Protesters stand up to 'stand your ground,' but laws likely here to stay

[barnbwt]

"This makes about as much sense as protesting apples because your store carries oranges."

People are just mad, because those who benefit from roused rabbles have told them to be so (and to donate to their charity while they're at it ), and it's getting to be that hot/muggy time of year when it's easy to get people angry while outdoors. Occupy Wallstreet dried up with the cold weather, so will these fools.

The biggest lesson to learn here is that we should all be sure to take photos of ourselves that emphasize our innocence, so that they may be used favorably should we be wronged.

"if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant, he may stand his ground, and that, if he kills him, he has not exceeded the bounds of lawful self-defense. if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant, he may stand his ground, and that, if he kills him, he has not exceeded the bounds of lawful self-defense."
God, we need some wisdom from the '20s these days. It's ridiculous that "stand your ground" needs to be codified at all, since, as the Justice said, it is self-evident as being consistent with human nature. No matter how one gets there, by random chance or belligerence, whoever raises the stakes to lethal levels may be cut down justly (that's not "justifiably" ), through no fault other than their own.

TCB

 

[Vern Humphrey]

It really comes down to "once you feel your life is being threatened, you may use deadly force to stop it". That was the answer some 44 years ago when I had my final interview with the NYPD, and it still holds true today. No one else can say when you feel that time is. As long as it's reasonable, it should stand as a judgment call that only the person holding the gun can make, IMO.

And that's an important point. The issue is a subjective one, not an objective one.

The facts may be that your attacker had a toy gun or a rubber knife -- but if you believed your life was in danger, you would be justified in defending your self, even with lethal force.

That said, don't believe that a politically-motivated prosecutor can't ruin your life to make a false, but politically correct point.

 

[we are not amused]

Let's not be so quick to pat Scott on the back. We wouldn't even be here had he not pandered in the first place and appointed Angela Corey as Special Prosecutor. The Sanford PD considered it a justified self defense shooting to begin with, and now they've been proven correct.

And they had to do more than a bit of Prosecutor shopping to find her. I understand the local prosecutor turned down the case also.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

When I see her on TV, I can hear me Sainted Irish Mither saying, "She doesn't know enough to know how little she knows."

 

[Deanimator]

The facts may be that your attacker had a toy gun or a rubber knife -- but if you believed your life was in danger, you would be justified in defending your self, even with lethal force.

You can't just "believe" it.

It has to be a REASONABLE belief.

I keep slapping imbeciles on the local newspaper online comments sections across the face with this when they try to claim that you could beat OR shoot somebody for "following" you.

 

[22-rimfire]

Using a firearm for self defense is never a first choice.

It has to be a REASONABLE belief.

I keep slapping imbeciles on the local newspaper online comments sections across the face with this when they try to claim that you could beat OR shoot somebody for "following" you.

"Reasonable belief" is very subjective and situational.

I personally would just keep moving if I knew someone was following me. But I would likely confront them in my yard. Again, situational. But guns are not my first choice even if a dog is menancing me and certainly not a human being. There could be some history however.... push the right buttons and it could become nasty.

 

[Sam1911]

Sounds like we're just rehashing the Zimmerman case here. No need to do that.