stay where you have a legal right to be, Retreat laws"> stay where you have a legal right to be, Retreat laws"> stay where you have a legal right to be, Retreat laws"> stay where you have a legal right to be, Retreat laws">

WhatFinger


Upholding "stand your ground" laws means that your life is of value, that you have the right to defend it, that you have a right to stay where you have a legal right to be

“Stand your ground” Law Not Invalidated by Zimmerman shooting



Suppose some leftwing activists told you that you should not use guns because you have no right to protect yourself from a murderous criminal? If you're like most right-thinking people, you would be outraged. Yet, liberals are using the shooting of Trayvon Martin as an excuse to say exactly that. They want to use the Martin case to repeal "stand your ground" laws.
A provision of Castle Doctrine legislation, "stand your ground" laws state that you don't have to retreat from an attacker, that you can stay on your home or neighborhood premises and fight to defend yourself. That law replaced "duty to retreat" laws, which stated you must run away from your would-be murderer, so you do not kill him. Leftists use the Martin case to urge repeal of "Stand your ground" laws which implies a revival of "retreat" laws. "Retreating" from your would-be murderer means not being able to use your gun to protect yourself. That, in turn, negates the right of self-defense. One example of how liberals are arguing the "retreat" viewpoint is ex-President Bill Clinton. In Jake Tapper's article, "President Clinton Hopes Trayvon Martin Case Leads to Reappraisal of 'Stand Your Ground' Laws", Clinton made a presumption that George Zimmerman killed Martin in cold-blood, despite saying he wants to wait for the facts. Referring to his portrayal of Zimmerman, Clinton stated that civilians without law enforcement training but who are armed with guns will murder in cold-blood---because of the "stand your ground" law.

Support Canada Free Press


That, of course, represents the false claim long made by liberals. It's false because a lack of police training and the mere possession of a gun do not transform conscientious citizens into cold-blooded murderers. Lacking such training, civilians have their commonsense and deeply ingrained conscience that prevents them from becoming murderers. In fact, the data on shooting incidents between citizens and criminals shows that gun-owning citizens have thwarted crimes, protected themselves and protected their families from burglars. There are even cases where concealed-carry permit holders saved the lives of cops who were about to be murdered by thugs. So, time and again we see law-abiding gun owners continue being law-abiding. They don't become the crazed murderers that dumb liberals say they will become. Clinton's concern about "Stand Your Ground" law "encouraging" murders reflects a poor understanding of that law. That law does not encourage murders. It protects self-defense killings. "Stand your ground" law enables a law-abiding gun owner to use a gun in his own self-defense--and protects him from being unjustly prosecuted for doing so. If you commit murder, "Stand" laws won't protect you from incarceration. If citizens do not become crazed murderers merely by owning guns and lacking specialized training, and "Stand" laws do not encourage murders, then Clinton's idea that "Stand" laws need reappraisal is baseless. It remains baseless even if it later turns out that Zimmerman killed Martin in cold-blood. "Stand" laws do not protect murderers. Despite liberals' grasping for any old excuse to oppose them, "stand your ground" laws are based on the principled and practical realities of self-defense. The principle is that a Man has a right to defend his life. The practical reality is that a potential victim can only implement his right to self defense by "standing his ground" in order to successfully end the thug's murder attempt. That is true because the attack on the law-abiding gun owner's life may be too sudden for him to "retreat". When "retreat" does become a split-second option, the victim may be placing his life in greater danger by retreating. That is because running from an attacker has gotten victims chased and attacked from behind. This is the type of situation that former "duty to retreat" laws demanded potential victims put themselves in. Imagine a bat-wielding thug chasing you, as you retreat. Then, he hits you from behind with a bat (bats have a longer reach than one's arms). He hits you in the head multiple times until you are severely injured or dead. Because "retreating" from an attacking thug, as demanded by "Retreat" laws, increases the danger to your life, "Retreat" laws violate one's right to self-defense. That is more true considering that it becomes harder for someone to defend himself from a lethal attack while fleeing. By contrast, "stand your ground" laws protect your right to self-defense because they protect you from legal penalty whenever your survival depends on "standing your ground". "Standing your ground" is essential to defending your life. If "retreat" laws penalize you for "standing", then "retreat" laws also wrongfully punish you for defending your life. So, we must maintain "Stand" laws and never revive "Retreat" laws. Furthermore, a man has a right to stay in his own home, neighborhood or workplace when a thug confronts him. A free man belongs there, the thug does not. Ignoring the fact that "Retreat" laws violate our right to self-defense, some critics think that "Stand" laws will obscure to what extent (if any) a gun-owner has escalated a situation to an unjust shooting. If that is the case, then the gun owner could be using excessive force or committing murder. Yet, his actions at the "shooting" moment may still appear‚ the key word is "appear"--to fit the "Stand" law since he, technically, stood his ground and shot his "attacker." However, this is not a real problem. That's because in any shooting incident, cops and lawyers still have to investigate and review the evidence. In the process of doing so, they may discover that Zimmerman did escalate the situation by deliberately scaring Martin into attacking, ---just so he can have an excuse to shoot Martin. In which case, Zimmerman's shooting Martin is murder. IF that is the case, then "Stand" laws will not, in actuality, apply to Zimmerman's illegal act. Therefore, "Stand" laws will not protect Zimmerman from punishment. Stand laws do NOT say that you have the right to scare your attacker into attacking, then shoot him. Instead, "Stand" laws state that you have a right to stand your ground and use reasonable deadly force to save yourself from your would-be murderer (i.e. self-defense). Hence, there is no real obscurity involved. While paranoid and unthinking critics worry about hypothetical "obscurities" regarding "Stand" laws, it is necessary to point out the real problem with repealing "Stand" laws. Repealing "Stand" laws incarcerates those people who really did shoot a thug in self-defense treats them like murderers---simply because they "stood their ground". With "Stand" laws you can prevent actual self-defense shooters from being unjustly imprisoned. Lawful gun owners should not lose their right to "stand" and fight in self-defense just because there are criminals out there who will escalate a confrontation and murder. Upholding "stand your ground" laws means that your life is of value, that you have the right to defend it, that you have a right to stay where you have a legal right to be. Replacing those laws with "duty to retreat" laws means your life isn't worth dirt, that you must endanger your life further by running from the criminal who threatens your life, that not killing your would-be murderer is more important to the courts than your right to save your own life and that, in effect, the courts protect the criminal's "freedom" to murder or "burglar" you more than your right to self-defense. So, readers, you decide which of those views/laws you will support.


View Comments

George Koukeas -- Bio and Archives

George Koukeas is a freelance writer focusing on political news and commentary and has been published in newspapers, magazines and websites. 


Sponsored