Stand your ground

[Yum Cha]

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?

[mawali]

"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

[SavvySavage]

"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.

[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...

[SavvySavage]

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.

[SavvySavage]

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

[bawang]

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.

[SavvySavage]

it doesn't apply to me, im not black.

I'm black from the waist down so it applies to me.

[lance]

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?

Every country has their own laws on self defense so people need to obey it .

[Ben Gash]

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?

In UK law since the 60s you are able to use reasonable force in self defence.
Indeed the exact wording is
3. — (1) A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.
Under this act you've always been able to use force against a perceived threat if it is reasonable to do so.