Violence Against Women and Stand Your Ground

BTW - The clear intent of someone purchasing a firearm to protect themselves in their own home should be recognized as self-defense. If the abusive individual had not attempted to assault the person who bought the firearm for protection, there would be no need for its use. Unfortunately, because the justice system is largely controlled by unsympathetic, or outright inadequate, men, charges are more likely to be framed as premeditated murder rather than legitimate self-defense.

Gospel said:

BTW - The clear intent of someone purchasing a firearm to protect themselves in their own home should be recognized as self-defense. If the abusive individual had not attempted to assault the person who bought the firearm for protection, there would be no need for its use. Unfortunately, because the justice system is largely controlled by unsympathetic, or outright inadequate, men, charges are more likely to be framed as premeditated murder rather than legitimate self-defense.

Click to expand...

If you purchase a gun for self-defence and keep it at home aren't you just giving the abuser another tool to use? I do not understand the logic.

Tigers! said:

Gospel said:

BTW - The clear intent of someone purchasing a firearm to protect themselves in their own home should be recognized as self-defense. If the abusive individual had not attempted to assault the person who bought the firearm for protection, there would be no need for its use. Unfortunately, because the justice system is largely controlled by unsympathetic, or outright inadequate, men, charges are more likely to be framed as premeditated murder rather than legitimate self-defense.

Click to expand...

If you purchase a gun for self-defence and keep it at home aren't you just giving the abuser another tool to use? I do not understand the logic.

Click to expand...

How does that apply to the argument I've made?

Gospel said:

Loren Pechtel said:

Gospel said:

TSwizzle said:

Because that is going to be very difficult to draw up.

Click to expand...

It’s not that difficult. I didn’t even graduate high school and still came close to understanding what’s needed. I can’t imagine experienced legal professionals, like attorneys and lawmakers, doing worse than me. Just because you might not have the knowledge or skill to successfully draft legislation doesn’t mean the rest of the legal experts out there are in the same boat.

Click to expand...

The problem is that it's a situation where it's very hard to draw the line. This isn't a matter of legal wording, it's a matter of a definition better than I know it when I see it.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that after decades of handling abuse cases, courts, along with trained professionals like forensic psychologists, social workers, and domestic violence experts, still can't recognize or determine what abuse looks like? With the vast experience in the legal system, from family courts to criminal courts, and the contributions of professionals in these fields, are you implying that there’s no expertise available to help codify new laws that would better protect abuse victims?

Click to expand...

If you had a perfect picture of what happened there wouldn't be a problem.

Loren Pechtel said:

Gospel said:

Loren Pechtel said:

Gospel said:

TSwizzle said:

Because that is going to be very difficult to draw up.

Click to expand...

It’s not that difficult. I didn’t even graduate high school and still came close to understanding what’s needed. I can’t imagine experienced legal professionals, like attorneys and lawmakers, doing worse than me. Just because you might not have the knowledge or skill to successfully draft legislation doesn’t mean the rest of the legal experts out there are in the same boat.

Click to expand...

The problem is that it's a situation where it's very hard to draw the line. This isn't a matter of legal wording, it's a matter of a definition better than I know it when I see it.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that after decades of handling abuse cases, courts, along with trained professionals like forensic psychologists, social workers, and domestic violence experts, still can't recognize or determine what abuse looks like? With the vast experience in the legal system, from family courts to criminal courts, and the contributions of professionals in these fields, are you implying that there’s no expertise available to help codify new laws that would better protect abuse victims?

Click to expand...

If you had a perfect picture of what happened there wouldn't be a problem.

Click to expand...

Or perhaps no one truly considered adding laws to protect victims of abuse from being prosecuted for acts that are essentially self-defense, and now we find ourselves at another pivotal moment in the evolution of the law.

Historically, progress has been gradual: in the 19th century, domestic violence laws were sporadic and rarely enforced, as abuse was largely seen as a private matter. In 1871, a landmark case in Alabama (Fulgham v. State) challenged the idea that a man could physically discipline his wife. By the 1960s and 1970s, the modern movement against domestic violence took shape, leading to laws that specifically criminalized it. This culminated in the 1994 passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which provided significant federal protections and resources for victims.

What do you have to support your 'IT'S ALL TOO COMPLICATED' claim?

Gospel said:

Loren Pechtel said:

Gospel said:

TSwizzle said:

Because that is going to be very difficult to draw up.

Click to expand...

It’s not that difficult. I didn’t even graduate high school and still came close to understanding what’s needed. I can’t imagine experienced legal professionals, like attorneys and lawmakers, doing worse than me. Just because you might not have the knowledge or skill to successfully draft legislation doesn’t mean the rest of the legal experts out there are in the same boat.

Click to expand...

The problem is that it's a situation where it's very hard to draw the line. This isn't a matter of legal wording, it's a matter of a definition better than I know it when I see it.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that after decades of handling abuse cases, courts, along with trained professionals like forensic psychologists, social workers, and domestic violence experts, still can't recognize or determine what abuse looks like? With the vast experience in the legal system, from family courts to criminal courts, and the contributions of professionals in these fields, are you implying that there’s no expertise available to help codify new laws that would better protect abuse victims?

Click to expand...

The problem is they have to work with only one side of the story in such cases.

Loren Pechtel said:

Gospel said:

Loren Pechtel said:

Gospel said:

TSwizzle said:

Because that is going to be very difficult to draw up.

Click to expand...

It’s not that difficult. I didn’t even graduate high school and still came close to understanding what’s needed. I can’t imagine experienced legal professionals, like attorneys and lawmakers, doing worse than me. Just because you might not have the knowledge or skill to successfully draft legislation doesn’t mean the rest of the legal experts out there are in the same boat.

Click to expand...

The problem is that it's a situation where it's very hard to draw the line. This isn't a matter of legal wording, it's a matter of a definition better than I know it when I see it.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that after decades of handling abuse cases, courts, along with trained professionals like forensic psychologists, social workers, and domestic violence experts, still can't recognize or determine what abuse looks like? With the vast experience in the legal system, from family courts to criminal courts, and the contributions of professionals in these fields, are you implying that there’s no expertise available to help codify new laws that would better protect abuse victims?

Click to expand...

The problem is they have to work with only one side of the story in such cases.

Click to expand...

The same applies to self-defense cases, but I’ve never seen you demand the abolition of arguing self-defense in court. Not once. Yet now, when we're simply considering giving abuse victims those same rights, suddenly 'a dead person can't testify' becomes an issue? Are you arguing against self defense laws? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Look, I understand the debate over what constitutes 'imminent' versus 'immediate' threats, but what you just said comes across as opposing self-defense altogether

Loren Pechtel said:

Gospel said:

Loren Pechtel said:

Gospel said:

TSwizzle said:

Because that is going to be very difficult to draw up.

Click to expand...

It’s not that difficult. I didn’t even graduate high school and still came close to understanding what’s needed. I can’t imagine experienced legal professionals, like attorneys and lawmakers, doing worse than me. Just because you might not have the knowledge or skill to successfully draft legislation doesn’t mean the rest of the legal experts out there are in the same boat.

Click to expand...

The problem is that it's a situation where it's very hard to draw the line. This isn't a matter of legal wording, it's a matter of a definition better than I know it when I see it.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that after decades of handling abuse cases, courts, along with trained professionals like forensic psychologists, social workers, and domestic violence experts, still can't recognize or determine what abuse looks like? With the vast experience in the legal system, from family courts to criminal courts, and the contributions of professionals in these fields, are you implying that there’s no expertise available to help codify new laws that would better protect abuse victims?

Click to expand...

The problem is they have to work with only one side of the story in such cases.

Click to expand...

I don't understand. When a murder victim is discovered, they only have one side of the story, right? The victim cannot speak for him/herself, right? In such cases what usually happens is something called an investigation. Police gather evidence such as blood and skin cells, document injuries, look to see if victim or suspect was under the influence of some sort of drugs (prescribed or illegal) or alcohol, etc. Time of death, exact cause of death, where the suspect was when the fatal injury occurred, etc.

But of course you know that.

No one is suggesting that a person should be able to kill another person and then argue that it was self defense because the dead person had abused them in the past and that reason is just accepted as fact.

It should be obvious to everyone that an investigation is necessary before determining whether charges or warranted and what those charges should be, as well as guilt or innocence--whether or not the killing was justifiable homicide or something warranting criminal charges. Physical evidence, documented history of injuries due to abuse, witnesses, etc. would all be conducted as in the case of any other death. In fact, in some states, any unattended death is investigated as a potential crime.

Gospel said:

Loren Pechtel said:

Gospel said:

Loren Pechtel said:

Gospel said:

TSwizzle said:

Because that is going to be very difficult to draw up.

Click to expand...

It’s not that difficult. I didn’t even graduate high school and still came close to understanding what’s needed. I can’t imagine experienced legal professionals, like attorneys and lawmakers, doing worse than me. Just because you might not have the knowledge or skill to successfully draft legislation doesn’t mean the rest of the legal experts out there are in the same boat.

Click to expand...

The problem is that it's a situation where it's very hard to draw the line. This isn't a matter of legal wording, it's a matter of a definition better than I know it when I see it.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that after decades of handling abuse cases, courts, along with trained professionals like forensic psychologists, social workers, and domestic violence experts, still can't recognize or determine what abuse looks like? With the vast experience in the legal system, from family courts to criminal courts, and the contributions of professionals in these fields, are you implying that there’s no expertise available to help codify new laws that would better protect abuse victims?

Click to expand...

The problem is they have to work with only one side of the story in such cases.

Click to expand...

The same applies to self-defense cases, but I’ve never seen you demand the abolition of arguing self-defense in court. Not once. Yet now, when we're simply considering giving abuse victims those same rights, suddenly 'a dead person can't testify' becomes an issue? Are you arguing against self defense laws? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Look, I understand the debate over what constitutes 'imminent' versus 'immediate' threats, but what you just said comes across as opposing self-defense altogether

Click to expand...

Only where the person availing themselves of self defense is female...

Shadowy Man said:

Loren Pechtel said:

Zimmerman was clearly intending to bring the police, not fight the guy.

Click to expand...

but the police told him not to follow or approach the guy. The fact that he didn’t do what the police said negates your assertion of his “clear intent”.

Click to expand...

No. You are establishing that he's an idiot--but that's something that I see no dispute over.

Gospel said:

Loren Pechtel said:

If you had a perfect picture of what happened there wouldn't be a problem.

Click to expand...

Or perhaps no one truly considered adding laws to protect victims of abuse from being prosecuted for acts that are essentially self-defense, and now we find ourselves at another pivotal moment in the evolution of the law.

Historically, progress has been gradual: in the 19th century, domestic violence laws were sporadic and rarely enforced, as abuse was largely seen as a private matter. In 1871, a landmark case in Alabama (Fulgham v. State) challenged the idea that a man could physically discipline his wife. By the 1960s and 1970s, the modern movement against domestic violence took shape, leading to laws that specifically criminalized it. This culminated in the 1994 passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which provided significant federal protections and resources for victims.

What do you have to support your 'IT'S ALL TOO COMPLICATED' claim?

Click to expand...

I agree with the basic concept that an abuse victim who believes there is no long term escape short of killing their abuser should be considered self defense. The problem I have is with how to prove this. As it stands now the prosecution must prove it wasn't self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. (Which is why Rittenhouse was acquitted.) I'm having a hard time seeing how in most cases the prosecution could disprove the claim of no lasting escape.

Loren Pechtel said:

Shadowy Man said:

Loren Pechtel said:

Zimmerman was clearly intending to bring the police, not fight the guy.

Click to expand...

but the police told him not to follow or approach the guy. The fact that he didn’t do what the police said negates your assertion of his “clear intent”.

Click to expand...

No. You are establishing that he's an idiot--but that's something that I see no dispute over.

Click to expand...

You implied something about his intent. Something you couldn’t possibly know without being in his head. I am showing evidence that you are likely wrong about his intent. I know you disagree but that’s just your opinion, no more inherently valid or correct than my own.

Given that he called the police and then defied what the police told him to do I believe that it is incorrect that his intent was to “clearly” to just bring the matter to the attention of the police. He could have let the police handle it as they said but I would say it was “clearly” more likely he wanted a confrontation.

Toni said:

It should be obvious to everyone that an investigation is necessary before determining whether charges or warranted and what those charges should be, as well as guilt or innocence--whether or not the killing was justifiable homicide or something warranting criminal charges. Physical evidence, documented history of injuries due to abuse, witnesses, etc. would all be conducted as in the case of any other death. In fact, in some states, any unattended death is investigated as a potential crime.

Click to expand...

Exactly! And all I’m arguing for is to give victims the opportunity to present a self-defense argument in court. Right now, many victims are immediately charged with murder, involuntary manslaughter, or other crimes without the chance to argue that their actions were in self-defense due to circumstances not covered by current self-defense laws. I’m not asking to bypass investigations—those are necessary—but victims of prolonged abuse deserve the same right to defend their actions in court, just as anyone else claiming self-defense. Because they face unique challenges that aren't adequately addressed by current self-defense standards.

Imagine if no one could argue self-defense in court and were only allowed to defend themselves against the charges brought forward by the prosecutor. Every time someone acted in self-defense, whether they were defending their home from an intruder or protecting themselves from immediate harm, they’d have no opportunity to present their side of the story. Instead, the entire case would hinge on how the prosecutor chose to frame the incident. Without the ability to claim self-defense, someone who legitimately acted to save their life could be automatically charged with murder or manslaughter, and their actions would be judged without the context of their own life-threatening situation.

Take a case where a homeowner shoots an armed intruder in their home. Without the option of arguing self-defense, the homeowner would be charged with homicide. The prosecution would build a case for murder or manslaughter, but the homeowner without the ability to assert a legal defense like self-defense, the scope of their defense may be limited. Without self-defense, what is there to argue in favor of defendants? I shot the sheriff but I didn't shoot the deputy?

Abusive victims often face significant legal challenges and may end up defending themselves against serious charges (like murder or manslaughter) without the ability to effectively present their circumstances as self-defense in court. They are left to argue within the confines of the charges brought against them, rather than having a clear and direct legal defense rooted in the abusive context that led to their actions.

The jury would be focused solely on determining whether the defendant committed the act without considering the justification for it. This would make it more difficult for the jury to fully understand the context, and could lead to an unjust outcome where the reason for the defendant's actions is not adequately taken into account. The Jury would primarily weigh whether the prosecution has met its burden of proving the defendant committed the act and whether said act fit the charges. They would not be reviewing anything related to self defense because it simply doesn't exist.

Loren Pechtel said:

Gospel said:

Loren Pechtel said:

If you had a perfect picture of what happened there wouldn't be a problem.

Click to expand...

Or perhaps no one truly considered adding laws to protect victims of abuse from being prosecuted for acts that are essentially self-defense, and now we find ourselves at another pivotal moment in the evolution of the law.

Historically, progress has been gradual: in the 19th century, domestic violence laws were sporadic and rarely enforced, as abuse was largely seen as a private matter. In 1871, a landmark case in Alabama (Fulgham v. State) challenged the idea that a man could physically discipline his wife. By the 1960s and 1970s, the modern movement against domestic violence took shape, leading to laws that specifically criminalized it. This culminated in the 1994 passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which provided significant federal protections and resources for victims.

What do you have to support your 'IT'S ALL TOO COMPLICATED' claim?

Click to expand...

I agree with the basic concept that an abuse victim who believes there is no long term escape short of killing their abuser should be considered self defense. The problem I have is with how to prove this. As it stands now the prosecution must prove it wasn't self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. (Which is why Rittenhouse was acquitted.) I'm having a hard time seeing how in most cases the prosecution could disprove the claim of no lasting escape.

Click to expand...

I Agree. However, before self-defense laws were codified, homicide was often treated harshly, and the use of lethal force in self-defense was not automatically excused. Many legal systems required defendants to prove that there was no other way to avoid the situation, often putting the burden on the accused. Over time, legal systems recognized the need for clearer rules to protect individuals acting in self-defense, particularly as societal views on personal rights and property protection evolved. We as men are in the 19th (Edit & 21st) century where laws have evolved while abuse victims are still under medieval Europe laws. There is sufficient case evidence and data available to advance legal protections for abuse victims beyond medieval Europe.

Loren Pechtel said:

Shadowy Man said:

Loren Pechtel said:

Zimmerman was clearly intending to bring the police, not fight the guy.

Click to expand...

but the police told him not to follow or approach the guy. The fact that he didn’t do what the police said negates your assertion of his “clear intent”.

Click to expand...

No. You are establishing that he's an idiot--but that's something that I see no dispute over.

Click to expand...

It also establishes that he is a murderer, which is clear to most people who actually look at the evidence, instead of having an irrational compulsion to defend Zimmerman.

It seems the Menendez brothers situation is apropos to this thread.

Shadowy Man said:

Loren Pechtel said:

Shadowy Man said:

Loren Pechtel said:

Zimmerman was clearly intending to bring the police, not fight the guy.

Click to expand...

but the police told him not to follow or approach the guy. The fact that he didn’t do what the police said negates your assertion of his “clear intent”.

Click to expand...

No. You are establishing that he's an idiot--but that's something that I see no dispute over.

Click to expand...

You implied something about his intent. Something you couldn’t possibly know without being in his head. I am showing evidence that you are likely wrong about his intent. I know you disagree but that’s just your opinion, no more inherently valid or correct than my own.

Given that he called the police and then defied what the police told him to do I believe that it is incorrect that his intent was to “clearly” to just bring the matter to the attention of the police. He could have let the police handle it as they said but I would say it was “clearly” more likely he wanted a confrontation.

Click to expand...

His stated action was following. I see nothing to suggest he did anything more than that until he was jumped.

Gospel said:

Toni said:

It should be obvious to everyone that an investigation is necessary before determining whether charges or warranted and what those charges should be, as well as guilt or innocence--whether or not the killing was justifiable homicide or something warranting criminal charges. Physical evidence, documented history of injuries due to abuse, witnesses, etc. would all be conducted as in the case of any other death. In fact, in some states, any unattended death is investigated as a potential crime.

Click to expand...

Exactly! And all I’m arguing for is to give victims the opportunity to present a self-defense argument in court. Right now, many victims are immediately charged with murder, involuntary manslaughter, or other crimes without the chance to argue that their actions were in self-defense due to circumstances not covered by current self-defense laws. I’m not asking to bypass investigations—those are necessary—but victims of prolonged abuse deserve the same right to defend their actions in court, just as anyone else claiming self-defense. Because they face unique challenges that aren't adequately addressed by current self-defense standards.

Click to expand...

The first step must be to define what situations should be covered. Vague laws are a bad thing.

Gospel said:

The jury would be focused solely on determining whether the defendant committed the act without considering the justification for it. This would make it more difficult for the jury to fully understand the context, and could lead to an unjust outcome where the reason for the defendant's actions is not adequately taken into account. The Jury would primarily weigh whether the prosecution has met its burden of proving the defendant committed the act and whether said act fit the charges. They would not be reviewing anything related to self defense because it simply doesn't exist.

Click to expand...

The jury is asked whether the elements of the described crime happened, not what should be a crime. (Although there is jury nullification.)

While I agree with your concept here I think you're skipping steps.

Loren Pechtel said:

His stated action was following. I see nothing to suggest he did anything more than that until he was jumped.

Click to expand...

He was told not to follow by the police. And there’s no evidence of what happened, including whether he was jumped or instigated the encounter himself, because he killed the other potential witness.

Shadowy Man said:

Loren Pechtel said:

His stated action was following. I see nothing to suggest he did anything more than that until he was jumped.

Click to expand...

He was told not to follow by the police. And there’s no evidence of what happened, including whether he was jumped or instigated the encounter himself, because he killed the other potential witness.

Click to expand...

I don't expect Loren to remember the evidence we discussed at length in the Dying for Skittles thread, but Zimmerman's self serving lies about being ambushed were debunked long ago.

Zimmerman's most avid supporters cannot bring themselves to admit that Martin had a Right under Florida law to Stand His Ground when confronted by a thug who pursued and assaulted him, much like women are being denied the same Right when facing threats from the partners and ex-partners who imperil their lives. At the very least it's anecdotal evidence the OP is correct. Self-defense laws were written for men and they fail women (and minorities) who need them.