Stand Your Ground

Off Topic
21

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

What defines self defense? Do you agree with the legal definition?

When can you claim it? When can you not?

[/quote]

According to Austrian law, if someone threathens “absolute geschützte Rechstgueter”, meaning something like inalienable rights but not quite, I have the right to defend myself.

Those include my life, my freedom, my health and my property.

Now I am supposed to choose the means that cause the least amount of harm, which might mean that I can actually shoot after someone who takes off with a bag or a bike.

I might not be allowed to carry a gun, but I am allowed to use it under those circumstances.

If I did that on a crowded street though, the prosecution would come after me like the wrath of God.

Thats when I can defend myself and I agree with this wholeheartedly.

22

It varies state by state. In my state, if someone walks in my unlocked back door, I can’t use deadly force unless I also fear for my life or the lives of my family. If that same guy kicks down my back door, I can use deadly force whether or not he’s armed.

The only property crime you can use deadly force in is arson. If you see a guy about to torch a house, shoot him (in my state, ianal).

I’d also add, that you can use deadly force if you fear for your life or if you fear you may suffer grave bodily injury which can mean blows to the shoulders and head. If a guy comes at you with a bat, swings at your face and misses, you can defend yourself using deadly force.

23

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]niksamaras wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
I think it is pretty easy.
If you legitimately fear for the life of your family/friend/yourself then deadly force is justified.
If you do not fear for a/your life then I do not think its justified.[/quote]

Ya, but how do you prove or even define legitimate fear? Is there a different standard for women, children, cowards, etc…[/quote]

Fear is purely personal. If you feel fear, you apply deadly force. It could be a term used in a court, I feared for my life. Case closed.[/quote]

Which means you can lie in court and get away with murder.

“Oh your Honor, I’m a huge pussy, and that guy looked so scary, so I shoot him.”

“Umm he was there to fix your plumbing…”

“But he was scawwwyyyyy…”[/quote]

I don’t think a plumber will invade into my house. I will let him in. In which case, if I kill him, I am going for murder, since it very easy to prove that I called him AND I let him in.

24

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
I think it is pretty easy.
If you legitimately fear for the life of your family/friend/yourself then deadly force is justified.
If you do not fear for a/your life then I do not think its justified.[/quote]

Ya, but how do you prove or even define legitimate fear? Is there a different standard for women, children, cowards, etc…[/quote]
Proving that you were scared for your life?
Come on buddy

25

would it matter to a jury if one of us who trains hard and eats big claimed self defense anyway?

I mean lets say someone off this site is on trial and their 600 pound deadlift shows up in court?

26

A question that everyone should ask and find appropriate answers depending where you live…With great need to understand/be aware of the terms ‘Reasonable’ and ‘Immediate’.
Protecting yourself or your family from Harm to the point the threat is no longer valid.Attacking someone who no longer a threat to you/others turns you into the perpetrator.

But remember…‘Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six’

27

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
If you legitimately fear for the life of your family/friend/yourself then deadly force is justified.
If you do not fear for a/your life then I do not think its justified.[/quote]

What would be the burden of proof for “legitimately fear”?

As in, what would the prosecution have to show in order for your statement that you “legitimately feared” was false?

28

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
http://www.myfoxny.com/Story/22840286/man-accused-of-pulling-toddler-into-nyc-surf

Do you think the Uncle would have been justified if after he caught the man he had shot him?

[/quote]

Absolutely not imo. This guy is probably not a top level marksman, and even if so, there is a chance of harming the baby whos safety is paramount if this situation.

Now if the baby was sitting twenty feet away from an person pointing a gun at the baby, then yes he would have been justified in shooting him. There is a special relationship between a guardian and child unlike a simple friendship. If he reasonably feared for the childs life (gun pinted at him scenario) then yes, justifiable.[/quote]

Remove the possibility of hitting the child from the equation. (I know, I know. I’m talking philosophical here.)

Attempted or actual kidnapping isn’t justifiable to use deadly force?

29

[quote]four60 wrote:
It varies from state to state. States that do not have Castle or Stand Your Ground Laws if someone breaks into a house the people inside may need to try and leave 1st. [/quote]

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
It varies state by state. In my state, if someone walks in my unlocked back door, I can’t use deadly force unless I also fear for my life or the lives of my family. If that same guy kicks down my back door, I can use deadly force whether or not he’s armed.

The only property crime you can use deadly force in is arson. If you see a guy about to torch a house, shoot him (in my state, ianal).

I’d also add, that you can use deadly force if you fear for your life or if you fear you may suffer grave bodily injury which can mean blows to the shoulders and head. If a guy comes at you with a bat, swings at your face and misses, you can defend yourself using deadly force. [/quote]

Do you guys agree with your state’s law? Do you know of a state that “got it right” in this regard?

30

[quote]SickSex6 wrote:
would it matter to a jury if one of us who trains hard and eats big claimed self defense anyway?

I mean lets say someone off this site is on trial and their 600 pound deadlift shows up in court?

[/quote]

Good question.

How would your training effect the burden of proof that you honestly feared for your life?

For example a 5’2" woman attacks a Smashingwieghts (as an example). If she used just her fists is that justifiable? What about a Frying pan? Baseball Bat? Knife? Gun? Where is the line in the sand?

31

I live in Texas

32

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]SickSex6 wrote:
would it matter to a jury if one of us who trains hard and eats big claimed self defense anyway?

I mean lets say someone off this site is on trial and their 600 pound deadlift shows up in court?

[/quote]

Good question.

How would your training effect the burden of proof that you honestly feared for your life?

For example a 5’2" woman attacks a Smashingwieghts (as an example). If she used just her fists is that justifiable? What about a Frying pan? Baseball Bat? Knife? Gun? Where is the line in the sand?[/quote]

There is both an “objective” (reasonable person) and a “subjective” (that person) compentent to a self-defense claim.

The charge is something like:

“Did the Defendant reasonably fear for his life or feared grevious bodily harm”?

“Reasonable fear” means fear that a person of normal sensibilities in the same or similar situation as the Defendant would have."

So, yes, if Mr. Zimmerman was a hulking beast of a man and Mr. Martin a midget that Zimmerman threw aside, Zimmerman would be be prison right now.

+++++++++++++++++

“Stand your ground” really has nothing to do with this case, except for some procedural stuff up front unque to Florida law that was not persued.

“Stand your ground” is a change in the law from the English law that says if you can run away, you have to try before using deadly force vs. the Spanish law that says, you don’t have to run away and can meet your attacker head on.

Most states West of the Mississippi and former Spanish possessions are Stand Your Ground, in general. Florida changed due to influence of Yankees and just recently went back the way it used to be.

Where deadly force laws get interesting, IMHO, is defense of property. For example, in Texas, a night, you can use deadly force to prevent theft of your property. So there are cases where homeowners shoot out the window at car thieves and kill them – perfectly legal.

33

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
If you legitimately fear for the life of your family/friend/yourself then deadly force is justified.
If you do not fear for a/your life then I do not think its justified.[/quote]

What would be the burden of proof for “legitimately fear”?

As in, what would the prosecution have to show in order for your statement that you “legitimately feared” was false?

[/quote]

You are hitting the core of what is a “fact question” and the realm of the jury. It just depends on the circumstances.

34

no body, no weapon, no case.

35

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
I think it is pretty easy.
If you legitimately fear for the life of your family/friend/yourself then deadly force is justified.
If you do not fear for a/your life then I do not think its justified.[/quote]

Not so easy! If you are the aggressor, and your victim gets the best of you during the scuffle, and THEN you fear for your life and kill him, it is NOT self-defense.[/quote]

I don’t think the discussion was positing you are the aggressor.

36

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
I think it is pretty easy.
If you legitimately fear for the life of your family/friend/yourself then deadly force is justified.
If you do not fear for a/your life then I do not think its justified.[/quote]

Ya, but how do you prove or even define legitimate fear? Is there a different standard for women, children, cowards, etc…[/quote]

If you are facing a threat that is armed and threatening bodily harm, if you are attacked be it by an armed person or not, if you are in a situation where innocents are threatened then these are all justifiable reasons to pull a weapon and fire.
It’s not fear, it’s dealing with actual threats.

Basically, somebody who has taken it upon themselves to give you a reasonable concern for your, your family’s or friends safety, then you can draw your weapon and fire.
And for me, it’s not the law, but if somebody rapes your daughter I think it’s perfectly reasonable to hunt the asshole down and pop a cap in his ass. I wouldn’t convict him if I sit on that jury.

37

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
It varies state by state. In my state, if someone walks in my unlocked back door, I can’t use deadly force unless I also fear for my life or the lives of my family. If that same guy kicks down my back door, I can use deadly force whether or not he’s armed.

The only property crime you can use deadly force in is arson. If you see a guy about to torch a house, shoot him (in my state, ianal).

I’d also add, that you can use deadly force if you fear for your life or if you fear you may suffer grave bodily injury which can mean blows to the shoulders and head. If a guy comes at you with a bat, swings at your face and misses, you can defend yourself using deadly force. [/quote]

Yeah, here in GA, if somebody wants to mug me and I shoot him, it’s cool. In the NE that would be homicide. You want to live in a stand your ground state. Gun laws only protect the criminals.

38

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
http://www.myfoxny.com/Story/22840286/man-accused-of-pulling-toddler-into-nyc-surf

Do you think the Uncle would have been justified if after he caught the man he had shot him?

[/quote]

Absolutely not imo. This guy is probably not a top level marksman, and even if so, there is a chance of harming the baby whos safety is paramount if this situation.

Now if the baby was sitting twenty feet away from an person pointing a gun at the baby, then yes he would have been justified in shooting him. There is a special relationship between a guardian and child unlike a simple friendship. If he reasonably feared for the childs life (gun pinted at him scenario) then yes, justifiable.[/quote]

Remove the possibility of hitting the child from the equation. (I know, I know. I’m talking philosophical here.)

Attempted or actual kidnapping isn’t justifiable to use deadly force?[/quote]

Yes it is. If I see somebody trying an abduction in front of me, I will draw my weapon with the intent of firing. The po-po are reactive. Citizens are the first line of defense. I think you have a duty to protect your neighbors if you have the means.

39

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:
It varies from state to state. States that do not have Castle or Stand Your Ground Laws if someone breaks into a house the people inside may need to try and leave 1st. [/quote]

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
It varies state by state. In my state, if someone walks in my unlocked back door, I can’t use deadly force unless I also fear for my life or the lives of my family. If that same guy kicks down my back door, I can use deadly force whether or not he’s armed.

The only property crime you can use deadly force in is arson. If you see a guy about to torch a house, shoot him (in my state, ianal).

I’d also add, that you can use deadly force if you fear for your life or if you fear you may suffer grave bodily injury which can mean blows to the shoulders and head. If a guy comes at you with a bat, swings at your face and misses, you can defend yourself using deadly force. [/quote]

Do you guys agree with your state’s law? Do you know of a state that “got it right” in this regard?

[/quote]
I agree with my state’s laws. But if somebody walks into an unlocked door in my house unwelcomed, I have a right to shoot them. Unlocked doors are not a ‘Welcome’ sign. You still don’t have a right to be on anybody’s property without permission.

By the time somebody is swinging a bat at you, it’s too late.

40

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:
It varies from state to state. States that do not have Castle or Stand Your Ground Laws if someone breaks into a house the people inside may need to try and leave 1st. [/quote]

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
It varies state by state. In my state, if someone walks in my unlocked back door, I can’t use deadly force unless I also fear for my life or the lives of my family. If that same guy kicks down my back door, I can use deadly force whether or not he’s armed.

The only property crime you can use deadly force in is arson. If you see a guy about to torch a house, shoot him (in my state, ianal).

I’d also add, that you can use deadly force if you fear for your life or if you fear you may suffer grave bodily injury which can mean blows to the should
ers and head. If a guy comes at you with a bat, swings at your face and misses, you can defend yourself using deadly force. [/quote]

Do you guys agree with your state’s law? Do you know of a state that “got it right” in this regard?

In MD we have a form of Stand Your Ground. We have a Castle Doctrine that states If some tried to break into my Home, Car, property I don’t have to run or wonder why are they coming in? I can just defend.

The Law becomes weak when you are just strolling around. In that case we must fall on MD common law that says we must attempt to flee UNLESS doing so puts us in more danger. (like if they are right on you and running means turning your back to the attack)

I would LOVE a more defined Stand Your Ground Law in MD and my birth Facist state of NYC

[/quote]