Stand your ground law

Discussion in 'Politics' started by franks71vw, Jul 16, 2013.

  1. franks71vw

    franks71vw Monkey+++

    Rant On...
    So now it seems that people Zimmerman has been found not guilty the judical process, specially in this case, is not good enough. People now want to remove the stand your ground laws to make "gun toting" individuals run from an altercation etc even though they may have the legal right to be where they are. Let me get this straight then, you are walking down the street and a damn thug pulls a knife on you and now you may be forced to retreat. WTF reasoning is this. Prudence must be use in every situtation and indeed sometimes the best course of action to to just leave the scene but holy F balls.... Really do these libertards [AH] have a brain cell left in their skulls. Ironic that CCW laws passed crime is dropping with the changes of these laws but no the deprived need more help to attack and kill people... Funny no one comments on the Marine that was killed in GA nor the 13month old baby that was shot at point blank range... who has the rest button!

    Rant OFF
    tulianr, Icefoot and ghrit like this.
  2. Icefoot

    Icefoot Monkey+

    Most libtards equate "Stand your ground" with 1960's western movie "go into the street and shoot somebody because your pride got hurt" scenes. They have no understanding that running away from thugs only encourages the thugs to continue their thuggish behavior. They don't understand that there are situations where running away puts someone else in harm's way. And if that someone else is someone you love, running away is a very poor choice that many would consider no choice at all. Personally, I like the CHOICE to run away if it makes sense and not the OBLIGATION to run away first with no regard for the consequences.

    And don't EVEN try to bring facts like the drop in violent crime in CCW areas into an argument with libtards. They can't deal with the confusion it creates and just start name calling until you give up and go away.
    tacmotusn, kellory, tulianr and 3 others like this.
  3. co9mil

    co9mil Monkey

    Kinda hard to run away when someone is sitting on you. Florida's stand your ground law wasn't a factor in the Zimmerman trial as far as I can see.
    Capt. Tyree, kellory, tulianr and 4 others like this.
  4. franks71vw

    franks71vw Monkey+++

    It sure wasn't nor did he invoke it... but this case has now brought it up to the forefront and people "media" are screaming bloody murder.... I sometimes think if my brain is screwed up because i think differently. What a headache I get trying to explain this case and the situation to people....
  5. William Antrum

    William Antrum GunMetal Monkey

    Well It limits (stand your ground :ie the Castle Doctrine or amendment) to Your street or block and only if there is imminent death or danger, again in close proximity to your home local. CCw has its limits too when and where,but you are able to go all over the state except for "gun free" zones schools and banks .....
  6. William Antrum

    William Antrum GunMetal Monkey

    In order to fully appreciate Florida's Castle Doctrine, you need to understand how things were back in the day.
    Historically, if a victim was in her home and a bad guy broke in, and the victim killed the bad guy; the victim had to show to a prosecutor or the court how she was in fear for her life. This could be very costly, and take an emotional toll. The law ignored the fact that the bad guy had absolutely no business being there in the first place. If evidence was available that could show that the bad guy had no intentions of hurting the victim, only taking her property, she could be prosecuted or sued for defending herself with deadly force.
    The idea was that if the victim could escape from her home, and if the bad guy only wanted to steal property, she couldn't use deadly force to stop him. The victim had a legal duty to retreat even though she did nothing wrong. Presumably the lawmakers believed that every human life is equally valuable, regardless of how evil that life is. Only the courts could take a life as punishment for a crime.
    Florida lawmakers then realized that the victim shouldn't have the burden of proving anything if attacked because, well, they are the victim. We are going to stop blaming the victim.
    "It is not now and has never been the law that a man assailed in his own dwelling is bound to retreat. If assailed there, he may STAND HIS GROUND and resist attack. He is under no duty to take to the fields and highways a fugitive from his own home." Chief Judge Benjamin Cardozo for a unanimous court.
    Florida adopted some new rules, among them, The Castle Doctrine. A woman's home is her castle, as is her apartment, hotel room, car, truck or van. She has a right to be left alone if she is doing no harm. Should a bad guy decide to break into her castle, she now has the absolute right to use deadly force to defend herself.
    For the purposes of the Castle Doctrine, your castle is a dwelling or conveyance (car, truck, van, boat, private airplane) of any kind, including an attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
    Is this a good idea? Yes. While all men are created equal, it is also true that all people do not remain equal when they make decisions in their life to hurt and kill other people without justification. The life of the bad guy is not as valuable as the life of the school teacher, nurse, or therapist. If a bad guy breaks into the school teacher, nurse, or therapist's home, she has a God given right to defend herself and the law gives her the right to use deadly force rather than forcing her to dwell on why the bad guy is in her home.
    The Castle Doctrine maintains a legal presumption that when the bad guy breaks into her home, his intent is to hurt or kill her. This presumption is conclusive and cannot be challenged with evidence showing any other intent. All that matters is that the bad guy shouldn't be there.
    To summarize, the Castle Doctrine affects you in three dramatic ways,
    1) It creates a legal presumption if someone forcibly enters your home or occupied vehicle, that person is there to hurt or kill you or one of your guests, and you may use defensive force, including deadly force, against this person.
    2) You have no duty to retreat. You don't have to turn your back on your attacker, or otherwise appear vulnerable. You are allowed to stand your ground and fight back if you reasonably believe you are in imminent fear of serious bodily injury or death.
    3) If you legally defend yourself, you cannot be sued in civil court or prosecuted in criminal court.
    Get this wrong and you can find yourself in a heap of trouble. Now if someone is in your driveway breaking into your unoccupied truck, you are not allowed to use deadly force under the Castle Doctrine. If someone isn't breaking into your castle, or has already broken into your castle, but left and they are just prowling around outside; or they have broken into your unattached shed in your back yard, that alone isn't reason enough to use deadly force. It doesn't matter where your moat is, if the bad guy isn't breaking in, or isn't already in your castle, deadly force isn't justified.
    Is deadly force always the best option? If no one else is in the home and escape is easy and safe, many would argue that it is easier and cheaper to let the bad guy try to steal the plasma TV while the victim is at a safe distance on the phone with the cops rather than use deadly force. Kill the bad guy, spend hours talking with law enforcement, and then spend thousands on a cleaning company as they try to remove blood stains from the tile floor. Some may also experience emotional or mental stress from taking someone's life, even if it is the life of a bad guy...
    Icefoot, tacmotusn and tulianr like this.
survivalmonkey SSL seal warrant canary