Then Senator Obama Voted to Strengthen Illinois Stand Your Ground Law 2004

reply to post by Indigo5

With that reality it would be good to have some discretion as to whom we allow to "play cop" with real world lethal consequences.

it could be said that the pool of persons "playing cop" these days should be rendered unarmed before any law-abiding citizen.

maybe less children would die from their direct ineptitude.
cops & gangs -- still have gangs in regions that cops won't even enter.
cops & drugs -- well, there's a real success story for ya
cops & guns -- less cops with guns, more pets & children will survive.

yeah, you may be right ... cops do get guns way too easily.

reply to post by Indigo5

Honestly, if you are unaware of the "Castle Docterine" and the difference between "Stand Your Ground"...then I don't have the time to educate.

honestly indigo5, you might want to get an education before you attempt to educate others.

SYG is a necessity, not a luxury.
Castle doctrine is a given and has been for most of the years of my life.
and, after having been raped 3 times, none of which occurred at home, i will forever support SYG over Castle doctrine, any day.

Originally posted by neo96
You have to admit all the animosity geared toward SYG laws is only the government, and the police are suppose to come save you.

Your not suppose to have guns, your not suppose to protect yourself so then why are people still dying in this country?

Wait for Police or be victimized?

You seem to be omiting the third obvious option? Walk away? When you are out in public you have that option if you "feel" threatened and more so when you are carrying the means to kill those that you "feel" threatened by.

The way in which Stand Your Ground is structured even permits folks to pursue confrontation and then kill the object of thier pursuit when confronted.

See..."Stand Your Ground" fails in premise....It is not your "ground"...it is public sidewalks and parks. If it was your home, the castle docterine is just defense...ditto even for your car...but "stand your ground" abdicates any responsibility for a person to consider the third best option, especially when they are carrying a gun...what our Grandfathers taught us...walk away when you can, fight when you can't walk away. Instead it says...if you feel threatened...feel free to kill someone.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

www.leg.state.fl.us.../0776/Sections/0776.013.html

See how that works? Public property...not duty to retreat or leave...And all that is required is that the shooter prove in court that they "believes it is neccessary to do so".

And the burden of proof is on the prosecution, which means if there is "ANY reasonable doubt" that the shooter did NOT believe they were threatened, then they must aquit. Essentially all the defense has to prove is that maybe the shooter did feel threatened. Not wether they were actually threatened...but that it was possible the shooter "believed" they were threatened.

It's a crap law all the way around.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Honestly, if you are unaware of the "Castle Docterine" and the difference between "Stand Your Ground"...then I don't have the time to educate.

honestly indigo5, you might want to get an education before you attempt to educate others.

SYG is a necessity, not a luxury.
Castle doctrine is a given and has been for most of the years of my life.
and, after having been raped 3 times, none of which occurred at home, i will forever support SYG over Castle doctrine, any day.

No offense, but that scenario, while horrific, is entirely off the reservation. Stand your ground doesn't alter or effect the right for self-defense already on the books for 100 plus years in every state. It removes any responsibility on public property to even consider retreat when someone simply "believes" they are threatened before using lethal force. Zimmermans defense did not need to prove that Zimmerman's life was in danger, they simply needed to prove that Zimmerman "believed" his life was in danger...and it was the prosecutions burden to prove otherwise "beyond ANY doubt".

If you think SYG is some advantage to abused women, think again...

Prosecuted for Standing Her Ground

sentenced to 20 years in prison for defending herself against her violent and abusive husband.

32-year-old African-American mother of three.

In July 2010, after Rico Gray saw texts on his wife’s phone, he confronted her in a rage and threatened her. Alexander used her gun to fire a warning shot into the ceiling to scare off her husband. Nobody was hit, injured, or killed.

Alexander, who had no criminal record, was arrested.

Alexander—who did not kill or injure anyone—is in jail for 20 years.

Alexander’s abusive husband Rico Gray—who said in his deposition, “I got five baby mammas, and I [hit] every last one of them except for one”—

www.thedailybeast.com...

Tell me again about SYG?

reply to post by Indigo5

this ^^^ is a crap understanding all the way around.

SYG permits a person to defend themselves with lethal force in any location they find themselves lawfully present unless otherwise designated.

get it?? DEFEND themselves ... NOT pursue and eliminate.

you are confusing cops with law-abiding citizens.
cops have the privilege of random execution, not law-abiding citizens.

reply to post by Indigo5

if this isn't a typo then it's just plain wrong.

which means if there is "ANY reasonable doubt" that the shooter did NOT believe they were threatened, then they must aquit.

any reasonable doubt that the shooter DID believe they were threatened ... not what you said.

Originally posted by Honor93

private property and public ???
are you serious ?

which part of the castle doctrine permits use of lethal force in public spaces ??

Your car. As for the other public places...self-defense...yourself, family, even bystanders, even lethal, is still a legitimate and legal defense.

SYG expands this in two ways...it lessens the burden to the individual simply "believing" they are mortally threatened, and absolves them from any obligation to consider retreat before using lethal force. Essentially treating everywhere you go as your home...a travelling Castle Docterine...or a Castle Docterine without the "Castle". The issue with "Stand Your Ground" is that the other guy has a right to be there...like Trayvon did on public sidewalks. It isn't "Your Ground".

I have read the laws both in Florida and other places...SYG vs. Castle Docterine. There is no debate that Pres. Obama signed a tweak to the Castle Docterine...not anything to do with Stand Your Ground.

No, President Obama Didn't Support a "Stand Your Ground" Law in Illinois

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Indigo5

 

if this isn't a typo then it's just plain wrong.

which means if there is "ANY reasonable doubt" that the shooter did NOT believe they were threatened, then they must aquit.

any reasonable doubt that the shooter DID believe they were threatened ... not what you said.

No...the burden of proof is on the prosecution...the jury can doubt that the shooter felt threatened...BUT if there is any doubt that the shooter did NOT feel threatened..they must aquit.

If a juror is 80% sure that the shooter didn't feel threatened, but has 20% reserved for the fact that the shooter DID feel threatened, they are obligated to aquit.

Burden is on the prosecution, not the defense and the burden is "beyond ANY reasonable doubt".

reply to post by Indigo5

sure it does.
when i was victimized, SYG didn't exist and i had no options.
retreat was impossible.
weapons weren't readily available and the cops were nowhere to be found.

"believing" in the moment and proving that belief in a court of law are 2 separate things.

as all things in life, if you act on a false belief, you may suffer severe consequences.
that is our system of justice.

still not following your disgust.
the burden of proof is ALWAYS the task of the prosecution.

If you think SYG is some advantage to abused women, think again

nope, don't think it, KNOW It.

the story you linked was a prosecution for breaking the law by firing a WARNING shot ... her responsiblity, her error, it happens.

do tell, why would she fire a warning shot if she really felt "threatened" ??
that is reflective of the own it now ... learn about it later group.

reply to post by Indigo5

"your car" is NOT a public space.
try again.

self-defense is always a legitimate and legal defense.
however, one still has to prove it.

so, what are you suggesting, exactly ??
no lethal force use in public spaces ??
good luck with that one.

sounds more like crafting a killing field to me.

retreat should never be mandated by any illegitimate legislation.
defending self is an absolute right in all situations.

anywhere my feet stand is MY ground ... even if i was only invited there.
and, the space i occupy is MY ground and worthy defending.

if you disagree, that's your prerogative.

no one is claiming that TM had no right to be there ... however, he certainly had no right to assault Zimmerman, EVER.

his responsibility, his error, it happens.

the fact remains that obama DID co-sponsor legislation that enhanced existing self-defense laws in Illinois ... if you want to pick at its Name, feel free.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Indigo5

 

sure it does.
when i was victimized, SYG didn't exist and i had no options.
retreat was impossible.

And SYG had/has no bearing on that scenario. You continue to conflate self-defense with a specific law that speaks to feeling threatened and no obligtion to retreat before engaging in lethal force.

A different scenario than actually being attacked and being unable to even consider retreat. That is well covered under self-defense laws.

· In Louisiana early this year, a grand jury cleared 21-year-old Byron Thomas after he fired into an SUV filled with teenagers after an alleged marijuana transaction went sour. One of the bullets struck and killed 15-year-old Jamonta Miles. Although the SUV was allegedly driving away when Thomas opened fire, Lafourche Parish Sheriff Craig Webre said to local media that as far as Thomas knew, someone could have jumped out of the vehicle with a gun. Thomas, said the sheriff, had “decided to stand his ground.”

Louisiana’s Stand Your Ground law was enacted just a year after Florida introduced its law.

· In April, 22-year-old Cordell Jude shot and killed Daniel Adkins Jr., a pedestrian who walked in front of Jude’s car just as Jude was pulling up to the window of a Taco Bell drive-thru in Arizona. Jude claimed Adkins had waved his arms in the air, wielding what Judge thought was a metal pipe – it was actually a dog leash. Jude shot the 29-year-old Adkins, who was mentally disabled, once in the chest. As of May, an arrest had not been made in the April 3 shooting. Arizona passed a Stand Your Ground law in 2010.

www.propublica.org...

Originally posted by Honor93

so, what are you suggesting, exactly ??
no lethal force use in public spaces ??
good luck with that one.

I am suggesting NOT expanding self defense laws to the "perception" of a threat and allowing a Jury to consider the possibility that the shooter, who is lethally armed, could have walked away from that "percieved" threat.

Originally posted by Honor93

the fact remains that obama DID co-sponsor legislation that enhanced existing self-defense laws in Illinois ... if you want to pick at its Name, feel free.

Sure he did...and good on him for that. Self-defense is a good thing....BUT it is NOT anything to do with the shoot-as-you-please SYG law which permits folks like the case I cited above to shoot and kill someone waving a dog leash at the Taco Bell.

reply to post by Indigo5

you're confused.
as you wrote it ... such a circumstance would require a conviction and that's how it works.
IF the shooter did not perceive a threat, he/she would be convicted without delay.

No...the burden of proof is on the prosecution...the jury can doubt that the shooter felt threatened...BUT if there is any doubt that the shooter did NOT feel threatened..they must aquit.

it doesn't matter if the juror is 50/50 in their personal belief, the law is the law and if the shooter perceived a threat, an acquittal is the appropriate decision.

in the TM case, i expected a hung jury.
6 women agreeing on anything ??? i am shocked.
not surprised mind you but shocked that a decision was reached.

reply to post by Indigo5

no need to conflate the issues, they are synonymous.
the SYG defense is equally applicable as self-defense.

from the way you speak and the fact that the black population has invoked SYG more times than any other population, am i to surmise that the black population are "following and executing" ppl at will ??

i mean really, what are you saying here ?
i speak of defense and you insist it permits offensive assaults ... so, which is it ??

if it does, then it must be the black population who is on the attack, correct ??
defending oneself in their right to be lawfully present doesn't apply, right ??

I am suggesting NOT expanding self defense laws to the "perception" of a threat and allowing a Jury to consider the possibility that the shooter, who is lethally armed, could have walked away from that "percieved" threat.

again, you're confused.
self-defense is always based on perception and always has been.
cops shoot based on perception.
criminals fire based on perception.
why should law-abiding citizens be restricted in any manner ??

the jury is usually instructed in such a manner.
ppl who do not 'walk away' and opt to confront are often seen/perceived as the aggressor and punished accordingly.
again, that is our justice system.

i notice you post incidents from 2 other states but wish to attack the law that is specific to FL, why is that ?

fyi, since SYG has been active in FL, violent crime has decreased dramatically.
i can support that.

reply to post by Indigo5

BUT it is NOT anything to do with the shoot-as-you-please SYG law which permits folks like the case I cited above to shoot and kill someone waving a dog leash at the Taco Bell.

then change the laws in that state since it isn't FL ... what we have here, works and that's good enough for millions of us