ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • Social Issues

Stand Your Ground

Updated on August 14, 2016
Rodric29 profile image

Political and Social issues are just a few of Rodric's focus here. Read and gain perspective. Make sure you share your views.

The concept of Stand Your Ground

It means that we can defend our right to be in public or at home without having to yield to attackers including lethal force.

I have a duty to protect my right to walk in society and feel justified in using deadly force--if necessary--to keep that right.

I am a rational adult and I will not harm a person who robs me because their life is more important than my money. I will not kill a person who is not trying to kill me. I will not attack a person, but I will defend myself.

I would rather defuse an argument than win it. I would rather step off the sidewalk rather than provoke contention because another is in my path and will not move.

I think that decent people with true meekness are protected by this concept of Stand Your Ground because a meek person will not take the upper hand just because he can.

This concept of Stand Your Ground initially sounds great, and I do not believe that any person should be the victim of an assailant just because he or she happens to be in the same place as the assailant at the time that person decides to interrupt the lives of people for selfish illegal activity!

If a person has the ability to intervene and safely prevent criminal activity within his or her realm of influence he or she should. Isn't that how it is done in the movies?

I recall a story where a man, who eventually became a religious leader, recounted a mugging he endured in Chicago. The mugger was apparently a novice and the victim discovered he could easily take down his young assailant, but at the cost of the assailant's life. This man decided to give up his property rather than take a life. He could have stood his ground and killed the man with justification, but decided that man’s life was important enough not to act.

He was not afraid because he could have defended himself had it come to that easily. He would rather let him go. Having the justification to use deadly force does not mean a person should use deadly force.


Questioning The Concept

In light of two reports that have wrenched my heart, the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman, and the Daniel Adkins/Cordell Jude incidents, I see no need for either Daniel or Trayvon to have been shot.

Zimmerman should be held accountable for his deed. There should be a clause in the Stand Your Ground law that negates the law if the person claiming it purposely places him or herself in harm’s way--trying to be a superhero like in the movie Kick-Ass.

Zimmerman shot that boy trying to stand his ground, but Trayvon attacked that man trying to stand his ground.

So, whoever survived is justified?

Where is the line in the sand?

What if I decided to shot a police officer because he tried to arrest me? Have I a right to be unencumbered by shackles?

What if I shoot my neighbor because she accused my kid of stealing her kid's toy? On the other hand, what if she shoots me?!

In The Neighborhood

My wife was confronted by a neighbor who accused our children of stealing one of her kids’ video game machines.

I don't know what it is called. The woman confronted my wife on several occasions and my wife graciously explained that if one of our kids took the game we would surely fix the situation.

We interrogated our kids because we know that kids look innocent but are not always so--especially if your view of them is clouded by love and familiarity. We searched the house. We pleaded with, encouraged, threatened and listened to our kids.

Our kids told us that the neighbor kids left their game at our house once. I remember that situation and also remembered that one of our kids returned it to them. I also remember telling that neighbor kid not to bring electronics to our home again to avoid a situation.

Well, of course, I was not heeded. The game came up missing and my children, suspects. After a week of dutiful investigation, my wife and I concluded that the game must have been misplaced and we told the neighbor lady.

One of the kids of that family later went up to my oldest daughter while both were at a public park and slapped the taste out of my daughter's mouth--telling my daughter the slap represented the way she felt about the game she accused us of taking.

Being dutiful, my daughter came home and related the incident. Her mother told her not to fight, so instead, she told.

My wife confronted the mother of this girl. My wife said that the woman was loud and abrasive towards her, using profanity at and around her and in front of her own kids.

She suggested that my wife address her kids and tell them to stop fighting! My wife responded to this by stating that her purpose in telling the neighbor woman was so she could tell her own kids to stop the behavior as to prevent misunderstanding.

What if the neighbor woman felt attacked when my wife approached her about the slapping incident? I could be a widower!

All of this is because of a misunderstanding over a toy!

All of this because of a misunderstanding over a neighborhood kid!

There was a shooting because of a misunderstanding at a Taco Bell!

Hear the Lawyer Lionel Explain the Law

Clarify the Law

If Trayvon attacked Zimmerman while he stood on his porch, a surprise attack, that would be a reason to stand his ground. On a public property, a person snatches a purse; I could see that being a reasonable case--though letting the person go would save a life.

If you have the means to escape with property in hand, yet you decide to still kill a person in "self-defense" I say put him or her in jail. If you follow a person scaring the B-Joseph out of them and they attack you--Stalker!

At least Trayvon didn't just shoot him for following him, which could be construed as a justifiable stand your ground issue.

I do not believe in preemptive strikes. I believe in defensive returns. It is called being a good person. It is called being a good person who cares about others. It is called civil society.

When did it become wrong to care about people? The far Right does not care enough and the far Left cares too much!

© 2012 Rodric Johnson

State Your Mind

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Rodric29 profile image

      Rodric Johnson 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Thanks for this code. My wife is wanted to learn how to shoot a gun. I am getting ready to duck! I think this is a good thing for us to do because we don't own a gun and I come from a background where a gun was a come household item.

    • Rodric29 profile image

      Rodric Johnson 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      50 Caliber, I feel more safe when responsible people car weapons. I agree with you if I did not before. These cases have nothing to do with stand your ground.

      If Daniel or Trayvon would have defended themselves killing their attackers then stand your ground would apply.

    • 50 Caliber profile image

      50 Caliber 5 years ago from Arizona

      Rodric, my brother, I feel your points on this set of incidences, both wrong, Trayvon's was highly publicized by hate driven publicity for cash as well as political gain. I carry a 3 pack of pistols and a knife, but I also, even though I am an inactive Marine, have trained for a possible life changing event. I received a list from a man who trains civilians and his school is here in Arizona. I have also trained in other schools in other states. We are responsible for every shot we take with a gun. That is an important aspect that is taught.

      Gabe Suarez of Suarez International can be found by using a search engine of your choice. He sent this out in one of his letters that you can sign up to receive.

      Rules For The Gunman

      1). Don't carry the gun to make you a man. Carry because you are in fact a man.

      2). Always carry your gun regardless of social pressures

      3). If you can't physically carry a gun, always have a knife.

      4). Whenever you carry a gun, also carry a knife...and some spare ammunition.

      5). Carry the gun you can use best regardless of social fashion

      6). Make sure you are good with that gun through continual and obsessive practice

      7). Don't bluff or threaten with the gun. If you pull it, be certain you are justified and willing to use it.

      8). Using it means shooting the other man or men in the chest and/or the face. Yes, it means killing.

      9). If you can avoid having to shoot, it is a good thing, but do not second guess yourself once it has begun.

      11). To facilitate the former, do not go to stupid places with stupid people to do stupid things at stupid times.

      12). If you are involved in such activities, take a team with you....and rifles.

      13). The default should be to mind your own business.

      14). The only time minding your own business is superseded by getting involved is if what you see shocks the conscience of humanity and needs to be stopped.

      15). The amount of violence you can justify and the number of rules you can break is directly proportionate to the level of evil displayed by your adversary.

      16). Never apologize for using violence. Not only is it indicative of weakness but also of a lack of moral standing.

      Again, the above was from Gabe Suarez international.

      I have my thoughts on this in both cases had I been on scene. My moral compass would have been shocked when the young man walking his dog was shot, my response would have been proportionate, with first aide my priority after the scene was secure, meaning the shooter being incapable of shooting me while I tried to save a life.

      Item 11. describes Zimmerman's situation, I would never agree to patrol a neighborhood as the "guardian" for those unwilling to secure their own lives and homes. His doing so will ruin his life forever, making it a stupid thing to do.

      The law in question has no effective application in either case.

      just my opinion, thanks,


    • Rodric29 profile image

      Rodric Johnson 5 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Thanks for reviewing this article and leaving a comment Carterchas. I agree with you about Zimmerman. He was not fairly treated with equal protection under the law before he was charged though. I don't care if it was in his heart to kill Trayvon, his name had not business being out as accuser. How can he get a fair trial now when no charges were made officially but the public has already vilified him. There will be extreme prejudice going into this case from all sides. His name should have been held safe until the DA finally charged him. He should not even have been listed as a suspect for media to capture his name. His rights are compromised and I think his case should be thrown out.

    • carterchas profile image

      carterchas 5 years ago from Texas

      I agree. The law should not protect someone who incites the attack.

      I think the charge in Florida makes sense. In Texas, I believe the charge could be murder because he could be charged with failure to obey a lawful order of a peace officer.

      I don't think that Zimmerman set out to kill Martin. I think that carrying that gun enboldened him to behavior he should have avoided.

      The sad thing is that both people have had their lives destroyed. Martin's by being killed, and Zimmerman's because he will never be able to live a normal life in peace; he will forever be marked as the man who gunned down an unarmed 17 year old boy.