One thing we can all agree on; Stand Your Ground is a horrible law

How do you retreat when you are on your back getting your head pounded into the pavement?

 

District of Columbia v. Heller. 554 U.S. 540.

 

The shooter has no evidence that he was attacked by the jogger, unlkke George Zimmerman, who has PLENTY OF EVIDENCE that he was attacked...

Stupid hypothetical.
Here's another, more likely scenario:

What if you are accosted by three men in a dark park, who tell you that they intend to beat you to death, while gang-raping your wife. You try to explain that you are all in favor of their complete safety...and then they proceed with the attack....Oooops!

Hey; at least you didn't shoot any criminals, right?

 

You just need to "feel threatened." That doesn't require any physical evidence. Knowing that, give it another go.

If retreat is not an option, than enforcement is certainly a viable option. However, since retreat isn't an option, this isn't a Stand Your Ground example.

 

As likely as having to use the right to defend oneself against alien abduction or zombie attack...simply does not happen.

 

The Supreme Court STRUCK DOWN the DC law prohibiting hand gun posession, for a VARIETY OF REASONS.

So?

 

Read it...there is a line about self defense being a 'fundamental right'....Hard to exercise the right if one is limited as to means by geography.

 

LOL Yeah, sure. It very well could have happened. We just don't know because we can only take the shooter's words.

 

Law abiding citizens ARE NOT REQUIRED TO RETREAT under SYG. Why SHOULD WE "RETREAT" from the criminals?

Then they'll just go after someone else, won't they?

 

sure. GZ was retreating with TM on top of him banging his head into the ground and practicing his MMA technique. I'll bet GZ was never so glad to have thought to wear his weapon and have his CCP handy. Which reminds me. You do know that before you get a CCP, the cops, sheriff's office and other authorities check into your background. So apparently, if he had a CCP, GZ was vetted by courts and law enforcement. Seems to me that is to his benefit.

 

Source

 

A friend of mine had an altercation with someone while he was in his truck. He had a gun and thought about using it and told the police this. The police told him he should have shot him. Later, that same person ended up killing someone by shooting him in the head and my friend still is haunted by that because he did nothing.

 

Yes, I know. I've pointed that out numerous times.

Well, for starters. How do we know you're not the criminal? It's your word vs. the dead man's if there are no witnesses.

Not necessarily. I.E. if they're trying to steal a specific thing.

 

Number 1 of which was probably the residents.

 

"in federal enclaves" appears to be the main focus of that case, not the part that you put in bold.

 

Doesn't matter what the main focus is. The court still ruled on the matter.

 

And Big Foot might get elected to Congress...One does not destroy a fundamental right for a 'could happen'

 

The ruling isn't limited to only possessing a firearm within the home, though. That was only used as an example. Is not the simple act of defending your own life, whether in your home or outside of it, a "traditionally lawful purpose"? Did you even read that article?

 

It`s a basic human right to stand your ground against threat. As the old saying goes "I`d rather be tried by twelve than carried by six".

 

The supreme court to my knowledge has never limited the right to defend ones self to the home it was just using a example of a protected use. As to the OP, I do not agree that SYG is a bad law just misunderstood or misrepresented by some democrats. It would seem more disagree with the OP than agree or maybe the others just know better than to energize the gun-rights supporters in a election year. I do not wish to comment on the Zimmerman case as that will be for the courts to decided there is other cases that set precedent regarding the SYG law. In one case a woman was given 20 years for just firing a shot in her husband direction.It yet another case quoted from the link below: "In the Dooley case the judge ruled that an aggressor who provokes violence cannot turn around and claim "stand your ground" as a defense." I picked this site as reference since if it is biased it should be towards a democrats point of view.
http://huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/martin-luz/stand-your-ground-laws_b_1520910.html
While the law needs to be explained and clarified so all understand and possible even minor changes it will survive in most states. Hopefully even in Michigan since it has some very dangerous areas that SYG is needed.

 

You do have a valid point - one that is happening under the current SYG laws.

Cases exist of drug dealers getting into gun battles, and the survivor claims self-defense under the SYG laws. This is a problem with the SYG laws, one that I'm not sure how to correct.

However, to presume that someone would shoot a jogger, that someone would go out on the streets ala David Berkowitz, randomly shoot people and claim SYG as a defense is preposterous. In order to claim SYG without witnesses and without the deceased possessing a weapon, substantial evidence of a life-threatening altercation is needed - evidence such as the deceased having bruising on his knuckles, bruises that fall within the same time frame as bruises/lacerations/contusions on the shooter's person. Evidence that demonstrates the shooter was in a very recent confrontation - such as bleeding from head/scalp wounds upon arrival of police and medical personnel, perhaps a broken nose, something of that nature.

SYG isn't a bad law, it just needs to be fine-tuned a little IMHO.

 

If someone needs to use deadly force to save their own life, that is fine. But when you have people shooting others, and then claiming they were 'in fear for their lives' you cannot really trust that they are being truthful. The law sounds like it could be twisted to enable people to get away with murder.

 

Not hardly. Read Spotscat's post - he explained it very well.........

 

Sorry Bad, I don't think that would shake anything loose in a brain that runs on liberal logic. If it did you'd see mass ass kickings going on.

 

Interesting when was the only at home clause added to the 2nd Amendment?