Originally Posted by
Yum Cha
Guys, if you wanna go all zimmerman and martin on each other feel free, but how does this apply to the rest of us, armed or hand-to-hand and the threats we could face?
And maybe even why or what are the implications? The burdens as a 'trained' fighter? Is it like being armed? In Aus, that's the deal: 'responding with reasonable force' applies to trained fighters, and security, like door men and bodyguards. It makes the assumption you have an advantage.
Wikipedia:
"A stand-your-ground law is a type of self-defense law that gives individuals the right to use reasonable force to defend themselves without any requirement to evade or retreat from a dangerous situation. It is law in certain jurisdictions within the United States. The basis may lie in either statutory law and or common law precedents. One key distinction is whether the concept only applies to defending a home or vehicle, or whether it applies to all lawfully occupied locations."
To me, it reads you don't have to run if you can.
And the second point is, not just in your home or car, but anywhere.
So, somewhere there must be a burden of proof of aggression?
Somewhere in there is the issue of "feeling" threatened vs 'being' threatened?
I mean, say, you put up your dukes in defence of an aggressive lout, so he feels threatened and pulls a gun "standing his ground?". Now the serve is back to you on standing your ground?....Nobody's touched nobody yet. You know the deal, if you're close and someone pulls a weapon, you go lethal yourself... Isn't even brandishing a holstered weapon a threat? Who was doing what? What is a defensive posture, vs what is an offensive threatening posture?
Take away defending your home (and property if you must) and it gets pretty ambiguous...