Are SYG laws weapon agnostic?

[PowerToThePeople]

Can I use an axe against someone and claim SYG?

Can I stab someone to death with a knife and claim SYG?

Can I drown someone in a nearby fountain and claim SYG?

Can I throw someone from the top of a big building and claim SYG?

Just curious. Is it only the gun nuts who get protections?

[NutmegYankee]

1. Pretty sure knives are included.

And hand to hand combat. For example, if a woman was attacked by a man on the street and she went for his throat or eyes, she would be protected.

[Major Nikon]

4. Just as she would be without SYG

Just sayin'

[NutmegYankee]

7. The burden of proof would be on her.

And her attempted rapist could just show that she had a means of escape without attacking him. Fucked up but very true.

[Major Nikon]

9. NRA/ALEC fantasyworld nonsense

Neither NRA or ALEC could come up with a single example that their fucked up shoot-first laws would have prevented. The law already contained significant protections for self defense.

So could is the operative word here which only exists in the anals(sic) of gun nuttery.

Meanwhile what actually did happen was exactly what prosecutors predicted would happen in that shitstains like Z would get away with murder.

[NutmegYankee]

10. Congrats on the first Godwin style loss of the thread. nt

[Major Nikon]

12. Congrats on the God-lose

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

[NutmegYankee]

14. I'm familiar with it. You still lost.

A corollary is the use of NRA, etc to vilify an opponents argument without any reference to such organization.

We were discussing the situation of woman having to face their attacker for self defense.

[Major Nikon]

16. I lost because you don't agree

Completely fucking up Godwin was just icing on the cake.

Brilliant!

[NutmegYankee]

30. LOL.

It's a corollary.

[Major Nikon]

33. Genius!

It sounds cool to call Godwin even on something that isn't even remotely Godwin, so I'll just call Godwin when someone presents something I find inconvienient and Shazam! I self-declare victory!

Sweet Jesus, why didn't I think of this? It's so utterly simple it transverses the left side of the bell curve and lands squarely on the right(wing).

[NutmegYankee]

38. Are you always this dense?

I called it a "Godwin Style" loss based on a corollary about using an unrelated but hated group for an Association fallacy. It recognizes that the other debater is attempting to use the Association fallacy.

Ergo your use of ALEC and NRA.

[Major Nikon]

46. So you said "Godwin" but what you really meant was "Association fallacy"

Of which Godwin is a subset and not all inclusive.

It's so clear now!

I'm guilty of associating the NRA and ALEC with Stand Your Ground.

I can't deny it, guilty as charged. Now I'm going to send a note to Wiki and call Godwin on those bastards and a personal note of apology to the NRA for daring to promote it the whole way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council#.27Stand_Your_Ground.27_laws

Thanks for setting me straight on my "fallacy". You've been so helpful!

[NutmegYankee]

47. I said Godwin style.

You are in fact using an association fallacy. Woman's rights activists have wanted laws better protecting a woman in self defense for years. I guess they must be all right-wingers under your logic as well...

[Major Nikon]

63. This keeps getting better and better

You did indeed say "Godwin style" as if me or anyone else can somehow derive some vague meaning that has only the most tangential association with what Godwin actually said. But I'm somehow "dense" for not seeing the clarity of your obvious faceplant which was also corrected by another poster. Then you claim it was actually an "Association fallacy" as if you have a better idea of what that means. ALEC wrote the Stand Your Ground legislation. The NRA promoted Stand Your Ground with their pulpit. Both the ALEC and the NRA used their bought and paid for politicians to pass it. Yet somehow, somewhere in your non-"dense" worldview I committed an egregious "Godwin style" "Association fallacy" (whatever the hell that means) because I dared to associate Alec and the NRA with Stand Your Ground. Next you'll tell me I can't associate Hitler with the Holocaust.

But wait! As if the brilliance couldn't possibly get any better, now you're actually trying to say that feminists are like totally on board with ALEC's, the NRA's (and evidently your) complete right wing Stand Your Ground nuttery. Which "Woman's right activists" would those be? Ann Coulter?

If you want to keep digging that hole, be my guest. I'll even go get you a bigger shovel. The entertainment value alone is worth it.

Cheers!

[NutmegYankee]

70. You just keep heaping on the FAIL!

The point of debate is to argue for or against a position based on it's advantages or disadvantages. You instead chose an Informal fallacy class of attack, and committed a logical fallacy. You are arguing that simply because one group supports the law, that inherently makes it evil and anyone arguing that point must be in league with that group. That is of course a clear logical fallacy. If it's a bad law, argue on why it is. Try to focus on it's misuse, such as the shooting in the movie theater or the murder of Trayvon Martin. Focus on the fact that it gets misused to cover people who are using aggression on others or that it has possible racist overtones. But you didn't do that! You used a fallacious argument. You have since spent the rest of this thread on a "red herring".

I presented one case where this type of law could be useful - defense of a woman against having to counter her rapist/attempted rapist in a self defense argument. I do not agree that a victim of a sex crime should have the burden of proof applied to them. As for the fact that you're entertained - It says a lot about you!

[Major Nikon]

71. Impressive word salad

[NutmegYankee]

72. You should take your own advice. nt

[Major Nikon]

74. I like you

You funny

[Electric Monk]

18. Often misunderstood, as you demonstrated just now. Allow me to clarify it some for you.

http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/ffi/ffi3.htm

[NutmegYankee]

29. *yawn*

Last edited Sun Feb 9, 2014, 05:11 PM - Edit history (1)

Reductio ad Hitlerum (aka Godwin's law) is but one form of the Association fallacy. There are corollaries on various boards noting the use of other reviled and hated groups (like ALEC here on DU) for the same purpose. Hence my description of it as "Godwin style".

And nice link - makes for a classic ad hominem.

[NutmegYankee]

43. No need for the ad hominem link

Reductio ad Hitlerum (aka Godwin's law) is but one form of the Association fallacy. There are corollaries on various boards noting the use of other reviled and hated groups (like ALEC here on DU) for the same purpose. Hence my description of it as "Godwin style". Comparing another liberal's position to ALEC is pretty fucked up. Especially since my argument was based on the scenario of a woman fighting off her attacker (rapist).

If you wish to call me an idiot - do so openly. And no, I won't alert on your post. I believe you will edit it.

[LAGC]

25. Zimmy didn't get off using SYG.

His lawyer rejected that approach and instead argued from a straight "self-defense" angle.

And the jury bought it.

[Major Nikon]

28. More right wing fantasyworld mythology

Actually, Stand Your Ground Played a Major Role in the Trayvon Martin Case

From the pull of the trigger to the not-guilty verdict, here's how the controversial self-defense law mattered.

Since George Zimmerman was acquitted in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, conservatives have argued that Stand Your Ground, Florida's expansive and controversial self-defense law, was irrelevant to the case. After all, Zimmerman waived his right to a pretrial hearing that might have granted him immunity under the statute, and his defense team chose not to raise it during the trial. Case closed, right?

This argument might make sense if, say, you didn't pay attention to the details of the case until a few days ago. In reality, Stand Your Ground played a major role, from Martin's death to Zimmerman's acquittal. Here's how:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/07/stand-your-ground-george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin

[LAGC]

36. Wrong.

I love me some MoJo, but they are seriously biased when it comes to reporting on gun issues:

A juror in the George Zimmerman trial broke her silence Monday night on national TV to say Florida's "stand your ground" laws played a role in the decision to acquit the Sanford neighborhood watch captain.

But the woman, identified only as Juror B37, also said she had "no doubt" Zimmerman feared for his life in the final moments of his struggle with Trayvon Martin, and that was the definitive factor in the verdict. The juror spoke to CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 on Monday.

That matched the assessment of legal experts who earlier Monday were describing the verdict on Saturday as the result of successful, garden-variety self-defense arguments that could sway a jury in any state.
..
..
Experienced prosecutors and law professors agreed that they think jurors were swayed by basic self-defense arguments made by Zimmerman's attorneys: Regardless of who initiated the encounter, at the moment the deadly shot was fired, Zimmerman feared for his life.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/despite-outcry-zimmermans-acquittal-was-not-based-on-stand-your-ground-laws/2131629

The key issue with the jury was that Zimmy convinced them that he was afraid for his life. He claimed he was jumped on and had no avenue of escape. That's what got him off. An SYG defense would involve HAVING an avenue of escape after the initial confrontation, but not using it. Zimmy's defense always claimed he had no avenue of escape once Trayvon supposedly pinned him to the ground. It's a defense that could have worked in any state.

I think he should have gone down for manslaughter just for going out of his way to look for trouble after being told not to, but Murder 2 was a serious overreach on the part of prosecutors and "poisoned the well," so to speak.

[X_Digger]

39. If you really want to see cognitive dissonance, show them the california jury instructions..

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

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.

[LAGC]

41. Exactly.

That standard boiler-plate language was probably in those Florida jury instructions long before SYG ever became law.

If Mother Jones really wanted to make their case, they should have posted standard jury instructions from BEFORE SYG became law as well, to bolster their claim that SYG was really the source of such language.

[X_Digger]

42. Never mind the actual criminal defense attorneys at DU who said it was straight self-defense.

No, 'some bloke on the internet said' suffices when they're saying what one wants to hear.

[kcr]

49. Actual self defense attorneys at DU?

Wow!

[X_Digger]

50. Did you mis-read my statement? We have a few criminal defense attorneys who post here.

Actual self defense attorneys at DU?

^^ just in case you edit before I reply.

Even an occasional prosecutor, but the one I'm remembering hasn't posted in quite a while.

[kcr]

51. Nope, didn't misread

And what if I did edit? It's not like it hides anything.

Are we supposed to be impressed that there are actual, honest to god posters who claim to be lawyers on DU?

[X_Digger]

52. When you have questions about law, do you prefer a reporter or a lawyer?

You know, people who can cite case law for precedents, are familiar with a certain state's laws on self-defense, and/or have tried cases in a particular district...

Or..

random reporter from some website?

Which do you think has a better grasp of the law?


eta: And in case you haven't noticed yet, edits within- I believe it's 10 minutes- don't show up as having been edited.

second edit: See?

[kcr]

53. You know where I don't seek the advice and opinions of lawyers?

On message boards.

[X_Digger]

55. You know where I don't seek legal advice? From reporters / bloggers / talking heads.

Got a criminal defense lawyer in your circle of friends? Or maybe friend-of-a-friend? Ask for a social introduction if you have to, then buy them a cup of coffee. Ask them about the zimmerman case and whether it was a standard self-defense case or SYG. Ask them if they would expect the same verdict in a duty to retreat state.

I'll give you dollars to donuts, you'll get the same answer.

[kcr]

56. Well, if you don't seek them there

Then it's really a head scratcher that you think we should be impressed by posts on a message board.

[X_Digger]

57. I spoke to quite a few. I have family in the business, as well as friends and friends-of-friends.

They all echoed what practicing defense attorneys at DU were saying. Uphill battle from the start, classic self-defense, talking heads are morons when it comes to the law.

[kcr]

60. Big surprise. People you choose to associate with

are likely to reaffirm your world view. Unless they don't, and then you'll reject those view, because they're talking head idiots and biased sources (Mo-jo) who are ignoring those who are reaffirming your views. Isn't that convenient? And then we're supposed to care that your crowd agree with these supposed hallowed "attorneys of DU" that you also approve of. Color me not impressed.

[X_Digger]

62. Don't take my word for it, ask a defense attorney yourself.

Go ahead.

But I expect a dozen glazed (or cough up $10 to DU for a star) when you come back, hat in hand.

[kcr]

67. I don't have to ask a defense attorney

It's right there in black and white, a jury member herself said they considered the stand your ground law when deliberating. Therefore it is flat out false to say that Stand Your Ground had absolutely nothing to do with this case. It clearly did. The fact that the defense chose not to specifically use the law in their defense is irrelevant.

[X_Digger]

73. She could have said she liked the color of his eyes..

But that wouldn't have meant it was actually part of the decision, or that the same result wouldn't have happened in a duty-to-retreat state.

Funny how you really don't want to be disabused of your notions by actually, you know, talking to a defense attorney.

[kcr]

78. Except that she said it did.

But really, it doesn't even matter. The instructions that juries receive were changed by the stand your ground law. So no matter what she said, they were shaped by it. It is false to say that SYG has nothing to do with it. SYG shapes the very way juries have to deliberate in self defense cases. The Zimmerman case was one of many to shine the light on this law.

[X_Digger]

81. So do you think california's jury instructions make similar cases there "SYG"?

Here's the boilerplate california jury instructions:

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.

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

[kcr]

83. Yes, I do

Appears to be very similar to Florida.

[X_Digger]

86. Lol, except california doesn't have SYG. Quite a quandry, eh? n/t

[kcr]

88. lol, omgz!1

So, does that mean, like the jury instructions don't matter then? Do the people acquitted still have to go to jail??? Maybe ask the DU lawyers?! Such a quandry.

[X_Digger]

90. Worked yourself right into a corner, lol.

I feel for you, truly I do. If you admit that jury instructions don't make it SYG, there goes your FL argument, but if you do claim the instructions make it SYG, you're faced with trying to claim that California has SYG.

It's your pickle, you get to sit in it.

[kcr]

92. I admitted no such thing. I'm saying the opposite, in fact.

I think that's why you're so confused.

[Major Nikon]

69. ...anonymously

I'm a rocket surgeon with a red phone to the almighty. Prove me wrong.

[X_Digger]

76. And here I thought you were a Major. Imagine my disappointment.

I'll issue the same challenge I did to kcr. Speak to a defense attorney in your friends or friends-of-friends circle of acquaintances.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

[rdharma]

80. In the mean time...... here's three shovels.......

.... take your pick!

Keep on a-diggin'!

[X_Digger]

82. Have anything actually substantive to contribute, or are you just going to snark in passing?

(I'm not holding my breath..)

[rdharma]

93. Take your pick! nt

If you want to ask leading questions,...... don't use "or" in the sentence.

[X_Digger]

95. So how about it? Anything substantive?

I mean.. is this substantive? Really??

In the mean time...... here's three shovels.......

.... take your pick!

Keep on a-diggin'!

[rdharma]

98. Something substantive? I see you decided to take a pick.

A "pick" is also a very good tool for digging a hole.

It might also make a fairly good improvised SYG "PDT".

[X_Digger]

100. As I expected. Snark without substance. *sigh* I had such high hopes this time. n/t

[rdharma]

101. Get a "strong holster" for your pick and keep it safely stored. nt

[Major Nikon]

85. I just rang up the Almighty on the red phone

He sent me this link which should help.

Since you put so much stock in appeals to (anonymous) worldly authority, here's a non-anonymous no-shit listed member of the Florida bar explaining it for you:

Florida Law Prior to the Enactment of the "Stand Your Ground" Law

Prior to Stand Your Ground, a person could use only non-deadly force to defend against the imminent use of unlawful non-deadly force. Deadly force was authorized only to defend against imminent deadly force or great bodily harm, or the commission of a forcible felony.

Unless the person was in his home or workplace, he had a "duty to retreat" prior to using deadly force. In one's home, the "Castle Doctrine" provided that the person had no duty to retreat prior to using deadly force against an intruder. However, he still needed the reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary to defend against deadly force, great bodily harm, or the commission of a forcible felony.

Florida Law After the Enactment of the "Stand Your Ground" Law

The "Stand Your Ground" Law introduced two (2) conclusive presumptions that favor a criminal defendant who is making a self-defense claim:

The presumption that the defendant had a reasonable fear that deadly force was necessary; and
The presumption that the intruder intended to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

These two presumptions protect the defender from both civil and criminal prosecution for unlawful use of deadly or non-deadly force in self-defense. In addition, the defender/gun owner has no duty to retreat, regardless of where he is attacked, so long as he is in a place where he is lawfully entitled to be when the danger occurs.

In passing the "Stand Your Ground" Law, the Florida Legislature expressed its intent that no person should be "required to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack." The "Stand Your Ground" Law effectively expands the "Castle Doctrine" by expanding what is meant by the concept of one's "castle" to include any place where a person is lawfully entitled to be.

Florida's "Stand Your Ground" Law now provides immunity from prosecution, as opposed to an affirmative defense that you would need to assert in Trial (after being arrested and charged by the State of Florida).

http://www.blakedorstenlaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1687102.html

[X_Digger]

87. Swing and a miss! Oh so close.

Had the zimmerman defense argued that the defendant could retreat but chose not to, SYG would apply.

It was the defense's "story" that zimmerman was pinned to the ground, unable to retreat, had he chose to do so. (However bullshit that claim might be.)

The prosecution was unable to effectively rebut that claim. As a matter of fact, the prosecution's own witnesses helped the defense more than the prosecution.

[Major Nikon]

97. Did you not read what the attorney wrote?

Or are you just being willfully illiterate?

The "Stand Your Ground" Law introduced two (2) conclusive presumptions that favor a criminal defendant who is making a self-defense claim:

The presumption that the defendant had a reasonable fear that deadly force was necessary; and
The presumption that the intruder intended to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

The difference is there was no burden of proof on Z to show that he had a reasonable fear that deadly force was necessary. Since Z killed the only witness, that presumption worked decidedly in his favor which is why the bullshit claim managed to become airworthy.

The corner you painted yourself into with your appeal to authority is that when a competent authority contradicts you, you don't get to have it both ways and still claim you're right.

For further reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petard#.22Hoist_with_his_own_petard.22

Now please do proceed with the rest of your right wing speaking points, but don't expect me to read them as this has been covered quite extensively already and seems quite banal at this point. There's a good reason why I don't venture into the gungeon.

Cheers!

[X_Digger]

99. I read it, and it doesn't apply to this case.

If you even read your own quoted section, you can see that those presumptions occur within castle doctrine, not SYG-

The presumption that the defendant had a reasonable fear that deadly force was necessary; and
The presumption that the intruder intended to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

"Intruder"? How can one have an "intruder" on a street?


Here's the relevant section of Florida code:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
...
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

Hence "intruder". Those are the two presumptions mentioned in your article. They are specific to unlawful entry into one's "castle".

Now, looking at the actual SYG statute:

Same page, lower down..

(3) 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.

Notice the lack of 'presumptions'? It would not say 'if he or she reasonably believes' if there was a presumption of such.

The presumption that the defendant had a reasonable fear only applies in one's home, in case of unlawful entry.

[X_Digger]

103. Aww, where'd ya go?

I'm really waiting to hear how you think that those presumptions actually apply to SYG rather than castle doctrine- "intruder" and all.

Still busy googling to find something that backs up your ludicrous position?

Hint: Next time, don't just pick a random lawyer's webpage.

[friendly_iconoclast]

106. Once again, the revelation of inconvenient truths has caused the ill-prepared to flee

[Major Nikon]

45. Bias:

COOPER: Did you feel like you understood the instructions from the judge, because they were very complex. I mean reading them, they were tough to follow.

You know the instructions from the judge which specifically cited Stand Your Ground, just like MoJo said.

JUROR: Right. And that was our problem. It was just so confusing what went with what and what we could apply to what. Because there was a couple of them in there that wanted to find him guilty of something. And after hours and hours and hours of deliberating over the law and reading it over and over and over again, we decided there is just no way -- other place to go.

COOPER: Because of the two options you had, second-degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied.

JUROR: Right. Well because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or that he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right. [CNN, Anderson Cooper 360, 7/15/13]

So I guess we can impeach CNN too, because after all CNN was founded by Ted Turner and used to be biased against conservatives. So it's their fault for asking leading questions to the juror.


Kinda telling that your source leaves that part out, no? I guess including it would have been just too biased against gun nuttery, so we can't have any of that.

[Hoyt]

102. He got off because the SYG law changed the definition of self-defense in Florida.

The judge's instructions to jury mentioned SYG, and juror after verdict mentioned it. SYG was definitely part of the reason Zman got off with grabbing his gun, stalking an unarmed teen, and shooting him center mass to the applause of bigoted gun fanciers everywhere.

[MattBaggins]

35. Burden of proof is fucked up?

Wow just wow

[NutmegYankee]

40. In making a rape victim justify her efforts to escape - yes.

Why should she be subjected to intense questioning and forced to justify why she couldn't escape without the use of force? Why does she have to undergo the 20-20 hindsight hurdle?

[Iggo]

2. Sure.

But SYG laws exist so you can start a fight, and if you start losing, you can kill the motherfucker.

[cherokeeprogressive]

3. "exist so you can..."

Love ya Bro, but the hyperbole is taxing.

Don't tell me what you feel, tell me what's real. Have you anything other than what some celebrity said, to cite in backing up that "...SYG laws exist so you can start a fight, and if you start losing, you can kill the motherfucker."?

[Major Nikon]

5. You have a better explanation?

[PowerToThePeople]

6. How about this

Could I torch the MF'er and claim SYG.

Could I carry a hangman's noose in my backpack and lynch the SOB who I feel threatened by?

[NutmegYankee]

8. Good lord man

Get a grip on reality sometime. Even under SYG, you may only use the force required to end the immediate threat to yourself. Hanging someone wouldn't fit that at all. Even in a fist fight you would be required to stop once the attacker had stopped. You can't just finish someone off - it's murder.

And a flamethrower is a ranged offensive weapon that couldn't be used in close quarters without endangering yourself. It cannot by design be used as a personal defense weapon no more than a missile can.

[blueridge3210]

11. Now, now:

Let's not mess up a perfectly good rant with facts. Spoils the fun, don't you know?

[PowerToThePeople]

15. You can't just finish someone off - it's murder

So, the reason a gun is acceptable is because it kills more efficiently than other methods?

[NutmegYankee]

21. A gun doesn't always kill.

If you wounded an attacker and he stopped attacking, then you must stop as well. If you shot him again, that is murder. The law applies to any weapon including fists that would reasonably be used in self defense.
If you were nailing a fence up and a man attacked you, your hammer could be the weapon you use to defend yourself. Guns come up so often because people are carrying them.

[AlinPA]

20. Maybe I missed it, but I read the FL SYG statute and it does not seem to say that deadly

force is limited to ending the immediate threat to a person on defense from an attacker.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

[NutmegYankee]

23. It's buried in 0776.012 and 0776.041.

Once the other side stops attacking, you have to stop or you are now the aggressor. Obviously focused on fist fights more than anything else.

[AlinPA]

24. Thanks, I'll look for that.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. Under florida's law you can start a fight and then kill your opponent if you are getting your ass

kicked.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
[/div
http://www.floridastandyourground.org/thelaw.html]

[NutmegYankee]

26. There are two types of force -

Force (fighting) and deadly force, which is defined in 0776.013. That provision is there to acknowledge that a fight can get out of hand and one side may attempt to take it too far. If the other party won't stop and you cannot escape (I.E., you have a duty to retreat in that scenario), you can use potentially deadly force to end the fight. You do have a duty to retreat in that scenario.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. nontheless, you can start a fight and then legally kill the person you attacked.

[NutmegYankee]

32. Only if you were in imminent risk of death and could not escape.

Winning a fight doesn't give you the right to finish off your opponent. Look at 776.012 - you may only use force (not deadly) to defend yourself if you are not at risk of imminent death or great bodily harm. If you are winning, you must stop beating the other guy.

Reasonable force only applies to stopping the threat. If a guy attacks me in an alley and I knock him to the ground, the fight is over. If I keep after him and he craws away, but I keep hitting him and he gets trapped such that he cannot escape, he can now defend himself with deadly force. If he uses some piece of garbage to hit me over the head to stop me, that is justifiable.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. yes. Some people (here included) conflate syg laws with rkba - but they are separate.

You have no constitutional right to "stand your ground", using any means. self defense laws are entirely a state issue.

Our GD hosts are massively confused about this. Your post will probably be alerted as a GD SOP violation, and more than one of the hosts will quite mistakenly agree with the alerters that this is a RKBA topic.

[NutmegYankee]

17. Agree. It's not a RKBA issue at all.

One it's face, the idea seemed sound. In practice, it's a disaster.

[PowerToThePeople]

19. Yes

I wanted to address different ways a person might stand their ground other than the typical mentioned method.

[X_Digger]

27. Yes, it is..

Self-defense law does not make a distinction about weapons- it's usually about 'deadly force'.

Had you intended more than flamebait, a simple google search would have turned up multiple cases that readily answer it.

[PowerToThePeople]

34. It is not flame bait

My point was to see if people would react differently depending on what type of weapon was used in SYG. What if I used a chainsaw against someone that I felt I was threatened by?

[X_Digger]

37. And another canard..

It's not whether or not you 'feel threatened', it's whether or not a reasonable person would fear death or grievous bodily harm.

'Reasonable person' -- your next google exercise.

[Hoyt]

44. I can't legally carry a sword, folding baton, etc. But any yahoo can get a gun toting permit.

SYG might apply to knives, but the laws were written and supported by gun fancying bigots.

[rdharma]

84. Only a nutjob would openly carry a sword in public..... claiming it was for "self defense".

Oops!

[Hoyt]

91. That's the way I feel about gunz. People claim self-defense, but it's usually something else

intimidation, bolster their cowardice, bullying, taking their country back, compensation, etc.

There are so many better ways to defend oneself than a gun tucked I'm one's pants.

[spin]

48. I'm not sure about drowning someone or throwing them off a building ...

but yes, you can use a knife or an axe for legitimate self defense.

Florida issues something called a "concealed weapons permit." Unlike many other states this carry permit allows the holder to carry a variety of weapons while in Florida.

The 2013 Florida Statutes

Chapter 790
WEAPONS AND FIREARMS

790.06 License to carry concealed weapon or firearm.—
(1) The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is authorized to issue licenses to carry concealed weapons or concealed firearms to persons qualified as provided in this section. Each such license must bear a color photograph of the licensee. For the purposes of this section, concealed weapons or concealed firearms are defined as a handgun, electronic weapon or device, tear gas gun, knife, or billie, but the term does not include a machine gun as defined in s. 790.001(9). Such licenses shall be valid throughout the state for a period of 7 years from the date of issuance. Any person in compliance with the terms of such license may carry a concealed weapon or concealed firearm notwithstanding the provisions of s. 790.01. The licensee must carry the license, together with valid identification, at all times in which the licensee is in actual possession of a concealed weapon or firearm and must display both the license and proper identification upon demand by a law enforcement officer. Violations of the provisions of this subsection shall constitute a noncriminal violation with a penalty of $25, payable to the clerk of the court....emphasis added
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.06.html

[lob1]

54. I'm confused. What does "agnostic" have to do with this thread?

[PowerToThePeople]

58. agnostic

a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

Weapon agnostic would mean that the SYG laws do not commit to an opinion in regards to the weapon of choice used in SYG.

[lob1]

61. Thanks, PowertothePeople. I never heard the word used that way.

[freshwest]

59. I'm interested in the answers to this question:

Can I throw someone from the top of a big building and claim SYG?

While throwing someone off a building does have a certain satisfying appeal, it might still fit the definition of self-defense if you were being mugged. You could stay on the building and be 'standing your ground.' Even though the person tossed thought it was their ground, too.

There was a case of a father who took his son and jumped to their death reported on DU a while back, and that seemed like a murder-suicide, but at that time, they didn't say. It appeared to be a child custody affair, and I'm speculating that the father thought his son being with the mother was worse than death, so he felt he was defending him. Or it could have been revenge, which is what a lot of SYG seems to be.

As your other examples are of weapons, and there would be no weapon involved except oneself, and if one jumped with them there might not be a SYG crime. I think this is what you are getting at, the intent without specificity to method. There was the case of the SYG in N.M. with the kick boxer, no weapons but his hands and feet, although the intruder had a knife on him, IIRC.

Back to throwing a person off a building, though. So what if you jump along with them? Is it suicide or murder? Or both? And whose ground is being stood upon in that case?

Didn't Riggs throw him off the building?

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[PowerToThePeople]

64. I am a fan of the burning alive SYG

Something similar to this.

(ya, I was a big Wham! fan in Junior High.)

[freshwest]

66. I'm a Wham and Zoolander fan (a little) but I don't see a SYG there... n/t

[PowerToThePeople]

68. True, but the idea is

Last edited Sun Feb 9, 2014, 08:01 PM - Edit history (1)

If I get attacked at a gas station, then I could use the fuel as my self defense weapon.

They show the method in this clip, though not used as a self defense tactic.

edit - I may have to rent Zoolander now, it looks like it could be funny. I never saw it when it was released. Those years after 9/11 till about the 2004 election are a blur of depression and sorrow for me.

[freshwest]

75. Teabaggers would love that option, the whole world is a violent riot in their eyes. Too much TV! n/t

[PowerToThePeople]

77. Yup, that is what RKBA and SYG have created;

a bunch of scared people running around with deadly weapons thinking that anyone and everyone is out to get them.

[NutmegYankee]

79. Honestly, the media has accomplished this just as well.

What is the nightly news but a list of things you should fear each day. People look at me like I have two heads because I don't always lock my doors. I'm more concerned about a lightning hit during a thunderstorm than I am a home invasion in the night (or day).

[Lizzie Poppet]

65. I believe most such laws simply specify the "use of lethal force."

In such case, I'd think that so long as it was otherwise legal, what sort of tool one uses to apply that force isn't relevant.

[rdharma]

89. I've always liked the M-79 w/ M-576 rounds for self-defense.......

What's the problem with that?

[Lizzie Poppet]

94. Uh-huh...

[rdharma]

96. Oh, darned! I thought I could get me some luv from serious gun enthusiasts.......

....... with that answer.

What do you have against grenade launchers? Are you a "hoplophobe"?

"Moron Lobby" , bro!

[Skip Intro]

104. I believe the concept is, if you have a right to be where you are,

no one else has a right to force you from being there. If you are being attacked, you have a right to defend yourself, should you choose to do so.

If you are threatened, you have a right to fight back.

This is as it should be.

[madville]

105. Doesn't specify specific weapons

My question is why does "stand your ground" keep coming up in these high profile cases when the defense is not even using it in court?

To me it seems like a risky defense in the first place since the accused has to take the stand and be subjected to questioning by the prosecution. I think that certainly makes defenses shy away from it and go a more traditional self defense route.

[Eleanors38]

107. What? And ruin a perfectly good anti-gun rant in GD?