2
2
0
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/02/us/verdict-reached-in-death-of-florida-youth-in-loud-music-dispute.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSum&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Florida's Stand-Your-Ground law needs some serious revision. The Michael Dunn case that was finally resolved is very suggestive of this. He nearly got off on this (The 1st Degree Murder charge) by claiming self defense. I am glad that justice was finally served, but it hasn't been in many other cases. Folks have taken to calling my home state the "Gunshine State" and other pejorative portmanteaus.
What do you think about Stand-Your-Ground laws in general? Do you think that they should remain as they are-broad and easily argued with little substantiation? Are they necessary at all and if you had the ability to change them, how would you so that is was applied appropriately?
Florida's Stand-Your-Ground law needs some serious revision. The Michael Dunn case that was finally resolved is very suggestive of this. He nearly got off on this (The 1st Degree Murder charge) by claiming self defense. I am glad that justice was finally served, but it hasn't been in many other cases. Folks have taken to calling my home state the "Gunshine State" and other pejorative portmanteaus.
What do you think about Stand-Your-Ground laws in general? Do you think that they should remain as they are-broad and easily argued with little substantiation? Are they necessary at all and if you had the ability to change them, how would you so that is was applied appropriately?
Justice
Murder
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
2
2
0
Stand Your Ground is a great piece of legislation and as a Floridian I fully support the law. Your point about Michael Dunn is invalid considering he was found Guilty of 1st Degree Murder. Was his life sentence reduced because he "nearly" got off? No.
There are plenty of cases where people have claimed self defense in states that do not have a Stand Your Ground law. As long as people are charged with murder they will argue self defense. Suggesting that self defense arguments will depart with this law is as illogical as suggesting criminal use of guns will diminish by limiting access of law abiding citizens to firearms.
Stand Your Ground protects innocent people. It affords every day citizens the opportunity to decide whether or not they will be a victim. The notion that anyone should have to flee before defending themselves or their families from a threat is absurd.
There are plenty of cases where people have claimed self defense in states that do not have a Stand Your Ground law. As long as people are charged with murder they will argue self defense. Suggesting that self defense arguments will depart with this law is as illogical as suggesting criminal use of guns will diminish by limiting access of law abiding citizens to firearms.
Stand Your Ground protects innocent people. It affords every day citizens the opportunity to decide whether or not they will be a victim. The notion that anyone should have to flee before defending themselves or their families from a threat is absurd.
(2)
(0)
SSG John Erny
The liberal point of view is that it is better to be a dead victim than to have killed the offender. I do not like dead victims I like dead offenders Liberals are IDIOTS! It is the offender that is a problem, the argument that strict gun control will reduce crime is idiotic, look at the UK, they brag how they have so few shootings but they have plenty off stabbings. The offender will just shift tactics instead of trying to attack a large male he will attack more women and the elderly. The only tool available to protect a female or the elderly is a gun. The solution, lock up violent offenders and throw away the key.
(3)
(0)
1
1
0
FL = "Gunshine State?" I haven't read that made-up word since the 1980s when the anti-gun media decried FL's implementation of the shall-issue CCW system and provided hyper-inflated estimates of hourly gunfights and streets as rivers of blood.
I almost hate to write this but the majority of us who have worn the military uniform, consider ourselves fully schooled in the rules of war, trained in the manual of arms, have fought battles and engaged the enemy in combat still DO NOT fully understand the tangled legal world of the criminal justice system (save the JAG and MP/SPs) and using deadly/lethal force to protect oneself when not on a battlefield but at home.
Please consider the following and I fully encourage you to conduct research:
what defense have you (if not a 'stand your ground' or 'castle doctrine') if you do defend yourself and family from a criminal through lethal force?
what is the reasonable person standard?
Do you expect to be hailed as a hero or arrested, charged, arraigned and held while your weapons (and who knows what else) are seized and your family/home now defenseless?
what was the legal implications BEFORE 'stand your ground' or 'castle doctrine' were either enacted or enshrined?
do you know the history of US law enforcement?
what are the roots of self-defense?
do you know that in almost 40 states, you cannot legally defend yourself from an illegal arrest by LE? What difference is that from any other form of robbery, assault, battery and kidnapping?
why is the 'system' set up so that you have to pour out large sums of money, appear before a judge, hire lawyers and have an arrest record even if you are truly innocent?
I almost hate to write this but the majority of us who have worn the military uniform, consider ourselves fully schooled in the rules of war, trained in the manual of arms, have fought battles and engaged the enemy in combat still DO NOT fully understand the tangled legal world of the criminal justice system (save the JAG and MP/SPs) and using deadly/lethal force to protect oneself when not on a battlefield but at home.
Please consider the following and I fully encourage you to conduct research:
what defense have you (if not a 'stand your ground' or 'castle doctrine') if you do defend yourself and family from a criminal through lethal force?
what is the reasonable person standard?
Do you expect to be hailed as a hero or arrested, charged, arraigned and held while your weapons (and who knows what else) are seized and your family/home now defenseless?
what was the legal implications BEFORE 'stand your ground' or 'castle doctrine' were either enacted or enshrined?
do you know the history of US law enforcement?
what are the roots of self-defense?
do you know that in almost 40 states, you cannot legally defend yourself from an illegal arrest by LE? What difference is that from any other form of robbery, assault, battery and kidnapping?
why is the 'system' set up so that you have to pour out large sums of money, appear before a judge, hire lawyers and have an arrest record even if you are truly innocent?
(1)
(0)
Maj Robert Reiss
And I do not disagree with you at all. I have been monitoring similar events for several years now.
The Marine did NOT engage and that is not the fault of Castle Law or any other legislation but the fault of LE doing what they did.
IF the Marine had engaged, the results would have been different, although he may have still died, several dead and wounded LE would bring much needed attention to this growing problem.
I have many more thoughts on this but perhaps now is not the time nor this the place.
The Marine did NOT engage and that is not the fault of Castle Law or any other legislation but the fault of LE doing what they did.
IF the Marine had engaged, the results would have been different, although he may have still died, several dead and wounded LE would bring much needed attention to this growing problem.
I have many more thoughts on this but perhaps now is not the time nor this the place.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Glad to see that in this case justice was served. "Mr. Dunn believed he saw a shotgun and felt he was in grave danger" This is not what, "a strong offense makes a good defense" is supposed to mean. Even in the case of a home invasion, if no deadly threat is made or no weapon seen it does not make deadly force excusable - a more viable defense - but not a given. It's no secret that I'm not a fan of open carry, but as I've said before, there are no rules of engagement on the street that a jury has other than the shooter's "belief" they were in danger. Trained police officers are supposed to deescalate the situation before they open fire, unless under direct fire. Just MHO.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google