“Stand Your Ground” Has Got to F***ing Go.

[riqster]

http://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2013/07/20/stand-your-ground-has-got-to-fing-go/

Snips:

"If Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman, who had followed him in a car, because he felt threatened?” the president said."

Think about it: Armed Citizen Number A meets Armed Citizen Letter 2. Both feel threatened by the other. A gun battle ensues, because both shooters are justified under Stand Your Ground (SYG) laws. Somebody dies, nobody can be charged, and people realize they can kill anyone they damned well please just by claiming that they were all skeered and s***.

The more people on the ground with guns and nebulous rules of engagement, the more shootings and shootouts we will see. Just like Sanford. But all over the country. Not just one kid, but many times many.

More at the link, including a link to a story about a burglar who shot the man he was robbing, and is using SYG in his defense.

The whole f***ing country will become a gigantic OK Corral if we keep on with the Stand Your Ground laws, as the President suggested yesterday. He's right.

[smallcat88]

1. good article

Laws that protect the guilty at the expense of the innocent negate the very notion of the rule of law and encourage mass revolt.

[riqster]

2. Good point!

If people don't believe in justice, there will be no justice.

[NoOneMan]

3. Trayvon Martin would of went to jail

SYG & self-defense claims mostly just work if you are white (or IOW, if the jury can more easily empathize with you than the person you killed).

I sort of like the dueling aspect. Imagine how many of the 1% could be justifiably purged if the people figured out how to use this law properly. Itd be a bummer to see that opportunity go, but you know, in the meantime, the law is an abomination.

[riqster]

6. The Rude Pundit pointed out the racial disparity

...in one of his posts. You are quite right about the likely outcome IMO.

[GreenStormCloud]

22. The facts show otherwise.

The Tampa Bay Times http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/nonfatal-cases has been assembling the details of all shooting cases that involved SYG since the law was inacted. Some are fatalities, some are only woundings. The web site is interactive so you can set it to show whatever detail that you want to, including details of individual cases. Most shooting are between people of the same race. Setting the filter for black on white shootings, adding fatalities and woundings for total shootings we find:

Black on White - 4 convicted, 12 justified, 4 pending
White on Black - 3 convicted, 14 justified, 5 pending

Total of all SYG claims:
59 convicted, 143 justified, 35 pending

So SYG isn't used that often, is not a shoot anybody for free card, and is not for-Whites-only.

[GlashFordan]

30. Facts and Hyperbole don't play well together.

Easier to be emotional than factual.

[Kingofalldems]

32. Oh another 'emotional' charge ala Rush Limbaugh

[uponit7771]

37. or easier to look at twisted data to look at facts...PS...the posters data is twisted.

[Lizzie Poppet]

55. How, precisely?

Please be specific.

[uponit7771]

59. Because you're showing a small subset vs the LARGER ones.. link inside

http://blog.metrotrends.org/2012/03/stand-ground-laws-miscarriages-justice/

[Lizzie Poppet]

60. Thank you very much for the reply!

I'll take a look...

Again, thanks.

[csziggy]

31. Trayvon Martin wouldn't have made it to jail

If he had done exactly as Zimmerman did, as soon as he said "I shot him." the Sanford cops would have shot Martin and probably killed him. He would not have had the chance to plead SYG, would not have been taken to the police station and casually led in, would not have been allowed to go home that night, would not have been afforded multiple times to "correct" his story, etc.

Martin would still have been dead that night, even if he had survived long enough to attempt to claim he stood his ground.

[GreenStormCloud]

35. Why didn't that happen to the 12 other blacks who killed whites...

...claimed SYG and got off?

[uponit7771]

38. So you think there's NO disparity?! NONE at all? You live in the US?! regards

[GreenStormCloud]

61. Look at the numbers. Blacks use SYG too.

There is no reason to think that Florida's experience is different from any other state.

[uponit7771]

66. The number of whites allowed to claim self far far out number those of blacks by the hundreds of %

[GreenStormCloud]

72. There are many more White people than Black people.

Race on Race-----Convicted------Aquitted-----Pending
White on White---39--------------65------------7
White on Black----3---------------14------------5
Black on White----5---------------12--------------4
Black on Black ----13-------------29-------------11

Remember that there are several times as man Whites as there are Blacks, naturally the numbers fo Whites are higher. Florida is about 80% White, 16% black. Notice that the cross racial numbers are close to the same.

Numbers are far all SYG shootings, both fatal and non-fratal, from 2005 to present, in Florida.

[uponit7771]

86. Talking about the PBS study, not it's offshoots

[darkangel218]

4. I normally dont agree with you on other issues

But I agree with you on this one.

SYG needs to at least be amended if nothing else. This is ridiculous.

[riqster]

5. Agreement is a good thing.

Even more precious when rare.

[Aerows]

8. Count me a second one

I detest your views on spying, but wholeheartedly agree with you on SYG.

[riqster]

10. People of good will can disagree

As long as we keep the disagreement to the issues and try not to personalize it, we can be strong against the real enemy. And strength is needed in the constant fight against the Right Wingnuts.

[Aerows]

11. Agreed :)

RWNJ are a big problem we need to combat.

It scares the shit out of me what they would do with an enhanced security state, but hell, they are bad enough just in restricting women's reproductive rights and voting rights.

[HiPointDem]

7. protest ALEC in chicago aug 8. ALEC = author of syg.

[riqster]

9. They and the NRA. nt

[DevonRex]

12. Excellent. ALEC has got to go, too. Their involvement with the private prison

system, students to prisons and using prisoners as slave labor for corporations is criminal. IMO. As are the judges who and school districts in their pocket.

[krispos42]

13. *yawn*

Despite the moral panic, the number of justified homicides continues to be flat.

Despite all 50 states now issuing concealed-carry permits (up from a handful 20 years ago), despite millions of Americans legally carrying guns in public.


The Zimmerman case was a clusterfuck, but he was acquitted under regular self-defense laws, not SYG.

[Lurks Often]

14. Stop bringing troublesome facts into emotional rants!

That is verboten!!!!

[riqster]

15. The jury instructions included SYG.

So, that point fails.

Speaking of facts.

[krispos42]

16. You mean that both Martin and Zimmerman had the right to be there? n/t

[riqster]

17. No, the judge specifically referenced SYG. nt

[krispos42]

40. The judge did.

If SYG had been put forward by Zimmerman at his arrest, it would not have even gone to trial.

It is my understanding that the case went to trial because there wasn't an SYG defense that would have precluded prosecution of Zimmerman.

Zimmerman's defense was that Martin initiated the confrontation¹ and when Zimmerman was losing, was forced to defend himself with deadly force.

The older law, the duty-to-retreat law, would still have defended Zimmerman because, when Martin suddenly appeared and confronted Zimmerman¹, Zimmerman would not have been able to retreat safely from the situation, and using lethal force would still be justified.

It still winds up being a clusterfuck. Zimmerman should have gotten SOMETHING for stalking Martin and leading Martin to think his life was in danger.


¹ According to Zimmerman. Take it with a grain of salt.


I admit that I might have some facts in error, but my understanding of the SYG law in Florida was that prosecution was precluded if the person had the right to be in the public space he/she was occupying, was not involved in criminal activity, and had reasonable fear of imminent death or serious injury.

[mountain grammy]

21. The jury got the instructions they needed to acquit and they were SYG instructions.

Yes, the prosecution did a poor job, but the instructions to the jury tied it all up. This is a victory for racists.

Listening to the juror who spoke publicly says it all. The kid was the criminal and the judge made that point with the instructions. Self defense doesn't apply for an aggressor, but that wasn't shared with the jury.

Anyone who really believes any of this is about "facts" is delusional.

[Hoyt]

27. Not true. The 2005 SYG law changed Florida's definition of self-defense.

The jury instructions prior to 2005, would have required Zman to move on.

After SYG, the laws got Zimmerman off and made bigots and gun lovers happy. Of course, jurors like B37 helped, as well.

[EOTE]

34. You'd think that the gun nutters would have given up on that lie by now.

SYG was, without a doubt included in the jury instructions. So the gun nuts are going to have to find another lie to tell about SYG, the one you're peddling isn't going to work on thinking people.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. Duty to be raped.

[uponit7771]

39. +1

[joeglow3]

19. Don't you have to be physically assaulted before SYG can kick in?

If so, then the scenario laid out above would never be allowed under SYG. Thus, how can you use this made up scenario to overturn something it has nothing to do with?

And I don't think you can initiate a physical assault, get your ass handed to you and then assert SYG.

[riqster]

20. The Rules of Engagement under SYG laws are nebulous.

And that is the crux of the problem. They frequently reference "feelings" or "perceptions" rather than defined physical acts and situations.

By contrast, the castle doctrine is far more precise: if someone breaks into your home, you are allowed to use deadly force to protect yourself. That is a clear and defined ROE - specific physical boundary crossed, deadly force permitted. SYG laws are not nearly so precise.

The made-up scenario is not in fact made-up: it happened countless times in the Old West. And under SYG, it can happen again.

Competent, trained professionals who carry weapons (like soldiers, cops, etc.) have carefully-defined ROE. Civilians (who have less training and usually less skill) need even MORE precise ROE, not less. But SYG makes these rules amorphous.

[rrneck]

23. Do you have an example of a properly designed civillian ROE? nt

[riqster]

29. As said already

The castle doctrine.

[rrneck]

33. So

if there's no door to kick down what sort of ROE do you suggest?

[riqster]

36. That's the point, innit?

If there is no clearly-defined boundary that can be independently confirmed on subsequent investigation, keep the gun in the holster.

Cops and soldiers go through long and repeated training, and even they fuck up and kill the wrong person at times. A bunch of kinda-sorta trained amateurs running around the streets packing heat is a recipe for disaster.

Some things are best left to professionals. We don't let amateurs do appendectomies on the streets, because they might kill somebody. We don't let the average schmoe drive a fire truck, because they might kill somebody.

But people are OK with letting random jackasses play cops and robbers with deadly weapons?

Puh-leeze.

[rrneck]

41. I don't see an ROE there.

Can you posit that "clearly defined boundary"?

ETA

Earlier castle doctrine was fine. Now it's not. You spoke of precise ROE's, and now you speak of the defender's need to verify the existence of forensic evidence to support a claim of self defense. How does this differ from an affirmative defense?

How is it fair to demand someone in a crisis situation verify the existence of evidence in a fight for their life? Explain how that would work.

[riqster]

42. As I said, that is the point. Where there are no such boundaries, no ROE is possible.

Not for non-professionals, anyway. So, SYG laws cannot be effectively legislated or administered.

[rrneck]

43. I updated the previous post.

So if we should leave it to the professionals, how will we guarantee those professionals will be there to save us?

[riqster]

44. By electing democrats, for one thing.

So funding is available for those professionals.

By passing common-sense gun control legislation, to make it harder for guns to get in the hands of criminals.

And by stopping the random self-deputization of the amateurs that is SYG.

[rrneck]

49. Well,

while electing Democrats is a good thing, how many cops on the street do you think it will take to protect each and every one of us 24/7?

Criminals don't need guns to hurt you.

So far your solution seems to be that there is no way to determine rules of engagement between people, turn the police into personal bodyguards, and disarm anyone who ventures outside. And since you seem to think castle doctrine is a suitable ROE against people who would kick in your door I wonder if it has occurred to you that those same door kickers are not under the sofa, but out in the world where there will never be enough cops or simple and easy rules of engagement. So it's fine to defend yourself against bad guys with a gun at home, but you would have people concede the field to them outdoors where there isn't even a door to hide behind.

[riqster]

51. Not hardly. I am talking about repealing SYG, not CCW.

SYG muddies the water. Without it, a CCW permit holder can shoot in self-defense, but the rules on deadly force follow existing laws to a greater extent.

Oh, and I have lived and worked in a lot of bad places. And have dealt with all sorts of criminals, armed and otherwise. And never needed a gun to come out alive.

Yes, criminal types are out there. They always have been and always will be. There have been and are laws regarding our right to self-defense with clear guidelines as to the use of deadly force.

All I am saying is, ditch SYG and go back to what works.

[rrneck]

52. The laws that existed before SYG

generally understood as "duty to retreat" were rules of engagement as well. They just stipulated that the defender should attempt to disengage before the use of force.

All it takes is one sentence to fulfill the requirements of either set of rules: "I couldn't outrun him so I couldn't disengage and stood my ground".

The entire debate is a red herring. It's a strategic solution to a tactical problem. The rational person standard applies either way.

[riqster]

54. With respect, that is not the case.

SYG does, in fact, muddy the rules of engagement:

* Without SYG, if you could not disengage, you were clear to proceed. If you could disengage, you were required to.

* With SYG, disengagement is no longer required. It makes the use of deadly force more likely, and harder to prosecute.

And many laws are strategic regulations that attempt to regulate tactical behavior. SYG is not unique in that regard.

[rrneck]

58. Required?

Requirements assume the right to enforce those requirements. Enforcement assumes control over the situation. When someone is fighting for their lives control is conspicuously absent.

The sentence "I couldn't outrun him" works just as well for SYG as DTR. If you can't outrun him you have to stand your ground and fight. The courts will have te determine if you make the right call after the fact. Either way they will have to use the reasonable person standard and the rules of evidence to determine culpability.

If you can't form ROE for SYG, you can't form them for DTR. Either way the result is the same. You still have to prove the defender was unable to disengage, or an affirmative defense requires them to prove it. And all they have to do is say "I didn't think I could". That's reasonable doubt.

[Lee-Lee]

45. So the right to self defense is only for government "professionals"?

Or only "professionals" lives are worthy of defense once outside the home?


I don't want to live in your world- and I was one of those "professionals" for many years. My life was not any more worthy of my being able to protect it when attacked then than it is now.

My right to self defense is non-negotiable, and people who would weaken it in a knee jerk reaction to a single case without fully understanding the ramifications of what they propose disgust me.

[riqster]

46. Weaken it? Not a bit of it.

SYG laws are a recent phenomenon, and do not strengthen the right of self-defense.

We had self-defense laws before SYG, and will have them when SYG is gone.

[Lee-Lee]

50. So tell me

EXACTLY what alternative you propose.

It will have to become duty to retreat. So by what standard will ability to retreat, reasonable retreat, etc be judged?

If a man is coming at me and I can run, but I am in heels, must I try to run in heels and let him catch me before defending myself? Or would the fact that he could probably outrun me be enough to bypass retreat and allow me to defend myself.

Where is the line drawn where retreat is "possible" or "reasonable"?

If a man pushes a woman down and starts to sexually assault her, she gets up and whacks him with a pipe she grabbed before running, is she now guilty because she used force before retreating when she could have just retreated?

Tell me, exactly what standard would you advocate? How much second guessing the actions of people who defend themselves against attack would you advocate the government and courts do?

And if you are unwilling or unable to answer the above questions, then you don't have an alternative. That make syou just another knee-jerker on this issue.

[riqster]

53. I can answer them all with something you should already know.

SYG did not establish the right to use force (including deadly force) in self-defense. There were already laws establishing that right. I advocate the standards in place before SYG laws mucked things up.

The question of "retreat" is not new. The question of resisting an assailant with deadly force is not new. None of these scenarios are new. Nor do they require SYG to be addressed. We have existing laws with precedent, rules, and established procedures to understand and apply self-defense cases.

The idea that repealing these new, ill-advised, poorly-written SYG laws and reverting to the existing laws will somehow take away our right to self-defense is ludicrous.

Example: I was assaulted in Hollywood, CA back in the 90's, by a man with a very large knife (a bayonet, if you want the details). I slugged him in the head with a guitar (a Fender Stratocaster in a gig bag) and sat on him until the police arrived. The cops came, took statements, gave me the usual instructions about being available should I be called to testify, not leaving town yadayada, arrested him, and I went on to my gig. No gun required.

No SYG law at that time. I was not defenseless. In fact, the laws were clear, well-understood, and the situation was handled professionally.

And if we got rid of SYG and the same thing happened again, I would do the same, and the outcome the same.

And if he'd had a gun pointed at me? Do you seriously think I could have drawn, aimed and fired before he blew me away? Not a chance. No, he'd have left the scene with my wallet, guitar, AND my gun. So SYG would not have helped, even in that scenario.

[Lee-Lee]

56. I am glad it worked out for you

Don't assume everybody will have a situation will be just as yours, or that they will have a weapon at hand as you did. Yes, the guitar is just as much a weapon.

Tell me, was retreat possible in your situation, or where you cornered?

If you were cornered, what if you didn't have the guitar? Most people don't carry one.

If you were not, then you got lucky that the police and prosecutor made the choice not to pursue charges on you- because by the letter of the law they could have. Your fate was entirely left to their choice and how much they liked you.

[riqster]

57. Yes, I was backed into the doorway of a closed building. So disengagement was not possible.

No musician would risk a valuable instrument unless they had to. But it was all I had with which to defend myself.

And if I'd had a gun, or a knife, or pepper spray, or the pipe you postulated, nothing really would have been different except the degree of injury to the assailant. If I'd had no weapons, I'd have been well and truly fucked, most likely.

If we use force against another citizen, we are (and should be) accountable for our actions. Had the cops chosen to charge me, I'd have gotten a lawyer and defended myself. That's how our society works.

[GreenStormCloud]

63. The trick to using a gun in self-defense is situational awareness.

Just as a poker expert can read your cards in your face, knowing the signs can enable you to spot an attacker before he begins his attack, so you can be ready. (NO, you don't draw the gun yet, you still keep it concealed, but put you hand under your clothes next to your gun, and make eye contact with the guy.) Experienced muggers will observe your getting ready actions and will decide not to bother you. There are lots of excellent books and videos that can teach you what to look for and what to do.

[X_Digger]

64. Actually, CA has 'stand your ground' without a codified law as such.

http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2013/07/22/5-things-to-know-about-stand-your-ground-in-california/

[GreenStormCloud]

62. SYG is not recent at all.

Some states have had SYG forever.

[riqster]

65. Please provide documentation of this claim.

[X_Digger]

67. Runyon v. State (Indiana, 1877)

From Runyon:

establishes the doctrine that when a person, being without fault and in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel force by force, and if, in reasonable exercise of his right of self-defence, his assailant is killed, he is justifiable.

State v. Partlow (Missouri, 1887)
Beard v US, (1895)
People v. Lewis (California, 1897)
Boykin v. People (Colorado, 1896)
State v. Hatch (Kansas, 1896)
Ragland v. State (Georgia, 1900)

[riqster]

69. That is different from the new, ALEC-based SYG.

Those rulings covered (as your post states) cases of actual assault. The new versions expand to "feelings" and "perceptions".

In the settled law, if you assault me, I can use the force required to defend myself. In the new laws, there is less specificity, thence the problem.

[X_Digger]

71. You are mistaken. The standard in all such laws is the 'reasonable person'.

That phrase is a legal term, not the vernacular 'feeling' / 'perception'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

e.g. Texas:

Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force.

or FL:

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Or California (jury instructions):

The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/ [or] <insert name or description of third party> ) was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury [or was in imminent danger of being (raped/maimed/robbed/ <insert other forcible and atrocious crime> )];

A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/great bodily injury/ <insert forcible and atrocious crime> ) has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.

[riqster]

75. Actually, it is you that are mistaken.

You are lumping together judicial rulings, jury instructions and laws as if they are one and the same. They can be similar but are not always equivalent.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/states-that-have-stand-your-ground-laws.html

You will notice that California is NOT on the list of states with SYG laws.

The article also provides a good bit of other edifying information in the topic, and it might prove to be useful to you in regards to this topic.

[X_Digger]

76. California does not have a law with that title, but all juries in homicide cases that assert SD

Are given those instructions:

http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/documents/calcrim_juryins.pdf#page=289

Go ahead, tell me that California's own courts are wrong.

The judicial rulings relate to your questioning that stand one's ground is an old concept.

The laws in some states are explicit. (FL, TX, etc.)

The jury instructions for California are applied to self-defense cases, therefore are relevant.

California has 'Stand Your Ground' by judicial practice, but not law.

In all three cases (California, Texas, Florida), one is not required to retreat before defending themselves. And in all three, the same 'reasonable person' standard is applied, not some nebulous 'feeling'.


eta: LOL, from your own link:

States that have adopted a stand your ground doctrine through judicial interpretation of their self-defense laws are not included in this list:

California is one of those states.

eta2:

You will notice that California is NOT on the list of states with SYG laws.

And you will notice that California is also NOT on the list of states with a duty to retreat.

[GreenStormCloud]

74. "Feelings" won't cut it.

You still have to claim self-defense, with SYG added on. That means that you are claiming that the guy you defended against had the means, motive, opportunity, and an immediated demonstration of intent to kill or greatly harm you. SYG merely means that you didn't have a legal duty to run away.

SYG used to be understood to be the way things were until some overzealous prosecutors, driven by agendas, began charging for not retreating. There was a case in which a man defended himself and his wife, and was told by the prosecutor that he should have retreated and left his wife to retreat for herself. SYG, as statute law stopped that kind of bull.

[GreenStormCloud]

68. OK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

Beard v. U.S. (158 U.S. 550 (1895)

Laws or rulings implementing features of Stand Your Ground have a long history within the United States.

In Runyon v. State, a 1877 Indiana court case, the court said "The tendency of the American mind seems to be very strongly against the enforcement of any rule which requires a person to flee when assailed, to avoid chastisement or even to save a human life . . . [Therefore,] [t]he weight of modern authority . . establishes the doctrine that when a person, being without fault and in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel force by force, and if, in reasonable exercise of his right of self-defence, his assailant is killed, he is justifiable."[35]

Other early cases invoking a "no duty to retreat" argument include People v. Lewis, 48 P. 1088 (Cal. 1897); Boykin v. People, 49 P. 419 (Colo. 1896); Ragland v. State, 36 S.E. 682 (Ga. 1900); Page v. State, 40 N.E. 745 (Ind. 1894); State v. Hatch, 46 P. 708 (Kan. 1896); and State v. Partlow, 4 S.W. 14 (Mo. 1887).

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. declared in Brown v. United States (1921) (256 U.S. 335, 343 (16 May 1921)), a case that upheld the "no duty to retreat" maxim, that "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife".[36]

As you can see, SYG isn't new at all. And those Justices above didn't invent it then either. Ultimately it goes back to English Common Law.

[riqster]

70. See my reply above.

You are attempting to equate the settled and established laws of self-defense with the new NRA and ALEC- written laws.

[GreenStormCloud]

73. They aren't any different.

All SYG does is remove a duty to retreat. The rest of the laws of self-defense still apply.

[riqster]

83. You just contradicted yourself.

First you said they are not different, and then you explained the difference.

[Just Saying]

78. Well done. N/T

[GreenStormCloud]

26. The rules of self-defense still have to be met.

Lots of people are all up in arms without knowing what the law actually does. SYG simply means that you don't have to run away, nothing more.

Self-defense is based on the "reasonable man" test, not on how a person says they felt. There has to be an immediate, serious, credible threat of severe injury to you. You can't just say that you felt threatened and expect to get off.

The role of agressor and defender and legally switch places. Here is how it works.

#1 hits #2, thereby starting a fight. #2 is a better fighter and starts getting the best of #1. #1 attempts to quit the fight, either by running or by surrendering. At this point #2 loses any right to any further violent actions. The fight is over. However, #2 continues the fight, refusing to allow #1 to withdraw. At this point #2 has now become the agressor and #1 is now the defender. (#1 can still be charged with assault for starting it.) If #2's violence is severe enough, #1 can now use deadly force.

SYG can be used even if you haven't taken any injury. What is needed is that there is a credible severe threat to you. Example: You are walking from the shopping to your car that is at the far end of the parking lot, at night. You notice a guy following you. He whips out a knife and demands your money and car keys. You can now use SYG.

[HockeyMom]

79. You can RUN, my dear

I say that as an old, white, woman, WITHOUT a gun, living in Florida. SYG protects GUNNERS.

[ManiacJoe]

80. Sometimes running is good tactics, sometimes it is not.

[HockeyMom]

81. Assuming you DON'T have a gun,

running is your best choice. SYG is for gunners.

[ManiacJoe]

82. Running is not ALWAYS the best option, even when unarmed.

[GreenStormCloud]

85. I can't run. I have a disability. I can walk, but at a moderate pace. N/T

[napkinz]

24. SYG ...

[napkinz]

25. what SYG really stands for ...

[HockeyMom]

84. There not only is a racial divide in this county,

there is also a GUN divide in this county. That goes beyond the racial divide. Gunners don't get this. We, as Trayvon did, have just as much rich to life, liberty, and the pursit of happiness, as YOU and your "Second Amenment" rights do.

Understand that point, gunners. WE are still the majority, not YOU.

[livingwagenow]

28. Recced. nt

[Scurrilous]

47. K & R

[HiPointDem]

48. kr

[Apophis]

77. I agree. The SYG law needs to go.