Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 141

Thread: Stand your ground

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Bondi, Sydney Australia
    Posts
    2,502

    Stand your ground

    This seems to be rather topical these days. I know we have American, Canadian, English and Australian folks here, we all live under the principles of English Common Law, and how its evolved in each country.

    In Australia, the principle of self defence is that you can appropriate force to stop the attack, but you can't continue on, pursue or otherwise beat the sh1t out of someone.
    As soon as they cease their attack, you must too. You must be attacked first.
    Its dumb. And often results in people who were the victims being charged. You have no special rights if the incident happens in your bedroom, or on the street.

    Not sure, but the UK had a similar interpretation, until recently where they introduced some 'stand your ground' type language, where you were allowed to respond 'if you felt threatened' without having to wait to be attacked. That was in the news last year?

    What is the situation in the states with this Florida 'stand your ground' law everybody is talking about? And I'm sure it applies to hand to hand as well as guns, in principle?
    Guangzhou Pak Mei Kung Fu School, Sydney Australia,
    Sifu Leung, Yuk Seng
    Established 1989, Glebe Australia

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    987
    "Stand Your Ground" is Strategy, the Art of Corporate Takeover (seems odd, isn't it) where corporations fight for ownership of USA and allow the citizens to fight for the scraps!

    "Stand you ground" usually implies you do not have to run from anything or anyone as long as you have a gun but that works 2 ways but in USA this is just a legalized method of Civil Way bushwacking where citizens (at least those with priviledge) were allowed, or got away with shooting someone while they were unarmed, or in the back just because....they could. So legalized bushwacking is coming back with a vengeance.
    When Ronald Reagan put down stood up to the Air Traffic controllers back then, the corporations decided that they could change policy and usurp any organization that used Unions as bargaining tools for the betterment of the AMerican worker. "Stand You Ground" ain't about guns but a nefarious policy of corporate takeover. Find a wedge issue to rile up the people, use it to an advantage and hit the ground running to sow division. It is working and has been for some time

  3. #3

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by mawali View Post
    "Stand Your Ground" is Strategy, the Art of Corporate Takeover (seems odd, isn't it) where corporations fight for ownership of USA and allow the citizens to fight for the scraps!

    "Stand you ground" usually implies you do not have to run from anything or anyone as long as you have a gun but that works 2 ways but in USA this is just a legalized method of Civil Way bushwacking where citizens (at least those with priviledge) were allowed, or got away with shooting someone while they were unarmed, or in the back just because....they could. So legalized bushwacking is coming back with a vengeance.
    When Ronald Reagan put down stood up to the Air Traffic controllers back then, the corporations decided that they could change policy and usurp any organization that used Unions as bargaining tools for the betterment of the AMerican worker. "Stand You Ground" ain't about guns but a nefarious policy of corporate takeover. Find a wedge issue to rile up the people, use it to an advantage and hit the ground running to sow division. It is working and has been for some time

    Relax with your conspiracies. Stand your ground is to protect nice neighborhoods against ghetto people that don't belong there. If you don't pay rent and live in a nice apartment complex you don't have the right to walk through there or loiter there. The law is in place in Florida because there are A LOT of break ins and robberies.


    Trayvon Martin was a football player and was huge. He had been suspended from school for drug possession and had weed in his system at the time of the shooting. The media tried to keep all of this a secret and also kept circulating pictures of him when he was 10 years old making him look small and innocent. In reality he beat the crap out of Zimmerman. The prosecutor lost the case against Zimmerman because HE DIDNT HAVE A CASE. It was self defense.



    This has nothing to do with race. The same exact situation happened in Florida where a black(stand your ground person) was armed and approached a white man that didnt belong. The white man proceeded to beat the crap out of the black guy and the black guy shot him and killed him. Nobody heads about this because it didnt play into the "white people are holding black people down" narrative that was being portrayed in the media.

    Nobody is hearing about all the rioting that is going on in Manhattan either in reaction to the Trayvon verdict. Black people are rioting like mad in NYC and the media won't report it. What a joke.
    Last edited by SavvySavage; 07-26-2013 at 09:35 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Bondi, Sydney Australia
    Posts
    2,502
    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...
    Guangzhou Pak Mei Kung Fu School, Sydney Australia,
    Sifu Leung, Yuk Seng
    Established 1989, Glebe Australia

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Yum Cha View Post
    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...
    It's a good idea for the stand your ground guys to have to call the cops anytime they make an approach.

    The person who is walking through the neighborhood needs to prove he lives there. Obviously the streets are free to walk but not apartment complexes. So the burden is on the person being approached by the guards.

    Karate blackbelts used to have to register their hands as deadly which was so lame. I don't think you should have to tell anyone what you do. Just because you study marital arts or mma doesn't mean anything. Any old joe can commit a robbery or hurt someone in a fight. Martial arts training is irrelevant IMO.

  6. #6
    This thread isn't going to last long. Too many people get offended or are in denial of the truth. Good bye thread.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Yum Cha View Post
    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?
    it doesn't apply to me, im not black.

    25th generation inner door disciple of Chen Style Practical Wombat Method
    Officially certified by Ethiopian Orthodox patriarch Abune Mathias
    grandmaster instructor of Wombat Combat™®LLC Practical Wombat Method. international academy retreat

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by bawang View Post
    it doesn't apply to me, im not black.
    I'm black from the waist down so it applies to me.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by SavvySavage View Post
    I'm black from the waist down so it applies to me.
    then you only get beat from the waist down, you are very lucky.

    25th generation inner door disciple of Chen Style Practical Wombat Method
    Officially certified by Ethiopian Orthodox patriarch Abune Mathias
    grandmaster instructor of Wombat Combat™®LLC Practical Wombat Method. international academy retreat

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Bondi, Sydney Australia
    Posts
    2,502
    So, Savvy, are you saying "Stand your ground guys" are guys out standing their ground before there is a threat, in a pre-emptive manner?

    Those are guards mate, what rules to guards operate under?
    Guangzhou Pak Mei Kung Fu School, Sydney Australia,
    Sifu Leung, Yuk Seng
    Established 1989, Glebe Australia

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    470
    In our local law, even the guy in front of us has made a threat to attack me, it is sufficient ground for me to carry out self-defense. Because a threat to attack is still regarded as an physical attack. The same reasoning applies to the guy pointing a loaded gun at me. He has committed a felony already.



    Regards,

    KC
    Hong Kong

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Yum Cha View Post
    So, Savvy, are you saying "Stand your ground guys" are guys out standing their ground before there is a threat, in a pre-emptive manner?

    Those are guards mate, what rules to guards operate under?
    The law and its stipulations are what the "guards" go by. I'm not saying I agree 100% but that's why here in the States there is federal law and state law. Federal law is the law of the land but states make their own laws based on their needs and within the federal laws. The citizens of Florida felt they needed this law because that is the culture over there. Just like New York voted to legalize gay marriage...but California didnt want gay marriage to be legal whichc was surprising. If there was something wrong worth the law the federal goverent would have struck it down. Maybe they will try to after the outcome of this case.

    This just goes to show that you can't fuk around when you leave the nest. If I came to Australia I wouldn't start damaging parked cars for fun. Yokgifus might flog me like they do to people in Singapore.

  13. #13
    Greetings,


    "Relax with your conspiracies. Stand your ground is to protect nice neighborhoods against ghetto people that don't belong there. If you don't pay rent and live in a nice apartment complex you don't have the right to walk through there or loiter there."

    The above statement, though a facet of a fundamental ill, is really what is wrong with this country. There are just too many fukked up people wearing this hat.

    There is a healthy component to stand your ground. It empowers the American people to uphold the sacred freedoms of this country against the actions that are being implemented to keep us in check.


    mickey

  14. #14
    Greetings,

    I forgot to add that there have been NO riots in the streets of NYC after the Zimmerman verdict. There have been peaceful demonstrations. I guess, to the xenophobic, this might be observed to be quite riotous.

    And the demonstrations were constituted of a healthy cultural diversity of people. Maybe that is why it was kept local because it also showed people, who live in nice apartments, in nice areas, who were upset with the verdict.

    mickey
    Last edited by mickey; 07-27-2013 at 05:59 AM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Philadelphia, Pa
    Posts
    1,076
    In regards to the Zimmerman case, the "Stand Your Ground" law had nothing to do with it. I think it's important to get that out there.

    In regards to your question, Yum Cha, US law says, if I understand it correctly, that if you feel that your life is in danger, you may use deadly force if needed. Now of course, that can be a difficult decision and you may end up in court over it later, anyway (and when I mention this, I'm not talking about the Zimmerman case).

    Florida's Stand Your Ground law says that you can use deadly force even if retreat is an option. Previously, this was only allowed if retreat was not an option.
    Quote Originally Posted by bawang View Post
    like that old japanese zen monk that grabs white woman student titties to awaken them to zen, i grab titties of kung fu people to awaken them to truth.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sal Canzonieri View Post
    You can discuss discrepancies and so on in people's posts without ripping them apart. So easy to do sitting behind a computer screen anonymously, but in person I'm sure you'd be very different, unless you're a total misanthrope without any friends.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •