Our City Online

Messageboard - General Columbus Discussion

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

'Stand Your Ground' Legislation in Ohio

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion 'Stand Your Ground' Legislation in Ohio

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 107 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #489483

    JeepGirl
    Participant

    joev said:
    I don’t think we need all these extra laws.

    Agreed

    And since they are proposing to remove language from the current law vs adding additional laws it seems this would be right in line with your thinking.

    #489484

    News
    Participant

    #489485

    Schoolboy
    Participant

    kit444 said:
    All questions of fact are subject to the judgment of people who weren’t there. It doesn’t justify the removal of the element. The second element is more subjective. Should we remove that one as well?

    I think the removal boils down to a simple fact. Most humans fear being encarcerated for a crime that they did not commit. I would agree that the “retreat” rules do in fact open up that possibility.

    However, I do not agree with one key aspect of the syg rules. The Zimmerman case is a perfect example of this. A person can intentionally insert themself into a non violent situation in order to create violence. Thus resulting in them standing a ground that was never theirs to stand. If this loophole were altered, I am perfectly fine with removing the “retreat” verbage. Otherwise, it should remain until they find a better method of keeping those from intentionally inserting themselves into that situation.

    #489486

    kit444
    Participant

    Schoolboy said:
    I think the removal boils down to a simple fact. Most humans fear being encarcerated for a crime that they did not commit. I would agree that the “retreat” rules do in fact open up that possibility.

    However, I do not agree with one key aspect of the syg rules. The Zimmerman case is a perfect example of this. A person can intentionally insert themself into a non violent situation in order to create violence. Thus resulting in them standing a ground that was never theirs to stand. If this loophole were altered, I am perfectly fine with removing the “retreat” verbage. Otherwise, it should remain until they find a better method of keeping those from intentionally inserting themselves into that situation.

    That’s the point of the first element: you shouldn’t start the fight. But as we saw with the Zimmerman case, even that can be up to debate if the facts aren’t clear.

    #489487
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    gramarye said:
    If the retreat element is so loosely interpreted, what’s the justification for having it?

    The justification for removing it is simple: You shouldn’t have the question of whether you walk free or get 20+ years in prison decided by how safe or unsafe your path of retreat was, as second-guessed by people who weren’t there.

    Makes sense to me.

    #489488

    gramarye
    Participant

    Schoolboy said:However, I do not agree with one key aspect of the syg rules. The Zimmerman case is a perfect example of this. A person can intentionally insert themself into a non violent situation in order to create violence. Thus resulting in them standing a ground that was never theirs to stand. If this loophole were altered, I am perfectly fine with removing the “retreat” verbage. Otherwise, it should remain until they find a better method of keeping those from intentionally inserting themselves into that situation.

    As noted above, the SYG rules already take that into account. However, what you have in mind might be different, depending on what you mean by “inserting [oneself] into a non-violent situation in order to create violence.”

    Also, Zimmerman isn’t a good illustration of this (either for or against) because SYG was not actually the basis of the defense in that case; it was a traditional self-defense case.

    #489489

    arobinbird
    Participant

    gramarye said:
    Also, Zimmerman isn’t a good illustration of this (either for or against) because SYG was not actually the basis of the defense in that case; it was a traditional self-defense case.

    I took a gun safety class and what he did IMO was anything but self-defense and according to what we were told, you would never “pursue” anyone with a gun and get off on self-defense, instead you could get convicted for murder. I don’t think we need looser laws, we need smarter people.

    #489490

    DavidF
    Participant

    I can’t wait for the legislature to bring back public dueling.

    I guess our new state slogan should be “Ohio – not as backwards as Mississippi…yet”

    #489491

    News
    Participant

    Dayton Passes Resolution Opposing “Stand Your Ground” Bill
    August 29, 2013
    by Emily McCord

    The city of Dayton has passed a resolution that opposes “stand your ground” legislation being considered at the Ohio house. Dayton is the first city in the state to come out against the bill.

    READ MORE: http://wosu.org/2012/news/2013/08/29/dayton-passed-resolution-to-oppose-stand-your-ground-bill/

    #489492
    ColumbusTime
    ColumbusTime
    Participant

    arobinbird said:
    I took a gun safety class and what he did IMO was anything but self-defense and according to what we were told, you would never “pursue” anyone with a gun and get off on self-defense, instead you could get convicted for murder. I don’t think we need looser laws, we need smarter people.

    Your synopsis of the Zimmerman situation misrepresents that facts of the case. He wasn’t pursuing, and he was attacked, which is why it was a self defense case.

    #489493
    Coremodels
    Coremodels
    Participant

    ColumbusTime said:
    Your synopsis of the Zimmerman situation misrepresents that facts of the case. He wasn’t pursuing

    …wait, what?

    #489494

    DavidF
    Participant

    Coremodels said:
    …wait, what?

    Shhh. Just quietly step away from the troll.

    #489495
    ColumbusTime
    ColumbusTime
    Participant

    Coremodels said:
    …wait, what?

    Based on the facts as presented in his trial.

    #489496

    kit444
    Participant

    ColumbusTime said:
    Based on the facts as presented in his trial.

    I think getting out of your car and following someone counts as “pursuing”, but I sure as hell don’t want to debate this whole thing again.

    #489497
    Coremodels
    Coremodels
    Participant

    ColumbusTime said:
    Based on the facts as presented in his trial.

    Yeah, I’m not going to re-enter an entire debate on this, but pretty much no one including Zimmerman is claiming he didn’t pursue. Not sure what trial you were following.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 107 total)

The forum ‘General Columbus Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe to the Columbus Underground YouTube channel for exclusive interviews and news updates!

CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE