Marissa Alexander Stood Her ground...and was Denied by Florida

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by 33girl

I'm pretty sure that's what DrPhil said. She was denigrating the law, not the actions Ms Alexander took.

I think DGTess does not want the law to be denigrated which is highly correlated with how DGTess feels about gun control and the failures of law enforcement.

There is room for both faults in the law and in people's actions. However, I simply do not care about Ms. Alexander's story because the common denominator in some of the more recent news stories is the Stand Your Ground law. That perhaps means that it has gone way beyond this notion of self-defense and is confusing some people as to what constitutes lawful and unlawful behavior in certain contexts. That implies a potential error in the law itself and not just in human application. Afterall, laws are formal social control mechanisms that serve to direct and/or respond to human behavior.

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I think DGTess does not want the law to be denigrated which is highly correlated with how DGTess feels about gun control and the failures of law enforcement.

There is room for both faults in the law and in people's actions. However, I simply do not care about Ms. Alexander's story because the common denominator in some of the more recent news stories is the Stand Your Ground law. That perhaps means that it has gone way beyond this notion of self-defense and is confusing some people as to what constitutes lawful and unlawful behavior in certain contexts. That implies a potential error in the law itself and not just in human application. Afterall, laws are formal social control mechanisms that serve to direct and/or respond to human behavior.

Well, no; laws are mechanisms by which we punish people who go beyond societal norms. They prevent nothing.

Without getting in to your irrational hatred of my gun-control opinions, look at the meaning of a stand-your-ground law. It states that a person need not turn tail and run from attacks; that s/he may defend life and safety as necessary. Eliminating the law takes away personal responsibility for one's safety and implies the bigger, badder party will always win. I don't want to live in that world.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by DGTess

They prevent nothing.

"Direct" is not the same thing as "prevent."

Even your post acknowledges that many behaviors are a result of people (beforehand) misinterpreting and misapplying the law as it relates to their (present or future) behavior.

Originally Posted by DGTess

Without getting in to your irrational hatred of my gun-control opinions....

Read my post again.

And calm down.

Originally Posted by DGTess

...look at the meaning of a stand-your-ground law. It states that a person need not turn tail and run from attacks; that s/he may defend life and safety as necessary. Eliminating the law takes away personal responsibility for one's safety and implies the bigger, badder party will always win. I don't want to live in that world.

"Stand your ground" laws exist in a few states and what it means to "stand your ground" can vary by state. The intent is supposedly to support the use of deadly force in self-defense where there is a reasonable perception of threat. However, what all of this means is where the confusion comes in. It is seen as going beyond the self-defense laws that some states already have. What is the difference between self-defense and "stand your ground"?

[DGTess]

"Stand your ground" laws exist in a few states and what it means to "stand your ground" can vary by state. The intent is supposedly to support the use of deadly force in self-defense where there is a reasonable perception of threat. However, what all of this means is where the confusion comes in. It is seen as going beyond the self-defense laws that some states already have. What is the difference between self-defense and "stand your ground"?

Sorry. I assumed you knew what you were talking about when you stated that stand-your-ground laws are bull**** and must be eliminated. FLORIDA's law, 2011 statutes, chapter 776, "Justifiable Use of Force" does not seem to me to be "unclearly stated." The operative section states: "(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."

Self-defense can be anywhere. Some jurisdictions permit the use of deadly force in self defense only after demonstrating submission by avoiding conflict and then taking steps to retreat and demonstrate an intention not to fight.

Stand-your-ground laws allow one to engage in self-defense, using appropriate force up to and including deadly force if required, anywhere s/he is legally permitted to be. There is no duty to turn tail and run. There is, in almost all if not all jurisdictions, a requirement not to initiate or escalate the encounter. Read the rest of the Florida statute section. It is not permissible to instigate or escalate the situation, then using deadly force.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

What is the difference between self-defense and "stand your ground"?

Rhetorical question alert.

Originally Posted by DGTess

Sorry. I assumed you knew what you were talking about when you stated that stand-your-ground laws are bull**** and must be eliminated. FLORIDA's law, 2011 statutes, chapter 776, "Justifiable Use of Force" does not seem to me to be "unclearly stated." The operative section states: "(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."

Self-defense can be anywhere. Some jurisdictions permit the use of deadly force in self defense only after demonstrating submission by avoiding conflict and then taking steps to retreat and demonstrate an intention not to fight.

Stand-your-ground laws allow one to engage in self-defense, using appropriate force up to and including deadly force if required, anywhere s/he is legally permitted to be. There is no duty to turn tail and run. There is, in almost all if not all jurisdictions, a requirement not to initiate or escalate the encounter. Read the rest of the Florida statute section. It is not permissible to instigate or escalate the situation, then using deadly force.

In other words, what "Stand Your Ground" means varies by state and it is an overstated and exaggerated version of self-defense which has sparked some people to misinterpret and misapply the law. Thanks for thinking you cleared that up. LOL. This is all one big gooblygoob of exaggeration and redundancy. Smells like bullshit.

It is already the case that what constitutes self-defense varies by jurisdiction and not all jurisdictions have "duty to retreat" for self-defense.