.JPG)
By Nancy Oliver
There
is a big difference between my horse, my dogs, and I. If I pick a fight with my
dog, I best be prepared to get bitten, although I doubt this one who is the
smaller of all would even think about a gentle bite let alone an all out
attack. Still I have seen my dogs go into action when someone comes close to
the house or in the pasture my dogs think do not belong there. If that person
was misunderstood by my dogs and did not retreat when I called them off and
that person was armed…I would have to accept they saw potential threat to
themselves and were justifiable. I still would be heartbroken though. As for my
horse...well he is so much more powerful than I or any human for that matter
that he will overpower and win. He could kick or trample my dogs and kill them
in an instant. But, horses by nature are creatures of flight so I mostly expect
him to just run. Still...I don't fear my horses or dogs because I know we have
mutual respect. If I wanted to I could drop all my pets in a squeeze of a
finger.
Lately we are hearing a lot about STAND YOUR GROUND laws. Some speak of these laws like it is contributing to unfair and unsound verdicts in murder trials. Well, murder is not why these laws were devised in the first place...Self defense is why.
Senator (R-Az) John McCain thinks we should visit these laws and see if they are just. While a friend writes this blog, I can also think for myself: http://patdollard.com/2013/07/mccain-attacks-stand-your-ground-laws-says-whites-are-racists-weve-got-a-long-way-to-go/ Now, I am not a fan of McCain but, maybe we should revisit the stand your ground laws and those similar that over half our states in the union have. Talk to lawyers and one gets this way and that as to how they view the law. It depends on if they are prosecutors or defense. Even some judges and politicians too have their own views.
According to Wikipedia A stand-your-ground law is a type of self-defense law that gives individuals the right to use reasonable force to defend themselves without any requirement to evade or retreat from a dangerous situation. The basis may lie in either statutory law and or common law precedents. One key distinction is whether the concept only applies to defending a home or vehicle, or whether it applies to all lawfully occupied locations. Under these legal concepts, a person is justified in using deadly force in certain situations and the "stand your ground" law would be a defense or immunity to criminal charges and civil suit. The difference between immunity and a defense is that an immunity bars suit, charges, detention and arrest. A defense, such as an affirmative defense, permits a plaintiff or the state to seek civil damages or a criminal conviction but may offer mitigating circumstances that justify the accused's conduct.
All these added to the Castle Law basically are saying that a person in any lawful place for them to be does not have to give up ground to an assailant even if that assailant has the same right to be there. Let's take a public park for instance. Let's say a jogger is running along the paths. Suddenly the jogger is attacked. Especially women have a hard time to overpower men or boys for that matter. So let's say it is a woman who is attacked while jogging. I can really write from a female slant best anyway. So all these laws are saying is that that woman does not have to retreat or try to get away from an assailant...she can use deadly force or in other words whip out her pistol and squeeze the trigger.
But does that mean the police cannot take that woman in for questioning? No it does not. She must report the incident and convince the police that it was justifiable homicide or self defense. Does she need broken bones and big lumps and bruises all over her? It might help as visuals always do but still it is not a requirement in many instances. Modern science has ways of finding great amounts of evidence these days.
As we have seen lately especially some argue that stand your ground laws make it easier to get away with killing someone needlessly just to get off on self defense. But that is the case in all self defense killings as there is usually only one that can attest to what happened. The other is dead.
There is no real concrete evidence as to how well these laws are doing to curtail crime. Each side is standing on their own numbers and actually it is hard to decipher. Still...it is an alienable right that we have to self defense. Personally...I would rather live because I made the choice first and accurately than to die from the hands of someone wishing only to rob, rape or do any kind of harm to me whether out of calculated actions or by a hasty rage of anger. After all...I trust no strangers like I do my dogs and horses. My pets have proven themselves to me and so there is no way I would pull the trigger on them before they would do great harm to me...probably death...whether intentional or not.
For further study:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
No comments:
Post a Comment