I carry a little knife that pops out of a carved motorcycle handle that an old landlord gave me once, while I bike around town. Come at me biatches. I'm nearly always drunk.

Why are Liberals against this?

This man obviosuly has some mental issues with him. He should be in a hospital not a jail.

Confabulat: I carry a little knife that pops out of a carved motorcycle handle that an old landlord gave me once, while I bike around town. Come at me biatches. I'm nearly always drunk.

I use a cane that actually conceals a sword.

Oh, wait...I traded it for the one that holds booze...

Can't be soft on crime. Right Republicans? You're still saying the same thing George Wallace and Nixon got you saying.

cman: Why are Liberals against this?

My what a broad brush you have.

BULLshiat!

There was never that little mental pause before you kill something. You ever stepped on an ant? How long did you contemplate it? That's about how long warrior societies like the Celts used to wait before they killed you when you broke the rules.

Hell, they used to get into knife fights to the death over who was the first person to get a slice of meat at dinner. You think you'd get merely a stern talking to if you tried to rob them?

Calmamity: cman: Why are Liberals against this?

My what a broad brush you have.

There was a big Black Friday sale at Home Depot.

Republican Utopia

cman: Why are Liberals against this?

This man obviosuly has some mental issues with him. He should be in a hospital not a jail.

Yeah, all those liberal PROSECUTORS and COPS who warned the legislators and voters this was a really bad idea and not going to work out well in practice.

Just like all those softhearted cops who want stricter gun laws and mushy-headed knee-jerk judges and prosecutors who were against California's 3-strikes law, amirite?

What does this "stand your ground" law accomplish that isn't accomplished by the laws governing self defense? It seems like it's engineered for the sake of people who want to be able to walk around and start shiat so they can stab them.

FlameDuck: While some might think standing your ground and stabbing someone with an ice pick makes you a road warrior. I think it makes you look like feces throwing monkey. This stand your ground law sound more like I'm scared so I'll kill you first kind of law.

Laws like the "Stand your ground" or "Castle Doctrine" are written to alleviate issues that stem from the typical liberal stance on self defense. Where as in cities like NY or Chicago you would be prosecuted for using violence in self defense if there's any possible perceptible minute snowball's chance in hell long shot one in a million's likelihood of success in running away without getting shot in the back or overtaken and suffering a really bad day, these laws establish that it is NOT your responsibility to put yourself at risk by retreating. In many cases running away can get you killed, and these laws are established to limit a DA's ability to prosecute people that stand and fight because standing and fighting was the most logical and likely chance for survival.

I take a four step approach to self defense. Awareness, Detection, Evasion, and if those three steps fail, Offense. In the case reported on in TFA, the aggressor was actually the one who got stabbed. He sped ahead of the victim, cut him off and stopped his vehicle, and then started in on the victim. If I'm in the victim's shoes, I would have never got out of the car and probably would have run the guy over if he didn't give me an opportunity to get the hell out of there, but being a poorly trained man the victim never thought to use his vehicle as both a barrier between him and the attacker and a weapon if things started getting really out of control. He exited the vehicle and found himself being approached in an aggressive manner by a big burly 20 year old with obvious anger issues. It is not hard in the least to imagine that the attacker got loud and started acting like he was going to get violent, and the victim decided to act preemptively (correctly, I might add, his attacker was larger, younger, faster, and PISSED) and used an improvised weapon to do so. This is a situation where you're not really capable of using the first 3 steps in a manner conducive to the safety of those around you unless you have training to do so. When vehicles are involved, even if you're aware and perceive a possible threat, your ability to evade that threat is severely hampered. The victim was forced into a situation where he had insufficient training to be able to handle the situation without preemptively attacking the threat. I see no wrong doing on the part of the victim here. Tragic? Yes. Did the law work as intended? It will have if he doesn't get charged with anything.

The fact that anybody here is taking the side of a 20 year old hot head who decided it was a good idea to terrorize someone 3 times older, smaller, slower and obviously in fear for his personal safety is ridiculous. People like this (and I've met plenty) derive their self worth from their ability to make people fear them, I'm not going to feel sorry for him when he succeeds and runs into someone who deals with fear via the fight response instead of flight.

I am sure the cop would have reacted differently. Some people think only cops should have a right to defend themselves.

LouDobbsAwaaaay: What does this "stand your ground" law accomplish that isn't accomplished by the laws governing self defense? It seems like it's engineered for the sake of people who want to be able to walk around and start shiat so they can stab them.

THIS. There should be an exception to the law that says if you started the situation then you can't use "stand your ground" unless you are obviously in mortal danger. This guy started this incident by cutting off the younger driver. Therefore it's all his fault this happened. He shouldn't be allowed to use this defense in this case.

FlameDuck: iq_in_binary: FlameDuck: While some might think standing your ground and stabbing someone with an ice pick makes you a road warrior. I think it makes you look like feces throwing monkey. This stand your ground law sound more like I'm scared so I'll kill you first kind of law.

Laws like the "Stand your ground" or "Castle Doctrine" are written to alleviate issues that stem from the typical liberal stance on self defense. Where as in cities like NY or Chicago you would be prosecuted for using violence in self defense if there's any possible perceptible minute snowball's chance in hell long shot one in a million's likelihood of success in running away without getting shot in the back or overtaken and suffering a really bad day, these laws establish that it is NOT your responsibility to put yourself at risk by retreating. In many cases running away can get you killed, and these laws are established to limit a DA's ability to prosecute people that stand and fight because standing and fighting was the most logical and likely chance for survival.

I take a four step approach to self defense. Awareness, Detection, Evasion, and if those three steps fail, Offense. In the case reported on in TFA, the aggressor was actually the one who got stabbed. He sped ahead of the victim, cut him off and stopped his vehicle, and then started in on the victim. If I'm in the victim's shoes, I would have never got out of the car and probably would have run the guy over if he didn't give me an opportunity to get the hell out of there, but being a poorly trained man the victim never thought to use his vehicle as both a barrier between him and the attacker and a weapon if things started getting really out of control. He exited the vehicle and found himself being approached in an aggressive manner by a big burly 20 year old with obvious anger issues. It is not hard in the least to imagine that the attacker got loud and started acting like he was going to get violent, and the victim decided to act preemptively (correctly, I might add, his attacker was larger, younger, faster, and PISSED) and used an improvised weapon to do so. This is a situation where you're not really capable of using the first 3 steps in a manner conducive to the safety of those around you unless you have training to do so. When vehicles are involved, even if you're aware and perceive a possible threat, your ability to evade that threat is severely hampered. The victim was forced into a situation where he had insufficient training to be able to handle the situation without preemptively attacking the threat. I see no wrong doing on the part of the victim here. Tragic? Yes. Did the law work as intended? It will have if he doesn't get charged with anything.

The fact that anybody here is taking the side of a 20 year old hot head who decided it was a good idea to terrorize someone 3 times older, smaller, slower and obviously in fear for his personal safety is ridiculous. People like this (and I've met plenty) derive their self worth from their ability to make people fear them, I'm not going to feel sorry for him when he succeeds and runs into someone who deals with fear via the fight response instead of flight.

I've been stabbed on Williamsburg bridge by some dude who wanted my camera. Still have scars to prove it. I know something about that kind of situation. Maybe in Florida that guy who stabbed me could have told police that I was scared him. After all I was bigger than he was and sixteen year old hot head. Don't know or care what ever happened to that guy, but I'm glad neither one of us killed the other since I was able to run away with my camera.

What did he stab you with? A toothpick? If you had actually been stabbed with any kind of weapon meant for the purpose, like say a 3 inch folder or a fixed blade knife, you WOULDN'T have walked away, period. Stab wounds are more dangerous than bullet wounds on average, because they do a TON of damage and require a lot more care to insure they heal properly. If you're seriously trying to say to me that you've been STABBED and you're still glad you didn't use force to defend yourself, you need mental help.

Rozotorical: cman: Why are Liberals against this?

This man obviosuly has some mental issues with him. He should be in a hospital not a jail.

Just in case anyone was on a fence if cman was a trolling.

I admit, it can be difficult to tell when I am and am not trolling. The split can be 50/50.

I was once on a jury for two 40+ year old men, each WITH each their respective families and children in the two cars I might add, who had a slapfight stopped at a light, and continued along the side of the road while the vehicles were moving, all over the fact that one of them had honked at the other.

One of them was actually crying over how they'd put their children in danger and how stupid the whole thing was.

Ah, the "Its coming right for us!" law. Not every situation needs to be met with deadly force. To suggest as much, is, well, cowardice and a little insane. Every case of death by 'self defense' needs to be examined by law enforcement and prosecuted if there is ANY doubt. If I were on a jury and self-defense is the excuse, I would to have to see some pretty thorough physical evidence of an obvious threat to the defendant's life before I vote not to convict. Although I do understand the temptation - if you shoot (or icepick) someone dead, they're not around to contradict your version of events or sue you.