Stand Your Ground Law

[*PhilHos*]

(08-09-2018, 06:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes.  He is 100% blameless.  The man was acting aggressively toward his woman so he was 100% justified in pushing the guy way.

Is that what the law says? Let's say there's no gun. Guy is unreasonably screaming at the wife. Husband comes out and pushes crazy guy down. Crazy guy calls cop and wants to press charges saying he was assaulted. Is the law going to side with crazy guy? Or with the husband? If the law says the husband DID commit assault, then he's not blameless, even though he never deserved to be shot.

[fredtoast]

(08-09-2018, 06:50 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Is that what the law says? Let's say there's no gun. Guy is unreasonably screaming at the wife. Husband comes out and pushes crazy guy down. Crazy guy calls cop and wants to press charges saying he was assaulted. Is the law going to side with crazy guy? Or with the husband? If the law says the husband DID commit assault, then he's not blameless, even though he never deserved to be shot.

As close as the guy was to his wife/girlfriend and as aggressively as he was acting he was 100% justified.

The law says the husband did not commit an assault.

You can't get physical with someone for yelling, but if he comes close enough to strike and continues to act aggressively you can.  You don't have to wait for some guy to punch your wife before you get physical to defend her.

Once you push someone away you can not continue to attack if that person is not longer acting in a threatening manner.  Again the guy dod not continue to attack after he pushed the guy away.

So he was 100% blameless.

[Beaker]

(08-09-2018, 06:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes.  He is 100% blameless.  The man was acting aggressively toward his woman so he was 100% justified in pushing the guy way.

So physical assault is an equal and acceptable response to verbal assault?

[fredtoast]

(08-09-2018, 07:16 PM)Beaker Wrote: So physical assault is an equal and acceptable response to verbal assault?

Yes under certain circumstances.  I have already explained this a couple of times.  Try to keep up.  I am not going to keep repeating myself.

[Benton]

(08-09-2018, 07:16 PM)Beaker Wrote: So physical assault is an equal and acceptable response to verbal assault?

If there is reasonable fear of it turning physical, yes. Similar to how you don’t have to wait until you get shot to shoot someone.

That’s the silliness here. The father was defending someone from a possible physical threat and got shot. He was the closest one to standing his ground.

[Beaker]

(08-09-2018, 08:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes under certain circumstances.  I have already explained this a couple of times.  Try to keep up.  I am not going to keep repeating myself.

Apparently not these circumstances. Seeing as the law has already decided the shooter won't be charged, it would seem that I am not the one who can't keep up. The victim was not blameless.

[BmorePat87]

(08-10-2018, 12:03 AM)Beaker Wrote: Apparently not these circumstances. Seeing as the law has already decided the shooter won't be charged, it would seem that I am not the one who can't keep up. The victim was not blameless.

And if the victim had killed the shooter when he shoved him, it's very likely the same law would have covered him too, at which point this logic says we would have to say the victim was blameless and the shooter was to blame.

[Beaker]

(08-10-2018, 12:08 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: And if the victim had killed the shooter when he shoved him, it's very likely the same law would have covered him too, at which point this logic says we would have to say the victim was blameless and the shooter was to blame.

Hypothetical.

[BmorePat87]

(08-10-2018, 12:11 AM)Beaker Wrote: Hypothetical.

It's a hypothetical scenario, yes, but if it happened would you be using the same exact logic to suggest that the fact that he wasn't charged means he isn't to blame and the dead person is?

[GMDino]

(08-10-2018, 12:03 AM)Beaker Wrote: Apparently not these circumstances. Seeing as the law has already decided the shooter won't be charged, it would seem that I am not the one who can't keep up. The victim was not blameless.

The sheriff decided.

He may still be charged.

[Beaker]

(08-10-2018, 12:30 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's a hypothetical scenario, yes, but if it happened would you be using the same exact logic to suggest that the fact that he wasn't charged means he isn't to blame and the dead person is?

It was never an either/or scenario. I have said the pusher shared some of the blame for the result. (Which is way different than deserving the outcome). Others are the ones trying to maintain that he was 100% blameless.

[BmorePat87]

(08-10-2018, 11:00 AM)Beaker Wrote: It was never an either/or scenario. I have said the pusher shared some of the blame for the result. (Which is way different than deserving the outcome). Others are the ones trying to maintain that he was 100% blameless.

You're right, "blame" was a poor word choice as the actual question posed by you was 

Quote:So physical assault is an equal and acceptable response to verbal assault?

to which Fred responded

Quote:Yes under certain circumstances.

and you replied 

Quote:Apparently not these circumstances. Seeing as the law has already decided the shooter won't be charged

So I apologize for focusing on the word "blame". If the shove had killed the shooter and Stand Your Ground covered it (since you can use up to deadly force to protect yourself and others), would this be "circumstances" where it was an acceptable response?

The answer is "yes" and the fact that the law would allow this response ONLY if it killed the person is what makes this law so messed up. Essentially it's "if two people are fighting/arguing, be sure you're the one who kills the other". 

[fredtoast]

(08-10-2018, 11:00 AM)Beaker Wrote: It was never an either/or scenario. I have said the pusher shared some of the blame for the result.

He didn't.  

If you want to argue the law I can produce tons of case law that shows that a person is allowed to defend a person who is in immememt threat of bodily harm.  In this case I am saying the sheriff was wrong.

The problem you have is that you try to go back and forth from this specific shooting to broad generalizations.  If you want to insist that you are never entitled to get physical with a person until they get physical with you first then you are 100% wrong and I can prove it.

[*bfine32*]

I think folks are making a circular argument when they say the pusher has 0 responsibility in the role, but assert the shooter shares all the blame;

Father saw dude yelling at family: He escalated the situation by turning the altercation to a physical one.

Dude gets shoved to the ground: He escalates the situation by turning the altercation into one involving firearms.

I think many are letting the outcome and/or prior events cloud their judgment in this matter.

[*bfine32*]

(08-10-2018, 11:57 AM)fredtoast Wrote: He didn't.  

If you want to argue the law I can produce tons of case law that shows that a person is allowed to defend a person who is in immememt threat of bodily harm.  In this case I am saying the sheriff was wrong.

The problem you have is that you try to go back and forth from this specific shooting to broad generalizations.  If you want to insist that you are never entitled to get physical with a person until they get physical with you first then you are 100% wrong and I can prove it.

Did the shooter share any blame in the shooting?

[GMDino]

(08-10-2018, 01:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think folks are making a circular argument when they say the pusher has 0 responsibility in the role, but assert the shooter shares all the blame;

Father saw dude yelling at family: He escalated the situation by turning the altercation to a physical one.

Dude gets shoved to the ground: He escalates the situation by turning the altercation into one involving firearms.

I think many are letting the outcome and/or prior events cloud their judgment in this matter.

I believe you're right.

"Many" think that one had the right to shoot someone defending their girlfriend in order to "defend themself". Clearly it was the victim at blame for "escalating" the situation versus humbly walking away to avoid getting shot.  Not had he walked away and got shot?  Well, I suppose he could still be blamed because they parked in the handicap spot.  Or maybe because he didn't show enough respect to the shooter and try to defuse the situation.

Always blame to go around.... 

Of course many may think that MLK wasn't blameless in getting shot either...he just had to stop running his mouth probably.  And if JFK just would have had the roof up!  Amiright?

[*bfine32*]

(08-10-2018, 01:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: I believe you're right.

"Many" think that one had the right to shoot someone defending their girlfriend in order to "defend themself". Clearly it was the victim at blame for "escalating" the situation versus humbly walking away to avoid getting shot.  Not had he walked away and got shot?  Well, I suppose he could still be blamed because they parked in the handicap spot.  Or maybe because he didn't show enough respect to the shooter and try to defuse the situation.

Always blame to go around.... 

Of course many may think that MLK wasn't blameless in getting shot either...he just had to stop running his mouth probably.  And if JFK just would have had the roof up!  Amiright?

I have never suggested the father walk away and have asserted I would have done the same or worse at that age.  I suppose if we wanted to peel the onion all the way back then the mother is to blame for parking illegally.

[GMDino]

(08-10-2018, 01:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have never suggested the father walk away and have asserted I would have done the same or worse at that age.  I suppose if we wanted to peel the onion all the way back then the mother is to blame for parking illegally.

There we go!  Plenty of blame!

As long as "manY" can deflect from the actual killer it's all good!  

[*bfine32*]

(08-10-2018, 02:07 PM)GMDino Wrote: There we go!  Plenty of blame!

As long as "manY" can deflect from the actual killer it's all good!  

I have never deflected from the man that pulled the trigger. But if asserting that somehow helps you prove a "point" have at it.

As to me; I'm simply sharing some advice from years of experience. Hopefully, some youngster may read this and realize their actions, no matter how innocent, can defuse a situation. But you can share your advise with them. I just hope no one I love follows it.

[*Nately120*]

This is interesting stuff. Just for an experiement I'd like to see how people would react if when they asked me what I've been up to lately I said:

1. Some guy was yelling at my gf and kids so I pushed him to the ground.

Versus

2. Some guy pushed me to the ground so I shot and killed him.


Ida know, I just feel like those statements would be met with different responses.