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

• LJ

  

  queencitybuckeye;1540622 wrote:The duty to retreat does not require doing so if it actually contributes to putting yourself in danger, but keep making up facts to fit your argument.

  Correct. The duty to retreat is not there when you cannot retreat.
• Belly35

  

  If small percentage of individual that take their CCW serious about carrying and many of the other weapon enthusiast who has training, confidence and skills in using their weapon with this Bill 203 criminals will in many situation at a disadvantage ... And that's a good thing.
• queencitybuckeye

  Belly35;1540634 wrote:If small percentage of individual that take their CCW serious about carrying and many of the other weapon enthusiast who has training, confidence and skills in using their weapon with this Bill 203 criminals will in many situation at a disadvantage ... And that's a good thing.

  Yep, and a bunch of untrained yahoos will hurt or kill some number of innocents. And that's not so good.
• Me?

  

  Let me paint a hypothetical for you guys then. You're out with your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/whatever, walking down the street and some scum bag approaches you. Pushes you, starts talking shit to your significant other. Has no visible weapon. You're carrying. You immediately have a duty to retreat. This guy came at you to begin with, but you have a duty to retreat. If you escalate the situation, you're in violation of the current law. So you turn around and walk the other way and try to avoid the situation. The dude is a real psycho, he gets offended that you wouldn't engage him and he shoots you in the back as you walk away. Or stabs you in the back. Or hits you over the head and knocks you out and then who knows what happens. The point is, your concealed weapon provided you no viable option of self defense there--in fact the laws created a situation where you were left vulnerable. Now, I'm not saying it should be legal for you to have just pulled your gun out and put it to the guy's head. But you shouldn't have had to back down as if YOU don't have the right to be there. You should be able to tell him to fuck off. You should be able to stand there and be able to see if he's going to do something more and have a chance to react. That is legitimate self defense. And self defense is a natural right.
• Me?

  

  queencitybuckeye;1540635 wrote:Yep, and a bunch of untrained yahoos will hurt or kill some number of innocents. And that's not so good.

  You mean like this?
• gut

  Me?;1540629 wrote:The hypothetical situations drawn up here have nothing to do with the reasons for having Stand Your Ground laws, which I thought is where this conversation went...

  What is hypothetical about changing the SYG law to apply to "defend themselves AND OTHERS" that is irrelevant to a bystander? Why does that law need to apply to a bystander that is not facing imminent danger themself? It removes a responsibility for properly choosing to intervene in the firstplace.
• queencitybuckeye

  Two immediate problems with your scenario are that 1) you pretend falsely that the ONLY options are to use your weapon or retreat, and 2) if he has no visible weapon, unless he has a face tattoo and has appeared in one of the Hangover movies, you have no reason to believe your life is in danger and therefore have no obligation to retreat.
  
  Call the cops or knock his ass out.
• Me?

  

  Because why do you not have the right to defend your fellow citizen and community against criminals? Do you carry a police officer with you? This is especially important in an environment where many areas of the country are seeing increased crime rates due largely to growing poverty and a decrease in public services like police officers. You'd rather avoid the chance of a few innocent people getting shot and allow the criminal element to have an easier time of their scumbaggery? It's morally superior to you to allow someone to become a victim before your very eyes rather than do something about it and risk (but by no means guarantee!) that you injury some innocent bystander?
• Me?

  

  queencitybuckeye;1540650 wrote:Two immediate problems with your scenario are that 1) you pretend falsely that the ONLY options are to use your weapon or retreat, and 2) if he has no visible weapon, unless he has a face tattoo and has appeared in one of the Hangover movies, you have no reason to believe your life is in danger and therefore have no obligation to retreat.
  
  Call the cops or knock his ass out.

  No, see, if you escalate the situation by punching him in the face and you're carrying--you're already in violation of the law. And calling the cops is not a legitimate option when they're minutes away and things unfold in a matter of seconds--it sounds like it's the best thing to do in any situation, but it's not even a half way reasonable option in MANY situations. There is no pre-crime system. Ever notice how cops are a reactionary force? It's usually not until something bad happens that they show up. None of your counter arguments to this issue are based in reality or rational thought. And probably the funniest part about this is that if you ever find yourself in a situation like this, I'm willing to bet you'd throw yourself behind the first CCW holder who pulled their gun out because you don't have the spine to take on any responsibility for your own protection or the protection of others from the criminal element.
• gut

  Me?;1540651 wrote:Because why do you not have the right to defend your fellow citizen and community against criminals?

  Does the law not already sufficiently address this? You point to all these CCW's holder who've intervened successfully...haven't heard of many, if at all, facing trial much less being convicted. You are voluntarily choosing to intervene, and you need to be accountable for that choice. Not having this law doesn't prevent or unfairly punish someone for intervening.
  
  We don't need George Zimmerman pulling out his gun to confront two guys who are having a heated argument.
• queencitybuckeye

  You keep painting everything as black and white. You either need to act or some poor slob will die. Almost never happens that way. Often enough to change the law? Not remotely.
• queencitybuckeye

  Me?;1540655 wrote:No, see, if you escalate the situation by punching him in the face and you're carrying--you're already in violation of the law.

  Not true.
• Me?

  

  gut;1540656 wrote:Does the law not already sufficiently address this? You point to all these CCW's holder who've intervened successfully...haven't heard of many, if at all, facing trial much less being convicted.
  
  We don't need George Zimmerman pulling out his gun to confront two guys who are having a heated argument.

  Stand Your Grown laws would not protect someone who did that. And you're kind of shooting yourself in your own foot, no pun intended, because you're right--not many CCW holders facing trial for intervening. Because the horrible scenarios that you're painting about innocent people being hurt by some inexperienced whacko are very rare. But I guess the fact that your side makes blanket statements like calling people inexperienced whackos kind of displays your ignorance.
• Me?

  

  queencitybuckeye;1540658 wrote:Not true.

  This is ABSOLUTELY true.
  
  From the Ohio Attorney General's website:
  
  "Condition 1: Defendant Is Not At Fault
  First, the defendant must prove that he was not at fault for creating the
  situation. The defendant cannot be the first aggressor or initiator.
  
  However, in proving the victim’s fault, a defendant cannot point to other
  unrelated situations in which the victim was the aggressor. Remember, the
  focus is on the specific facts of the situation at hand.
  
  If you escalate a confrontation by throwing the first punch, attacking, or
  drawing your handgun, you are the aggressor. Most likely in this situation,
  you cannot legitimately claim self-defense nor would you likely succeed in
  proving your affirmative defense."
• gut

  Me?;1540660 wrote:Stand Your Grown laws would not protect someone who did that. And you're kind of shooting yourself in your own foot, no pun intended, because you're right--not many CCW holders facing trial for intervening. Because the horrible scenarios that you're painting about innocent people being hurt by some inexperienced whacko are very rare. But I guess the fact that your side makes blanket statements like calling people inexperienced whackos kind of displays your ignorance.

  "Rare" is likely a function of frequency and situation. I can't by an argument as serious that claims the average CCW holder is better trained and experienced than police to intervene in violent confrontations. There's a reason when people call the cops they are advised not to get further involved.
  
  And the whole point of this debate is this law DOES extend SYG to bystanders - "defend yourself AND OTHERS".
  
  SYG, and self-defense in general, is all about the individual's perceived danger relative to the force/response. A bystander who can choose NOT to intervene should have no such benefit of what was perceived vs. what was reality.
• queencitybuckeye

  Not true.
  
  First, the defendant must prove that he was not at fault for creating the
  situation.
  
  In your scenario, I didn't create the situation, and have at the very least one witness to confirm it.
  
  Did you learn this in your CCW training? Thanks for making my point. You're carrying a concealed weapon and have no idea what the law says, yet presumably you passed the course.
• Me?

  

  You also currently have the ability to defend others. You're the ones not understanding this.
• Me?

  

  queencitybuckeye;1540669 wrote:Not true.
  
  First, the defendant must prove that he was not at fault for creating the
  situation.
  
  In your scenario, I didn't create the situation, and have at the very least one witness to confirm it.

  And any prosecution would eat you alive in court for saying that a little shit talk and a shove justified you throwing the first punch rather than retreating.
• queencitybuckeye

  If so, you'll have absolutely no problem citing an example of such a case. I'll wait.
  
  Alternatively, you can cite a case where the guy retreated, and was shot in the back. Again, I'll wait.
  
  When you can cite neither, do you understand that your inability to do so pretty well proves conclusively that a change in the law is not needed?
• gut

  Me?;1540670 wrote:You also currently have the ability to defend others. You're the ones not understanding this.

  Which is why the law is already sufficient.
  
  This revision to SYG is using a victim's right not to retreat to justify, without qualification, a bystander's right to move forward/aggress (i.e. intervene). That's the key difference, and it's a pretty big one.
  
  Again, it's a simple question. Why is the current law insufficient such that a SYG should extend to bystanders? SYG and self-defense get into the questions of perceived danger and fear trumping prudent/rational action. Why should a non-threatened bystander have such benefit?
• Me?

  

  I've already laid that out. It has nothing to do with what has happened, it has everything to do with what will happen. You guys are interested in "call the cops" preventative options right? Do we have to wait until some law abiding citizen gets killed from behind for following the law before we change the law? As it relates to someone else, you could see someone getting their ass kicked by a raging psycho and not be able to do anything but call the cops--lets say the cops show up and the person is dead. Beaten to death. You could have prevented that. However, since the person had no weapon, had you intervened and saved the victims life before they were too badly injured, you stand a good chance of going to jail for defending them because you couldn't argue that serious bodily harm was going to be inflicted.
  
  I'm done with you guys anyways, you'll never get it, it's just a waste of time. As evident by your constant reminders of George Zimmerman as it relates to Stand Your Ground, when that case wasn't even about Stand Your Ground laws.
• ohiobucks1

  

  Here's what I think is funny about Stand Your Ground:
  
  
  Lets say I randomly decide to attack tiernan. Then tiernan stands his ground against me. If i back away, and tiernan keeps coming after me. I can then stand my ground and kill him. Legal defense...
• gut

  Me?;1540692 wrote: ...you stand a good chance of going to jail for defending them because you couldn't argue that serious bodily harm was going to be inflicted.

  YES!!!! That is precisely the point. Self-defense laws deal with appropriate force and the perception of the victim. You have no right to use deadly force on a guy pounding on an individual. And if the guy getting pounded had started the fight, he wouldn't be able to assert SYG so how could that protection extend to you?
  
  There's simply no justification for a SYG exception to extend to a non-threatened bystander. A bystander should be accountable for their actions based on fact, not for what they, or even the victim, perceived.
• queencitybuckeye

  Me?;1540692 wrote:I've already laid that out. It has nothing to do with what has happened, it has everything to do with what will happen.

  Will happen based on what? People are acting like the world is going back to the "wild west" days. It isn't.
  

  You guys are interested in "call the cops" preventative options right?

  When possible, doing so is the best approach. When necessary, self defense is justified, and I've never been and am highly unlikely to be in a situation where I would be outside existing law when doing so.
  

  Do we have to wait until some law abiding citizen gets killed from behind for following the law before we change the law?

  IOW, do we need a real reason to change the law, or if we make up outlandish scenarios that haven't happened, shouldn't that be good enough?
  

  As it relates to someone else, you could see someone getting their ass kicked by a raging psycho and not be able to do anything but call the cops--lets say the cops show up and the person is dead. Beaten to death. You could have prevented that. However, since the person had no weapon, had you intervened and saved the victims life before they were too badly injured, you stand a good chance of going to jail for defending them because you couldn't argue that serious bodily harm was going to be inflicted.

  The "only two alternatives" argument seems to be a favorite of yours, as this is at least the third time you've tried it. It was untrue the first two times you used it, and it's not true this time. The previous time, you were caught in an untruth as to what the law currently is, I'll assume it was out of ignorance, as I don't want to call you a liar. However, as you keep using this obviously false argument...
  

  I'm done with you guys anyways, you'll never get it, it's just a waste of time.

  You're right, I don't fap to the notion that I'll get to shoot someone someday as you appear to.
  

  As evident by your constant reminders of George Zimmerman as it relates to Stand Your Ground, when that case wasn't even about Stand Your Ground laws.

  Speaking for myself, I've never mentioned that piece of waste DNA. The good news is that he'll finally kill someone else with a gun in the next year, and it will be himself.
• queencitybuckeye

  ohiobucks1;1540695 wrote:Here's what I think is funny about Stand Your Ground:
  
  
  Lets say I randomly decide to attack tiernan. Then tiernan stands his ground against me. If i back away, and tiernan keeps coming after me. I can then stand my ground and kill him. Legal defense...

  Please do it in my county so there's a chance I can be on the jury.