"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 19:55:09 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

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.

===

And therein lies the issue that "stand your ground" addresses. Without
SOG the burden of proof is on you if you're assaulted and respond with
deadly force. You will probably face lengthy and costly court
proceedings, and even if you win in court, may become liable in civil
proceedings. All that because some hoodlum assaulted you, a family
member, or tried to commit a felony in your presence. If someone
attacks, or threatens to attack, a family member in your presence, you
can not normally claim self defense if you shoot them. SOG fixes that.

---------------------------------

Good points. Maybe the whole concept of self defense and the laws
that governs it should be scrapped and replaced with laws that make
more sense.
For example, if found "not guilty" by virtue of justifiable
homicide, immunity to civil suits automatically apply. Legal costs
should be borne by the prosecution (state) if found not guilty. (that
statute already exists in some circumstances). Also, an
individual's self defense protection should include the protection of
others in the immediate vicinity of the altercation or crime in which
you had to use deadly force, i.e. business, bank lobby, etc. Again,
these statues already exist in some circumstances. I am sure
lawyers can come up with wording that covers common sense situations.
Or maybe not.