Capitol Hill Blue Forums Hot Topics & Breaking News News US airman stands his ground in Florida, sentenced to 25 years

The castle doctrine is not new. I have repeatedly agreed to that. And do so once again. Hopefully I will not need to say that again.

What is new is extending the castle doctrine outside the castle.

Ardy, I would submit that when a law is expanded to include something previously not included it is a variant of the original. Its generally accepted hat SYG is a variant of Castle. Examples:

TeachingHstory "Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground‘ law, a variant of the ‘Castle Doctrine,"

CNN "After Florida expanded its so-called "Castle Doctrine" laws to a Stand Your Ground provision". Isn't an expanded law a variant of the original?

I am certain you know why your analogy doesn't wash.

Regards,
"C.J."

You did not need to say it this time, I did not question this. When I stated “It's not a new concept” I was referencing what I underlined in the Wiki quote.


In some states it may be new relative to Castle, but not new. In fact in some states castle already included "any legally-occupied place" and automobiles. But you are still saying this extension is not a variant? In the following quote you stated it wasn’t an extension but a new concept, and now you are saying its extending Castle. “that extending the castle doctrine outside the castle essentially makes it entirely different and not an extension but entirely new legal concept and is therefore a distortion when described as a variant.

Regards
“C.J.”

CJ
I am very happy that you are willing to engage in a discussion of this topic. And assuming that you want to continue the discussion, IMO it would be better to do so in a more systematic was since there are multiple threads of contention on this issue. And it is difficult to keep track of them all on a single thread.

I propose the following. On the gun forum we can have a network of inter-related SYG threads. The main thread will be to raise, but not discuss significant issues. This thread can be used to provide an overview of the issues being raised. Those issues may be revised if the issue has been poorly stated. The thread can also be used to track the progress of the specific discussion threads.

So for example the over view thread might contain:

1. Is SYG new, what is the background
2. What does SY accomplish that was not done before
3. Is there a disparate racial application or impact to SYG laws
4. etc

A not perfect but more reasonable solution to the vagaries of poorly written SYG laws would be to amend them with clauses which specifically cite circumstances where SYG would be rendered null and void.

The most basic of these would be, if you initiate an aggressive confrontation with someone who is not behaving in a criminal manner and otherwise minding their own business, you are no longer covered under the specifics of SYG. That would render SYG as a purely DEFENSIVE move by those are being confronted by an attacker.

A person who initiates an aggressive confrontation with a law abiding stranger still might be covered under basic rights to self defense if other extenuating circumstances are discovered, but they would not be able to say that they were "standing their ground" and using deadly force as a response to an unprovoked attack anymore.

The person who stops a law abiding stranger and initiates the confrontation provokes a reaction, thus a "stand your ground" clause is only valid if you were the one minding your own business.

It is not enough to simply write a law which says you have the right to use deadly force if you fear for your life. Your actions which led up to that situation must account in some way as well, and any self defense law must clearly state conditions which disqualify you from hiding under its protection.

But I still am not clear on why pre existing laws were inadequate. What is the added value if syg

I completely agree with Jeff on this. To clarify/expand on previous comments (second attempt, first swallowed by glitch): self defense has been a feature of homicide laws since the common law was first developed (as part of 'justified homicide'). The 'castle doctrine' has also been a feature for a very long time. 'Stand your ground' is a new and significant change to this body of laws, having been introduced in Florida in 2005 (Florida had first Stand Your Ground law, other states followed in 'rapid succession'), and has a different genesis and purpose (The History of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" Law). Unlike the previous laws it is specifically addressed to 'public spaces' and is not addressed to public safety. Rather, it is a politically-motivated adaptation to the law (Florida's 'stand your ground' law was born of 2004 case, but story has been distorted; NRA Pushed for ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws).

That is the point that I think has been discussed around here. SYG laws, in fact, are generally detrimental to public safety (More Killings Called Self-Defense), as are, in reality, ccw laws (although spurious arguments are made to the contrary). The tension, really, is (as Ardy says) between public safety and personal "rights." That is my objection to these laws. They graft a political feature onto a body of laws related to public safety/behavior.