Stand Your Ground Watch...

[The Old Jaybird]

On the news today, po-po is looking for 2 other yutes involved who managed to avoid getting shot. So a total of 5 kids were involved.

Those 2 that are missing should consider themselves very lucky and very screwed. Lucky they aren't on a slab like their 3 buddies, screwed because they should be charged with murder for participating in a crime where someone was killed.

oops....missed post #21 above.

 

[Trailrider]

They was good boys and dindunuffin

 

[spencer60]

This why the "stand your ground" did not add anything to the rights Georgians have had for 250 years, and it's enactment just mucks things up.

"Stand your ground" was enacted by some legislators who wanted to showboat because passing such laws is what all the cool kids were doing. Didn't matter if the state needed such a law, we got one whether we needed it or not.

If you mean 'Stand Your Ground' as defined by the media, like in this story, you're right... it doesn't mean anything because it could mean anything.

As a law it's extremely useful though, that's why almost every state has some kind of 'stand your ground' law on the books.

It all started back in Massachusetts in the 80s. A woman was in her home when her ex showed up and started kicking down the front door. She ran down into the cellar and locked that door, which he then kicked down as well. With her back (literally) to a wall, she shot him with her (legal) pistol.

A 'good shoot' is a good shoot right? What could possibly go wrong?

Well, the prosecutor charged her with murder and got her convicted and sent away for a couple of years, until she was released on appeal.

How?

Simple.

There was a small cellar window just above her when she shot. The prosecutor convinced the jury that she would have been able to retreat 'in perfect safety' as was her duty under Mass law, and that would have meant she wouldn't have had to shoot her ex.


Needless to say this made news and prompted so-called 'stand your ground' bills to get proposed. All these do is remove the 'duty to retreat' that was part of self-defense laws in many states. Nothing else... that's it.

Unfortunately, when FL passed their version, they also added in some other changes like civil immunity and requiring the prosecutor to show a 'preponderance of evidence' that they can defeat a self-defense claim before they can indict you.

And since the media was already bashing FL as the 'gunshine state' all this got blended together until literally any part of self defense law, which has been on the books and stable since the 1600s or so, suddenly all got lumped together as 'Stand Your Ground'.

At the end of the day though, 'SYG' is a tiny part of self-defense law. It's only applicable to the 'avoidance' part of any self-defense claim heard in any court in the US... or the UK, Canada, Australia, etc... it's all based on old English Common Law. There are 4 other aspects that need to be addressed, and if you miss any one of them your claim to self defense is doomed.

Heck, it doesn't even completely remove the avoidance issues, if you went out of your way to confront your attacker that's still a perfectly legal way for your self defense claim to be invalidated. It just doesn't allow the prosecutor to use where you were at the time of the defensive act to invalidate your claim.

 

[Ken Ford]

Listened to a Greenville SC station, they said that he “encountered” the teens oitside of his house at 0400.
No mention of being masked and armed. And this is a very conservative station...

 

[gh1950]

As a law it's extremely useful though, that's why almost every state has some kind of 'stand your ground' law on the books.

The Georgia "stand your ground" law adds nothing to the traditional Georgia definition of self defense. If anything it clutters up 250 years of well defined precedent by suggestion that there is something to consider beyond the traditional elements of self defense.

The situation under discussion is a perfect example. "Stand your ground" add absolutely nothing to existing law. At no time in Georgia would you have been in legal jeopardy for shooting masked men in your yard who were shooting at you. If fact, using the law of self defense and cases decided over those 250 years, you probably don't have to wait for them to start shooting.

The fallacy of having a useless law is demonstrated by the press coverage spontaneously designating this case as a "stand your ground" case because we all know that's the law pushed by red eyed crazies looking for an excuse to pop someone, instead of calling it a simple case of self defense, which it is.

The Georgia law already provided that persons legally employing self defense were immune to prosecution, and "stand your ground" couldn't expand that much more.

IMO the rhetoric over "stand your ground" who don't understand exactly what are its parameters to make ill advised decisions such as the guy in fl. who killed someone over a parking space, standing his ground, and just got convicted of manslaughter.

Even Georgia Zimmerman did not rely on the Fl. stand your ground law because of the negative connotation associated with it; his defense was based on the traditional Fl. self defense law.

 

[jeepnuts]

So the guy was outside holding a semi auto rifle ready to defend his home at 4am? At this point the kids started shooting at him and he defended?

Or....

Did the dude see five shady kids outside his house and headed outside with his semi auto rifle?

 

[Jambo]

So the guy was outside holding a semi auto rifle ready to defend his home at 4am? At this point the kids started shooting at him and he defended?

Or....

Did the dude see five shady kids outside his house and headed outside with his semi auto rifle?

Either way, they shot first; he shot best.

 

[spencer60]

The Georgia "stand your ground" law adds nothing to the traditional Georgia definition of self defense. If anything it clutters up 250 years of well defined precedent by suggestion that there is something to consider beyond the traditional elements of self defense.

The situation under discussion is a perfect example. "Stand your ground" add absolutely nothing to existing law. At no time in Georgia would you have been in legal jeopardy for shooting masked men in your yard who were shooting at you. If fact, using the law of self defense and cases decided over those 250 years, you probably don't have to wait for them to start shooting.

The fallacy of having a useless law is demonstrated by the press coverage spontaneously designating this case as a "stand your ground" case because we all know that's the law pushed by red eyed crazies looking for an excuse to pop someone, instead of calling it a simple case of self defense, which it is.

The Georgia law already provided that persons legally employing self defense were immune to prosecution, and "stand your ground" couldn't expand that much more.

IMO the rhetoric over "stand your ground" who don't understand exactly what are its parameters to make ill advised decisions such as the guy in fl. who killed someone over a parking space, standing his ground, and just got convicted of manslaughter.

Even Georgia Zimmerman did not rely on the Fl. stand your ground law because of the negative connotation associated with it; his defense was based on the traditional Fl. self defense law.

If GA never had a 'duty to retreat' then you are right, SYG adds very little to the table. It's sole purpose is to remove any chance that the prosecutor can try and get a jury guessing about the avoidance aspect of a self-defense claim.

You might have a case where a prosecutor might try to imply that you shouldn't have been where you were at the time of the attack and an explicit SYG law would exclude that angle. Heck, in the case above the prosecutor might try and paint being outside your house at 4AM with a gun as somehow nefarious. Maybe suggesting this was a score being settled and therefore mutual combat rather than self defense.

That part of law itself is good in that it explicitly makes clear that a prosecutor cannot use wherever you happen to be against you if you claim self defense, although as you mention, it's not critical to many cases.

I do think the civil immunity is a vital law that we need, and unfortunately that also gets wrapped up as SYG. In fact that and the pretrial hearing that FL does (but GA does not) to make sure a prosecutor has enough evidence to contest a self-defense claim before going forward are the two most important aspects of what people call 'stand your ground', yet they have nothing at all to do with SYG as law.

Even the FL case you mention would never have come under SYG (although that didn't stop the moron sheriff from spouting off for the media) because the shooter was on the ground. He had no chance to retreat at all, let alone 'in perfect safety' as all the 'duty to retreat' states require.

The best way you can tell that SYG and the laws mistakenly placed under than name are good and useful is that the anti-gun mob hates them. They want people to be so terrified of the legal ramifications of having to shoot someone that people won't even bother carrying a gun.

That alone tells me that 'stand your ground' is worth fighting to keep.

 

[gh1950]

It's sole purpose is to remove any chance that the prosecutor can try and get a jury guessing about the avoidance aspect of a self-defense claim.

Well if that is its sole purpose, it's not working very.

Robert “Chip” Olsen is a former Dekalb County police officer who is being tried for murder for killing a naked crazy guy.

His defense is self defense. He actually had a pre-trial hearing, and the judge ruled that issue is for the jury. So despite the Ga. law saying that he is immune from prosecution, he is in fact having to go through a full blown jury trial.

The prosecutor is doing exactly what you say can't be done. The prosecutor is arguing that the cop had a duty to retreat sort of, by remaining in his cruiser and doing nothing, as opposed to getting out of his cruiser and shooting a naked crazy guy.

The defendant is still contending that it is self defense. This case goes back to my original statement that fatal shooting cases are fact specific, and no matter how the law is crafted, a prosecutor who wants to do so can always claim that there is a "factual question."

 

[jeepnuts]

If GA never had a 'duty to retreat' then you are right, SYG adds very little to the table. It's sole purpose is to remove any chance that the prosecutor can try and get a jury guessing about the avoidance aspect of a self-defense claim.

You might have a case where a prosecutor might try to imply that you shouldn't have been where you were at the time of the attack and an explicit SYG law would exclude that angle. Heck, in the case above the prosecutor might try and paint being outside your house at 4AM with a gun as somehow nefarious. Maybe suggesting this was a score being settled and therefore mutual combat rather than self defense.

That part of law itself is good in that it explicitly makes clear that a prosecutor cannot use wherever you happen to be against you if you claim self defense, although as you mention, it's not critical to many cases.

I do think the civil immunity is a vital law that we need, and unfortunately that also gets wrapped up as SYG. In fact that and the pretrial hearing that FL does (but GA does not) to make sure a prosecutor has enough evidence to contest a self-defense claim before going forward are the two most important aspects of what people call 'stand your ground', yet they have nothing at all to do with SYG as law.

Even the FL case you mention would never have come under SYG (although that didn't stop the moron sheriff from spouting off for the media) because the shooter was on the ground. He had no chance to retreat at all, let alone 'in perfect safety' as all the 'duty to retreat' states require.

The best way you can tell that SYG and the laws mistakenly placed under than name are good and useful is that the anti-gun mob hates them. They want people to be so terrified of the legal ramifications of having to shoot someone that people won't even bother carrying a gun.

That alone tells me that 'stand your ground' is worth fighting to keep.

Your second paragraph hits on the point I was trying to elude to with my previous post. Is it ok to shoot people who are on your property? If he went out after them then it’s different than fighting off home invaders, right? Is that stand your ground? I’m not being a smartass, I’m honestly asking because I’m not sure.

I thought it was ok to shoot a home invader in your home but not to shoot people in your yard. Now, I understand the kids were armed so obviously that adds self defense as a viable scenario but I think my confusion comes from the scene. I can’t picture why the guy was awake and outside and armed at 4am to begin with. If I thought my house was fixin to be broken in to I wouldn’t go out after the folks because I think that muddies the legal waters. Just my opinion, I don’t know the right answer.

I’m not taking the side of the kids. Obviously they were up to no good and had no business on this guys property at any time especially not the middle of the night with masks and guns.

Who shot first is he said-she said and can’t be proven. Likely no eye witnesses, only neighbors who heard gunfire. This is national News now and I bet it’s treated like a reboot of Zimmerman and Martin.