‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws Have to Be Repealed Now

Posted on December 20, 2012 at 8:25 am by Bob Cesca

Republican justice in action:

Michael Jock, a 52-year-old resident of St. Petersburg, was standing in line behind 49-year-old Randall White at a local Little Caesars on Sunday when Jock grew angry over White’s complaints about the speed of service. The two got began to shove one another, prompting Jock to pull out a .38 Taurus Ultralight Special Revolver that had been concealed on his person and fire twice, hitting White both times in the lower torso.

Yep, it’s just another entitled jagoff who thinks his gun is the only solution for conflict resolution, and the Republicans encourage it with laws that promote vigilantism with a hair-trigger. Everyone armed, everyone deciding for themselves who lives and dies. It has to stop now.

(h/t John Yanonne)

Print Friendly
This entry was posted in Guns and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Draxiar

    As for the jerk-offs that think arming their kids…KIDS…is a good idea for their protection let’s just take this sort of kneejerk reaction to a playground and see what happens. Y’know…because kids have such control over their emotions…especially teens.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/LeShan-Jones/100000478051440 LeShan Jones

    It keeps happening;
    http://occupyamerica.crooksandliars.com/diane-sweet/denver-mom-confronts-daughters-bullies#comments
    What was that line the gun-nuts like to use about law-abiding citizens?
    These people think having a gun makes them invincible.

  • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

    Impulse control….something we all want but don’t always have. If Jock had had only his fists that would have been the end of it. He might have even gotten his ass whipped. But because of the gun, the dynamic changed and not for the better.

    • Scopedog

      Exactly. Even though I’ve been trained on firearms use, I do not want to own one, because I’m afraid that I could cause an event like this. While I always try to stay in control of my anger and impulses, I can slip in to anger and aggression at any time.

      This guy used his weapon because of a goddamned argument that started after a compliant about fast food service. Thanks to Stand Your Ground, it almost became a murder scene. It’s a stupid law; this is the 21st century, for God’s sake, not the Old West.

      • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

        I still have my revolver but I am seriously thinking about getting rid of it because I simply don’t have time to practice.

        And no offense to my male compadres online here and elsewhere, but impulse/anger control are not a strong suit for 99% of them. Women are better at the anger control but even they lose it too often and that is getting worse. You can see it in the rising violent crime and incarceration rates for women–it has been steadily going up for decades.

  • http://phydeauxpseaks.blogspot.com Bob Rutledge

    The article I saw last night about this made it pretty clear that the Jock-off was itchin’ fer a chance to Stand His Ground, and the poor shlub wanting his veggie pizza was just an excuse.

    • JackDaniel07

      That was my initial reaction – if he hadnt had a gun, there wouldnt have ever even been a confrontation

  • bphoon

    The way I was trained here in Kansas and in Minnesota is that “stand your ground” only applies when it is a clear-cut case of unprovoked self defense where you have a reasonable fear for your life or physical safety. The example that was used is this: You start an argument with someone that then escalates into a fight in which the other guy gets the upper hand. You decide to pull your firearm in “self defense” and in order to “stand your ground”. Are you in the right? Answer: No. You provoked the confrontation in the first place so “stand your ground” doesn’t apply.

    Such a law, properly written, should only apply when an individual, through no fault of his own, is the victim of criminal aggression and has a reasonable fear for his/her life or physical safety. Such a thing doesn’t often happen. But if I am the victim of unprovoked aggression, should I have a legal obligation to retreat? Should I only be able to defend myself if I’m cornered with no possible escape route? If I lash out with force short of deadly force, am I liable to be prosecuted for battery because I didn’t try to retreat first?

    Now, I’m not advocating an individual engage an aggressor in every case. If I’m attacked, I want to be able to end that attack in the fasted, most effective way available, using deadly force only as an absolutely last resort. If that means I have to put up a fight with my fists or a weapon other than a firearm, that’s fine. If that means I disengage and retreat, that’s OK, too. I just don’t think I should be under a legal obligation to retreat in all cases.

    I think we all can agree that a situation where one might have to defend oneself constitutes an emergency situation. I also think we can agree that, by definition, emergency situations come with no warning. In view of that, I believe in trying to be as prepared as I can reasonably be to respond if possible. It’s not possible to respond in all situations but I want to be able to if a situation allows–or demands–that I do.

    Just because I may be carrying a firearm, however, doesn’t mean I have to use, or even display, it. If I can end the confrontation by other means, that’s preferable. However, I want a full menu of options at my disposal. I don’t think I’m expressing false bravado when I say I don’t want to be in a position where, if the wrong thing happens without warning, I become a victim by default with no option for self-defense.

    That doesn’t just mean firearms, though. It means how you carry yourself, it means trying to stay in the best physical condition possible, it means some ability to conduct hand-to-hand combat and it means having the wherewithal to recognize when your best option is to retreat. In my mind, whatever it takes to preserve my life and safety and that of my loved ones with minimal damage to myself and others and minimal legal exposure is what I need to do. On the other hand, if my life depends on my being able to effectively deploy a personal firearm, I want that option as well.

    • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

      it means having the wherewithal to recognize when your best option is to retreat

      That’s the problem, the majority of people don’t exercise good judgment. Furthermore, a person can have had the training to know what to do when AND still exercise bad judgement because of their ego or because they are impaired (or both). Some people just can’t walk away from a fight because their pathetic self esteem won’t let them. Should we have to worry about immature and low self-esteem jagoffs out there with guns? It’s nuts to have to deal with these idiots and there are far too many of them.

      The “discretion” to use deadly force is something we have to be very, very careful with doling out as a society.

      • bphoon

        Absolutely, hence my advocacy for much stronger requirements for training, proof of proficiency, licensing, weapons registration, taxation in the form of property taxes similar to those levied against motor vehicles, testing for renewal of licenses and requirements to purchase liability insurance and prove you have it. Some jurisdictions (California comes to mind) have provisions in state law that require firearms owners to properly secure weapons and makes them liable if a weapon they fail to secure is used in a crime.

        It’s true that many more firearms deaths and injuries are caused by accidental (or, as I like to put it, unintended) weapons discharge. It’s also true that having firearms in the home increases by several times the potential for accidents. I firmly believe, however, that the majority of these events are propagated by someone who buys a weapon for self defense, loads it, puts it in a drawer and believes he/she is therefore safer. No training, no licensing, no nothing except the purchase of a weapon and ammunition and failure to properly secure it.

        Placing the requirements I list above–all to be done at the individual’s expense, by the way–in law would act, I believe, to weed out the weaker links and give the authorities more chances to detect individuals who might pose a danger if armed. Wouldn’t eliminate the problem, for sure, but might act to mitigate the risk.

  • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

    I’m curious about this Jock guy, did he have any alcohol in his system? The majority of certain types of violent crime are committed under the influence of alcohol–it lowers inhibitions of course. So the average Joe that has had a six pack or two is much more likely to draw his gun than otherwise. Why not make it illegal to pull your weapon or even carry a weapon outside your home if you have been drinking? We don’t let people drink and drive because they can’t operate the car safely. Why would we let people operate a gun under the influence either–especially since a car is meant for transportation and a gun is meant for killing?

  • peterjohn936

    More people are killed by guns now than die in traffic accidents. The numbers are increasing rapidly as Republicans find more and more ways to increase gun sales.

  • D_C_Wilson

    I’m starting to get a clear picture of the republican solution to gun solution: Those of us who don’t want to resolve arguments with gunfire or don’t want to be an innocent bystander caught in the crossfire are the ones who have to adjust our lives. We have to learn to stay out of the gun nuts’ way. We have to put body armor on our children and buy them bullet-proof backpacks. We have to arm ourselves and learn to draw our weapons first. We have to be constantly on the alert for crazies and be ready to duck and cover. If we’re young and/or black, we have to change the way we dress so as to not appear “suspicious”. If we’re women, we also have to change the way we dress and, if we are raped, make we have visible bruises or it won’t be considered “legitimate rape”. We have to be careful where we go, lest we find ourselves in a place without quick cover.

    Because, freedom.