Family says fatal shooting case shows ‘stand your ground’ defense doesn’t work for Black men

I don't know it. I said I assumed it was similar to Florida's Nobody has said otherwise. If you believe it's different, you do your own research. Read my sig!

 

Excuse me I was mistaken it for castle doctrine these goofy little nicknames for laws really muddy the water.

And I was reading law regarding self-defense as there is no such thing as stand your ground and it seems pretty clear cut.

 

Delete

 

Okay how would this be stand your ground in Florida. Keep in mind I have these laws open on another tab because I'm not too lazy to look them up and know what I'm talking about.

 

Yeah there's no lizard people the Illuminati don't control the world and the Earth is indeed spherical.

Bursting bubbles is just something I enjoy.

 

You do know that law is public information and all you have to do is look it up right?

I think you don't because the truth is inconvenient to your narrative.

 

Read the thread. Not interested in doing summaries.

 

My comments above. It's a long thread. You can read it, or I could go back and prepare a summary for you. Since you're the interested party, I suggest the former.

 

So do you. I already quoted the Florida law and submitted my comments.

If you have anything to say about them, quote them, and say your piece.

That's how forums work.

 

So you aren't standing by the things you said this means you're disingenuous and I'm appreciate you being honest about that it's the first time I've ever seen that level of honesty from you.

But really it's honesty out of laziness.

 

Yeah I've read it. That's how I know this statement you made is total BS.

No it's not self defense is in affirmative defense you have to prove you acted in self-defense.

I did see just above you're trying to hide your incompetence with arrogance that doesn't work.

For you it's make a stupid statement that when you get called out on it and pretend you already addressed it when you really didn't because if you did you wouldn't have made such a stupid statement to be human.

But at this point I expected dishonesty from you. And I'm glad that you never fail to deliver because it gives me the ability to expose you.

It's simple all you have to do is read it you're too lazy or incompetent to even do that.

 

you cited Florida law where it says that all you have to do to weasel out of a murderer and manslaughter charges claim that it was self-defense and you don't have any responsibility to prove that in a court of law?

I don't really have anything to say about self-defense laws in Florida. What I have to say something about is your lies.
To remind you.

SStand your ground is a colloquialism for self-defense without the duty to flee a self-defense is an affirmative defense you have to prove your case.

Otherwise there would never be murder convictions they would just say it was self defense

 

The only reason he's picked this case to talk about is because the perpetrator is black. And the victim was white.

 

Every word I have said. Not a comma more or less...

Stand your ground is not self defense. Self defense is a valid defense in ALL states. I already said this. Looks like you DIDN'T read my posts.

I'll wait until you do. If you disagree with any of it, quote it and let's see your objections.

I do understand if you can't come up with any arguments.

BTW, references to me will be ignored. As a matter of fact, everything that follows a reference to me, I will not even bother to read. So if you said anything of substance after the word "incompetence" ... I didn't read it.

 

I have said nothing about self-defense.

Great because this thread is about stand your ground laws, not self defense.

Funny how you looked up the WRONG laws.

 

Regarding the case at the center of this thread, all I will say is this. Both the article you linked, as well as every other news source I've seen about it does not contain enough information for me to form an opinion. Who started it? How did it start? How did it end? Who shot at who first? How did he end up out of his car? 500 more questions, no answers to be found, at least so far, so I'm not informed enough to say whether or not I think justice was done.

What I do want to say, that is only peripherally related to this is that "stand your ground" has nothing to do with race. All it does is remove any sort of "duty to retreat", so if you find yourself in a kill or be killed situation, say if some bad guy kicks your front door in at 3am, you are allowed to confront him (or her, though that would be highly unusual), without regard to whether or not you could have exited out of a back door or even a window. And for the State of Florida, anyway, in a home invasion scenario, you can blow them away merely for being present in your home, and without regard to whether or not they are armed, or even pose a threat. It is legally assumed by their presence where they do not belong that they did pose a threat, and that as the lawful owner or resident of a property, you were in fear for your life, legally, whether you were or not.

But that's Castle Doctrine, and beyond the point here.

SYG has no racial implications whatsoever. If a person uses deadly force in a justified manner, there is no duty to retreat. That's ALL it means. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Now, if you want to argue that there should be such a duty, then we can discuss that, though I cannot possibly think of why any reasonable person would think such a thing. But knowing you, you just might.

But to say removing a duty to retreat before using lethal force that was LEGALLY JUSTIFIED in the first place has a racial component is as delusional as thinking someone, somewhere is going to snap their fingers and make every firearm disappear from the earth, at least those held by civilians.

 

That's true. But the case is not the most relevant part. The law is what is relevant. It's what is criticized in the title. And the study in the article confirms.

You might say it wasn't intended to not have anything to do with "race" (which I might question, but ... just an opinion), but the fact is that it DOES. And, at least when the Florida version was debated (which I quoted above) opponents of the law alerted that this would happen. The study in the article confirms that they were RIGHT.

It has racial implications in court decisions.

Interesting because I don't see how a reasonable person would think otherwise. Leaving the decision of whether to shoot at somebody or not to what the shooter "believes" when the alternative exists to safely remove yourself from the scene instead seems to me completely bonkers.

 

so you're doubling down on incompetence?

making distinctions without difference is dishonest.

I've read enough ignorance and stupidity I don't need to read more you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

so you won't respond until you psychically are aware that I have read all of your brain dead nonsense?

I did you were grossly incompetent or dishonest.

I think you mean to say you'll wait until I buy into your narcissism which I won't.

You don't bother to read anything so it's not like it's outside of the standard. I'm okay if you use whatever excuse you can come up with not to respond I'd actually prefer you didn't.

 

stand your ground has to do with self-defense so yes you did

stand your ground has to do with self-defense you're not allowed to stand your ground if you're not defending yourself.

Look at the law

I did but it's okay I acknowledge to my mistake and corrected it. And on top of that I got to learn a little more about the law so I guess the joke's on me.

 

Why did Rittenhouse have to stand trial?

 

QUOTE: Wilson, a biracial Black man, 21 years old at the time of the shooting on June 14, 2020, fired his legal handgun at a pickup truck of white teens who he says were yelling racial slurs at him and trying to run him and his white girlfriend off the road near Statesboro, Ga. One of those bullets struck and killed 17-year-old Haley Hutcheson, who was in the back seat of the truck. OK WHERE WAS WILSON'S EVIDENCE OR PEOPLE WHO SAW THIS HAPPEN? WAS THERE ANY? 2ND RACIAL SLURS, IS NOT A "STAND YOUR GROUND" SITUATION. ie. SELF DEFENCE. RUNNING YOU OFF THE ROAD? WILSON SOUNDS LIKE HE WAS SIDE BY SIDE WITH THE TRUCK. WHY DIDN'T HE HIT THE BREAKS, AND LET THEM GO BY HIM? THAT MIGHT HAVE AVOIDED THE SHOOTING. IT SOUNDS LIKE WILSON DIDN'T TRY TO AVOID THE WHITE TEENS AND WAS STAYING WITH THE MOVEMENT OF THE TRUCK. EITHER WAY HE DIDN'T NEED TO USE A FIREARM TO DEFEND HIMSELF, HE NEEDED TO AVOID THE TEENS IN THE TRUCK BY OTHER MEANS. IMO THIS IS WHAT I GOT FROM YOUR----LIMITED-----DISCRIPTION OF WHAT HAPPENED.

 

THIS IS WHAT I FOUND ONLINE ON STAND YOUR GROUND OR DUTY TO RETREAT LAWS.

Laws[edit]

Stand your ground law by US jurisdiction
Stand-your-ground by statute
Stand-your-ground by judicial decision or jury instruction
Duty to retreat except in one's home
Duty to retreat except in one's home or workplace
Duty to retreat except in one's home or vehicle or workplace
Middle-ground approach (DC, WI)
No settled rule (AS, VI)

• 38 states are stand-your-ground states, 30 by statutes providing "that there is no duty to retreat from an attacker in any place in which one is lawfully present": Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa,[5] Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,[6][7][8] Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming; Puerto Rico is also stand-your-ground.[9][10] Of these, at least eleven include "may stand his or her ground" language (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and South Dakota.)[10] Pennsylvania limits the no-duty-to-retreat principle to situations where the defender is resisting attack with a deadly weapon.
• The remaining 8 of the 38 stand-your-ground states[11] have case law/precedent or jury instructions so providing: California,[12][13] Colorado,[14][15] Illinois, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont,[16] Virginia,[17] and Washington;[18][19] the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands also falls within this category.
• 11 states impose a duty to retreat when one can do so with absolute safety: Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island. New York, however, does not require retreat when one is threatened with robbery, burglary, kidnapping, or sexual assault.
• Washington, D.C. adopts a "middle ground" approach, under which "The law does not require a person to retreat," but "in deciding whether [defendant] reasonably at the time of the incident believed that s/he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm and that deadly force was necessary to repel that danger, you may consider, along with any other evidence, whether the [defendant] could have safely retreated ... but did not."[20] Wisconsin also adopts a "middle ground" approach, where "while there is no statutory duty to retreat, whether the opportunity to retreat was available goes to whether the defendant reasonably believed the force used was necessary to prevent an interference with his or her person."[21]
• There is no settled rule on the subject in American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
• In all the duty to retreat states, the duty to retreat does not apply when the defender is in the defender's home (except, in some jurisdictions, when the defender is defending against a fellow occupant of that home). This is known as the "castle doctrine".
• In Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, and Nebraska, the duty to retreat also does not apply when the defender is in the defender's place of work; the same is true in Wisconsin and Guam, but only if the defender is the owner or operator of the workplace.
• In Wisconsin and Guam, the duty to retreat also does not apply when the defender is in the defender's vehicle.
• 22 states have laws that "provide civil immunity under certain self-defense circumstances" (Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wisconsin).[10] At least 6 states have laws stating that "civil remedies are unaffected by criminal provisions of self-defense law" (Hawaii, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, and Tennessee).[10]

I'LL SEE IF I CAN FIND MORE ON THE LAW.

 

TRY THIS

Stand-your-ground law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Jump to navigationJump to search
"Stand your ground" redirects here. For other uses, see Stand Your Ground (disambiguation).
A stand-your-ground law (sometimes called "line in the sand" or "no duty to retreat" law) provides that people may use deadly force when they reasonably believe it to be necessary to defend against certain violent crimes (right of self-defense). Under such a law, people have no duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense, so long as they are in a place where they are lawfully present.[1] The exact details vary by jurisdiction.

The alternative to stand your ground is "duty to retreat". In jurisdictions that implement a duty to retreat, even a person who is unlawfully attacked (or who is defending someone who is unlawfully attacked) may not use deadly force if it is possible to instead avoid the danger with complete safety by retreating.

Even areas that impose a duty to retreat generally follow the "castle doctrine", under which people have no duty to retreat when they are attacked in their homes, or (in some places) in their vehicles or workplaces. The castle doctrine and "stand-your-ground" laws provide legal defenses to persons who have been charged with various use of force crimes against persons, such as murder, manslaughter, aggravated assault, and illegal discharge or brandishing of weapons, as well as attempts to commit such crimes.[2]

Whether a jurisdiction follows stand-your-ground or duty-to-retreat is just one element of its self-defense laws. Different jurisdictions allow deadly force against different crimes. All American states allow it against deadly force, great bodily injury, and likely kidnapping or rape; some also allow it agains threat of robbery and burglary.

A 2018 RAND Corporation review of existing research concluded that "there is moderate evidence that stand-your-ground laws may increase homicide rates and limited evidence that the laws increase firearm homicides in particular."[3] In 2019, RAND authors indicated additional evidence had appeared to reinforce their conclusions.[4]

 

False. The standard is "reasonably believes". The same as it is for the castle doctrine. One cannot "reasonably believe" that the person pounding on their door is a threat to them. One can "reasonably believe" that a person pounding on their door and yelling threats through the door is a threat. One cannot "reasonably believe" that a person is going to run you off the road simply passing you while yelling obscenities.

 

WTH? Not self defense? You prove your signature false a lot...but this one tops the cake. I'd suggest that you learn what self defense is before speaking on the subject any more. But I doubt you will so I guess suggesting that you do is just wasted effort on my part.