General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNotice the right wing/NRA meme, that there's no need to change "Stand Your Ground"
Because "Stand Your Ground" doesn't apply in this case.
(They are protecting the Stand Your Ground Laws, I think, those who are pushing this messaging know that this killing is indefensible)
This messaging is so fascinating, but it's interesting to watch it happen after an issue and then take hold so effectively, so completely.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I use the word law loosely in this case.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)In some states like FL, duty to retreat was expressly tossed out. In other states, they never enacted duty to retreat. About half the states have no duty to retreat
Calling it "Stand Your Ground" was a stupid sound bite...
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Even when told by dispatcher.
Regardless, the laws themselves are going to be under scrutiny, and that is a good thing.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)While the states all have the same basic standard for the use of deadly force (reasonable fear of GBI or death), the requirements about duty to retreat and Castle Doctrine make it almost unique, state by state.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)i realize now that it had more layers than i originally posted.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)- Some state have expressly removed and substituted some version of SYG
- Some states never enacted a duty to retreat
- Some states have a duty to retreat in all circumstances
- Some states have Castle Doctrine but require retreat outside of the home
The states all have about the same standard for the use of deadly force (reasonable fear of GBI or death) but the requirement to retreat or not varies more than many realize. Then there are the laws for Federal territory and Reservations.
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)There is a pretty strong pro-NRA continent here on DU
DrDan
(20,411 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)There are aspects of various states' SYG laws that could use a thorough examination, with an eye towards ensuring situation like the Trayvon Martin killing, where the shooter was apparently released - armed! - after only a rather cursory initial "investigation." It is the incompetent and/or corrupt behavior of the Sanford PD that I find most alarming about this tragedy. Were it not for some extraordinary circumstances (and a determined family of the victim), this would have been swept under the rug.
But should this really be blamed on SYG laws? Despite the increasingly hysterical tone that seems to be developing on the forum, I don't think that's by any means certain. There are several indications that Zimmerman did not act within the scope of the SYG law. I'm not familiar enough with Florida's version, but he would definitely have been outside the law here in Oregon (if the current set of available facts are accurate). He apparently initiated the confrontation, and that alone removes the SYG law's protection from his later use of deadly force. Or at least it would here...as I said, I don't know about Florida.
It would be absurdly reactionary to allow the pendulum to swing very far back in the direction of "duty to retreat" nonsense on the basis of this and a handful of other similar cases.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Yeah.
Welcome to our forum.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Meanwhile at our local Democratic Party dinner tonight, I couldn't find one person who didn't get the connection. And this is in New Hampshire, a state where people do like their guns. Funny. Not.
got root
(425 posts)they are gonna lose this one.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)to exonerate, or at least free temporarily, the shooter. So yes, in this case the law WAS at fault. Or at least the implementation of the law. If there's that much "interpretation" involved in a law where a murderer can go free, then the law ITSELF is the problem.
And I own guns. And all my socialist/leftist friends own guns and would USE those guns in self defense. This ain't gonna be like Germany in the late 20s. If the fascists want to terrorize us, they WILL be fought. But this law is OBVIOUSLY seriously flawed. Or it's interpretation is. And that's the same thing in my book.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)I agree that your guns could fight back against the government were one like the Nazis imposed to take over.
But would you have a chance against superpower weaponry and a superpower armament based on your guns?
Nope.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)The brown shirts didn't start out as governmental groups. They started out as terrorist "militias" against labor unionists, communists, socialists and later Jews. Those are the ones I'm talking about. Any revolution against "government" will have to involve the military (at least the EMs and lower caste officers) on the side of the citizens for it to be successful. That's the way it's always been and always will be.
I've already had one confrontation with a RWer last year that I was worried about escalating. It didn't, thank your favorite deity, but in Tennessee, it's a constant worry.
Anyway that was an aside that probably didn't need to be in the post.