[Debate] Why is everyone so butthurt about repealing Stand Your Ground laws?

[Unbiased King]

In the aftermath of the Trayvon Martin case, our government just wants to ensure that anyone using their arms in self defense shouldn't be doing any less of that; instigating something against someone then shooting that person on grounds of "defending" yourself is an abuse of the SYG (Stand Your Ground) law. And even if they are repealed new, improved ones will take their place.

So NB, I ask you:

Spoiler

Adam and Eric are classmates.

Adam enjoys physically bullying Eric for no reason other than he finds it entertaining. Adam also has a concealed gun and knowingly intimidates others so that if they confront them, he'll just shoot'em.

When Eric stands up for himself in a way that clearly presents the possibility of injury against Adam, Adam shoots and kills Eric.

Should Adam's actions be admissible on the grounds of self defense, even though he was the sole instigator of the incident?

If so, what does that say about people like Adam? That people who spark altercations with the intent of killing another if their power is being checked should be protected by SYG laws?

I'm by no means inclining that we should flee before fighting, but aggressors who hide behind the SYG law in justification of deadly force are no different from murderers; they are justified, they are bullies under the protection of the law.

 

[Cursed Prince]

True dat, true dat

 

[Acid Ace]

It's pretty obvious. This government lost everything it once had. People burn holes in the justice system every ****ing day.

 

[Darthlawsuit]

In the aftermath of the Trayvon Martin case, our government just wants to ensure that anyone using their arms in self defense shouldn't be doing any less of that; instigating something against someone then shooting that person on grounds of "defending" yourself is an abuse of the SYG (Stand Your Ground) law. And even if they are repealed new, improved ones will take their place.

So NB, I ask you:

Spoiler

Adam and Eric are classmates.

Adam enjoys physically bullying Eric for no reason other than he finds it entertaining. Adam also has a concealed gun and knowingly intimidates others so that if they confront them, he'll just shoot'em.

When Eric stands up for himself in a way that clearly presents the possibility of injury against Adam, Adam shoots and kills Eric.

Should Adam's actions be admissible on the grounds of self defense, even though he was the sole instigator of the incident?

If so, what does that say about people like Adam? That people who spark altercations with the intent of killing another if their power is being checked should be protected by SYG laws?

I'm by no means inclining that we should flee before fighting, but aggressors who hide behind the SYG law in justification of deadly force are no different from murderers; they are justified, they are bullies under the protection of the law.

Stand your ground laws mean you do not have to run away before your can protect yourself. It is absurd to say someone must attempt to flee from someone shooting at them before they can shoot back -_-;;. What if a gang surrounds you and starts saying they are going to kill the white/black/hispanic boy infront of them, you cannot run so you cannot attempt to flee and cannot pull out your gun because of that. What if someone pulls you out of your car to jack your car, without stand your ground laws you just have to let them steal it without a fight.

So many sheeple that because of one case want to destroy our entire system of laws in the hopes that in a perfect world it will solve all of the problems. It will not and does not. We have jury and judges for a reason so they can take every case as its own set of problems.

Stand your ground laws:

"Stand your ground" governs U.S. federal case law in which right of self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Beard v. U.S. (158 U.S. 550 (1895)) that a man who was "on his premises" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."[2][3]

A stand-your-ground law is a type of self-defense law that gives individuals the right to use reasonable force to defend themselves without any requirement to evade or retreat from a dangerous situation. It is law in certain jurisdictions within the United States. The basis may lie in either statutory law and or common law precedents. One key distinction is whether the concept only applies to defending a home or vehicle, or whether it applies to all lawfully occupied locations. Under these legal concepts, a person is justified in using deadly force in certain situations and the "stand your ground" law would be a defense or immunity to criminal charges and civil suit. The difference between immunity and a defense is that an immunity bars suit, charges, detention and arrest. A defense, such as an affirmative defense, permits a plaintiff or the state to seek civil damages or a criminal conviction but may offer mitigating circumstances that justify the accused's conduct

 

[FemmeFatale]

I think it dumb, basically they dont work unless you kill your victim. TF, type sh*t they on

 

[EnDash]

i think protecting the killer should be the extreme case or at least the lower precentage. yes there are cases where murder was self defense and even justified but it can't happen so many times.

killing is killing. it's someone that takes the life of another person. i think that we should do something like "unless found unguilty, guilty" thing. you need proof or strong evidence that it was self defense.

 

[Madara mhm]

Of course not. You like to sit home and masturbate to shitty hentai while playing shit games like The Last of Us, but you'd never give a care in the world about what's happening outside, because **** that shit. Better to sit in a dark room like a ****ing loser than that am I right?

Now their was no need for that was their?

 

[Darthlawsuit]

I think it dumb, basically they dont work unless you kill your victim. TF, type sh*t they on

Warning shots, or misses will land you in jail while killing them will not.

Our laws are f***ed up. Warning shots should be ok as they prevent deaths.

killing is killing. it's someone that takes the life of another person. i think that we should do something like "unless found unguilty, guilty" thing. you need proof or strong evidence that it was self defense.

Great Britian used to do guilty until proven innocent, it didn't work out so well.

We do innocent until proven guilty to prevent accidents.

 

[wyliejl]

Stand your ground law need to stay the same

 

[Unbiased King]

Stand your ground laws mean you do not have to run away before your can protect yourself. It is absurd to say someone must attempt to flee from someone shooting at them before they can shoot back -_-;;.

I wholeheartedly agree, in fact I did say so at the end of my OP.

What if a gang surrounds you and starts saying they are going to kill the white/black/hispanic boy infront of them, you cannot run so you cannot attempt to flee and cannot pull out your gun because of that. What if someone pulls you out of your car to jack your car, without stand your ground laws you just have to let them steal it without a fight.

And that would be a justifiable case of using the SYG law, which I hold nothing against. But if the gangmembers were to shoot the victim and claim self defense because they saw him reaching for a gun, that would be an abuse of the law, which I thought I expressed.

i think protecting the killer should be the extreme case or at least the lower precentage. yes there are cases where murder was self defense and even justified but it can't happen so many times.

killing is killing. it's someone that takes the life of another person. i think that we should do something like "unless found unguilty, guilty" thing. you need proof or strong evidence that it was self defense.

These are my beliefs exactly.

 

[wyliejl]

People die everyday cause of that . But no one cares about it until black person get kill by self defense by a non black person

 

[Darthlawsuit]

I wholeheartedly agree, in fact I did say so at the end of my OP.

And that would be a justifiable case of using the SYG law, which I hold nothing against. But if the gangmembers were to shoot the victim and claim self defense because they saw him reaching for a gun, that would be an abuse of the law, which I thought I expressed.

That is why we have judges and jury of our peers. If it can be proven the gang made him fear for his life then he was using the SYG law. The gang would have been the aggressor with the intent to do bodily harm so they would most likely be guilty....

You should really watch the zimmerman trial. The prosecution had nothing to work with and was throwing out random accusations hoping they would stick. The media also threw out a bunch of lies and now its a cluster**** of truths and lies. Basically they were not able to prove Zimmerman caused trevon to fear for his life so Zimmerman was innocent (until proven guilty)

 

[EnDash]

Great Britian used to do guilty until proven innocent, it didn't work out so well.

We do innocent until proven guilty to prevent accidents.

and we are preventing accidents magnificently. you knew that a couple of week before the travyon case a woman shot warning shots to the sky to scare her abusive husband (or ex husband, not sure) and she went to jail for 20 years. i'm not 100% it matters but the woman was black.

we are not preventing accidents. maybe the thing i said don't work but what we have now clearly doesn't work any better.

 

[SasukeUchiha910]

People die everyday cause of that . But no one cares about it until black person get kill by self defense by a non black person

murder is....... [well] murder,....... zimmerman should have been jailed from the start of the investigation

 

[Unbiased King]

That is why we have judges and jury of our peers. If it can be proven the gang made him fear for his life then he was using the SYG law. The gang would have been the aggressor with the intent to do bodily harm so they would most likely be guilty....

I understand that judges and juries allow cases like these to be in the perspective of nonbiased people with a degree of common sense. However, judges and juries have one duty that is prevalent over any else in cases like these: determining if a law was broken or if an exception is justifiable.

In the case of Zimmerman, the broken law would be manslaughter (or murder if you prefer) and the exception would be self defense via Stand Your Ground laws. The jury is not allowed to reach a verdict solely on their morals or what they *think* happened, but strictly on what is evident, what can be proven, and what is the law.

That being said, abusers of SYG laws are people who instigate conflict and expect SYG laws to protect them; like jumping off a cliff with a bungee cord, they are jumping into danger while using SYG laws as a means of protection, which is an abuse.

You should really watch the zimmerman trial. The prosecution had nothing to work with and was throwing out random accusations hoping they would stick. The media also threw out a bunch of lies and now its a cluster**** of truths and lies. Basically they were not able to prove Zimmerman caused trevon to fear for his life so Zimmerman was innocent (until proven guilty)

Personally, I think that if those who put these laws in place foresaw the possible abuses it could lead to would have made the proper amendments, making sure abusers like Zimmerman don't walk free.

People die everyday cause of that . But no one cares about it until black person get kill by self defense by a non black person

Have you seen the rallies? They are filled with non-blacks. They are filled with people who protest abuses of the laws meant to protect us. This is not a black, white, green, or pink issue.

 

[Darthlawsuit]

and we are preventing accidents magnificently. you knew that a couple of week before the travyon case a woman shot warning shots to the sky to scare her abusive husband (or ex husband, not sure) and she went to jail for 20 years. i'm not 100% it matters but the woman was black.

we are not preventing accidents. maybe the thing i said don't work but what we have now clearly doesn't work any better.

We are actually, Britians crime rate is almost 5X what ours is.

All a jury says is "was it a violation of the law" the jury cannot change the law nor do they choose the punishment.... Judges can interpert the law a bit differently but the judge was a dumbass in this case. The laws there are also broken. Jurys work most of the time but they cannot fix bad laws and corrupt judges <_<;;

 

[Unbiased King]

*reported*

It's comments like this that make me wish controversial topics and threads like this should be prohibited.

Nooooo.

People flame everywhere.

 

[Darthlawsuit]

I understand that judges and juries allow cases like these to be in the perspective of nonbiased people with a degree of common sense. However, judges and juries have one duty that is prevalent over any else in cases like these: determining if a law was broken or if an exception is justifiable.

In the case of Zimmerman, the broken law would be manslaughter (or murder if you prefer) and the exception would be self defense via Stand Your Ground laws. The jury is not allowed to reach a verdict solely on their morals or what they *think* happened, but strictly on what is evident, what can be proven, and what is the law.

That being said, abusers of SYG laws are people who instigate conflict and expect SYG laws to protect them; like jumping off a cliff with a bungee cord, they are jumping into danger while using SYG laws as a means of protection, which is an abuse.

Personally, I think that if those who put these laws in place foresaw the possible abuses it could lead to would have made the proper amendments, making sure abusers like Zimmerman don't walk free.

SYG helps hundreds every day, but its too boring for the media so they hype up a pretty standard case into a national issue -_-

You know Zimmerman would have never been found innocent if Travon didn't give him a severe beating. If Travon had not attacked him Zimmerman couldn't have claimed self defense and used his injuries as proof he was in danger. Travon was just as reckless as Zimmerman, he started beating on someone without knowing what he was getting into. He wasn't fighting in self defense either based on the lack of many injuries on his body. Both of the people here were not that wise and it spiraled into a shitstorm.

 

[EnDash]

We are actually, Britians crime rate is almost 5X what ours is.

All a jury says is "was it a violation of the law" the jury cannot change the law nor do they choose the punishment.... Judges can interpert the law a bit differently but the judge was a dumbass in this case. The laws there are also broken. Jurys work most of the time but they cannot fix bad laws and corrupt judges <_<;;

i don't know if crime rate is related to false accusation or false clear of accusations but ok. US has lower crime rates so maybe the system is better.

still this would not help much. i believe those cases are outweighing the statistical error margin. we need a better system.

 

[YowYan]

Ooooh that's why they gave the trayvon case sk much media attention. To try and fool the masses into repealing the SYG law