Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Stand Your Ground Is Not New - It is based on an old and valuable principle.
National Review Online ^ | July 25, 2013 | Charles C. W. Cooke

Posted on 07/25/2013 10:02:55 AM PDT by neverdem



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: banglist; castledoctrine; dutytoretreat; standyourground; syg

1 posted on 07/25/2013 10:02:55 AM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Examples are numerous that show in many instances that retreating, running, or defending, are more dangerous than attacking back.


2 posted on 07/25/2013 10:07:49 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Mother nature will show you to stand your ground. Think you can outrun a bear of a mountain lion? Stand and face them and you have a better chance.

The political implication is that liberal progressives do not want people to go around standing up for their rights and stand their ground on religion and abortion or even questioning them on taxes!


3 posted on 07/25/2013 10:14:04 AM PDT by mountainlion (Live well for those that did not make it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
It seems to me that the idea of Stand Your Ground is as old as Common Sense itself.
4 posted on 07/25/2013 10:19:27 AM PDT by PATRIOT1876 (The only crimes that are 100% preventable are crimes committed by illegal aliens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion
The political implication is that liberal progressives do not want people to go around standing up for their rights and stand their ground on religion and abortion or even questioning them on taxes!

They recommend you just lay back and enjoy it.

5 posted on 07/25/2013 10:25:21 AM PDT by oldbrowser (We have a rogue government in Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser

They recommend you just lay back and enjoy it.

I think they want you on drugs for the above reason.


6 posted on 07/25/2013 10:27:15 AM PDT by mountainlion (Live well for those that did not make it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“Stand your ground” is an extension of the “castle doctrine”, the right to defend the domicile in which you reside and all appurtenant structures on what is defined as the parcel where the domicile is located. “Stand your ground” is that mobile portion of location that moves with you as you travel away from the dwelling. It may be the blanket at the beach, or the vehicle in which you are traveling, or even the portion of the sidewalk which you are so proudly striding down.

“Stand your ground”, though, may be more important for its provision of at least partial immunity from civil actions taken against the protagonist by those acting on behalf of the antagonist. Therefore, the home invader whom you shot while he was pillaging your residence has little resort to a civil judgment for injuries done to him while engaged in criminal activities or fleeing the scene.


7 posted on 07/25/2013 10:33:02 AM PDT by alloysteel (Unattended children will be given a Red Bull and a free Kazoo. Reminds me of Congress...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
(from the article);" Disinformation and hyperbole, too, are rife. "..

Do you mean the fact that Holder and the NAACP are pushing for reversal of " Stand Your Ground" laws,
even though it was never part of the Zimmerman legal defense ?
EXACTLY SO !!

8 posted on 07/25/2013 10:34:04 AM PDT by Tilted Irish Kilt (“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The Virginia legislature considered passing a stand your ground law recently. I think it passed the house. But then the legislators realized that stand your ground exists in common law and that a legislative enactment would screw up the common law so it was dropped.


9 posted on 07/25/2013 10:40:53 AM PDT by Captain Jack Aubrey (There's not a moment to lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tilted Irish Kilt; All
“Despite the ongoing liberalization of firearm and self-defense law, the crime rate today is around 50 percent of what it was 20 years ago.”

Should have been:

Despite or because of

10 posted on 07/25/2013 10:59:40 AM PDT by marktwain (The MSM must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel

Your explanation of stand your ground is a good one.

Two supporting thoughts:

1) The subjectivity associated with a person’s ability or will to retreat was being exploited by prosecution attorneys when “excessive force” (also subjective) was thought to be offensive by the state. Stand your ground protects the victim (the one defending self) from the subjectivity and civil or legal action associated with it.

2) A persons ability or will to retreat always depends on unique characteristics of the individual, the circumstances and the environment. A man could flee except his wife and children would be showing up any second or were also there. Retreat would mean running through busy traffic. Etc.

Stand your ground and Castle Doctrine does not replace “Self Defense”. It actually protects the person that acted in self defense from other litigation. Arguments that suggest “SYG” or “Castle Doctrine” are not needed are vaild provided there are reasonable prosecutors.


11 posted on 07/25/2013 10:59:51 AM PDT by Tenacious 1 (If the government told us to expect rain, I'd schedule an outdoor wedding.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The right to defend yourself is as old as mankind.


12 posted on 07/25/2013 11:14:21 AM PDT by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ozzymandus

The left in general doesn’t want you to have a self-defense mindset, because you might apply it to them.

Think about this, a bit in the abstract.

Why would any person favor making it illegal or even more difficult for another person to use force to repel force?

The obvious answer is that they envision themselves, or someone else they support, using force to impose their will on you at some point in the foreseeable future.

There is no other answer.


13 posted on 07/25/2013 11:19:33 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Plus, the criminal class makes up most of their constituency, and they don’t like their voters getting shot.


14 posted on 07/25/2013 11:22:42 AM PDT by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: PATRIOT1876

John Lott mantains that Stand Your Ground laws pre-date the United States.


15 posted on 07/25/2013 11:22:58 AM PDT by Balding_Eagle (When America falls, darkness will cover the face of the earth for a thousand years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Oliver Wendell Holmes issued his immortal line that “detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife,”

I do not believe that many people on the other side are there out of sincere good will - primarily because of this point. The woman this week who was attacked with a knife at a gas station and shot her attacker may have shot him more than once, possibly after he was down. Considering that he attacked her, and she only had a .22, I don't blame her for the lack of detached reflection. I would not vote to convict even if a medical examiner could tell that he was unable to continue the attack at the time that the fatal shot was fired. It's unreasonable to demand the precision of a detached professional, when a thug initiated violence and her life is on the line.

16 posted on 07/25/2013 12:36:40 PM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
It is based on an old and valuable principle.

Yeah...


Survival of the Fittest!

17 posted on 07/25/2013 4:37:39 PM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ozzymandus

“The right to defend yourself is as old as mankind.”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Of course it is. The amazing thing is that limp brained liberals can’t seem to understand that to deny the right of self defense is to deny the right to life and is in effect to grant the attacker the right to assault someone. I suppose I should not be surprised since the same people deny the right to life for unborn babies. Liberalism really is a mental failure.


18 posted on 07/25/2013 8:15:31 PM PDT by RipSawyer (I was born on Earth, what planet is this?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson