Talk:Stand-your-ground law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Could someone please cite the law? --Mareino 21:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

1 Merge with Castle Doctrine
2 Article Title
3 Footnote links broken
4 Update

[edit] Merge with Castle Doctrine

It seems that this article is covering the same subject matter as Castle Doctrine, only that Castle Doctrine presents a much more positive view of the laws, with more supporting historical information, and this is more of the negative/critical perspective. Perhaps they should be merged? --129.33.49.251 22:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Castle Doctrine is a bit more narrow than the Stand-your-ground laws. As I understand it, the former applies only to dwellings and (sometimes) places of business. The latter is of similar effect, but applies more broadly to persons in any place where they are lawfully present.

Traditionally, that is true, but Castle Doctrine is the name that is being applied to these. I do think the articles should be merged though since they are functionally identical. Izaakb 14:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand-your-ground law" should be merged. All written references that I've seen refer to "Castle Docrine". I've only heard references to "Stand-your-ground law" in casual (verbal) conversation. The merged article could have reference to non-dwelling defence laws.--TGC55 08:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Title

I'm not sure how to do this, but someone should have a "Stand Your Ground law(s)" search link to this article. I also think we should change the title of this article to something more neutral than "shoot first law," since that clearly reflects a particular pejorative nickname. I'm not sure if "Stand Your Ground Laws" is that much of an improvement (since supporters have coined it), but it seems more commonplace than 'shoot first laws' - note how the USAToday article acknowledges that original nickname early on in its piece but only cites the "Shoot First" moniker later on when discussing opponents of the legislation.

Meantone 20:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

A neutral description would be something like "no-duty-to-retreat law". Unfortunately I don't suppose we get to make up names for it ourselves, no matter how pithy, descriptive, and value-neutral. Is there a section of the law that says something like "this act shall be known and may be cited as..." ? If so, then I'd suggest we use that name. --Trovatore 01:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the "stand your ground" stuff is scattered throughout chapter 776 ("Justifiable Use of Force"). The most controversial provisions - the criminal and civil immunity - are grouped under 776.032, "Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force," but there are other important parts of the law that don't fall under that section. I can't find any particular neutral name for the legislation that would cover everything without sacrificing the specific recognition "stand your ground law" affords. I still think "stand your ground" is preferable to "shoot first," but only for the reasons mentioned above. - Meantone 19:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I created Stand your ground law as a redirect to this article the day before you posted this. TacoDeposit 00:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

So the question is, where should the article be? Personally I'm tempted to move it to Stand your ground law. Obviously neither name is really neutral, but in that situation I think we should, in general, more disfavor names invented as an attack on the subject matter than the names invented by its proponents.

Still, there's a question as to what version of the name to use. Stand your ground law sounds like a command, and a confusing one, because I don't know what a ground law is, nor how to stand it. Stand-your-ground law is a little better but perhaps a less likely search term. "Stand your ground" law is explicit, but I don't like article names beginning with quote marks. Other thoughts? --Trovatore 01:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Went for the hyphens; I think it's the best of the available options. --Trovatore 15:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

--BenEzra 05:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC) Some of the information on the Florida statute is incorrect. The author cites the Florida statute on use of lethal force to stop a forcible felony as if that were the "stand your ground" law. It is not; Florida (and many other states) have long had such statutes, and the new law changes nothing in that regard. See Jon H. Gutmacher, Esq., Florida Firearms: Law, Use, and Ownership, Fourth Edition (2001), p. 146 and following, for a pre-2005 explanation of that statute. Note also that the use of force to stop a forcible felony, as defined by statute, must still be *reasonable* (Gutmacher 2001, p. 147 and following). Gutmacher's book is available here (currently in the sixth edition): http://www.floridafirearmslaw.com/indexbook.shtml

The article seems to imply that Florida was the first state to eliminate the statuatory duty to retreat in the face of a violent attack, but that is not the case; most states, in fact, do *not* have duty to retreat statutes, so in revising that portion of the law, Florida did not break new ground.

Where Florida [i]did[/i] break new ground was in extending the Castle Doctrine (the right to defend oneself against an unlawful forced entry) to one's motor vehicle, so that if someone attempts to carjack you, the Castle Doctrine presumptions would apply just as if you someone were breaking into your home. But this is specific to forced entry into an occupied motor vehicle, and has nothing to do with the "stand your ground" portion of the law. Defending oneself against carjacking was always legal in Florida (Gutmacher 2001, 147), so the new law did not create that right out of thin air.)

Gutmacher made some preliminary comments on the Florida law, which may be pertinent to the article, here: http://www.floridafirearmslaw.com/florida-selfdefense-law-analysis.pdf