Run away Run away .. I don’t think so “I’m Standing My Ground”

• queencitybuckeye

  WebFire;1540410 wrote:But the enforcement is not. Nor is self-defense defined clearly.

  True, but to a degree it can't be and shouldn't be. As you stated, the law can't be written based on situations.
• WebFire

  queencitybuckeye;1540415 wrote:True, but to a degree it can't be and shouldn't be. As you stated, the law can't be written based on situations.

  But I think that is where the laws become gray. Hence this thread.
• WebFire

  LJ;1540412 wrote:20 feet is your alert circle. You should remove yourself if anyone within 20 feet makes you uncomfortable. 5ft is an absolute and immediate threat that you must take decisive action on.

  Maybe my instructor was wrong. But when a gun is involved, 5ft don't mean shit. In fact, he even did a demonstration on how difficult it is to draw your weapon at someone who charges you from 20 ft. Let alone fire a gun at you.
  
  5 ft would be more appropriate when no gun is involved.
• gut

  LJ;1540209 wrote:I don't like stand your ground laws. Your firearm should be used as a last resort when someone else puts you in a situation that you have no other way of getting out of. Stand your ground gives you the right to escalate a situation.

  I 100% agree. Also, this seems (based on Belly's summary without reading the bill) to go farther to allow a bystander to intervene with deadly force. I have a problem with that.
  
  I think the intention of stand your ground was to give further protection to people acting in self-defense. You can argue that's for the system and juries to work out, but there's also something to be said that people who legitimately act in self-defense shouldn't be subjected to that burden (it's going to be costly - if you can afford it you aren't rolling with a public defender). It shouldn't matter, but politics or over zealous/incompetent police mean the system isn't foolproof.
  
  I don't have a solution. Zimmerman may be a dirt bag, but based on the evidence he should never have gone to trial. But now here's where SYG may not be used as intended - Zimmerman had opportunity to assert that defense and avoid the trial. Instead, however, they kept it in their backpocket as a last resort to overturn a guilty verdict (and also maybe they felt an acquittal was a superior outcome for Zimmerman, given the national attention)
• Me?

  

  A slow pistol round travels at 700 FPS and we're talking about 5 feet vs. 20 feet LOL
• LJ

  

  WebFire;1540418 wrote:Maybe my instructor was wrong. But when a gun is involved, 5ft don't mean shit. In fact, he even did a demonstration on how difficult it is to draw your weapon at someone who charges you from 20 ft. Let alone fire a gun at you.
  
  5 ft would be more appropriate when no gun is involved.

  I think you are confusing 2 different thoughts. The 20 ft circle you ready yourself and remove yourself, this includes any and all actual or perceived threats. If you are 20 ft from someone and see them with a gun pointed at someone, you cannot logically asess what the whole situation is. You ready yourself for defense and remove yourself from the situation if at all possible.
  
  5ft is immediate action no matter what once a threat is presented.
• gut

  LJ;1540238 wrote:Ah yes, Vigiliantism. Just what we need to turn this country around amirite?

  Haha, my thoughts exactly.
  
  My feeling is a good sumeritan would intervene, anyway, and let the chips fall where they may. Acting properly, if they do face trial I'll put some confidence in the jury. The problem is such a law encourages wanna-be cops to act recklessly.
  
  Let's work on the DA and police working together to make good and proper judgements free from political malice.
• LJ

  

  Me?;1540422 wrote:A slow pistol round travels at 700 FPS and we're talking about 5 feet vs. 20 feet LOL

  
  Pretty obvious you have no idea what we are talking about, SQ
• Me?

  

  LJ;1540426 wrote:Pretty obvious you have no idea what we are talking about, SQ

  Brilliant explanation of my ignorance.
• Me?

  

  And ironically you expose yours at the same time, again referring too me as someone else.
• LJ

  

  Me?;1540429 wrote:The only evidence there is points to me being SQ, but you're wrong and an idiot

  exactly
• gut

  queencitybuckeye;1540328 wrote:If you can say that's what WILL happen (not may, not even probably), fire away. The idea that you shooting the thief "saved" the clerk's life is tough-guy bullshit. Thousands of times the robber leaves compared to the one instance where the clerk gets shot. Knowing this fact, yes, I could live with that outcome.

  This is a really good point. The vast majority of the time the robber is going to leave without further incident. However, a bystander pulling a gun is going to escalate the situation, which puts everyone in the store at risk. And in terms of the public good/benefit we'd have to carefully evaluate the two risks.
  
  Also, how many crimes are committed by two or more thugs together? I don't like that scenario for a bystander escalating things in an attempt to prevent serious injury/harm.
• queencitybuckeye

  gut;1540436 wrote: Also, how many crimes are committed by two or more thugs together? I don't like that scenario for a bystander escalating things in an attempt to prevent serious injury/harm.

  Didn't think about this scenario. I would assume that if I walk in the door of this Speedway, see someone with a gun pointed at the clerk, see another guy pointing a gun in that direction, if I interpret the situation incorrectly and cancel WebFire's ticket, he's going to be OK with that.
• Belly35

  

  Seems that many have never faced the barrel of a weapon, had the nightmare of seeing the carnage of a human shot or pulled the trigger on another individual. You may think it's simple to defend yourself with a weapon but it takes a lot of emotional turmoil within a thousands of a second to make that call, and that all takes place in slow motion it feels like.
  
  before I ever picked up another weapon 30 years after Vietnam, I had to come to grips with the fact that this time was because I wanted to live. I trained, increase level of proficiency, confident of my skills and understood my responsibility of a CCW carrier.
  
  There is no magic answer to any given act of violence involving a weapon, the situation is random insanity... Indecision of want you have to do... Will kill you and others
  those individual that use a weapon to commit a crime on the weak and unexpected never planned on a force more powerful then what they are holding... You have the advantage how you use it will play out who lives or dies
  
  when that individual made that decision to use a weapon he or she picked death ....
• WebFire

  queencitybuckeye;1540446 wrote:Didn't think about this scenario. I would assume that if I walk in the door of this Speedway, see someone with a gun pointed at the clerk, see another guy pointing a gun in that direction, if I interpret the situation incorrectly and cancel WebFire's ticket, he's going to be OK with that.

  I see your point. But if we are playing the stats game, I don't recall ever seeing a story about this happening.
• WebFire

  Bottom line for me is this:
  
  I don't ever want to see someone go to jail for helping defend another life. If a gun is pointed at someone else, and someone with a CHL can eliminate the threat safely, they shouldn't be punished for that. They are not the criminal.
  
  If the CHL holder pulls the weapon and accidentally shoots someone else, that is on him. He has failed in his responsibility of carrying. I think that is part of what LJ was referring to when talking about thinking through the consequences of your actions. LJ should know that you don't just pull your gun and start blindly firing away.
  
  I've ran this scenario through my head hundreds of times, and I still don't know what I would do. None of us do until we are in that position. And you may only have milliseconds to decide. You should't be punished for it (unless you've done something irresponsible while doing so).
  
  This isn't about vigilante justice.
• Heretic

  

  Belly35;1540448 wrote:Seems that many have never faced the barrel of a weapon, had the nightmare of seeing the carnage of a human shot or pulled the trigger on another individual. You may think it's simple to defend yourself with a weapon but it takes a lot of emotional turmoil within a thousands of a second to make that call, and that all takes place in slow motion it feels like.
  
  before I ever picked up another weapon 30 years after Vietnam, I had to come to grips with the fact that this time was because I wanted to live. I trained, increase level of proficiency, confident of my skills and understood my responsibility of a CCW carrier.
  
  There is no magic answer to any given act of violence involving a weapon, the situation is random insanity... Indecision of want you have to do... Will kill you and others
  those individual that use a weapon to commit a crime on the weak and unexpected never planned on a force more powerful then what they are holding... You have the advantage how you use it will play out who lives or dies
  
  when that individual made that decision to use a weapon he or she picked death ....

  This post sounds like a good endorsement of
  
  1. Why more/superior training is a good idea for CCR and the like.
  2. And why I probably would really hate being in any situation where things got complicated by the average joe trying to pull out a gun to "take control" of things during one of these gas station robbery scenarios. Just sayin', but of all the people I know, there's only a tiny handful that I'd be willing to trust in an "emotional turmoil/random insanity" sort of situation.
• gut

  WebFire;1540454 wrote:And you may only have milliseconds to decide.

  Given how often we see trained police officers get this wrong, I'd say that's a pretty good argument for not encouraging/enabling CCW holders to make that choice when their person is not directly threatened.
  
  I don't see a need for additional laws to potentially defend people who made a bad choice. That's what it boils down to - are current self-defense laws really insufficient?
• WebFire

  gut;1540479 wrote:Given how often we see trained police officers get this wrong, I'd say that's a pretty good argument for not encouraging/enabling CCW holders to make that choice when their person is not directly threatened.
  
  I don't see a need for additional laws to potentially defend people who made a bad choice. That's what it boils down to - are current self-defense laws really insufficient?

  The law should not defend those who made a bad choice. See my previous post.
• vball10set

  Belly35;1540448 wrote:Seems that many have never faced the barrel of a weapon, had the nightmare of seeing the carnage of a human shot or pulled the trigger on another individual. You may think it's simple to defend yourself with a weapon but it takes a lot of emotional turmoil within a thousands of a second to make that call, and that all takes place in slow motion it feels like.
  
  before I ever picked up another weapon 30 years after Vietnam, I had to come to grips with the fact that this time was because I wanted to live. I trained, increase level of proficiency, confident of my skills and understood my responsibility of a CCW carrier.
  
  There is no magic answer to any given act of violence involving a weapon, the situation is random insanity... Indecision of want you have to do... Will kill you and others
  those individual that use a weapon to commit a crime on the weak and unexpected never planned on a force more powerful then what they are holding... You have the advantage how you use it will play out who lives or dies
  
  when that individual made that decision to use a weapon he or she picked death ....

  This would sound a helluva lot better coming from Jack Nicholson
• gut

  WebFire;1540487 wrote:The law should not defend those who made a bad choice. See my previous post.

  But that's the potential for a SYG law, especially extended to bystanders. The essence of SYG is that it ignores the option to retreat or do nothing and only considers the perception of threat/danger. I don't think a bystander should be relieved of the burden to choose to do nothing.
  
  I'll say again, is the existing law insufficient? I've not heard of a bystander exercising good judgement and properly intervening being charged with a crime.
• WebFire

  gut;1540494 wrote:But that's the potential for a SYG law, especially extended to bystanders. The essence of SYG is that it ignores the option to retreat or do nothing and only considers the perception of threat/danger. I don't think a bystander should be relieved of the burden to choose to do nothing.
  
  I'll say again, is the existing law insufficient? I've not heard of a bystander exercising good judgement and properly intervening being charged with a crime.

  I can't say if there are or aren't cases of people being charged when using good judgement. What I don't like is that it is possible. If you can remove that possibility, I'm fine with things the way they are.
• gut

  WebFire;1540514 wrote:I can't say if there are or aren't cases of people being charged when using good judgement. What I don't like is that it is possible.

  Do you really think a good sumeritan could have been tried, much less convicted...and we wouldn't know about it? Even so, I don't see how that's an argument the current law is insufficient. DA has discretion, and a grand jury has to approve the indictment.
  
  I don't think innocent people should be burdened with a trial. However, when you shoot someone I don't think answering to a jury is such a terrible thing.
• Me?

  

  Heretic;1540455 wrote: 2. And why I probably would really hate being in any situation where things got complicated by the average joe trying to pull out a gun to "take control" of things during one of these gas station robbery scenarios. Just sayin', but of all the people I know, there's only a tiny handful that I'd be willing to trust in an "emotional turmoil/random insanity" sort of situation.

  I don't think a lot of people realize that most police officers, especially in small towns, are just average joes in that situation as well--but you'd never question their ability to take control.
• queencitybuckeye

  Me?;1540537 wrote:I don't think a lot of people realize that most police officers, especially in small towns, are just average joes in that situation as well--but you'd never question their ability to take control.

  Average Joes with hundreds of hours of training and practice in handling such situations.