Skip to comments.Georgia's Stand Your Ground Law (under attack)
Posted on 05/08/2012 4:36:59 AM PDT by marktwain
Georgia is the first state having its Stand Your Ground law scrutinized by a federal court. An Atlanta civil rights leader filed a federal case challenging the law in response to the February shooting death of unarmed Florida teen, Trayvon Martin.
Heres how Georgias Stand Your Ground law works: If you think someone is about to kill you, you can use deadly force to defend yourself. Its been Georgia law since 2006.
But self defense can be a legal grey area. According to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation the number of justifiable homicides in Georgia has increased per year from 7 to 13 since the law went into effect. University of Georgia law professor Ron Carlson explains the difference between Georgias law and other states:
In a normal self-defense case in a state without a stand your ground law, the person is required to retreat to the wall as they saytake every step up to the last one and then use force only if its absolutely essential. In a stand your ground state, of course, force can be met with force.
And in Georgia, it means an acquittal for some murder suspects. A Dunwoody jury found Lona Scott not guilty after she shot and killed her naked, unarmed husband in 2010. Her defense attorney, Brian Steel is now appealing another Stand Your Ground Case to the Georgia Supreme Court:
A critical issue in the case is where is the deceased and what is the deceased doing at the time of the shooting. It is for the jury, a viable self-defense claim.
But if self-defense comes in shades of grey, an Atlanta civil rights activist says Stand Your Grounds problem is in black and white. The Reverend Markel Hutchins is behind a civil rights lawsuit over Stand Your Ground, charging that the law does not apply equally to African-Americans. He says when you make reasonable fear a legal defense, racism can become a reasonable defense:
Fear, is oftentimes, based on ones own bias, so when you have public policy that, literally lends itself to people being able to commit crimes or shootings under the color of law, because theyre reasonably afraid, it makes a bad public policy and puts the constitutional rights of so many people around the country in jeopardy.
The gun-rights group, GeorgiaCarry has asked that Hutchins federal lawsuit be thrown out. In a motion to intervene in the suit, Georgia Carry argues that gun carrying Georgians need to be able to rely on the law that allows for immunity when deadly force is used in self-defense.
How might the federal court respond? Professor Ron Carlson:
They view this as a policy question and say take this sort of challenge to the legislature, let the legislature change the no retreat law if thats needed.
As Trayvon Martins killer awaits trial, six months before the general election, Carlson expects Stand Your Ground to become part of the national presidential debate:
I expect at least one political party to put a plank in the platform asking for rejection of these laws, thus signaling to civil rights groups and minorities, our party is on your side in the Trayvon Martin Case. Youve heard the war on women, the war on the rich, get ready for the war on stand your ground.
The federal court will answer the Stand Your Ground lawsuit sometime this summer.
Most likely you are right. It is fading fast.
When you think about it, it is very difficult to legally come against SYG laws. When you explain what it means in real life situations, SYG is about as constitutional as you can get, and taking away your right to SYG is about as unconstitutional as you can get.
That is the uphill battle people fighting SYG have here.
. He says when you make reasonable fear a legal defense, racism can become a reasonable defense:
Yes there is racism here. But it is coming from Rev Hutchins who perceives that all white people fear all black people and there for they can use that as a defense. Not only is this racism of the Reverends part but it is pretty stupid to boot........
Here is my take on the Stand your ground laws and self defense.
If you need Governments permission and timing to defend your own life then you are already a victim
The ONLY person that can determine when my life is threatened and I need to end someone else’s to save mine is ME..
I agree with all previous posts. This is not so much anti-gun (it is) but wanting to render honest people defenseless in the face of an increasingly bold criminal element wanting to take what is not theirs, by force and threat. The muggers want assurances that when they strike, they will not be met with deadly force and resistence.
The key word there is "justifiable."
I suppose these people would prefer that the victim had been killed, rather than the perp.
Plus, if you are going to throw meaningless statistical numbers around, how about numbers on crime rates that declined? Like home invasions and carjackings?
Georgia has never had a duty to retreat in its statutes or case laws. "Stand Your Ground" was specifically written into a statute in 2006, but before that Georgia courts had always viewed a potential crime victim as having the right to self-defense and had never found that anyone had a duty to retreat in a valid self-defense situation, all the way back to colonial times.
Best way to end this horsehoo is for us to agitate that the SAME rules of self defense must apply to police as to citizens in any given confrontation in defense of life, property or community.
The pro-rape and murder libtard crowd will find it impossible to make a cogent arguement, will lose cop support, and it will all disipate like smoke in the wind.
It won’t fade for awhile, if ever.
The Zimmerman case was not a ‘stand your ground’ case as far as protecting yourself in your own home as I see it.
Zimmerman was watching the neighborhood, armed as he should be because of recent crime in the area. Zimmerman was attacked by a bully who came into his neighborhood acting suspicious and the bully got shot in the scuffle. IMHO
The smartazz race baiting punk could have moved on but he just had to have a confrontation.
Speaking of killings in ‘neighborhoods’. What ever happened to the men who killed those 2 that happened to wander into their neighborhood and were killed for no reason? And how many crimes like that have happened that went by without sensationalism?
Yes that would be a good way but the police will never allow that to happen, they would fight it tooth and nail.
I think you hit the nail on the head here ...
Here’s another fellow that I bet he wishes he had been armed.
This kind of thuggery is not going to end, it will only increase as the election cycle goes forward, and will really become prevalent when Zimmerman walks.
The responsible culture simply does not want you to be armed. It interrupts their SRS (Sudden Reparations Syndrome).
Hutchins is nothing but a Sharpton wannbe. He made a fool of himself when Kathryn Johnson was killed by some dirty cops. He tried to sue the family for some of the settlement money they received from the famliy.
Nothing but a clown.