it is because the very next thing to happen if you don't will be potentially deadly, to you or someone else. Rather, that it was reasonable to believe the very next thing would be that. If the scary guy is still just looking at your car, the moment has not truly arrived yet, not with clarity.
  13. Tasselhoff
    Offline

    Tasselhoff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +400
    True. But if my wife and daughter are in jeapordy..I am not taking that chance. 911 would be called for help and my gun would be pointing at them long before they got to the car. I would not shoot until I had to...but I would be prepared and ready far in advance...and pray the popo gets tbere before anythjng happens.
  14. rock8591
    Offline

    rock8591 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,517
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +75
    People know nothing about the SYG law, in terms of its statutes, only quick summaries of what they hear here and there.
  15. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,518
    Likes Received:
    596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,808
    The point being, it is as Ben says a much closer question if they are actually, reasonably in jeopardy in that roadside hypo. To me, it is at least in part worthwhile to think of these situations the way police have to -- it isn't as if good cops aren't assessing every person that approaches then or glances at their weapon as a possible threat. But the bar is pretty high before they can threaten with, let alone fire their gun. If your roadside stranger actually makes his proverbial move, or at least twitches inappropriately, that is one thing. His mere presence is not just cause to shoot him in any state.
  16. Tasselhoff
    Offline

    Tasselhoff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +400
    I didn't say it was. I said my gun would be out and ready. Not in the glove compartment not in the holster. In my lap in my hand. Ready. Not shooting until necessary but ready if and when necessary.

Share This Page