Poll: Do you agree with the Stand Your Ground Laws
Yes. They are good self-defense laws
No. They are unnecessary and often abused and misused
Unsure. (Comment)
[Show Results]
 
Stand your ground laws
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-07-2013, 02:37 PM
RE: Stand your ground laws
If I am in a scenario where someone verbally threatens me and seems genuine, my best defense is to leave. Acting like me getting into a fight is an intelligent choice is barbaric. If someone pulls a knife and threatens you, that is a different scenario. But the Stand Your Ground Laws have lead to convictions for not actually using a weapon against someone in self defense and as a defense for killing someone who was unarmed but thought to be armed.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2013, 02:48 PM
RE: Stand your ground laws
(23-07-2013 02:06 PM)joshChase Wrote:  
(18-07-2013 09:52 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  [SNIPPED]The Stand Your Ground Laws are morally reprehensible. They allow you to preemptively attack someone under the guise of feeling "threatened." Rubbish I say.

Stand Your Ground does NOT give you the right to preemption, there must be extenuating circumstances which convey a threat. Stand Your Ground is antithetical to Duty to Retreat.

We can examine this by taking the same scenario and applying both concepts to it and see what the outcomes are.

Scenario - Joe and Alan do not know or recognize each other. Joe is walking down the street, legally entitled to be where he is doing what he is doing. Alan is walking along the same sidewalk but in the opposite direction. As Joe and Alan near each other they happen to look at each other momentarily as people do in this type of scenario. Joe decides, for whatever reason, that he doesn't like the way Alan looked at him and says "What's your problem?" Alan doesn't have a problem and says "Nothing." Joe believes that Alan is lying (he isn't) and escalates the situation by saying, "You'd better get out of here before you get hurt."

Stand Your Ground - Alan has done nothing wrong and is legally allowed to be on the sidewalk. The confrontation was created by Joe, not Alan. Under Stand Your Ground Alan's right to be on the sidewalk is being improperly challenged by Joe. Since Alan has a right to be there he is justified in standing his ground - he is there legally, did not provoke a confrontation, and there is no justification for Joe to say he shouldn't be there and to imply harm to Alan. The burden of responsibility is on Joe for creating the situation.

Duty to Retreat - Alan has done nothing wrong and is legally allowed to be on the sidewalk. The confrontation was created by Joe, not Alan. Under Duty to Retreat Alan would be required to extricate himself from the situation which creates two problems:
1) Alan would be required to deny himself the right to be where he was.
2) This creates burden of responsibility on Alan, the victim in this scenario, who has done nothing wrong. Joe has effectively created a requirement for Alan to deny himself his rights. Put another way, Joe's right to be on the sidewalk now exceed's Alan's because Alan now has a duty to retreat because of the situation which conflicts with his right to be on the sidewalk.

The Duty to Retreat is truly reprehensible, as is requires self-denial of rights and imposes a burden on the victim based on the actions of the perpetrator.

Yeah Alan should just cut that bitch. He knows he's in the right. No need to be a bigger man there. Better yet, shoot the fucker. That should teach him!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2013, 03:11 PM
RE: Stand your ground laws
(23-07-2013 02:37 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  If I am in a scenario where someone verbally threatens me and seems genuine, my best defense is to leave. Acting like me getting into a fight is an intelligent choice is barbaric. If someone pulls a knife and threatens you, that is a different scenario. But the Stand Your Ground Laws have lead to convictions for not actually using a weapon against someone in self defense and as a defense for killing someone who was unarmed but thought to be armed.

Your best defense is to leave if you have that option. Life is not often so considerate. So you would argue that if Joe said "I will stab you" but didn't show a knife that you were less threatened? I disagree, as the production of the knife serves as evidence that Joe is serious but the knife isn't the threat, Joe saying "I will stab you" is. By your logic if someone were to say they have a gun when robbing a store but don't produce it we shouldn't charge them with armed robbery. This in spite of the fact that their saying that they have a gun causes more fear and cause for concern for the people being robbed.

We can argue on the proper application of SYG and self-defense defenses until we are blue in the face. Might it lead to an improper acquittal? I would argue no, as the state's job is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and an acquittal is a reflection of the state failing to do so. Acquittal does not equal innocence, it's failure to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't like it when people get off on technicalities but to get rid of SYG means that everyone who defends themselves is subject to prosecution, even you in the Joe scenario.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2013, 03:20 PM
RE: Stand your ground laws
(23-07-2013 02:48 PM)Jakel Wrote:  
(23-07-2013 02:06 PM)joshChase Wrote:  Stand Your Ground does NOT give you the right to preemption, there must be extenuating circumstances which convey a threat. Stand Your Ground is antithetical to Duty to Retreat.

We can examine this by taking the same scenario and applying both concepts to it and see what the outcomes are.

Scenario - Joe and Alan do not know or recognize each other. Joe is walking down the street, legally entitled to be where he is doing what he is doing. Alan is walking along the same sidewalk but in the opposite direction. As Joe and Alan near each other they happen to look at each other momentarily as people do in this type of scenario. Joe decides, for whatever reason, that he doesn't like the way Alan looked at him and says "What's your problem?" Alan doesn't have a problem and says "Nothing." Joe believes that Alan is lying (he isn't) and escalates the situation by saying, "You'd better get out of here before you get hurt."

Stand Your Ground - Alan has done nothing wrong and is legally allowed to be on the sidewalk. The confrontation was created by Joe, not Alan. Under Stand Your Ground Alan's right to be on the sidewalk is being improperly challenged by Joe. Since Alan has a right to be there he is justified in standing his ground - he is there legally, did not provoke a confrontation, and there is no justification for Joe to say he shouldn't be there and to imply harm to Alan. The burden of responsibility is on Joe for creating the situation.

Duty to Retreat - Alan has done nothing wrong and is legally allowed to be on the sidewalk. The confrontation was created by Joe, not Alan. Under Duty to Retreat Alan would be required to extricate himself from the situation which creates two problems:
1) Alan would be required to deny himself the right to be where he was.
2) This creates burden of responsibility on Alan, the victim in this scenario, who has done nothing wrong. Joe has effectively created a requirement for Alan to deny himself his rights. Put another way, Joe's right to be on the sidewalk now exceed's Alan's because Alan now has a duty to retreat because of the situation which conflicts with his right to be on the sidewalk.

The Duty to Retreat is truly reprehensible, as is requires self-denial of rights and imposes a burden on the victim based on the actions of the perpetrator.

Yeah Alan should just cut that bitch. He knows he's in the right. No need to be a bigger man there. Better yet, shoot the fucker. That should teach him!

Your comment is illogical in the context.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2013, 03:26 PM
RE: Stand your ground laws
(23-07-2013 02:37 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  If I am in a scenario where someone verbally threatens me and seems genuine, my best defense is to leave. Acting like me getting into a fight is an intelligent choice is barbaric. If someone pulls a knife and threatens you, that is a different scenario. But the Stand Your Ground Laws have lead to convictions for not actually using a weapon against someone in self defense and as a defense for killing someone who was unarmed but thought to be armed.

You are assuming facts not in evidence.

Again, it depends on the intent and wording of the statute. joshCase has made a logical case for the ethical basis of a stand your ground law.

The law should assign liability and responsibility. It is immoral to require a victim to retreat. Of course, one tries to defuse the situation, but that is not always possible.

In that sidewalk scenario, I would be physically unable to run away. What is my duty? What is my moral responsibility?

I have the right to be there and I have the right to defend my right.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
23-07-2013, 03:30 PM
RE: Stand your ground laws
(23-07-2013 03:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-07-2013 02:37 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  If I am in a scenario where someone verbally threatens me and seems genuine, my best defense is to leave. Acting like me getting into a fight is an intelligent choice is barbaric. If someone pulls a knife and threatens you, that is a different scenario. But the Stand Your Ground Laws have lead to convictions for not actually using a weapon against someone in self defense and as a defense for killing someone who was unarmed but thought to be armed.

You are assuming facts not in evidence.

Again, it depends on the intent and wording of the statute. joshCase has made a logical case for the ethical basis of a stand your ground law.

The law should assign liability and responsibility. It is immoral to require a victim to retreat. Of course, one tries to defuse the situation, but that is not always possible.

In that sidewalk scenario, I would be physically unable to run away. What is my duty? What is my moral responsibility?

I have the right to be there and I have the right to defend my right.

This is the problem with the SYG laws they are horribly worded and too vague. If they instead spelled out Legitimate Self defense(which I agree with) then if Joe pulls a knife you are in the clear to defend yourself but if you take his vague warning or implied threat as provocation and preemptively shoot him you are now liable.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2013, 03:36 PM
RE: Stand your ground laws
(23-07-2013 03:20 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-07-2013 02:48 PM)Jakel Wrote:  Yeah Alan should just cut that bitch. He knows he's in the right. No need to be a bigger man there. Better yet, shoot the fucker. That should teach him!

Your comment is illogical in the context.

Sure. But the comment is just so fustrating and stupid in my opinion. The attitude presented in that example is the exact sterotypical image of americans I have. All I see in "Alan" is a trigger happy idiot waiting for an excuse to pull out hes weapon and use it. Self-defense is self-defense and SYG (at least in that case) is just looking for excuses to kill someone.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2013, 03:38 PM
RE: Stand your ground laws
(23-07-2013 03:30 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(23-07-2013 03:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  You are assuming facts not in evidence.

Again, it depends on the intent and wording of the statute. joshCase has made a logical case for the ethical basis of a stand your ground law.

The law should assign liability and responsibility. It is immoral to require a victim to retreat. Of course, one tries to defuse the situation, but that is not always possible.

In that sidewalk scenario, I would be physically unable to run away. What is my duty? What is my moral responsibility?

I have the right to be there and I have the right to defend my right.

This is the problem with the SYG laws they are horribly worded and too vague. If they instead spelled out Legitimate Self defense(which I agree with) then if Joe pulls a knife you are in the clear to defend yourself but if you take his vague warning or implied threat as provocation and preemptively shoot him you are now liable.

Well, I think that really is the intent.
There have been cases of self-defense where the victim was convicted of a crime for not retreating.

Does anyone have a link to the actual text of a stand your ground law that is vague?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2013, 03:40 PM
RE: Stand your ground laws
(23-07-2013 03:36 PM)Jakel Wrote:  
(23-07-2013 03:20 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your comment is illogical in the context.

Sure. But the comment is just so fustrating and stupid in my opinion. The attitude presented in that example is the exact sterotypical image of americans I have. All I see in "Alan" is a trigger happy idiot waiting for an excuse to pull out hes weapon and use it. Self-defense is self-defense and SYG (at least in that case) is just looking for excuses to kill someone.

And you are reading into the example that which is simply not there.

Alan is walking down the sidewalk and is accosted. What gun? What trigger happy?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2013, 03:42 PM
RE: Stand your ground laws
(23-07-2013 03:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-07-2013 02:37 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  If I am in a scenario where someone verbally threatens me and seems genuine, my best defense is to leave. Acting like me getting into a fight is an intelligent choice is barbaric. If someone pulls a knife and threatens you, that is a different scenario. But the Stand Your Ground Laws have lead to convictions for not actually using a weapon against someone in self defense and as a defense for killing someone who was unarmed but thought to be armed.

You are assuming facts not in evidence.

Again, it depends on the intent and wording of the statute. joshCase has made a logical case for the ethical basis of a stand your ground law.

The law should assign liability and responsibility. It is immoral to require a victim to retreat. Of course, one tries to defuse the situation, but that is not always possible.

In that sidewalk scenario, I would be physically unable to run away. What is my duty? What is my moral responsibility?

I have the right to be there and I have the right to defend my right.

So what about morals? We're talking about the potential for someone to get hurt or maimed. And...if you are worried about so-called "Tough Guys" like Joe going around and abusing people - then don't.

I mean, two of the worst ass-whoopings I've ever seen (I'm talking about baseball-bat beat down in-the-hospital whoopings) were administered by guys who did not "stand their ground". Instead of "Standing their Ground" these guys went off to get weapons and friends and waited to catch the bullies alone where no one could witness or interrupt their form of "payback". This is what eventually happens to all "tough guys" - and it comes sooner than later.

Such is life - and it's a reason why it's crazy to make a stand on the street.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: