Stand Your Ground Law

[*bfine32*]

(08-13-2018, 07:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually it is a great analogy.  People are justified in killing an intruder who is not attacking them because the situation creates a reasonable fear of imminent physical danger.

So what is your answer to that question?  Is shooting an intruder in your home who is not attacking you "escalating the situation".  

Would you shoot the intruder or instead try to get your wife and kids out of the house?

Well as long as you say your analogy is great; then there's really no disputing it. 

[BmorePat87]

(08-13-2018, 07:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Completely agree, which means he will most likely be convicted.  No Mosby overcharging to please a mob and no Zimmerman overcharging to virtue signal.  The law being applied as the law is written, rather refreshing.

Her race was the most competitive during our primary. And she won, ugh. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-13-2018, 10:41 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Her race was the most competitive during our primary. And she won, ugh. 

I saw that, disturbing.  That woman has no business practicing criminal law of any kind, let alone being the county attorney.

[fredtoast]

(08-13-2018, 08:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In your private residence as opposed to a public parking lot?  Seriously, are you trying to be a joke?

No I am 100% serious.

Apparently you are unaware that perceiving a threat is the same in your own home as in a parking lot.

And if "removing yourself" is always the best course of action why not do that in your own home?  Leave the home and you are out of danger.  "Problem solved" right?

[fredtoast]

(08-13-2018, 09:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well as long as you say your analogy is great; then there's really no disputing it. 

Well if I did nothing but say it is great you could dispute that.

But with the explanation I provided explaining WHY it was great you are correct.  There is no point in disputing it.



And that is why you and SSF are avoiding actually addressing my question and instead just casting silly aspersions at me.

[fredtoast]

(08-13-2018, 07:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Apparently we are not watching the same video. At no time do we see the dude in the girls face. He is a good distance from the car door and the female exits (look enough room to open her door) the vehicle once the father starts approaching. 

No.  We are watching the same exact video.  But for some reason even though this woman could not even open her door all the way to get out of her car you claim the shooter was a "good distance" from the car.  

The shooter was the one who approached her car.  He was no more than a couple of feet from her car.  When she got out he was less than a foot from her.

He was clearly close enough to pose a threat of physical violence.  Based on the fact that he was harassing her and acting irrationally both her and the victim were clearly justified in perceiving him as a threat.

[*bfine32*]

(08-14-2018, 06:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  We are watching the same exact video.  But for some reason even though this woman could not even open her door all the way to get out of her car you claim the shooter was a "good distance" from the car.  

The shooter was the one who approached her car.  He was no more than a couple of feet from her car.  When she got out he was less than a foot from her.

He was clearly close enough to pose a threat of physical violence.  Based on the fact that he was harassing her and acting irrationally both her and the victim were clearly justified in perceiving him as a threat.

She felt so threatened that she exited the vehicle but she couldn't open the door "all the way".  How close are you to a car when you are talking to someone inside it? WTS, as I told Dino, you explain to your loved ones the best way to handle such a situation is with violence. I'll teach mine differently. Because the world is a crazy place. 

[*bfine32*]

(08-14-2018, 06:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Well if I did nothing but say it is great you could dispute that.

But with the explanation I provided explaining WHY it was great you are correct.  There is no point in disputing it.



And that is why you and SSF are avoiding actually addressing my question and instead just casting silly aspersions at me.

Yeah, it's just I didn't think you were serious with the "explanation"; I don't think too many are. If he had entered her vehicle you analogy make be great to someone other than yourself.

You keep going with this "justified to raise the level" and we are talking about best course of action. Even with your "justification" you have to assume that the mother and father felt threatened by his actions. That's quite the assumption counselor, when the video shows that neither may have felt threatened. 

If the woman was threaten why did she remove the barrier of the car door?    

[fredtoast]

(08-14-2018, 06:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: you explain to your loved ones the best way to handle such a situation is with violence. I'll teach mine differently. Because the world is a crazy place. 

(07-23-2018, 06:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  If a dude is in the parking lot harassing my wife and kids, I too, might "announce my presence with authority."

[*bfine32*]

(08-14-2018, 06:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote:

Yes, I freely admitted at an earlier age I was ignorant and hell I might still be a little ignorant once charged with emotion;however, I've made no attempt to promote physical violence as have you and a couple others. It is simply my desire is now the share the wisdom of years with those of a younger generation as opposed to what the tough guy would do, 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-14-2018, 05:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No I am 100% serious.

Apparently you are unaware that perceiving a threat is the same in your own home as in a parking lot.

Apparently you are unaware of the difference between a public area and a private residence.

Quote:And if "removing yourself" is always the best course of action why not do that in your own home?  Leave the home and you are out of danger.  "Problem solved" right?

This, along with your not knowing that an LEO can lawfully order you out of your vehicle during a traffic stop, make me seriously question your legal credentials.

[fredtoast]

(08-14-2018, 06:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Apparently you are unaware of the difference between a public area and a private residence.

There is no difference when reacting to a perceived threat of imminent harm.  It does not matter if you are in public or in your home you are still justified.  If I am wrong post a link to the law.  


I don't know why some people here think that making vague obtuse statements with nothing to back them up is supposed to impress anyone.

(08-14-2018, 06:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This, along with your not knowing that an LEO can lawfully order you out of your vehicle during a traffic stop, make me seriously question your legal credentials.

I know that an officer can do that.  That is why I corrected myself when I misspoke without anyone here having to point it out.

[fredtoast]

(08-14-2018, 06:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, I freely admitted at an earlier age I was ignorant and hell I might still be a little ignorant once charged with emotion;however, I've made no attempt to promote physical violence as have you and a couple others. It is simply my desire is now the share the wisdom of years with those of a younger generation as opposed to what the tough guy would do, 

I am not promoting physical violence.  I am promoting defending a woman from a violent irrational stranger.  I believe that in this situation that was the proper thing to do to ensure her safety.  And the reasonable people who have drafted our laws agree with me.


BTW "Do as I say, not as I do" is the WORST way to share "the wisdom of years" with the younger generation.  They will just assume you are full of BS.  Like a drunk partying and telling his kids not to drink.

[*bfine32*]

(08-14-2018, 07:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am not promoting physical violence.  I am promoting defending a woman from a violent irrational stranger.  I believe that in this situation that was the proper thing to do to ensure her safety.  And the reasonable people who have drafted our laws agree with me.


BTW "Do as I say, not as I do" is the WORST way to share "the wisdom of years" with the younger generation.  They will just assume you are full of BS.  Like a drunk partying and telling his kids not to drink.

Of course you're advocating violence tough guy; everyone can see it. I suppose we may have to learn if she actually felt threatened. So threatened as to exit the vehicle and approach the man. You keep stating this assumption as fact.

I'll leave you to your counseling techniques and I'll stick with mine. I feel today's youth can learn a lot from our shared mistakes. It's "do as I advise, not as I did". Perhaps you're technique of not sharing any mistakes as a youth works better, 

I will conclude with the assumption that the dude will not be contacting Fred Toast as a member of his defense team in his manslaughter case,

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-14-2018, 07:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is no difference when reacting to a perceived threat of imminent harm.  It does not matter if you are in public or in your home you are still justified.  If I am wrong post a link to the law.

Inane doublespeak.  The reasonable perception of imminent harm is radically different in your private residence than in a public parking lot.  This kind of useless sidetracking is why you are so tiresome to discuss, well, anything with. 

Quote:I don't know why some people here think that making vague obtuse statements with nothing to back them up is supposed to impress anyone.

Then by all means, cease doing it.

Quote:I know that an officer can do that.  That is why I corrected myself when I misspoke without anyone here having to point it out.

Yet you typed it an posted it in the first place.  I suppose we'll take your word that you noticed an error a law student shouldn't make on your own.

[fredtoast]

(08-14-2018, 07:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course you're advocating violence tough guy; everyone can see it.

You also advocate violence, so what is your point?   You are about the farthest thing from a pacifist we have around here.  You advocate using violence against a person that breaks into your home.  You advocate violence perpetrated by the police.  You advocate violence perpetrated by the military.

I have never said that violence should never be used when justified.  In this case it was justified.

(08-14-2018, 07:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  I suppose we may have to learn if she actually felt threatened. You keep stating this assumption as fact.

She claimed her man was coming to her defense.  That would not be possible if she did not feel threatened.

(08-14-2018, 07:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'll leave you to your counseling techniques and I'll stick with mine. I feel today's youth can learn a lot from our shared mistakes. It's "do as I advise, not as I did". Perhaps you're technique of not sharing any mistakes as a youth works better, 

It is not "sharing your mistakes" if you claim you would still do the exact same thing.  It is useless to say "This is a mistake from my past but I still do it."  That just makes you sound like a raging hypocrite.  The only way to educate the youth of today based on the mistakes of your youth is to tell them that you don't do that anymore.

[fredtoast]

(08-14-2018, 07:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Inane doublespeak.  The reasonable perception of imminent harm is radically different in your private residence than in a public parking lot.  This kind of useless sidetracking is why you are so tiresome to discuss, well, anything with. 

It is not in any way "inane doublespeak".  The original point I made was 100% valid and that is why you have refused to answer the question I posted.

The issue being discussed was "Is justified self defense the same as "escalating" a situation".  I said no and to prove my point I asked if the justified use of self defense was the same as escalating the situation.  Ever since I asked that question you have refused to answer and instead just made some strange obtuse comments from which I assume you don't think there is ever a case where you could be justified in using self defense in a parking lot.  I am not sure because you won't address what I actually said.

So do you think that using justified self defense is the same as escalating a situation?  And please explain why you think using justified self defense in a parking lot is never allowed.

[*bfine32*]

(08-15-2018, 03:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: She claimed her man was coming to her defense.  That would not be possible if she did not feel threatened.

Welp, case closed. Good job counselor.

[Bengalzona]

Isn't this law sort of ambiguously written so that when you "feel" threatened, that means you are threatened, or something to that effect?

Which means this whole situation could have been avoided if the woman would have just pulled out a sawed off shotgun and blew the handicapped-avenger away. Indeed, she could have been the Good Guy in this situation!

I had not considered that angle before. Thanks!

[*Nately120*]

Side note, I haven't even made eye contact with a stranger since I read about this.