'Stand Your Ground' Law Repeal Proposed

Oh really?

'Stand Your Ground' Law Repeal Proposed

From aritcle: It's called the "Stand Your Ground" law. More than a dozen Michigan lawmakers want to get rid of it. They're afraid that the current law will lead to vigilante justice.

The streets of Detroit are described by some residents as the wild, wild west. Detroit Police are overwhelmed responding to carjackings, robberies and shootings. More and more citizens are becoming fed up and arming themselves.

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news...ed-20120517-ms

Definition of the 'Stand Your Ground' law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

Interesting...

This law has received national attention in the Trayvon Martin case in Florida. Their version of the law is slightly different. Governor Jennifer Granholm signed the law in 2006 I think, yet now she favors its repeal.

Gotta love a law written by ALEC and sponsored by WalMart, AT&T, Koch Brothers, UPS, Pfizer and the National Rifle Association.

How could that be bad ? Those corporations are much better than democratically elected legislators at writing laws for our society.

Thanks a lot for another turd, Jennifer Granholm.

What a load of crap. Police are being cut everywhere and the politicians want to reduce the ability of citizens to protect themselves and their families.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ejames01

What a load of crap. Police are being cut everywhere and the politicians want to reduce the ability of citizens to protect themselves and their families.

---

Michigan's law [[Castle Doctrine) is very different than Florida's -- If Michigan's law gets repealed you can and will be charged with manslaughter if you shoot someone even in your home as was done in the past. An example would be if someone is breaking in and comes through your back door and you are the only one in the house -- you would have an obligation to leave out the front door. Michigan's law applies in your home and wouldn't have applied in the Travon case and would most have likely led to charges in the state of Michigan.

I hate when Politicians grandstand when they have no Fricking clue of the differences in laws and most don't even know a law, they do what their party tells them to do. Oh this will get our core votes riled up if we give them 50% of the info, then they will vote for us! Winning and the Party is the only thing that matters!!!

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/[[S[[ctx...ct-309-of-2006 that is the michigan law.

Thank you for pointing this out. Those who are ultra allergic towards anything conservative or derivative of conservative inspired law and policies are missing the fact these sometimes laws [[such as this one) have benefited many outside of the conservative fray! Certainly not just the so called "NRA" right wing types.

This is a good example of why the specifics of policy must be examined independent of party, with less knee-jerk reactions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jj84

Michigan's law [[Castle Doctrine) is very different than Florida's -- If Michigan's law gets repealed you can and will be charged with manslaughter if you shoot someone even in your home as was done in the past. An example would be if someone is breaking in and comes through your back door and you are the only one in the house -- you would have an obligation to leave out the front door. Michigan's law applies in your home and wouldn't have applied in the Travon case and would most have likely led to charges in the state of Michigan.

I hate when Politicians grandstand when they have no Fricking clue of the differences in laws and most don't even know a law, they do what their party tells them to do. Oh this will get our core votes riled up if we give them 50% of the info, then they will vote for us! Winning and the Party is the only thing that matters!!!

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/[[S[[ctxiwujtyza55rjudolo2ubw))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-Act-309-of-2006 that is the michigan law.

---

Umm, those policies are just for right-wing, tea party folks and their families. No benefit to the rest of us... **sarcasm**

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ejames01

What a load of crap. Police are being cut everywhere and the politicians want to reduce the ability of citizens to protect themselves and their families.

---

Question: Have Detroiter's benefited from this law over the last year as crime has continued to escalate such as home invasions, car jackings and the like?

Do you think Detroiter's, many of whom are democrats, give a rats hair about the NRA or the Koch Brothers et al in their use of ability to have as an 'option', this law?

Would Detroiter's and Michigan at large benefit by having this or the "Castle Law" repealed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mauser

Gotta love a law written by ALEC and sponsored by WalMart, AT&T, Koch Brothers, UPS, Pfizer and the National Rifle Association.

How could that be bad ? Those corporations are much better than democratically elected legislators at writing laws for our society.

Thanks a lot for another turd, Jennifer Granholm.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zacha341

Question: Have Detroiter's benefited from this law over the last year as crime has continued to escalate such as home invasions, car jackings and the like?

---

I think everyone has the right to protect themselves and their property and it's a law that should stay on the books.

With that said, it seems like the violence is escalating. The bad guys are coming in guns blazing more than ever, even when they are only there to victimize little old grandma, for fear that grandma might be packing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thames

I think everyone has the right to protect themselves and their property ... it seems like the violence is escalating. The bad guys are coming in guns blazing more than ever...

---

Your comment is well put! Especially in high-crime areas such as metro Detroit, it would stand to reason that people should be able to defend themselves without legal jeopardy.

In the context of this discussion, it's important to note that so-called "stand your ground" [[SYG) laws merely relieve the victim [[of an armed assault) from the "duty to retreat". In other words, a victim can be given immunity from prosecution, as a result of self-defense during assault, where the victim did not retreat from the scene. Equally importantly, SYG laws never justify armed aggression or premeditated homicide [[so-called "murder one") on the pretext of self-defense.

SYG laws tend to clarify some previously-ambiguous laws about self-defense. For example, depending on the extent to which the law protects the criminal, even unarmed resistance may or may not place a victim in jeopardy.

Here in Florida, it is legal to defend oneself manually without retreat. For instance, several years ago I was unarmed and attacked at knifepoint. After thrashing the attacker then calling the police, I was lectured on how it was not safe to defend myself, but no charges were pressed by the police - or by the attacker [[who fled).

In contrast, our other tropical state [[Hawai`i) has a complex web of conditions under which a person may engage in self-defense. For example, if you are attacked with a stick or club, you technically may not defend yourself with a "greater weapon", i.e., a larger club, hunting knife, sword, or gun. Such nonsense can become tragic ... several years ago on the island of Maui, an elderly, ill homeowner was charged with a fourth-class felony when he defended himself with a shovel [[on his own houselot) against a knife-wielding neighbor who was high as a kite. The court eventually sided with the assailant, claiming he did not understand the extent of the attack, also decided the homeowner was using a "greater weapon". Go figgah...

I don't give a shit. Someone breaks into my house, the slug from a .38 special is on the way to greet the mf.

I sure am tired of the candy-asses of the world worrying about the bad guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ray1936

I don't give a shit. Someone breaks into my house, the slug from a .38 special is on the way to greet the mf.

---

Good for you!!

Here's a question ... as a police officer, when did you observe attitudes changing in favor of criminals [[if at all...)? I don't understand when or why this happened...

Also, do any DYers know what is the philosophical basis for favoring a criminal who is conducting an armed assault? Why the consideration in favor of a violent assailant, vs. a citizen defending oneself, one's home or family?

Inquiring minds need to know :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zacha341

Question: Have Detroiter's benefited from this law over the last year as crime has continued to escalate such as home invasions, car jackings and the like?

---

Yes.

Detroiters have been given a green light to shoot and kill intruders. This is a very good thing. It protects the innocent. And the best part is that when the thugs are killed, that we don't have to waste time, space, and money on prosecuting the thugs. Instant justice, that's what you should get when you have the balls to enter someone's home and steal from them.

This law has nothing to do with Trayvon. Trayvon was murdered in cold blood by an overzealous, racist, mall-cop wannabe. This law would NOT protect Zimmerman. This law protects homeowners both, physically and legally against thug lowlifes. The law should not be repealed.

If youes in yo home, you kin bust a kap, but if yo ass is on da screet, you my bitch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 48091

Yes.

Detroiters have been given a green light to shoot and kill intruders. This is a very good thing. It protects the innocent. And the best part is that when the thugs are killed, that we don't have to waste time, space, and money on prosecuting the thugs. Instant justice, that's what you should get when you have the balls to enter someone's home and steal from them.

This law has nothing to do with Trayvon. Trayvon was murdered in cold blood by an overzealous, racist, mall-cop wannabe. This law would NOT protect Zimmerman. This law protects homeowners both, physically and legally against thug lowlifes. The law should not be repealed.

---

Finally something I can agree with 48091..... Your post is spot on!!!!

Yes, that has been my precise point!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 48091

This law has nothing to do with Trayvon. Trayvon was murdered in cold blood by an overzealous, racist, mall-cop wannabe. This law would NOT protect Zimmerman. This law protects homeowners both, physically and legally against thug lowlifes. The law should not be repealed.

---

So criminals can have guns to rob and kill, but non-criminals won't be allowed to protect themselves lest the criminal get injured or killed? Protect the guilty?

don't rob me, you won't get killed. But I'll aim for your balls and let you live.

Vigilantism is going out looking for criminals, taking the law into your own hands.

Vigilantism isn't shooting someone who is breaking into your own house.

They can repeal any law they want.

If someone breaks into my home, they are going to eat some lead!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jj84

Michigan's law [[Castle Doctrine) is very different than Florida's -- If Michigan's law gets repealed you can and will be charged with manslaughter if you shoot someone even in your home as was done in the past. An example would be if someone is breaking in and comes through your back door and you are the only one in the house -- you would have an obligation to leave out the front door.

---

Where did you get this idea? From what I've read the proposed legislation would not eliminate the castle doctrine.

Given that:

1.) From what I read, the Detroit police are slow to respond.

2.) Gun laws are ignored by criminals anyway.

The law has broken down. Without an effective police deterrent, self-defense must be allowed. What's someone to do if some thugs break in? Bundle mama and the baby and slide down a rope, and go where? Maybe such laws should be written more specific to being on one's own property rather than like Florida's law which allows, as was previously mentioned, public scuffles to escalate into shootings. That would still lead to huge no mans' lands anywhere within the range of thugs and speed the rate of diaspora but that is a societal choice if thugs are tolerated.

Another option, where police services are scarce or unavailable, would be to organize and deputize citizen groups to defend neighborhoods like in places like Iraq where order has broken down but that almost brings us back to Curtis Silva and the Guardian Angels, successful efforts by black Muslims to control crime, and George Zimmerman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beachboy

Good for you!!

Here's a question ... as a police officer, when did you observe attitudes changing in favor of criminals [[if at all...)? I don't understand when or why this happened...

:confused:

---

I can remember as a young police recruit the Academy instructor talking about just such public attitudes, and it was the first time I heard about the "pendulum swinging". That was 1959. And so it has been in the years from then.....at times the nation as a whole seems to have a conservative attitude; at times liberal. Depends pretty much on the attitude of the current governmental administration, either federal or local, often both.

Another phrase we were taught -- as are lawyers -- "bad cases make for bad law." That is to say, a case with much publicity such as the Trevon case with extreme circumstances tends to initiate laws in response that are overzelous and not really thought out.

Blame that on elected legislators, most of whom, in my humble opinion, are either morons, idiots, or hyperegotistical prima donnas. Take your choice.

In the 2nd amendment in the constitution. People have the right to bear ARMS [[ not firearms) and to set up certian militia groups.

Michigan doesn't have a stand your ground law. The problem with the law is if its justifiable to kill your enemy if he or she is just walking up to you, if this enemy [[ like black folks) or any other ethnic person have a criminal element. If this person wears a some type of gang attire, clothes with rebellious, if kids has fake weapons. Surely we have a law if any person enters any private or public property without permission is called criminal tresspass. Michigan don't need a stand a ground law because it would from a Trayvon Martin to a Malice Green problem which will lead to a Rodney King Riot.


WORD FROM THE STREET PROPHET

For the 99 Percenters, Guy Fawkes, Trayvon Martin and Neda.