Five 'Stand Your Ground' Cases You Should Know About - Page 2

Five 'Stand Your Ground' Cases You Should Know About

This is a discussion on Five 'Stand Your Ground' Cases You Should Know About within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by bigmacque Kind of concerned that someone with four posts would bring this forth and ask for a discussion. Guess I'm a little ...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 30 of 30
Like Tree38Likes

Thread: Five 'Stand Your Ground' Cases You Should Know About

  1. #16
    Senior Member Array Dandyone's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    610
    Quote Originally Posted by bigmacque View Post
    Kind of concerned that someone with four posts would bring this forth and ask for a discussion. Guess I'm a little jaded and cynical, regarding the trols.
    Fear, not, Bigmacque, I'm just new to the forum and new to concealed carry. I have a CCWP (though it is known by a different acronym here, CPL).

    I shared the article because I thought it was a 'poster child' of anti-gun propaganda, and I was curious how those that frequent this forum would respond. After reading the discussions centered on the Houston guy who confronted, antagonized, then shot a party-goer at a neighbor's residence, I figured the review would be balanced, and it appears that I was correct.

    Since becoming interested in the topic of concealed carry/2A rights, I have found that supporters of concealed carry and 2A tend to have a far more rational, fact-based response to various gun-violence related incidents. At the same time, such supporters (myself included) are labeled as gun-loving redneck vigilantes who grew up playing too many violent games (the blame for gun violence can never be put on the perpetrators of the violence, of course... after all, they are victims of an unjust society (tongue in cheek)).

    Take for instance this article and comment thread, written by Duff from - of all things - Guns'n'Roses, which ran in my hometown's weekly paper following a recent shooting spree: Seattle: Keep Your Head Up and Your Guns Down - Seattle Music - Reverb

    I posted my responses as Dandyone there, too, and I think that if you read my posts you will no longer suspect me of trolling.

    My concern is that events like the one referenced above (btw, the media has reported that the perp had a concealed carry permit), will feed the anti-gun lobby effort to take away my rights.
    Spirit51 likes this.


  2. #17
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    I think a lot of problems with perception on Stand your Ground laws comes from two basic media problems:

    1. most criminals will claim self-defense even if it's obviously not justified. SYG is just part of the SD laws in the states that have enacted it. The media will report that the defendant has evoked the SYG defense, which is fine, but will spin it as if SYG definitely applies, which is not.
    2. there are a few cases where SYG as been claimed, and the charges dismissed where they should not have been. Rather than crucifying the judge and DA in those rare cases, as they should have, the media crucifies the law instead.




    It seems to me that SYG as a function of self-defense law has these basic tenants:

    1. Self Defense has no claim if you're committing a crime of any kind during the event. Typically if someone dies in the commission of a crime, aren't all parties in the crime guilty of homicide?
    2. Stand your ground seems to apply if you're standing. Or if you retreat, you take your ground with you and should be able to stop at any time. But your "ground" shouldn't advance with you unless there's some kind of cover or other justified tactical reason to do so. Following someone or intercepting them as a few of these cases seem to involve (not just the Zimmerman/Martin case) doesn't seem like it should apply past your front door.
    3. SYG should be clearly defined as a subset of self defense law.


    From my understanding, all of these are generally the way SYG is written. The problem seems to be in reporting and a few judges that allow motions that should easily be denied. Thoughts?
    Last edited by livewire; June 11th, 2012 at 05:35 PM. Reason: Merge
    goldshellback and Spirit51 like this.
    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap - ballot - jury - ammo

    “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”
    -- John F. Kennedy

  3. #18
    Senior Member Array Dandyone's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    610
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    I think a lot of problems with perception on Stand your Ground laws comes from two basic media problems:

    1. most criminals will claim self-defense even if it's obviously not justified. SYG is just part of the SD laws in the states that have enacted it. The media will report that the defendant has evoked the SYG defense, which is fine, but will spin it as if SYG definitely applies, which is not.
    2. there are a few cases where SYG as been claimed, and the charges dismissed where they should not have been. Rather than crucifying the judge and DA in those rare cases, as they should have, the media crucifies the law instead.




    It seems to me that SYG as a function of self-defense law has these basic tenants:

    1. Self Defense has no claim if you're committing a crime of any kind during the event. Typically if someone dies in the commission of a crime, aren't all parties in the crime guilty of homicide?
    2. Stand your ground seems to apply if you're standing. Or if you retreat, you take your ground with you and should be able to stop at any time. But your "ground" shouldn't advance with you unless there's some kind of cover or other justified tactical reason to do so. Following someone or intercepting them as a few of these cases seem to involve (not just the Zimmerman/Martin case) doesn't seem like it should apply past your front door.
    3. SYG should be clearly defined as a subset of self defense law.


    From my understanding, all of these are generally the way SYG is written. The problem seems to be in reporting and a few judges that allow motions that should easily be denied. Thoughts?
    ----^---- This is what I meant by 'rational'.

  4. #19
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by Dandyone View Post
    ----^---- This is what I meant by 'rational'.
    Ahh, right... this is the Internet, I'm not supposed to do that am I?
    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap - ballot - jury - ammo

    “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”
    -- John F. Kennedy

  5. #20
    VIP Member
    Array archer51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    21,569
    The only positive thing I saw about the article, is they didn't call it the "Make My Day" law.
    Freedom doesn't come free. It is bought and paid for by the lives and blood of our men and women in uniform.

    USAF Retired
    NRA Life Member

  6. #21
    Senior Member Array Lish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    766
    Every morning with my coffee I hit the new sites online and without fail just about every day down here in FL there's another article on stand your ground. Most of them are stories about when that defense was used successfully when it probably should not have or maybe they're not giving the full story, i don't doubt that for one minute. I've stopped clicking on them. I really really hope nothing changes with our laws down here and have sent imy 2 cents to the task force our governor put in place in the wake of the Zimmerman mess. There's going to be times when someone uses SYG as a defense and it works when it probably shouldn't have. But how many cases of true self defense occur that never even make the headlines?

  7. #22
    PM
    PM is offline
    Senior Member Array PM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    662
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    "In Louisiana early this year, a grand jury cleared 21-year-old Byron Thomas after he fired into an SUV filled with teenagers after an alleged marijuana transaction went sour."
    So the fact that he was allegedly engaged in an illegal activity had no bearing?
    This should not fly!!! In Kansas this would not be a "stand your ground" shooting. Thomas was there doing a crime; so he gave up his right to SD; at least that is how it was explained in my class for my permit.

  8. #23
    VIP Member Array TedBeau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bay City
    Posts
    2,271
    Quote Originally Posted by msgt/ret View Post
    All five cases were and have been controversial and could be decided either way. My reading of the article is a thinly veiled attempt at saying “stand your ground” laws should be abolished.
    I don't know, as I was reading it I was thinkning, they should pass out copies in jails and half way houses to let the thugs know it's getting more dangerous to be a criminal.
    pir8fan and msgt/ret like this.

  9. #24
    Distinguished Member Array GunGeezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,249
    We, as a society, have become desensitized to the rights of others. People today think nothing of walking across other peoples property, picking up things that don't belong to them and basically ignoring other folks existence while walking or driving. They are so self- engrossed, busy multi-tasking or just plain unconcerned about the feelings, rights or respect for others as a result of frivolous law suits, poor legal judgments and political correctness run amok.

    It's almost impossible today to tell the difference between a boorish clod, a space-cadet, a strung-out junkie, a gang-banger or wannabe in a hoodie, or a genuine thief or thug. It's also difficult to duplicate a persons perception at the time of an incident. And laws have to be written with a certain amount of discretionary latitude in order to be effective in more than one application, yet not appear vague and nonsensical.

    I have no doubt that all those against the SYG Law have the same agenda. I also am sure there are those out there who fall through the cracks and should never receive a CCP. But the same could be said for drivers, voters, homeowners, boaters, judges and politicians. If you want to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs!

  10. #25
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,414
    Let's see... we have a law... okay...

    The law says a+b=c except when a or b are in violation of law z. Law z is applicable only when the moon is full on Tuesdays unless Tuesday falls on the second day of the work week, (code z7). in which case refer to law w. Law w states that when a+b=c on a Tuesday, the second day of a work week, a+b=c AND a=b and b=c, and is in effect until Monday of the following week.

    Case law, has shown that in some instances, regardless of moon phase, or what day of the week is involved... a frequently is not = b or to c. In referring to other case law from eighteen aught six, the court found that in fact c will equal a+b, but that a+b only =c on Wednesday at 12:01 am.

    Criminals ignore laws, hence they are criminals... But they hire lawyers to "help" the court find that a+b = c in their particular case because they were neglected as children. And sometimes, if the lawyer is good or expensive, or both, the case is found in the favor of the defendant.

    The law abiding citizen, most of us here, do our best to understand the arcane law and the case law surrounding it. We have to try...after all we aren't criminals... and we carry guns, and the law is about guns and when we can use them...

    Unfortunately, some with ill intent (criminals) see the law and think that it is a way out of their criminal activity, thus numbering us with the transgressors (Where have I heard that before?) in the eyes of the press.

    The press can't even spell a+b=c. So they ask their friends about the law... and their friends went to the same college they did, only they didn't major in journalism (yellow or otherwise), they majored in poli-sci, with an emphasis on skewing polls, and disseminating propaganda. They work for someone who knows a lady named Brady.

    Since "the press" knows that these friends of theirs had better GPAs in Poli-Sci than they did in Journalism... they print every word their friends say as the gospel (of experts in the field...experts in what, we're never told).

    And, people called legislators and "public officials" read the stories in the press (that's what they are folks, stories... not factual accounts) and then, since they (politicians) don't understand a or b or c (all they understand is ¢, $ and sometimes £, and they have staffers who can measure in troy ounces and carats.), they (politicians again, but I figure you know what I mean by now) assume its not good, but they "run the numbers" to see what their constituents think of the matter, since it's in the press and everybody knows about it.

    Who do they hire to "run the numbers"? The same guys that the (ahem) journalist knows... the poli-sci majors... with an emphasis on skewing polls and disseminating propaganda...

    And now you have the sorry state of affairs we are in now...

    From: The World according to Oak coming to a bookstore near you as soon as bookstores are obsolete.
    msgt/ret likes this.
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  11. #26
    Ex Member Array pir8fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Mooresville, NC
    Posts
    373
    Quote Originally Posted by oldrwizr View Post
    None of those kills would be legal according to my interpretation of the laws here in NC, but in all cases the shooters got off scot-free. I definitely wouldn't expect to get away with any of those, since our law clearly states that theft is not a reason for deadly force, and if the person is retreating, even with your stereo in his possession, you can't shoot because your life is not in danger. And I'm sure you'd fry here for shooting a retard walking a dog. Man, that's just wrong. IMO we need the courts to deal more harshly with these cowboy-wanna-be's because all they do is further incite the gun-fearing public against those of us who legally carry or even own any gun. A good many voters don't distinguish between a trigger-happy vigilante and a law-abiding permit holder.
    I agree with you except for the Wisconsin case. Our (NC) Castle Doctrine presumes that anyone on your property without your permission is there to do bodily harm. Some jerk sitting on my porch while he was trying to evade the police would definitly be considered a threat. He would be dealt with accordingly.

  12. #27
    Ex Member Array pir8fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Mooresville, NC
    Posts
    373
    Quote Originally Posted by Sig35seven View Post
    It won't be long until '60 Minutes' comes out with a show on this topic and it will,no doubt, focus on the cases that are questionable.

    Shooting an unarmed person who is on your front porch may not be the best choice. However, many cases are justified and should make criminals think twice before committing a crime. The highly publicized Zimmerman case will indeed be an interesting case to watch.
    Zimmerman has nothing to do with SYG. If, as Martin's family says, Zimmerman stalked then killed Martin, SYG doesn't apply because it is a defense never available to the aggressor. If, on the other hand as Zimmerman says, he was on the ground being beaten, Zimmerman could not possibly have retreated and again, SYG doesn't apply.

    The Zimmerman case is simply being used by anti-gun zealots and their media lackeys to spread their lies and anti-gun agenda to an uneducated public.
    NH_Esau and DaveH like this.

  13. #28
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by pir8fan View Post
    Zimmerman has nothing to do with SYG. If, as Martin's family says, Zimmerman stalked then killed Martin, SYG doesn't apply because it is a defense never available to the aggressor. If, on the other hand as Zimmerman says, he was on the ground being beaten, Zimmerman could not possibly have retreated and again, SYG doesn't apply.

    The Zimmerman case is simply being used by anti-gun zealots and their media lackeys to spread their lies and anti-gun agenda to an uneducated public.
    Well... almost. Zimmerman claimed that his actions were justified under SYG. Whether it applies cannot really be judged by the evidence so far released to the public, so I don't want to armchair quarterback this yet, but he has made the claim.
    There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap - ballot - jury - ammo

    “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.”
    -- John F. Kennedy

  14. #29
    Member Array azretired's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    Posts
    212
    It just shows that Police Investigators need to do a better job investigating. Just because someone claims "Stand your ground' or Castle Doctrine" as a defense doesn't mean you stop your investigation.

  15. #30
    VIP Member Array Crowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    West Allis WI
    Posts
    2,761
    Isn't it just wonderful how after the fact of what happened the media, etc., get to dissect what happened.
    "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
    --Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney

    Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

20 lies every american should know

,

both open carry and stand your ground

,

byron thomas stand your ground

,

five stand your ground cases you should know

,

issues you should know your stand on

,

nc ccw class mooresville

,

texas stand your ground law joe horn

,

what happens in wisconsin if you claim self defense

,

what you must know before you carry

,

what you should know about concealed carry

,

who hears stand your ground cases in missouri

,

you should know your stand

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors