Is the "Stand Your Ground Law" becoming a license to kill?

Another dramatic killing of a 72 year old man with Alzheimer in Georgia by a 34 year old.

Should the 34 year old man who shot the 72 year old man 4 times OUTSIDE his home, after the man rang his bell, be charge or should he get the full benefit of SYG in Georgia?

How far can SYG take us toward a society where fear is the only answer to everything, and shooting is the only answer to fear?

 

Oh, it was an "accident".

The homeowner "felt threatened". (Ya gotta wonder why Righties are OK with THIS kind of "thought crime" )

The gun went off "accidentally"!

The gin owner was having a night mare and thought the old man was a gang member!

The homeowner thought the old man might be stealing his rotting Holloween Jack-o-Lantern pumpkins!

There are innumerable excuses for gun owners why people being blown away with the gun owner's weapon means the owner shouldn't be responsible for killing or wounding someone. And of course the gun owner always "feels real bad" for shooting someone, and it seems often to be considered that that is "punishment enough".

 

It would be helpful if the OP would have included the applicable statute for reference. Otherwise why bother?

 

I am completely in favor of SYG laws used in the proper prospective - you should be able to protect yourself and your family without fear of prosecution. SYG has always been intended to do just this - if you are being attacked (or having your head bashed in) you have a right to use deadly force to stop the threat.

However, someone ringing your doorbell repeatedly, roaming around your yard, or banging on the door does not give someone the legal justification for murdering someone. This man should - and probably will be charged with second degree murder as he left the safety of his dwelling.

It also says he went outside after 10 minutes. If this would have been an actual emergency (it turned into one), a burglar could have easily broke in and killed everyone and left before the police decided to show up. So much for police protection.

Very similar to the case in Detroit - the man in that case has also been charged as SYG did not apply:

All of the comments I am reading from the multitude of sources on this story agree this man should be charged. Even the EVIL gun loving republicans. But don't let that stop your rhetoric. Maybe once the liberals get their way and there are no more guns we can aspire to be like the gun free zones in the country. We should also outlaw alzheimers as that would have prevented this whole thing!

 

I provided a link. If you can't follow it, it is your problem.
If you want more. . . You go look for more.

>>>Off topic removed<<<

 

You provided a link to the actual statute?

 

I say yes, the SYG law is becoming a license to kill. It was designed and lobbied by the NRA. Gun nuts think of themselves as John Wayne. They are paranoid and see danger all around them. They don't need a law that gives them permission to unleash their arsenal on the public. These people think guns are the solution to everything. Girl scouts make you feel threatened when they knock on your door to sale cookie Shoot em. Someone walk too close to your yard while walking their dog? If it makes you feel threatened, shoot em. The paranoid mind "feels" threatened all the time. We need to get the guns out of the hands of these wackos, not give them permission to shoot and ask questions later.

 

thats what self-defence laws are for, u dont need SYG laws for that.
SYG laws are always object to interpretation in individual cases, its obviously a tool create more inequality; it will get judges, juries etc. the opportunity to evaluate seemingly similar cases in different ways and thus discriminate against minorities.

besides, this law will obviously lead to alot of unneccessary deaths, thats pretty much a guarantee...200, 300 years ago u might think laws like this exist, but in the 21th century?? in the "greatest" country in the world?? embarrassing...

 

I think if someone does not retreat from a tense situation, and then kills someone in self-defense, then he should not face any criminal punishment because he did nothing wrong. This is paramount, and I am sure every thinking person will agree. Some variant of SYG is common all around the world and rightly so.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._your_ground_unique_to_the_united_states.html

So then, what exactly is the problem with current SYG laws in the US? Is there some loophole? Or are they badly worded? It would do well to opponents of SYG laws to come up with specific issues. Instead of empty appeals to emotion as is the OP.

Because right now I get the feeling that they are just opponents of SYG in general, and thus possibly advocate sending innocent people into prison just because they did not happen to retreat in a tense situation. But surely I am wrong, nobody can be so deranged, right??

 

There is no SYG here, stop the madness.

 

If you didn't try to retreat then you were not really feeling threatened.

 

This is far from accurate. Not all people flee or retreat when threatened but I get your point. Many meet force with force.

 

Exactly.

 

How is this guy not already locked up. This is crazy too me.

 

tyes it is quite crazy and the Guy should be locked up. Also applies to people who attack other people on the basis they are following them in a public area.

 

SYG is a license to kill, as long as its a suitable situation in which you must protect yourself or your property. I think the guy in Georgia should be in jail, he wasnt attacked. Now if the guy was pounding at his door and it was breaking open or something then yeah by all means shoot the guy because you dont know what he is capable of. But since he had room to retreat and wasnt approached yet he made the biggest mistake of his life and he should be prosecuted for it.

 

No it isn't a license to kill. Some idiots are interpreting it wrong and when they do the prosecutors will charge them and let the court decide.

How people are reading it wrong is beyond me.

 

I like how people cite cases like this or Zimmerman, they are like "OMG GET RIDZ OF STAND UR GROUNDZ!!!!!11111", when it isn't even applicable to SYG.

Good job.

 

Yes much better to be jumped from behind or shot in the back to prove you were not the aggressor.

 

NO!

Next.

 

It would certainly seem that in this case, it is being used as an excuse for sheer stupidity.

Now I would think the first thing that should have been done is the homeowner is he should have stayed in his (*)(*)(*)(*)ing house while 911 was called, not gone out wandering around in the dark looking to see who had been rattling his door when his fiance is on the phone with 911.

That move alone strikes me as pure, unadulterated idiocy.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/da-mulls-shooting-alzheimers-patient-enter-home/story?id=21080904

 

Is an overstepping of SYG a license to fault SYG, anymore than an overstepping of constitutional power is a license to fault the constitution? I would think not.

 

True SYG is a gun nut's fantasy come true.

I have asked many times before but received no answer--when the hell did it become ok for one person to use a lethal weapon against someone who was unarmed?

When did it become ok to murder someone over a fistfight?

Anyone who gets himself into a bad situation and can't fight back deserves what he gets.

 

It is because the SYG laws are usually very vague.

Whenever you go looking for trouble you usually find it.

 

You could say the same about the constitution. Either way, I would think the solution would be making them less vague, not repealing them altogether.