"stand your ground" doesn't work

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by nhgunnut

I will tell you that the law is perfect the way it is. While there will be always be the case the infuriate the public in any law . http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1309225/posts
We have Stand your ground Here in NH and the population is quite satisfied with it. There is an implication here that because in the past you have stood outside of the social norms that you don't have the right to defend yourself. That is just insane.

The law, as it stands now, seems to give people the ability to instigate a situation and then shoot their way out of it. That is just so wrong, on so many levels, that I don't really have words for it. OK, maybe "wrong" is a good enough word for it.

[nhgunnut]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

The law, as it stands now, seems to give people the ability to instigate a situation and then shoot their way out of it. That is just so wrong, on so many levels, that I don't really have words for it. OK, maybe "wrong" is a good enough word for it.

If the Choice is to punish someone for protecting themselves for using deadly force because you don't like or trust their motivations than that is mot just wrong it is evil . From what I have I don't particularly like Zimmerman, but the moment it when hands on, he was within his rights to use deadly force. Suspicious following or even hateful speech is not grounds for assault. Being and A**hole does not end your right to defend yourself. The moment it does then being and A**hole out of season becomes a crime. Given a choice I will choose a "Stand your Ground" with it's flaws over a "Must Retreat" state every time !

[Papa_Complex]

You miss my point. Under this law you can essentially pick a fight, then blow away your opponent if things go against you. That is WRONG. It would also fall under a reasonable definition of evil.

To my mind the law must be amended, to take this into account. If you create the situation, then you should not be able to then claim self defence.

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by nhgunnut

Suspicious following or even hateful speech is not grounds for assault.

That depends on the "hateful speech", and the context in which it was used.

See: Fighting words.

JC

[Homeslice]

Whether or not someone was picking a fight is a big gray area.

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

Whether or not someone was picking a fight is a big gray area.

That's precisely why Florida's stand your ground law needs tightening up.

JC

[Homeslice]

I say whether or not someone instigated it is a lot less important than whether or not he justifiably felt his life was in danger.

Sounds like we all agree Zimmerman is a dick, and that he shouldn't have done what he did. But, we have no idea whether he felt his life was in danger. If he did, then lethal force is justified.

Punish him separately for instigating, if you wish. That issue should be totally disconnected from the right to defend.

I'm not sure why certain states feel it necessary to create this whole "stand your ground" BS, when a simple standard of whether someone could reasonably believe that their life is in immediate danger should be enough. At least that's how it is in most normal states. I would not call FL or NH or TX normal states.

Then again, I haven't bothered to read the whole law, so I'm talking out of my ass as usual.

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

I say whether or not someone instigated it is a lot less important than whether or not he justifiably felt his life was in danger.

I think the application of the old grade school excuse is valid;

"Well, HE started it!".

I see a bunch of Hell's Angels on the side of the road. So I pull over and say, "I heard you guys all like to take it in the ass!".

Now they're coming toward me, and I'm afraid for my life, so I shot them all.

No, that shit shouldn't fly under, "stand your ground".

Don't start shit, won't be shit.

JC

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

I'm not sure why certain states feel it necessary to create this whole "stand your ground" BS, when a simple standard of whether someone could reasonably believe that their life is in immediate danger should be enough.

Why? Because it gains votes from a bunch of thick headed knuckle draggers, who don't understand how the law is supposed to work.

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

Don't start shit, won't be shit.

Yes, of course. Ancient Tibetan philosophy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JdLbYinkZQ

[nhgunnut]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

You miss my point. Under this law you can essentially pick a fight, then blow away your opponent if things go against you. That is WRONG. It would also fall under a reasonable definition of evil.

To my mind the law must be amended, to take this into account. If you create the situation, then you should not be able to then claim self defence.

The issue is how do you Judge if someone created the situation? There are NO Grounds in the United States Where Speech and Speech Alone Justifies Assault. It is insane to think that because I choose because I choose to exercise my Second Amendment Rights that I give up My First First Amendment Rights. Which seems Constructing a Law in the Manner which seem to be suggesting demands. So If I am have a discussion with someone that escalates to an argument I am 55 have had 3 heart attacks (that by the way is an accurate description) and this 35 year old says I will kill you old man and swings , did I start a fight ? Or am I justified in using deadly force?
I really wound't argue that FL couldn't use some tweaking. At the same time the idea that I give up First Amendment rights if I choose to Protect myself is just nuts.