MNGunTalk.com

We all know about the now-infamous Zimmerman case and everyone has their opinions on it, regardless of the accuracy and/or the amount of information about it. I guess that holds true for any subject, but some subjects are hotter than others ( guns, politics, religion, sex, sports, to name a few); but we all have opinions and limited information about everything. All that being said, here's another case involving Stand Your Ground (also in Florida and also influenced by the Zimmerman case I'm sure)....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/0 ... 72647.html

The point of this post is: How do you think these two cases will affect Stand Your Ground?

One should be able to defend themselves, especially in their own home.

Thoughts? Discuss.

I got five baby-mamas and I put my hands on every last one of them except for one

Sort of too bad she only shot into the ceiling

I have worked with abusive women and I understand that some cannot mentally grasp the idea of leaving. I don't know her situation and with children, I know how much more burden that adds to leaving a dysfunctional home.

However, she should not have grabbed the firearm and threatened her husband. She had been in an abusive relationship for a long time and understood that her life was not in immediate danger which she could have removed herself from the violence or taken steps to remove her abuser.

he article indicates that once she grabbed the firearm, the husband threatened to kill her and this happens to be in the garage which she ran into? She could have left through the front door, but she went to the garage where the gun happened to be?

Obviously not all the facts are there and only ******** are the abusive husband and the DA.

Well, the case listed above is a good example for the need for jury nullification. Well, jury nullification exists, but the courts don't like to admit that it does.

Although the jury only took 12 minutes to come to a verdict... it seems like there were other factors maybe? Tough to say.

Personally, I think the stand your ground law needs to have a duty to retreat in public areas. Private areas (including your garage) not so much, but if you're carrying, you should be de-escalating a situation instead of making it worse. Note that this doesn't apply in this case, since she was clearly at home and being threatened with death, allegedly.

You know, things change under pressure. Maybe you know to remove the safety before you fire and maybe after 3,000 times it's muscle memory, but suddenly when confronted with a stressful situation, you forget, your mind freezes, whatever. **** happens. That's life. Not everything is predictable or controllable.

She probably should have just left, but she didn't. My wife's ex-husband abused her and while I try to understand, I know I never will. There's just some things you have to go through to understand. For example, both my parents died from Cancer, so I know Cancer as a descendant who's parent died from Cancer. I am also a Cancer survivor myself, and I have a understanding in that regard too. I had Melanoma, but that doesn't mean I understand someone who had Colon Cancer. My point being that life is extremely variable. I had an uncle come home from WWII and every time a screen door slammed shut, he ducked for cover (PTSD - then called "Shell Shock").

Abuse leaves not just physical and emotional scars, but spiritual ones as well. Abuse is a Cancer of the soul because it permeates every layer. My wife is better now, but she is still afraid, even though I would never harm her and would die to protect her. If I talk loudly, she gets afraid. We've been together since 2005, and her stuff "ended" in 1995, but still... Anyway, my point is that I think there needs to be some common sense in life, with laws, and in understanding. Clearly the guy lied in this case, she's abused, traumatized, etc. Honestly, instead of aiming at the ceiling she should have aimed a few feet lower. The world would be a better place for it.

Heffay wrote:Personally, I think the stand your ground law needs to have a duty to retreat in public areas.

No it should not. I value my own and family's safety and if I believe it is safer to stay or stand my ground where I am at, then for the safety of doing so, I will. With the duty to retreat I am required to possibly put myself or family in greater danger because under the law I am required to do so and that is plain wrong.

cobb wrote:

Heffay wrote:Personally, I think the stand your ground law needs to have a duty to retreat in public areas.

No it should not. I value my own and family's safety and if I believe it is safer to stay or stand my ground where I am at, then for the safety of doing so, I will. With the duty to retreat I am required to possibly put myself or family in greater danger because under the law I am required to do so and that is plain wrong.

+1
It should be my decision whether or not to retreat, not some law that may make good sense in some situations and be pure stupidity in others.

I'd always prefer to retreat if I could do it safely. Who wouldn't? It's always better to get out of a situation without using your gun but it should be your decision.

cobb wrote:

Heffay wrote:Personally, I think the stand your ground law needs to have a duty to retreat in public areas.

No it should not. I value my own and family's safety and if I believe it is safer to stay or stand my ground where I am at, then for the safety of doing so, I will. With the duty to retreat I am required to possibly put myself or family in greater danger because under the law I am required to do so and that is plain wrong.

I'm not talking about that situation. I'm talking about where you, not protecting your family, decide to get in a road rage incident and when you start getting your ass beat, shoot the guy because you couldn't run away. Your scenario has NOTHING to do with the limitations I'm talking about.

And if your situation is such that it makes more sense to stay put than to hoof it, well, maybe someone should have the opportunity to review your actions to see if you did anything to make retreating impossible.

Heffay wrote:I'm not talking about that situation. I'm talking about where you, not protecting your family, decide to get in a road rage incident and when you start getting your ass beat, shoot the guy because you couldn't run away. Your scenario has NOTHING to do with the limitations I'm talking about.

That's where the innocent victim requirement comes into play. I honestly do not know if this would be changed by MN's attempted version of SYG?

Heffay wrote:

cobb wrote:

Heffay wrote:Personally, I think the stand your ground law needs to have a duty to retreat in public areas.

No it should not. I value my own and family's safety and if I believe it is safer to stay or stand my ground where I am at, then for the safety of doing so, I will. With the duty to retreat I am required to possibly put myself or family in greater danger because under the law I am required to do so and that is plain wrong.

I'm not talking about that situation. I'm talking about where you, not protecting your family, decide to get in a road rage incident and when you start getting your ass beat, shoot the guy because you couldn't run away. Your scenario has NOTHING to do with the limitations I'm talking about.

No, you flat out said this.

Heffay wrote:Personally, I think the stand your ground law needs to have a duty to retreat in public areas.

I am not reading between any lines or playing funny with words like you are now trying to do. As you clearly stated, I should be required to retreat in public. I believe that I should be able to do what is needed to protect myself and/or family without some law requiring me to do otherwise that may create a more dangerous situation.

cobb wrote:No, you flat out said this.

Heffay wrote:Personally, I think the stand your ground law needs to have a duty to retreat in public areas.

I am not reading between any lines or playing funny with words like you are now trying to do. As you clearly stated, I should be required to retreat in public. I believe that I should be able to do what is needed to protect myself and/or family without some law requiring me to do otherwise that may create a more dangerous situation.

Except where retreat isn't viable. From the beginning of the confrontation. Maybe I should be more clear.

Example: You are road raging. You are getting beat down. You shoot him. This doesn't count as stand your ground.

Example 2: You are at a park with your family. Someone starts shooting at you. You shoot back. This does count as stand your ground.

Right now, the laws protect the first example (there is a case here in AZ and one in ... some midwestern state; I'll have to look it up). It shouldn't. If you put yourself into harms way, you only get to use the standard self defense laws in a trial, not have the state have to prove you shouldn't be covered in the first place.

The "duty to retreat" when not in your home is what we have today. And 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.

And yeah, it will change behavior. People will face consequences if the hassel people.

Dick Unger wrote:. So, we need stand your ground.

We need a modified version of the current stand your ground laws. I agree with that 100%.

Heffay wrote:Example: You are road raging. You are getting beat down. You shoot him.

This example has nothing to do with stand your ground, you, not me are a mutual combatant, willing participant, part of the problem that has caused it to escalated to this level and may lose your right to self defense even if you could not retreat. I say you because I do not put myself in these situations that you and other liberals use to justify their probable actions. So please do not take me down to that level, I am not.

Heffay wrote:Example 2: You are at a park with your family. Someone starts shooting at you. You shoot back. This does count as stand your ground.

I could grab my family and retreat as you wish the law would dictate. So why would this be justified as a stand your ground situation?