Stand your ground

[bawang]

Had Trayvon simply allowed himself to be subjected to GZ's bull****? Absolutely I think he would have lived through it. I don't think GZ was out to kill anyone. I think he was just a wannabe who got in over his head and shot a kid. Manslaughter, straight up. Poster child for LARPer.

That being said, I can't blame anyone for engaging some random dude on the street who approaches in an aggressive manner. Had Trayvon grabbed the gun and shot GZ, he would be doing time. This we all know.

the eyes. look at the eyes.

[Syn7]

the eyes. look at the eyes.

lol... You're attracted to them reptilian eyes, huh!


Next time you're called for jury duty, just say "I can tell if a man is guilty by looking in his eyes!" You'll probably get to go home.

[Yum Cha]

Trying to stay off the Zimmerman case in particular, it appears there are two takes on self defence:

Defend your home with ultimate force, no questions asked, but you have a responsibility to disengage if possible elsewhere. You cannot pursue a threat that has no longer become a threat, and you have to meet that threat with a 'reasonable' response.

Or

Stand your ground, ultimate force at any perceived threat, preemptive or responsive.

Just doesn't seem to me it will work.
We eliminate the proximity to home, i.e. being cornered.
We eliminate the need for action to be in Response to an attack.
We eliminate the requirement for 'reasonable' response.
But most importantly, we eliminate the ability to truly tell who was in the wrong, and who was defending themselves. And, it emboldens people not equipped for conflict with anything but lethal force.
Is the ultimate aim really that you should be so totally polite in public because who knows who has a gun? Or that as a gun carrying member of society, you are somehow deputised to keep order?

[Kymus]

Trying to stay off the Zimmerman case in particular, it appears there are two takes on self defence:

Defend your home with ultimate force, no questions asked, but you have a responsibility to disengage if possible elsewhere. You cannot pursue a threat that has no longer become a threat, and you have to meet that threat with a 'reasonable' response.

Or

Stand your ground, ultimate force at any perceived threat, preemptive or responsive.

Just doesn't seem to me it will work.
We eliminate the proximity to home, i.e. being cornered.
We eliminate the need for action to be in Response to an attack.
We eliminate the requirement for 'reasonable' response.
But most importantly, we eliminate the ability to truly tell who was in the wrong, and who was defending themselves. And, it emboldens people not equipped for conflict with anything but lethal force.
Is the ultimate aim really that you should be so totally polite in public because who knows who has a gun? Or that as a gun carrying member of society, you are somehow deputised to keep order?

I think the ultimate aim is personal safety and not getting killed. The idea behind laws like Stand Your Ground is being able to use lethal force if you feel your life is in danger.

This of course is rarely cut and dry. I've seen two cases recently where someone was stealing another person's car and they got shot and killed. In both cases, the thief either kept walking towards the individual or they made a motion like they were reaching for something.

It's a tough call. When a random tough guy tries starting with me, I just show him I'm not interested and not scared and so then he just runs his mouth and walks away. He's not armed (or at least I don't think he is) and so therefore, I really don't care about him.

In instances where someone feels like their life may be in danger, most people prefer to take a chance, I guess? I assume they felt threatened enough that they saw the need to respond with deadly force (or basically to just shoot at the person and - I assume - in a handful of these cases that ends up being deadly force).

[David Jamieson]

Considering how irrational and stupid human beings can be when they "feel" something, I think having a law that opens the door to you killing someone because you "feel" your life is in danger is a little lacking in understanding of the human condition.

The idea needs work. Clearly.

[No_Know]

I heard stand your ground with the Zimmerman-Martin thing and followed that line. Come to find from the first page of this thread Stand-your-Ground was a ploy and not a claim[Z. would need to be unaware of SYG or he might get flack].

There might be situations where SYGreally helps. As for the psychopaths frustrated with holding back and feigning good-neighbor, perhaps a Bait circumstance clause could be included--Zimmerman-Martin, SYG would apply to Martin. While the juror people talked about-juror stated Martin didn't live there, he did. Z. stated M. was acting funny-Unless Z knew All residents and guests It was not for him to presume a person doesn't live there especially as some tout that it was a multi cultural community, not just a gated community.

I'd like to look at cases SYG were considered excuses to kill but being at the spot you're standing Your Ground versus baiting someone...

And just Why would Z.yell help if the assailant...to seem like a victim same as cutting his head twoce to worsen the look of it

No_Know