General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTennessee has a "Stand your ground" law............
If it's going to be interpreted like the Florida law is being interpreted by their courts, the only logical thing to do, if you're being harassed by someone, is to take them out first BEFORE they have the chance to pull a weapon and claim self-defense.
These laws are going to cause a LOAD of grief before this is all over. I've had a LOT of training in self defense and it's always been very carefully crafted to warn about overreacting to situations. But with these interpretations, overreacting becomes a MUST for self preservation. If I'm attacked and I kick their ass, EVEN IF I USE APPROPRIATE FORCE IN DEFENDING MYSELF, they could shoot me and claim THEY were in fear of their life.
This is SO fucked up. It leaves no room for appropriate graduated escalation of force. It jumps immediately to 10 on the self defense scale.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)to make damn sure they have a gun. cause with zimmerman following and then confronting a kid that had ALL right to walk on a sidewalk to his home, doing NOTHING wrong, having a face off. i would say it is telling us, we ALL must have a gun to balance the inequality in said face off.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)As I said in my post, it erases any sort of requirement for a "graduated" response. A graduated response will get you killed, so everybody has to go to lethal self defense immediately. Luckily I've had the training to still gradually escalate and maybe survive (and old habits die hard. I'd probably still attempt a graduated response), but most people don't have 30 years of training, so they will feel the need to be armed from the start.
However, if I'm attacked NON-lethally and I defend myself NON-lethally, but in a strong enough fashion to let my opponent know that he can't win a fistfight, under these interpretations of "stand your ground", he would have the right to pull a gun and try to shoot me out of some nebulous "fear of his life". So he could kill me LEGALLY, even though he started a confrontation he couldn't win.
That's what I mean about how fucked up it is. MY options for self defense now key on lethality (or at least SERIOUS bodily damage) from the first moment of my harassment. I can't just bloody my attackers nose and not worry about it.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)And I'm assuming TN's law is like FL's, so bear with me..
If you were kicking someone's ass who attacked you, and they tried to get away, and you wouldn't let them- then and only then would they be legally within their rights to escalate.
FL's SYG defense doesn't apply if you are the aggressor, generally.
Here's the language in their statute:
[div class='excerpt']776.041 Use of force by aggressor.
The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter {SYG} is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
(Bold mine.)
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)and into gun range? When I'm not armed with anything other than my skills? I'm supposed to just "assume" good faith on the part of someone who confronted and attacked me first? That's a pretty big (and dangerous) assumption for me to make.
That said, I'm NOT going to keep on beating an outclassed opponent once he's been rendered defenseless. I'm not inclined that way and my training doesn't call for that.
I suppose in this situation, I would stay close, stop the counterattack and call the cops. But I wouldn't let him get out of the range of my fists until the cops got there.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Being aware of your surroundings, making eye contact, not having your head buried in a phone conversation or ipod track- most criminal attackers choose potential victims that they think are easy. The concept is called situational awareness.
Head up, shoulders back, eye contact.
(I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, having studied self-defense, but others may not be familiar with the premise.)
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)The first thing I do teach. Along with graduated response. Or at least that used to be the pattern. I'm not so sure about the second part now.
ericearl
(2 posts)If what you posted is what the FL law states then why is it that Zimmerman hasn't been arrested. He violated both parts of section 2. He was the one that was the aggressor when he chose to follow the kid even when told not to by the 911 operator.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)But given their racist history, it doesn't surprise me.
samsingh
(17,590 posts)in fact, isn't someone having a gun threatening?
in fact, to the gun lovers, someone without a gun might be threatening because they may be hiding some other weapon.
it is a barbaric law that shows the thinking of the NRA and its supporters.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)and as I said, I have a lot of training in that area and this conclusion IS logical to me. EVERY confrontation now will involve a HIGHER possibility of lethality.
Yavin4
(35,411 posts)The population would drop real quick. Confrontations and conflicts happen all of the time.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)honor CC from other states. Imagine it. Armed tourists from TN and FL walking your streets armed and paranoid from Faux Noise.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)spanone
(135,777 posts)he's the only one left to tell the story....true or false
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)And also another motivation for lethality in a confrontation. Someone whose dead can't contradict your claims of self defense.
Just ask Zimmmerman
Uncle Joe
(58,268 posts)"Tennessee is one of four states, along with Arizona, Georgia and Virginia, that recently enacted laws explicitly allowing loaded guns in bars. (Eighteen other states allow weapons in restaurants that serve alcohol.) The new measures in Tennessee and the three other states come after two landmark Supreme Court rulings that citizens have an individual right not just in connection with a well-regulated militia to keep a loaded handgun for home defense."
Thanks for the thread, socialist_n_TN.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)I also worked in bars around these parts for 20+ years and I NEVER knew a bar owner who thought guns in bars was a good idea. And a LOT of these guys were some of the most rabid rednecks you'll ever want (or not want to meet.
These idiotic laws are being introduced and enacted in these states by people (legislators) who have NO FUCKING CLUE about the realities of confrontations. Either that or they have another agenda entirely. I'm not sure whether they're clueless or evil. Or both.