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

Faulty in what way? As long as the officer is acting in good faith, then it is a good faith arrest, and you do NOT have the right to resist.

For example, say the wrong name got entered on an arrest warrant and the police came to arrest you, you do NOT have the right to resist. Because the officer believes he is making a good arrest.

An example where you have the right to resist is where a cop attempts to arrest you for no reason, or perhaps for a nefarious reason. Then you have a right to resist, up to and including using lethal force.

 

I find government given data is the least reliable especially when that government has a narrative to keep

 

I was being nice by calling it hair splitting. Actually it is way off base. Private property is private property but it is common knowledge that police have certain abilities that goes without saying. Since we are discussing non-police activities It really doesn't apply here. Maybe I should use smaller words for some people.

 

If you have *reasonable* fear for your life or great bodily harm, then deadly force is justified.

Having your head pounded into a pavement certainly produces such reasonable fear. No matter that at the end of the day the injuries turned out to be relatively minor (perhaps because he decided to shoot?). At the moment, the victim has no way of knowing how it would turn out.

 

[video=youtube;GQCkaGnTs9s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQCkaGnTs9s[/video]


Queen to queen's level 3?

 

O'kay, Three orange whips all around!

[video=youtube;ppxJ2P2pe4k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppxJ2P2pe4k[/video]

 

Hairsplitting is a cowardly way to cop out of a discussion.

You can try and resist arrest but you probably won't succeed.

 

LOL

A man who is accused of stripping naked on top of a statue in central London has been charged with possession of an offensive weapon in a public place.

Weapon use is UP !!!???

 

Yes, agreed; but what of the SYG law? We have posters here wanting to eliminate it because there are some people using it wrongly.

 

I didn't say that he shouldn't be put in jail. My point being -- and I apologize for not being clear about this -- is the 'baby with the bath water' approach many posters are taking with the SYG laws themselves. "Oh a few people are abusing the premise? Toss out the law!" That and it being rather obvious that most of the people who want to toss that law . . . have apparently lived extraordinarily safe, protected, sanitary lives with nary a harsh physical confrontation or outright life or death event in their background.

There, now I've posted what I should have posted to begin with.

 

SYG is the law of the land. That statement alone should convince liberals it can't be thrown out. It seems they have never heard of something being repealed. If that isn't enough then since the law exists it must have been a mandate of the people. Too bad liberals, SYG stays.

 

Well, I figure that eventually SYG will be backdoor invalidated through the simple expedient of essentially making it impossible for law-abiding citizens to own hand guns. I.E., we eventually will go the way of the British and the Australians. It may take fifty to seventy more years for that to happen, but that's probably how things will go. Thus everything will be reactive again.

A thug might be captured and put in prison (for maybe a year or two) for having decided to use his superior strength or fighting skills to cripple someone incapable of defending himself or herself against that thug and the victim just has to suffer the pain and terror and perhaps lifelong lingering physical problems . . . because he or she no longer had any legal right to self-defense.

Or even more ironic; the legal right was still technically on the books but he or she no longer had legal access to the means of employing self-defense.

 

I wouldn't doubt it but I have a feeling that liberal progressive"ness" is on the verge of being rebelled against. These things are cyclical and the present day liberals are doing themselves in big time.

Who knows if liberals will learn from their mistakes but just like conservatives they get too big for their "britches" and independent voters have to take them down a notch. When liberalism returns if they learn to keep their big mouths shut they will get much further than they did this time.

 

I agree that they went absolutely power mad this time around, figuring that with their glorious leader at the Oval Office helm they would turn the entire nation into some Star Trek fantasy world letfwing Utopian ideal overnight but forgot two important things . . . Obama was merely president rather than absolute monarch and he was actually just all image and no substance or useful abilities once he actually had to apply his highly touted 'skills sets' to governance. He immediately bounced and things then and there began going south on the Utopians . . . though it's only this year that they are finally beginning to grasp that fact.

Anyway, let's not take the subject off topic. Apparently I have been annoying some official protectors of all things leftwing in nature on these political forums of late . . . and I wouldn't want to put them to any trouble having to delete messages not in-line with the 'SYG law is EVIL' meme of this thread.

 

You do know, however, that even wanting to defend yourself makes you EVIL in the eyes of haters of the SYG laws, right? A good citizen allows himself or herself to be victimized to the point of psychological trauma, physical maiming, or death and then if survives, reports the 'incident' in a timely manner. That's it.

 

Well of course, that is because the criminal is the poor victim of circumstances and your greed.

 

Yes . . . it's the great big circle of life among leftwingers. I wonder, though, how many of them decrying SYG and the very principle of self-defense . . . would actually fight tooth and nail to defend themselves if it looked like it was either violate their 'principles' or die?

 

"Violent crime" doesn't mean killing. And property theft should NEVER deserve a killing. In fact, IF a thief is arrested and found guilty of ANY theft, you know he would NEVER get the death penalty in a court of law. .. Why should he/she get the death penalty without trial, in the hand of a an owner of what ever he is covetting?

 

It's not just people using it wrong as in committing crimes because they believe that they can use SYG as a get out of jail free card, but since it is up to a judge to use his subjective opinion on who can decide who can claim SYG and who can't.

Trevor Dooley, the elderly black man who was assaulted in front of his victim's daughter and used deadly force was denied SYG on the ground that he brandished his gun (he raised his shirt to show the victim that he was armed).

He was eventually convicted by a jury who stated that he was guilty because if he had not left his house to confront James they would not have not come into contact with each other even though the daughter of the victim testified that Dooley had turned his back on James and was heading home when James accosted him resulting in James' death.

Remember this trial occurred in FL where Judge Nelson refused to add the 'initial aggressor' to Zimmerman's jury instructions.

But a verdict depends on who the judge is, what jury instructions are given to the jury and the composition of the jury.

Justice system my behind!!!

 

Only in a rightwinger's mind do you believe that people who are against SYG are against self-defense.

There's no point in discussing anything with intellectually dishonest paranoids gun nuts.

 

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Those were two separate thoughts, but reading comprehension and critical thinking have never been strong points for conservatives.

 

The facts, many of which were never presented at trial, contradicted George's story, George told several different versions of what occurred that night. Add to that the circumstantial evidence especially George's behavior after the shooting all prove to me that George was guilty of something more than manslaughter and something less than murder.

 

What you are referring to the "plain view" exception rule to a warrant, and yes, you are right, if said police officer can see a person on your property, they can enter said property and search for that person. If a police officer is knocking on the door for a specific police duty, such as what the Boston PD did through the search, they must seek permission first from the owner to search. If the owner is not available, a search warrant will be required, generally.

As for your scenario with the wrong address, yes, the cops are ok, but any evidence that is not beyond the plain view exception would generally be inadmissible.

 

SYG does not need to be eliminated, just needs to be modified with clearer definitions of "severe bodily injury" is. Minor lacerations to the head and a bloody nose is not severe bodily injury by anybody's definition unless you want to include a political agenda with that.

 

That isn't hair splitting. Just proved your statement to be utterly false.