On 7/16/13 7:24 PM, Eisboch wrote:
Eric Holder is questioning why we need "stand your ground" statutes.

You know what? I agree with him.

We don't need them. Castle law (which covers what happens in your home)
does not have a requirement to retreat in most states.
Stand your ground is just an extension of Castle laws, eliminating the
requirement to retreat when outside of your home. It also has immunity
to civil action (if found not guilty) but that could and should be
applied to Castle law if it isn't already.

The right to use deadly force in self defense is justified in every
state of the country. It needs to meet certain criteria, most
importantly being that there is no retreat possible and you are
convinced you are in imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death.
Self defense laws have been on the books for years.

I realize that the Zimmerman trial was not based on stand your ground
statues, but it had many of the elements of one including the same
language used in the judge's jury instructions. The juror who is
currently giving interviews is the wife of a lawyer. Some of her
statements cause me to believe that there was some confusion in jury
discussions about stand your ground and self defense trials.

Having this "Stand your Ground" statute makes it way too easy for
people to over-react, kill and then not have to justify their actions.
It fosters a cavalier attitude about taking someone's life. It's also
one of the reasons Zimmerman wasn't charged with anything until
political pressure resulted in his arrest and charge 45 days later.
Would Zimmerman's trial outcome have been different if "Stand your
Ground" statues didn't exist? Probably not. He was found not guilty
based on self defense statutes. But I think the Stand your Ground
statues had an affect on the jury.

I imagine there are many who will disagree, but that's how I feel. In
the state I live in we have a Castle law but no "Stand your Ground
outside of your home". That's ok with me. I still carry occasionally
and if I were ever in a situation that required deadly force, I'd make
damn well sure I felt it was justified. The rest would be up to the
courts.










I've stated many times I think you should be entitled to use whatever
force you find necessary to defend your life and the lives of your
family while you are inside your house. I wouldn't hesitate for a
millisecond to shoot an intruder who broke or forced his way in here.

Stand your ground outside the home ought to be repealed for the reasons
you state. Self defense is altogether different, and usually requires
your assailant to be in the process of using deadly force himself. A few
slaps or punches are not usually enough to justify deadly force. Of
course, the situation is different if you are old or infirm and assailed
with fists by a much younger opponent.