ADVERTISEMENT

‘Stand your ground’ laws linked to 11% rise in U.S. firearm homicides, study says

cigaretteman

HB King
May 29, 2001
78,153
60,008
113
“Stand your ground” laws may have led to hundreds of additional homicides every year in the United States, according to a new study that could boost criticisms that they encourage unnecessary violence.

Fiercely debated and increasingly common in the United States, stand-your-ground laws remove the duty to retreat from an attacker when possible before responding with potentially deadly force. They became a flash point in national disputes over gun violence, self-defense and racial profiling, particularly after the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin, a Black teenager, in 2012.
Stand-your-ground laws are associated with an 11 percent increase in monthly firearm homicide rates, according to the new study, with especially striking jumps in Southern states that embraced stand-your-ground early on. That amounts to 700 additional homicides each year, according to the findings published Monday in JAMA Network Open, a peer-reviewed medical journal.



Justifications for stand-your-ground often “center around these laws actually having some protective effect on public safety and deterring violence,” said David Humphreys, an associate professor at the University of Oxford and one of the paper’s authors, in an interview. “There doesn’t seem to be any evidence to show that and, you know, we only seem to see the opposite effect.”
The research echoes some other studies that found spikes in firearm homicides after the laws were passed — especially in Florida, which kicked off a wave of stand-your-ground legislation in 2005. Michelle Degli Esposti, the study’s lead author, said she and her colleagues “really wanted to unravel whether [Florida] was just this outlier.”
The trend extends well beyond one state, she said. But the national numbers also mask big geographical differences.



The largest jumps in homicides and firearm homicides — as high as 33.5 percent — occurred in southern states including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana and Missouri. In contrast, stand-your-ground laws were not associated with significant changes in Arizona, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas and West Virginia, the study found.

That suggests stand-your-ground is not the only factor at play, the researchers acknowledge.
He shot a man over tossed popcorn, prosecutors say. His defense: Stand-your-ground.
Michael Siegel, a doctor and researcher at Tufts University School of Medicine who was not part of the research team, expanded on the possible explanations in a commentary for JAMA Network Open: “I would argue that the most important factor is the public’s awareness of the change in the law,” he writes, pointing to intense media coverage, public discussion and a campaign by the National Rifle Association as Southern states passed stand-your-ground laws in 2005, 2006 and 2007.



Siegel also speculates that another factor may be “required to interact with the presence of a [stand-your-ground] law to result in increased homicide, such as a culture of violent self-defense, a high prevalence of gun ownership, or easier access to guns because of weaker state regulation.”
Some advocates have promoted stand-your-ground as a way to reduce violence, by ensuring that victims can retaliate against an assailant and deterring crime. But the researchers note that no states saw drops in homicide after passing them and that the country as a whole reported an “abrupt and sustained” spike in rates of monthly homicide and firearm homicide.
Stand-your-ground drew national attention after the fatal shooting of Martin in Sanford, Fla. George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain who followed and shot Martin, was acquitted after testifying that Martin attacked him and that he killed the unarmed 17-year-old in self-defense.
Post Reports: When is it self-defense?
Zimmerman’s trial hinged on self-defense, not stand-your-ground specifically — but his case still pushed Florida’s early removal of “duty to retreat” into the spotlight. The policy has steadily expanded over objections from activists, law enforcement and prosecutors who worry about its effect on violent crime. Ohio passed a stand-your-ground law last year after lobbying that pitted a state police union against pro-gun groups.







Stand-your-ground “gives me the ability to make a decision I think is best immediately, rather than put some legal standard in front of me that I have to make when I’m in fear for my life,” Rob Sexton, legislative affairs director for the Buckeye Firearms Association, told The Washington Post last fall.
Martin’s case and others have sparked concerns that stand-your-ground could be particularly dangerous for Black people, given racial biases that could fuel people’s perceptions of who is a threat.
This latest study did not find evidence that stand-your-ground widens racial disparities in who is killed. The researchers note that they did not examine other areas of potential racial disparity — for example, the legal outcomes of stand-your-ground cases.
Analyzing applications of stand-your-ground in 2013, the Tampa Bay Times reported that defendants were more likely to cite the law successfully when the person they killed was Black.

 
The problem I have with stand your ground is that since it's become a national issue I've seen several situations where it's not readily apparent who has the right of self defense.

It also seems to bring deadly force into play into situations that absent a hothead with a gun would not have turned deadly.
 
The problem I have with stand your ground is that since it's become a national issue I've seen several situations where it's not readily apparent who has the right of self defense.

It also seems to bring deadly force into play into situations that absent a hothead with a gun would not have turned deadly.
The problem is that dead people aren't able to testify.
 
The problem is that dead people aren't able to testify.

That's part of the problem. But even when you have situations caught on tape there often seems to be a situation where it's not immediately clear who can claim self defense. Basically they are often situations that both sides escalate until someone pulls a gun and shoots the other one.

And often it's successfully used by people who IMO can't really show that they would be risking death or serious injury but for pulling a gun and shooting someone.

If you have a situation on video tape and you can't determine who is engaging in legitimate self defense than I would argue that you have a bad self defense law.
 
“Stand your ground” laws may have led to hundreds of additional homicides every year in the United States, according to a new study that could boost criticisms that they encourage unnecessary violence.

Fiercely debated and increasingly common in the United States, stand-your-ground laws remove the duty to retreat from an attacker when possible before responding with potentially deadly force. They became a flash point in national disputes over gun violence, self-defense and racial profiling, particularly after the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin, a Black teenager, in 2012.
Stand-your-ground laws are associated with an 11 percent increase in monthly firearm homicide rates, according to the new study, with especially striking jumps in Southern states that embraced stand-your-ground early on. That amounts to 700 additional homicides each year, according to the findings published Monday in JAMA Network Open, a peer-reviewed medical journal.



Justifications for stand-your-ground often “center around these laws actually having some protective effect on public safety and deterring violence,” said David Humphreys, an associate professor at the University of Oxford and one of the paper’s authors, in an interview. “There doesn’t seem to be any evidence to show that and, you know, we only seem to see the opposite effect.”
The research echoes some other studies that found spikes in firearm homicides after the laws were passed — especially in Florida, which kicked off a wave of stand-your-ground legislation in 2005. Michelle Degli Esposti, the study’s lead author, said she and her colleagues “really wanted to unravel whether [Florida] was just this outlier.”
The trend extends well beyond one state, she said. But the national numbers also mask big geographical differences.



The largest jumps in homicides and firearm homicides — as high as 33.5 percent — occurred in southern states including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana and Missouri. In contrast, stand-your-ground laws were not associated with significant changes in Arizona, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas and West Virginia, the study found.

That suggests stand-your-ground is not the only factor at play, the researchers acknowledge.
He shot a man over tossed popcorn, prosecutors say. His defense: Stand-your-ground.
Michael Siegel, a doctor and researcher at Tufts University School of Medicine who was not part of the research team, expanded on the possible explanations in a commentary for JAMA Network Open: “I would argue that the most important factor is the public’s awareness of the change in the law,” he writes, pointing to intense media coverage, public discussion and a campaign by the National Rifle Association as Southern states passed stand-your-ground laws in 2005, 2006 and 2007.



Siegel also speculates that another factor may be “required to interact with the presence of a [stand-your-ground] law to result in increased homicide, such as a culture of violent self-defense, a high prevalence of gun ownership, or easier access to guns because of weaker state regulation.”
Some advocates have promoted stand-your-ground as a way to reduce violence, by ensuring that victims can retaliate against an assailant and deterring crime. But the researchers note that no states saw drops in homicide after passing them and that the country as a whole reported an “abrupt and sustained” spike in rates of monthly homicide and firearm homicide.
Stand-your-ground drew national attention after the fatal shooting of Martin in Sanford, Fla. George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain who followed and shot Martin, was acquitted after testifying that Martin attacked him and that he killed the unarmed 17-year-old in self-defense.
Post Reports: When is it self-defense?
Zimmerman’s trial hinged on self-defense, not stand-your-ground specifically — but his case still pushed Florida’s early removal of “duty to retreat” into the spotlight. The policy has steadily expanded over objections from activists, law enforcement and prosecutors who worry about its effect on violent crime. Ohio passed a stand-your-ground law last year after lobbying that pitted a state police union against pro-gun groups.







Stand-your-ground “gives me the ability to make a decision I think is best immediately, rather than put some legal standard in front of me that I have to make when I’m in fear for my life,” Rob Sexton, legislative affairs director for the Buckeye Firearms Association, told The Washington Post last fall.
Martin’s case and others have sparked concerns that stand-your-ground could be particularly dangerous for Black people, given racial biases that could fuel people’s perceptions of who is a threat.
This latest study did not find evidence that stand-your-ground widens racial disparities in who is killed. The researchers note that they did not examine other areas of potential racial disparity — for example, the legal outcomes of stand-your-ground cases.
Analyzing applications of stand-your-ground in 2013, the Tampa Bay Times reported that defendants were more likely to cite the law successfully when the person they killed was Black.



Washington Compost LOL LOL
 
“Stand your ground” laws may have led to hundreds of additional homicides every year in the United States, according to a new study that could boost criticisms that they encourage unnecessary violence.

Fiercely debated and increasingly common in the United States, stand-your-ground laws remove the duty to retreat from an attacker when possible before responding with potentially deadly force. They became a flash point in national disputes over gun violence, self-defense and racial profiling, particularly after the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin, a Black teenager, in 2012.
Stand-your-ground laws are associated with an 11 percent increase in monthly firearm homicide rates, according to the new study, with especially striking jumps in Southern states that embraced stand-your-ground early on. That amounts to 700 additional homicides each year, according to the findings published Monday in JAMA Network Open, a peer-reviewed medical journal.



Justifications for stand-your-ground often “center around these laws actually having some protective effect on public safety and deterring violence,” said David Humphreys, an associate professor at the University of Oxford and one of the paper’s authors, in an interview. “There doesn’t seem to be any evidence to show that and, you know, we only seem to see the opposite effect.”
The research echoes some other studies that found spikes in firearm homicides after the laws were passed — especially in Florida, which kicked off a wave of stand-your-ground legislation in 2005. Michelle Degli Esposti, the study’s lead author, said she and her colleagues “really wanted to unravel whether [Florida] was just this outlier.”
The trend extends well beyond one state, she said. But the national numbers also mask big geographical differences.



The largest jumps in homicides and firearm homicides — as high as 33.5 percent — occurred in southern states including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana and Missouri. In contrast, stand-your-ground laws were not associated with significant changes in Arizona, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas and West Virginia, the study found.

That suggests stand-your-ground is not the only factor at play, the researchers acknowledge.
He shot a man over tossed popcorn, prosecutors say. His defense: Stand-your-ground.
Michael Siegel, a doctor and researcher at Tufts University School of Medicine who was not part of the research team, expanded on the possible explanations in a commentary for JAMA Network Open: “I would argue that the most important factor is the public’s awareness of the change in the law,” he writes, pointing to intense media coverage, public discussion and a campaign by the National Rifle Association as Southern states passed stand-your-ground laws in 2005, 2006 and 2007.



Siegel also speculates that another factor may be “required to interact with the presence of a [stand-your-ground] law to result in increased homicide, such as a culture of violent self-defense, a high prevalence of gun ownership, or easier access to guns because of weaker state regulation.”
Some advocates have promoted stand-your-ground as a way to reduce violence, by ensuring that victims can retaliate against an assailant and deterring crime. But the researchers note that no states saw drops in homicide after passing them and that the country as a whole reported an “abrupt and sustained” spike in rates of monthly homicide and firearm homicide.
Stand-your-ground drew national attention after the fatal shooting of Martin in Sanford, Fla. George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain who followed and shot Martin, was acquitted after testifying that Martin attacked him and that he killed the unarmed 17-year-old in self-defense.
Post Reports: When is it self-defense?
Zimmerman’s trial hinged on self-defense, not stand-your-ground specifically — but his case still pushed Florida’s early removal of “duty to retreat” into the spotlight. The policy has steadily expanded over objections from activists, law enforcement and prosecutors who worry about its effect on violent crime. Ohio passed a stand-your-ground law last year after lobbying that pitted a state police union against pro-gun groups.







Stand-your-ground “gives me the ability to make a decision I think is best immediately, rather than put some legal standard in front of me that I have to make when I’m in fear for my life,” Rob Sexton, legislative affairs director for the Buckeye Firearms Association, told The Washington Post last fall.
Martin’s case and others have sparked concerns that stand-your-ground could be particularly dangerous for Black people, given racial biases that could fuel people’s perceptions of who is a threat.
This latest study did not find evidence that stand-your-ground widens racial disparities in who is killed. The researchers note that they did not examine other areas of potential racial disparity — for example, the legal outcomes of stand-your-ground cases.
Analyzing applications of stand-your-ground in 2013, the Tampa Bay Times reported that defendants were more likely to cite the law successfully when the person they killed was Black.


Well.......shoot!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Pew! Pew! Shoot first, bother to find out if it's a wayward delivery person later.
 
Gee, who could have seen this coming? Arm people and tell them they have a reason the kill. Then wonder why?

Which kindergartener wrote this script?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheCainer
The problem I have with stand your ground is that since it's become a national issue I've seen several situations where it's not readily apparent who has the right of self defense.

It also seems to bring deadly force into play into situations that absent a hothead with a gun would not have turned deadly.
It also seems to protect people from being a crime statistic when they were just minding their own fing business, in THEIR house. But let's not focus on the potential victim, let's protect criminals.

Treyvon Martin, that's the Libby poster boy for Stand Your Ground? LOL! Yeah, that's super common. LOL!
 
  • Like
Reactions: rocketclone
It also seems to protect people from being a crime statistic when they were just minding their own fing business, in THEIR house. But let's not focus on the potential victim, let's protect criminals.

Treyvon Martin, that's the Libby poster boy for Stand Your Ground? LOL! Yeah, that's super common. LOL!

Stand your ground doesn't have anything to do with your house, castle doctrine applies there and I support castle doctrine. I believe it's acceptable if someone is trying to break into your house while you are in it for you to assume that they are there to harm you and defend yourself accordingly.

Stand your ground doesn't create that though. It creates situations where two people enter into a conflict and both can based on the law claim self defense legitimately. So it just becomes a situation of who ends up living.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fsu1jreed
So it just becomes a situation of who ends up living.

This line reminded me of this:

The-dead-know-only-one-thing-it-is-better-to-be-alive.jpg


It seems like, more and more, there are situations where aggressors skip right by mouthing off, middle fingers, etc. and want to go straight to violence. If I'm out with the family and some jackwad wants to rage out**, then I should be able to worry about protecting me and my family, and not feeling like my first responsibility is a way to retreat to safety - because the ahole isn't worrying about letting me find an easy way out.

This article talks about an increase in homicides, but it doesn't talk about positive outcomes for people being engaged/assaulted. It doesn't say that there a high number of people being convicted of murder, despite trying to use Stand Your Ground as a defense. So, if it means that bad guys/aggressors are the ones being successfully homicided, then I'm cool with that,

**I know that random encounters with irrational, raging aholes are still really uncommon, but I think they're becoming more common than they used to be. A lot of people, for whatever reason, seem to no longer fear being held responsible accountable for their actions and their impact on others, so they create more confrontations, and go into them more violently.
 
“Stand your ground” laws may have led to hundreds of additional homicides every year in the United States, according to a new study that could boost criticisms that they encourage unnecessary violence.

Fiercely debated and increasingly common in the United States, stand-your-ground laws remove the duty to retreat from an attacker when possible before responding with potentially deadly force. They became a flash point in national disputes over gun violence, self-defense and racial profiling, particularly after the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin, a Black teenager, in 2012.
Stand-your-ground laws are associated with an 11 percent increase in monthly firearm homicide rates, according to the new study, with especially striking jumps in Southern states that embraced stand-your-ground early on. That amounts to 700 additional homicides each year, according to the findings published Monday in JAMA Network Open, a peer-reviewed medical journal.



Justifications for stand-your-ground often “center around these laws actually having some protective effect on public safety and deterring violence,” said David Humphreys, an associate professor at the University of Oxford and one of the paper’s authors, in an interview. “There doesn’t seem to be any evidence to show that and, you know, we only seem to see the opposite effect.”
The research echoes some other studies that found spikes in firearm homicides after the laws were passed — especially in Florida, which kicked off a wave of stand-your-ground legislation in 2005. Michelle Degli Esposti, the study’s lead author, said she and her colleagues “really wanted to unravel whether [Florida] was just this outlier.”
The trend extends well beyond one state, she said. But the national numbers also mask big geographical differences.



The largest jumps in homicides and firearm homicides — as high as 33.5 percent — occurred in southern states including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana and Missouri. In contrast, stand-your-ground laws were not associated with significant changes in Arizona, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas and West Virginia, the study found.

That suggests stand-your-ground is not the only factor at play, the researchers acknowledge.
He shot a man over tossed popcorn, prosecutors say. His defense: Stand-your-ground.
Michael Siegel, a doctor and researcher at Tufts University School of Medicine who was not part of the research team, expanded on the possible explanations in a commentary for JAMA Network Open: “I would argue that the most important factor is the public’s awareness of the change in the law,” he writes, pointing to intense media coverage, public discussion and a campaign by the National Rifle Association as Southern states passed stand-your-ground laws in 2005, 2006 and 2007.



Siegel also speculates that another factor may be “required to interact with the presence of a [stand-your-ground] law to result in increased homicide, such as a culture of violent self-defense, a high prevalence of gun ownership, or easier access to guns because of weaker state regulation.”
Some advocates have promoted stand-your-ground as a way to reduce violence, by ensuring that victims can retaliate against an assailant and deterring crime. But the researchers note that no states saw drops in homicide after passing them and that the country as a whole reported an “abrupt and sustained” spike in rates of monthly homicide and firearm homicide.
Stand-your-ground drew national attention after the fatal shooting of Martin in Sanford, Fla. George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain who followed and shot Martin, was acquitted after testifying that Martin attacked him and that he killed the unarmed 17-year-old in self-defense.
Post Reports: When is it self-defense?
Zimmerman’s trial hinged on self-defense, not stand-your-ground specifically — but his case still pushed Florida’s early removal of “duty to retreat” into the spotlight. The policy has steadily expanded over objections from activists, law enforcement and prosecutors who worry about its effect on violent crime. Ohio passed a stand-your-ground law last year after lobbying that pitted a state police union against pro-gun groups.







Stand-your-ground “gives me the ability to make a decision I think is best immediately, rather than put some legal standard in front of me that I have to make when I’m in fear for my life,” Rob Sexton, legislative affairs director for the Buckeye Firearms Association, told The Washington Post last fall.
Martin’s case and others have sparked concerns that stand-your-ground could be particularly dangerous for Black people, given racial biases that could fuel people’s perceptions of who is a threat.
This latest study did not find evidence that stand-your-ground widens racial disparities in who is killed. The researchers note that they did not examine other areas of potential racial disparity — for example, the legal outcomes of stand-your-ground cases.
Analyzing applications of stand-your-ground in 2013, the Tampa Bay Times reported that defendants were more likely to cite the law successfully when the person they killed was Black.

Just another example of a well designed piece of republican legislation.

Can America survive republican legislation standards?
 
The problem I have with stand your ground is that since it's become a national issue I've seen several situations where it's not readily apparent who has the right of self defense.

It also seems to bring deadly force into play into situations that absent a hothead with a gun would not have turned deadly.

It also seems to protect people from being a crime statistic when they were just minding their own fing business, in THEIR house. But let's not focus on the potential victim, let's protect criminals.

Treyvon Martin, that's the Libby poster boy for Stand Your Ground? LOL! Yeah, that's super common. LOL!

To me, STAND YOUR GROUND laws are just seemingly written in such fashions that most circumstances can be considered self-defense, and ignore whether the confrontation could have been avoided.
 
This line reminded me of this:

The-dead-know-only-one-thing-it-is-better-to-be-alive.jpg


It seems like, more and more, there are situations where aggressors skip right by mouthing off, middle fingers, etc. and want to go straight to violence. If I'm out with the family and some jackwad wants to rage out**, then I should be able to worry about protecting me and my family, and not feeling like my first responsibility is a way to retreat to safety - because the ahole isn't worrying about letting me find an easy way out.

This article talks about an increase in homicides, but it doesn't talk about positive outcomes for people being engaged/assaulted. It doesn't say that there a high number of people being convicted of murder, despite trying to use Stand Your Ground as a defense. So, if it means that bad guys/aggressors are the ones being successfully homicided, then I'm cool with that,

**I know that random encounters with irrational, raging aholes are still really uncommon, but I think they're becoming more common than they used to be. A lot of people, for whatever reason, seem to no longer fear being held responsible accountable for their actions and their impact on others, so they create more confrontations, and go into them more violently.

Does it occur to you that the law might be causing people to engage more in confrontations that could have been resolved through other means??

I've seen way too many videos where people had options other than "pull a gun" and everyone would have walked away from it.

There was the video at a gas station where a dude starts screaming and getting in the face of a woman because he didn't like her park job. Her boyfriend runs out and pushes him away from her and he shoots him.

There was another video where there was an argument about child visitation in the front yard of a house and home owner instead of calling police to have the dad removed instead goes inside brings out his gun, a scuffle starts and he ends up shooting him.

Neither of these situations would have ended in someone dying except someone decided to pull a gun when they could have easily just walked away. Even if they didn't walk away without the gun they would have been nothing more than a fist fight.
 
To me, STAND YOUR GROUND laws are just seemingly written in such fashions that most circumstances can be considered self-defense, and ignore whether the confrontation could have been avoided.

This. . . If someone is coming and threatening you with a deadly weapon like a knife or baseball bat when you were entirely just minding your own business, I am ok if you respond with deadly force without going into some sort Monday morning quarterbacking as to if you could have retreated.

But in a lot of these cases both sides are escalating a situation which leads to some pushing and someone decides to resolve it with a gun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fsu1jreed
Does it occur to you that the law might be causing people to engage more in confrontations that could have been resolved through other means??

I've seen way too many videos where people had options other than "pull a gun" and everyone would have walked away from it.

There was the video at a gas station where a dude starts screaming and getting in the face of a woman because he didn't like her park job. Her boyfriend runs out and pushes him away from her and he shoots him.

There was another video where there was an argument about child visitation in the front yard of a house and home owner instead of calling police to have the dad removed instead goes inside brings out his gun, a scuffle starts and he ends up shooting him.

Neither of these situations would have ended in someone dying except someone decided to pull a gun when they could have easily just walked away. Even if they didn't walk away without the gun they would have been nothing more than a fist fight.
I'm sure that there are more instances where there are confrontations than there would have been without the law. But, in the instances you cited, the victims were the instigators - you might say it was them "getting what they deserved". If the first guy doesn't get in the woman's face and yell at her, there's no incident. If the second guy doesn't show up at someone's property and create a scene, there's no incident.

And even in fist fights there's the risk of bodily harm, and freak accidents can still happen that could lead to much worse. Why would an innocent person/victim have to allow themselves to be in a position to be harmed by someone else who created a physical altercation? I shouldn't have to be accosted by some angry psychopath, or be put in a position where I have to get into a fist fight with him and potentially be harmed. The Stand Your Ground law means that people don't have to allow themselves to become victims without the opportunity to successfully resolve the confrontation that they didn't want or initiate.

The phrase "don't start none, won't be none" remains accurate and applicable.

And, full disclosure, I've never carried a gun with me anywhere I've ever gone. Well, not including to/from the gun range. I've never felt the need to have a gun on me, but I get why some people might feel that they need to protect themselves.
 
I'm sure that there are more instances where there are confrontations than there would have been without the law. But, in the instances you cited, the victims were the instigators - you might say it was them "getting what they deserved". If the first guy doesn't get in the woman's face and yell at her, there's no incident. If the second guy doesn't show up at someone's property and create a scene, there's no incident.

And even in fist fights there's the risk of bodily harm, and freak accidents can still happen that could lead to much worse. Why would an innocent person/victim have to allow themselves to be in a position to be harmed by someone else who created a physical altercation? I shouldn't have to be accosted by some angry psychopath, or be put in a position where I have to get into a fist fight with him and potentially be harmed. The Stand Your Ground law means that people don't have to allow themselves to become victims without the opportunity to successfully resolve the confrontation that they didn't want or initiate.

The phrase "don't start none, won't be none" remains accurate and applicable.

And, full disclosure, I've never carried a gun with me anywhere I've ever gone. Well, not including to/from the gun range. I've never felt the need to have a gun on me, but I get why some people might feel that they need to protect themselves.

Sure, but you being harassed doesn’t mean you get to escalate the confrontation either. In the examples Hoosier mentioned, there easily was the option to just call the police, get back in the car and leave, etc.

There are without a doubt instances where Stand Your Ground is totally relevant. They get obscured by these other instances where people claim it as their defense when to some of us at least, it shouldn’t be applicable.
 
I'm sure that there are more instances where there are confrontations than there would have been without the law. But, in the instances you cited, the victims were the instigators - you might say it was them "getting what they deserved". If the first guy doesn't get in the woman's face and yell at her, there's no incident. If the second guy doesn't show up at someone's property and create a scene, there's no incident.

And even in fist fights there's the risk of bodily harm, and freak accidents can still happen that could lead to much worse. Why would an innocent person/victim have to allow themselves to be in a position to be harmed by someone else who created a physical altercation? I shouldn't have to be accosted by some angry psychopath, or be put in a position where I have to get into a fist fight with him and potentially be harmed. The Stand Your Ground law means that people don't have to allow themselves to become victims without the opportunity to successfully resolve the confrontation that they didn't want or initiate.

The phrase "don't start none, won't be none" remains accurate and applicable.

And, full disclosure, I've never carried a gun with me anywhere I've ever gone. Well, not including to/from the gun range. I've never felt the need to have a gun on me, but I get why some people might feel that they need to protect themselves.

I get why some people might feel the need to protect themselves with a gun. I don't have a problem with that.

What I do have a problem is when non deadly situations get turned into deadly ones.

And with the second case that was a guy who went to his ex's house to pick up his kids for visitation and she basically told him to eff off. I don't know the ins and outs as to if he was right or wrong about the whole visitation thing, but I don't blame him for wanting to stand up for his right to see his children.

The point is that he's ex's new boyfriend/husband had the choice to call the police and let them handle it. The ex husband wasn't beating anyone up. He's just there wanting to see his kids and PO'ed that his kids were not available when they should be. This is a conflict to be left up to the cops and the courts. Not one that needs to be resolved with a gun.
 
Sure, but you being harassed doesn’t mean you get to escalate the confrontation either. In the examples Hoosier mentioned, there easily was the option to just call the police, get back in the car and leave, etc.

There are without a doubt instances where Stand Your Ground is totally relevant. They get obscured by these other instances where people claim it as their defense when to some of us at least, it shouldn’t be applicable.
I know that I'm not perfect and that there are things I think that others disagree with, but I'm just never going to feel bad about some ahole initiating a confrontation because he's an ahole and that's what he does, only this time he runs into someone who isn't willing to back down, get back in the car, etc. The would-be victim doesn't have to retreat, and if he stands there and the ahole escalates it, and gets shown the light at the end of the tunnel, then so be it. If you don't go around initiating confrontations, then you won't have to worry about one getting out of hand. And if you're the recipient of one of these confrontations, you don't have to worry about getting hit in the back of the head as you turn to walk away.

And if there are situations where the "would-be victim" is really more of a mutual combatant who ends up killing someone and it's not really self defense, then there's laws against that and they'll go to trial.
 
Sure, but you being harassed doesn’t mean you get to escalate the confrontation either. In the examples Hoosier mentioned, there easily was the option to just call the police, get back in the car and leave, etc.

There are without a doubt instances where Stand Your Ground is totally relevant. They get obscured by these other instances where people claim it as their defense when to some of us at least, it shouldn’t be applicable.

Exactly if you have the option to WALK. . . not even run, but walk away and call the police without being further harmed there is no reason to pull a gun.

The stand your ground laws as they seem to be written and applied seem to give cover to people who's first action is to pull the gun. They essentially gave cover to 2 guys who didn't want to back down from a fist fight but didn't want to actually have a fist fight either. . . so they just shot the guy.

And no one should force you into a fist fight you don't want to have either, but when the option to walk away from the fist fight exists, there is no reason to shoot someone. Walk away and if necessary have the police and courts settle your conflict.
 
It also seems to protect people from being a crime statistic when they were just minding their own fing business, in THEIR house. But let's not focus on the potential victim, let's protect criminals.

Treyvon Martin, that's the Libby poster boy for Stand Your Ground? LOL! Yeah, that's super common. LOL!
About as common as some born-male sex-changing to dominate women in some sport about which damn near no conservative previously gave no shits. Alas…
 
I know that I'm not perfect and that there are things I think that others disagree with, but I'm just never going to feel bad about some ahole initiating a confrontation because he's an ahole and that's what he does, only this time he runs into someone who isn't willing to back down, get back in the car, etc. The would-be victim doesn't have to retreat, and if he stands there and the ahole escalates it, and gets shown the light at the end of the tunnel, then so be it. If you don't go around initiating confrontations, then you won't have to worry about one getting out of hand. And if you're the recipient of one of these confrontations, you don't have to worry about getting hit in the back of the head as you turn to walk away.

And if there are situations where the "would-be victim" is really more of a mutual combatant who ends up killing someone and it's not really self defense, then there's laws against that and they'll go to trial.
There’s a difference tho between standing up to someone, and escalating a situation. Your argument allows you to blame the victim for actions that YOU took. Someone being an asshole doesn’t deserve to die as a result, and you should be off the hook just because the guy you killed was being an asshole towards you or someone else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoosierhawkeye
I know that I'm not perfect and that there are things I think that others disagree with, but I'm just never going to feel bad about some ahole initiating a confrontation because he's an ahole and that's what he does, only this time he runs into someone who isn't willing to back down, get back in the car, etc. The would-be victim doesn't have to retreat, and if he stands there and the ahole escalates it, and gets shown the light at the end of the tunnel, then so be it. If you don't go around initiating confrontations, then you won't have to worry about one getting out of hand. And if you're the recipient of one of these confrontations, you don't have to worry about getting hit in the back of the head as you turn to walk away.

And if there are situations where the "would-be victim" is really more of a mutual combatant who ends up killing someone and it's not really self defense, then there's laws against that and they'll go to trial.

If someone is initiating a confrontation with me and but is giving me the option to back down I can call police and he may be arrested for that.

It's not like a big tough guy can just walk around down pushing everyone around because he's bigger and stronger then them and no one is going to stop him and the only way he will ever be stopped is by shooting him.

Again if someone is coming straight at you with deadly force or will not let you walk away, we are having a different conversation. But if you can leave the gas station and call the police or walk inside your home and call the police. . . it's not a situation that requires the use of your gun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sober_teacher
If stand your ground was substantiated then it would not have been a homicide

It feels a lot like these laws have been poorly written. Stand your ground feels to me like it ought to be a specific type of event, yet so many confrontations seem to be able to be justified as a stand your ground defense.
 
If stand your ground was substantiated then it would not have been a homicide

It is a crappy law. Two armed people shoot it out and it has to be interpreted if one is in the right? Everyone is in the right.

Makes sense if everyone is packin' and shootouts are going to be the next way to resolve arguments and impress friends and the girls. Doesn't it?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT