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.

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.

"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

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.


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.

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

Many states (maybe all?) differentiate between assault and assault
on a person 60 years of age or older or on a disabled person.
In MA it's an automatic felony charge with longer prison terms and
fines if found guilty.

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.

"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.

In article , says...

"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.

Why is protecting myself and my family from bodily harm and any resulting civil suit
dependent upon being found not guilty.

I do agree with you in that the prosecution pays all costs and the plantiff pays all costs
regardless of conviction.

On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 7:24:45 PM UTC-4, Eisboch wrote:


Why don't you go shoot yourself, asshole??

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 19:24:45 -0400, "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.

Well, that will make Eric and Harry quite happy, I'm sure.

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 01:55:56 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 21:13:01 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

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.

It certainly did not "work" for Zimmerman. He is about a half million
bucks defending a case that should never have been brought in the
first place.
The DA made the right choice the night of the shooting. He said there
was no case he could make there. A year and a half, maybe a million
dollars and a 2 week trial later, he was absolutely right.
This was a political witch hunt that simply is not going away.

The only good thing that will come from the SYG law is "loser pays" in
a civil suit. That is why it will probably be the HOA that gets sued
and the award will be whatever the insurance will pay.

Any federal case will just be another debacle from the gang that can't
shoot straight.

Quite well said.

John (Gun Nut) H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

On 7/17/13 1:18 PM, John H wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 19:24:45 -0400, "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.

Well, that will make Eric and Harry quite happy, I'm sure.

John (Gun Nut) H.



The idea of a racist asshole like you running around with firearms
should make anyone queasy.