are "stand your ground" laws license to kill?

And I would expect more criminals to carry guns and use them without waiting to see if their victim has a gun.Is that a good thing?When you escalate an arms race you increase the use of arms for lethal purposes.Is that a good thing?Really?

Indeed, and they'll be happy to tell you how ready they are, how prepared, how well trained ...... and without a clue that there are options. It's all (ahem) black and white in their world.

In my state, they're required for obtaining the permit to concealed carry.I'll be taking the course after it warms up. I don't plan on carrying on my person much, but it makes it easier to transport firearms to the range in my car. You're reducing their ability to legally defend themselves.

You didn't answer my question.

As other examples have shown, the stand your ground laws also apply to open carry. No, it isn't. People have always been able to defend themselves with firearms. The problem with the stand your ground laws is that justifies the use of offensive tactics, not defensive.

No they don't. All they do is remove the duty to retreat.

In both Zimmerman and Dunn cases they instigated the confrontation, they attacked and they were on the offensive, then claimed that it was defense.Without stand your ground they would not have passed muster for self defense -- as Dunn did not for the other three teens, and that is why the law is bad.Edited by RAZD, : ...

The duty to retreat is defending yourself, and what a law abiding citizen would do.

Couple things on this one. First off, you say that criminals who are assaulting people being shot to death is not a bad thing. Can I assume that, more fully, you intended to say that shooting to death criminals who are assaulting people with deadly force and intent to kill those people, is not a bad thing ? Presumably, shooting to death a criminal who is throwing a punch at someone in a bar room brawl, is in fact a bad thing ?Secondly, is it wrong to balance the occasions when innocent people are shot dead by accident, stupidity or other misadventure resulting from the easy availability of weapons, against legitimate examples of proper self-defence ?

RAZD, there is no evidence that Zimmerman attacked, but there was ample evidence that he was attacked. Granted he was stupid and after he had called the police he should have stayed in his truck. Having your head bashed against the sidewalk does give you the right to defend yourself. The evidence is that he was on his back and shot upwards.Dunn has no defense. The issue here is that the prosecution got greedy and didn't put a lesser charge of murder for the jury to consider. They just couldn't agree that it was premeditated.Note that the Zimmerman case did not invoke the stand your ground defense.

Curiously I didn't say he attacked, I said he instigated the confrontation, which he did by stalking Trevon. After he was told to stand down by the police. No, there is evidence that there was a fight, but you only have Zimmerman's (biased) word as to who started it, and how much does stalking count ... What planet are you from? That's how he got off, and why one of the jurors said he "got away with murder." Agreed, and the other thing they didn't pursue was whether or not it was a hate crime -- and all the evidence that points to hate crime was then not admitted, when that shows the state of mind of Dunn. With hate crime evidence they could have gotten murder 1.Edited by RAZD, : ..

You saidIn english, you pretty much directly said they attacked. You preface it by saying they instigated it but then followed up with the 'A' word. Unless you were referring to Travon/the kids in the SUV when you said "they attacked". But that makes no sense because in the Dunn case there is no evidence that the kids did anything of the sort.And I stand by my claim that Zimmerman didn't invoke the stand your ground defence. Google it and see. This was a local story, taking place not more than five miles from where I'm sitting now. Believe me we were all inundated with constant coverage, local and national.Zimmerman to argue self-defense, won't seek stand-your-ground hearing | CNN
Despite backlash, 'stand your ground' laws did not apply to Zimmerman caseEdited by kjsimons, : No reason given.

If Trevon had a gun and shot Zimmerman as he was being stalked, Trevon could have used the stand your ground laws as a justification for the killing. I find that quite ironic.

You would think it would work that way, but the evidence of instances of blacks defending themselves in Florida is that the "stand your ground" argument was not allowed and they were convicted ...With the same prosecutor ... is she showing bias in her results?

Ok ... "they attacked" Was or was not "stand your ground" included in the instructions to the jury ?Zimmerman verdict renews focus on 'stand your ground' laws

quote:

---

The case centered around whether Zimmerman acted in self defense and drew national attention to Florida's law, which allows people to defend themselves with force if they feel threatened in their home, business, car, or a place where they "have a legal right to be." At least 22 states have a similar law, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

---

Do you disagree that it was central to his acquittal?Edited by RAZD, : .