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

I've been in one fist fight (if you can call it that) since high school. A guy who thought I did something to his girlfriend (that I didn't even do) came running over to me, cold cocked me (sending me to the floor) and started wailing on me. Fortunately there were a lot of people around and he was quickly pulled off. Turns out he was a bonafide MMA fighter (and later beat the ever loving (*)(*)(*)(*) out of his girlfriend he thought I disrespected).

Had we been alone in an alley, I easily could have ended up dead. Now, unfortunately, this was NYC, where unless you are a bona-fide security guard who works for one of the "right" companies it's literally impossible to get a carry permit, there is no circumstances that I could have (legally) had a firearm on me to defend myself. I have since moved to Florida, that has much more reasonable laws. If we could just get open carry, it would be perfect. (And I'm perfectly fine if you have to have a CCW to open carry.)

 

Wow, that's (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up. We have the castle doctrine here, you break into my house, you're getting shot, and the police will congratulate me for ridding the world of a scumbag. However, as I understand it, it's next to impossible for a civilian to (legally) acquire a firearm in the UK in the first place, yet another reason to never live there.

 

and that is up to the jury to decide isn't it? Or are you also against our form of justice as much as you are against the right to defend your self

 

The thing is though, you don't have a grasp of the rules of evidence or anything else related to a criminal trial. There are all SORTS of decisions that go into deciding what to present to a jury.

Was the evidence legally obtained? Believe it or not, police CAN obtain evidence illegally. They can look in your car without a warrant , they can search your pockets without probable cause, however the DA can't use that evidence at trial.

Another consideration is will presenting certain things alienate a jury? Does it hurt more than it helps. etc etc.

etc etc.

Accusing the prosecutor of throwing the case is just way out there.

 

What is it with Canadians and those fr the uk spelling it defence? It is defense. Self defense. Why do you all insist on putting a c in there? Good grief that is a pet peeve.

 

Liberals want to be able to convict anyone that uses a gun. It doesn't matter why they use it. Liberal logic isn't easy to understand unless you are in their bubble.

 

what is your definition of reasonable amount of threat to use deadly force to nullify that threat. if you break into my house your dead im not going to wait around for you to lunge at me with a knife what if my aim isnt good enough and I miss with the first shot by the time I fire again I can have that knife in my chest

 

I can see your point, and I have already admitted that I am not a legal wizard.

But, there WAS evidence showing EXACTLY where Zimmerman's gun was concealed. . .the video tape of the reenactment is VERY precise about that, as Zimmerman himself shows, by placing his hand BEHIND his hip, that his gun was concealed there.

And. . .If the "display" of O'Mara on the floor, with the MMA "expert" on top of him influence the jury. . .why couldn't the prosecution used the SAME strategy to demonstrate the contortions that would have been necessary for Zimmerman to grab his gun there. . .while having his head "bashed" on the sidewalk, being smothered, being pinned down, AND screaming for help while having his mouth and nose covered by Martin's hands. . .which didn't have any trace of Zimmerman's bloody nose!

I said I believe the prosecutors threw the case. . .I believed that during trial, and the statement of the coroner after trial only reinforced my OPINION. . . I never pretended this to be more than an OPINION.

 

liberals are easy to figure out they base all decision and actions on emotions never on evidence, common sense, or logic

with liberal it is all about the intentions it is never about the results

 

do you understand the difference between stand your ground and castle doctrine?

The Castle Doctrine allows you to approach a person who enters your home, whether the person actually threatens you or not. SYG was NEVER intended to allow such a thing.

 

* For which small mercies may the good Lord make us truly thankful!

I expect these things are always a matter of opinion, coloured by local experience and custom. The history of each society also tends to inform local opinion and judgment. The UK is a society wherein hand gun ownership has never been widespread, and the fear of someone attacking one with a gun is so low, that even the constable on the beat refuses to carry a firearm, and thus the petty criminal sees no need to go armed (as he is very unlikely to encounter either an armed householder or an armed policeman). It works well enough to result in a gun homicide figure of 41 in 2012, as opposed to 9,146 in the US.

For myself, I am happy to live in a society where hand guns are not prevalent, and where 30,000 of my compatriots do not die every year from gunshot wounds.

Oh well, autres temps, autres mœurs!

 

Our murder rate, though continuing to drop (to record low levels), is, I'll concede, higher than yours. But your violent crime rates and property crime rates are MUCH higher than ours. Why? Criminals have no fear of being shot.

I'll take the trade off.

 

Possibly because 'defence' is the correct English spelling (see the Oxford English Dictionaries). I am sure that most educated Americans know that American spelling is peculiar to the United States, and considered incorrect everywhere else English is used. Are you really so ignorant of matters beyond your national borders - I find that difficult to believe.

Oh and by the way, it is customary to capitalise the UK, in the same way one does the USA.

 

Ummm ... you would rather be killed by some nutter with a gun, than have your house burgled???

But seriously, I haven't researched the matter, but I was not aware that UK violent crime rates were much higher than yours. Would you be so kind as to provide corroborating links?

 

basically SYG is a castle doctrine for your self when your not at home SYG allows you to use deadly force if you feel there is a reasonable about of threat to your life or grave bodily injury it makes it so you are not forced to have to run away like a coward

it is up to a jury to make that determination if there was reasonable amount of threat

 

At least you admit to know very little about the law. There was not clear evidence about where George's gun was concealed. You know even less about this case than the law.

 

May I point out that I am outlining the expectations of British Law, not my personal appraisal. Your question is a little on the vague side, as it presumes certain circumstances and expectations peculiar to your side of the pond.

Few people in Britain would assume a burglar was in their house for any purpose other than to relieve them of portable valuables. The vast majority of houses here, and elsewhere, are burgled while the homeowner is absent. That is the reason potential burglars 'case the joint'. And there is no reason to assume that someone who breaks into your house has the express intention of killing anyone he finds there - such an assumption would be regarded as paranoia.

Upon the few occasions where burglars are interrupted in the commission of their felony, their reaction is to flee the scene via the point of entry. A confrontation is only likely if the householder blocks the burglars escape route, and the likelihood of a burglar having a knife, let alone using it, is fairly remote. The penalties for committing robbery under arms (gun or knife) increases manifold over simple break and enter.

It is my opinion that American society has escalated the fear of violence to the point where it generates the very violence society fears.

 

THAT is WRONG. George Zimmerman HIMSELF showed very clearly and very precisely where his gun was concealed and it is clear for EVERYONE to see on the reenactment video that was filmed the day after the shooting.

We have discussed this before, and I have even provided the EXACT minute and seconds during that video where you can see George Zimmerman reaching to the BACK of his hip to indicate how (and where) he grabbed his gun prior to shooting Martin.

I will go back and post the link to that video AND the exact moment where Zimmerman makes that gesture to demonstrate WHERE he reached for that gun.

Apparently YOU KNOW NOTHING FACTUAL about this case.

 

Wrong, you failed then and you have failed now. The prosecution didn't make such a big deal out of the silly nonsense trayvon supporters thought was evidence. They didn't use it because it was so easily debunked.

 

so if a bugler makes a mistake and breaks into a home that is occupied should then the occupants be required to ask the criminal "are you here to kill or rape me or steal my property" before he or she is allowed to use deadly force

and you dead wrong about home invasion in Britain

http://futurewire.blogspot.com/2004/12/home-invasions-us-vs-uk.html

http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/Article250.htm

 

Really. . .well, maybe they were as blind as you seem to be! Here is the link to the part in the reenactment video that is pertinent to this subject. The EXACT place where Zimmerman was carrying his concealed weapon is easily seen at minute 2.24 of this video. . .especially if you freeze the video at that time.

<iframe frameborder="0" width="480" height="270" src="http://www.dailymotion.com/embed/video/xroi3y"></iframe><br /><a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xroi3y_george-zimmerman-s-reenactment-of-trayvon-martin-shooting_news" target="_blank">George Zimmerman&#039;s Reenactment of Trayvon...</a> <i>by <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/MaDmOnkyKungFu" target="_blank">MaDmOnkyKungFu</a></i>

 

So you are saying everyone else is blind to this "evidence" but you? Sure wiz kid, whatever you say. Ask Fred Leatherman how he liked that not guilty verdict.

 

First, it is not "burgler" but "BURGLAR."

Second, there is absolutely NO reason for someone to use deadly force to protect any MATERIAL possession. . .so, I do not believe that anyone should have the right to take a life to save a TV or a diamond ring.

And if you think that, if in doubt that the intruder may be threatening to your life, and YOU hold a gun, there is NO REASON to shoot to kill.

 

The problem with reasonable is that it is a double edge sword. Is it reasonable if someone had minor lacerations and a bloody nose to be in reasonable fear of his life? Most people would say no. But if you add that a person was a black teen with all the this forum's portrayal on a black teen, then that answer would change from a generally from a no to a yes.

We are not arguing about blatantly obvious, merely obvious or even the obvious situations where a person is being threatened by an armed burglar, or an armed carjacking, or an armed robbery in the middle of the street or in some back alley, or an armed home invasion. Most people who are using the "self defense" laws are ont in those situations, but in situations that of either their own circumstances, or choices in which they in part have caused the altercation. And if that is the case, mens rea" is not in the equation for self defense nor is what a reasonable person being in fear of this life. . .

 

Well, it is the Queen's English, not American English. Besides, colour instead of color, honour instead of honor, rubber instead of eraser, life instead of elevator, etc, etc, etc, etc,