Stand Your Ground?

[cobb]

...no matter the threat, somebody can argue you should have been able to run. So, most of the time, if someone is injured by your lawful self defense, they'll charge you "just to be sure", you'll have to plea bargain and lose your rights. So, we need stand your ground.

Yep!

[jshuberg]

This is similar to a discussion in a previous thread. Here's my take on stand your ground:
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=29952&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15#p344019

[xd ED]

Isn't a big part of 'Stand Your Ground' simply acknowledging the constitutional right to a presumption of innocence?
Rather than having to legally prove one's actions were correct, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove you did wrong, consistent with our judicial system(the irs notwithstanding).

[Heffay]

Isn't a big part of 'Stand Your Ground' simply acknowledging the constitutional right to a presumption of innocence?
Rather than having to legally prove one's actions were correct, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove you did wrong, consistent with our judicial system(the irs notwithstanding).

In theory. But it's been used successfully by people engaged in road rage incidents to shoot their way out of it when things got out of hand. Citation available upon request, but I'm assuming everyone here is already aware of this.

If you're a mutual combatant, you shouldn't get the protection from stand your ground. That is why it needs some limitations.

[cobb]

But it's been used successfully by people engaged in road rage incidents to shoot their way out of it when things got out of hand. Citation available upon request, but I'm assuming everyone here is already aware of this.

I truly have never heard of a successful case based on this, links or info would be appreciated. I like bringing actual facts of different encounters into class to give those that are getting a permit to carry something to think about and try to avoid situations.

[jshuberg]

Stand your ground simply eliminates the duty to retreat. It does not negate or alter any of the other 3 requirements. Stand your ground is not actually a thing itself, it is in fact the absence of a thing, or more specifically the removal of a thing - that thing being the duty to retreat. The remaining requirements for the use of deadly force which would be unaffected by stand your ground are:

1) Imminent danger of great bodily hard or death
2) Reluctant participant
3) No lesser force will do

If you're a mutual combatant, you shouldn't get the protection from stand your ground. That is why it needs some limitations.

Here is exactly where most people seem to go wrong, stand your ground does not give you protection if any of the other requirements for a self defense claim aren't met.

In your scenario as a mutual combatant, you fail the 'reluctant participant' requirement, and so a self defense claim is not available to you. This is true whether stand your ground exists or not. There is in fact no scenario where a bad guy can be turned into a good guy in the courtroom via stand your ground. There are however scenarios where a good guy could be turned into a bad guy in the courtroom via the duty to retreat requirement.

The duty to retreat is simply bad law. It's only effect in the courtroom is the ability to make victims into criminals.

[Snowgun]

Stand your ground simply eliminates the duty to retreat. It does not negate or alter any of the other 3 requirements. Stand your ground is not actually a thing itself, it is in fact the absence of a thing, or more specifically the removal of a thing - that thing being the duty to retreat. The remaining requirements for the use of deadly force which would be unaffected by stand your ground are:

1) Imminent danger of great bodily hard or death
2) Reluctant participant
3) No lesser force will do

If you're a mutual combatant, you shouldn't get the protection from stand your ground. That is why it needs some limitations.

Here is exactly where most people seem to go wrong, stand your ground does not give you protection if any of the other requirements for a self defense claim aren't met.

In your scenario as a mutual combatant, you fail the 'reluctant participant' requirement, and so a self defense claim is not available to you. This is true whether stand your ground exists or not. There is in fact no scenario where a bad guy can be turned into a good guy in the courtroom via stand your ground. There are however scenarios where a good guy could be turned into a bad guy in the courtroom via the duty to retreat requirement.

+1

You are mistakenly getting all caught up in this "retreat" thing Heffay, where it's the reluctant participant aspect that should be the focus.

[Heffay]

Is the reluctant participate part of the stand your ground laws? You're talking as if it is.

Are you opposed to having it officially written down as part of the law? I am 100% behind the law if it is.

[jshuberg]

Is the reluctant participate part of the stand your ground laws? You're talking as if it is.

Are you opposed to having it officially written down as part of the law? I am 100% behind the law if it is.

It's not specific to stand your ground, but it already exists and would be unaffected by a stand your ground law. In a hypothetical world where you and I are authoring a stand your ground bill, and you wanted wording added that stated that the other 3 requirements are still in force and are unaffected by the removal of the duty to retreat, I'd be absolutely fine with that. I think most reasonable people would be. I don't actually think that language would be necessary, but I'd put it in for you if you feel it would add clarity.

Now if only they'd let us write all the laws we'd be getting somewhere

[Heffay]

I think any time a law is clearly written is a better scenario than one that is vague and doesn't take into account subtleties in the situation.

Just because it's harder to write a clear law doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

[jshuberg]

I think any time a law is clearly written is a better scenario than one that is vague and doesn't take into account subtleties in the situation.

Just because it's harder to write a clear law doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

This I agree with 100%, we already have too much ambiguity.

[Snowgun]

Is the reluctant participate part of the stand your ground laws? You're talking as if it is.

Are you opposed to having it officially written down as part of the law? I am 100% behind the law if it is.

Ditto on what Jshu said, however I would be all for writing it down again. Why not? It makes sense and it is how the law is currently. Maybe scrap all the pieces of law and make one comprehensive, intelligently written piece.

[XDM45]

There is the "Letter of the Law" - what the law says verbatim.

There is the "Spirit of the Law" which is the intent of the law, although not specifically written as such.

There is "Precedence" which while not law, affects it. Take the case where a judge rules that someone must provide the password to an encrypted laptop, although no law may exist for such a thing, it sets precedence.

Remember, we do not have an "American Justice System", we have an "American Legal System" because what is legal isn't always just, and what is just isn't always legal. There is a huge difference between "Justice" and Legal". I think that what everyone wants is a (pardon the pun here...) a "bullet-proof" law regarding "Stand Your Ground". We'd all love an all-inclusive law which is fair, legal, and just, but I'd also like gold bricks to suddenly appear for me to pick up too. Ain't gonna happen. Either one of them. Sure, both are POSSIBLE, but both are not PROBABLE, and there is a huge difference there as well.

I'd love it if the law was on he side of citizens, but it's not. Obviously money is a factor, fame, many things play into how much Justice / Legal one can get (or buy), along with a ton of other variables. Each situation and/or case is unique. Be all that as it may, I think common sense should apply, but even common sense isn't that common these days. If it was, we wouldn't have people texting and driving, using facebook or many other things.

Personally, one should be able to defend one's self without fear of legal criminal or civil repercussions. Does that mean carte blanche? No. It does not. If we have SYG, you can't just start some BS and then hide behind that law, and yes, that opens up a can of worms, discussion, etc. Anything needs to be legally defined and it will always be imperfect. It doesn't matter what it is, laws, software, etc, you get the idea.

It's a hard topic to really pin down and talk about, but here are my common sense rules of my version of SYG. I encourage everyone to post their own version too.

1. I do not have a legal duty to retreat on my property or in public. As such, I have the choice to do so or not, depending upon my assessment of the situation.

2. I am exempt from SYG protection and open to prosecution if I am in violation of a law. (ex. robbing a bank)

3. I have the right to defend myself, property, and family by any means I deem necessary regarding any perceived danger and/or an immediate threat to the same.

4. I can use equal or greater force. If they have a knife, I can still use a gun.

I'm sure I could come up with more items, but you get the idea. Just like everything and everyone else, it's imperfect and not all-inclusive. I'd love it all wrapped up nice and neat with a bow on it, but ah well. Not gonna happen now is it?

[jshuberg]

1. I do not have a legal duty to retreat on my property or in public. As such, I have the choice to do so or not, depending upon my assessment of the situation.

I agree, although I'd apply the standard 'anyplace you're legally able to be' as a condition.

2. I am exempt from SYG protection and open to prosecution if I am in violation of a law. (ex. robbing a bank)

I agree, same as above.

3. I have the right to defend myself, property, and family by any means I deem necessary regarding any perceived danger and/or an immediate threat to the same.

I don't agree with this entirely. I'm not a fan of using deadly force to prevent a property crime, even when currently allowed by law. I also agree with the 'no lesser force will do' requirement. 'Any means' seems overreaching and a potential for abuse.

4. I can use equal or greater force. If they have a knife, I can still use a gun.

Legally a knife and a gun are both deadly weapons. So is a crowbar, baseball bat, etc when used as a weapon. If you are attacked with a lethal contact weapon, provided the attacker is within 21ft and advancing toward you, you are justified under current law in defending yourself with a gun. This is not considered an escalation of force.

Honestly, with the exception of the duty to retreat, I think the current requirements for use of force and use of deadly force in self defense are reasonable and pretty well balanced. While not prefect, they do a good job at determining whether a person was a criminal or a victim.

[Hanns]

So if they're 22 feet away with a knife it's not a deadly weapon? I'd be against any set distance in the law as it sets a bad or unrealistic standard. Granted popping someone with a knife at 800 meters with a scoped rifle might be not considered "immediate threat" I don't want to see 21 feet codified as "safe distance" as it's not.