Terrible affront to the Stand Your Ground Law in Oklahoma.
Jump to content
Our Courts are letting us down!
12 replies to this topic
Posted Jun. 15 2018 - 09:42 PM
That is a shame that it now forces individuals tk gonthrough the costly expenses of a trial to prove there was a case for imunity because the upper courts are to lazy to review it prior to a trial... they seem to have forgoten who the freak they work for...
Edited by hzhardy, Jun. 15 2018 - 09:42 PM.
Ill have those n*****s voting Democratic for the next 200 years. Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One -
Posted Jun. 15 2018 - 10:00 PM
I couldn't agree more, Homer. And to think, this is the most Conservative State in the Union!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!q Why are our courts not????????????????
Posted Jun. 16 2018 - 10:11 AM
Chris, I'm not saying it is a good thing,
but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I understand why the Court would have a problem with granting
immunity "between two residents of the same home", when one
This decision is very narrowly written, and you are still protected
from people you are not supposed to be in your home, are guests,
etc. I can understand the Court's hesitancy in granting immunity in these
cohabitating situations, when what the law basically does is ask the Court to be
a finder of fact in a much more complex and nuanced potential criminal situation.
IMO, what the Court is saying we are bot comfy in granting immunity under this law
when it involves a man and wife (etc) living together, with no Orders of Protection,
no reports of domestic violence, and so on.
You still have a good hold your ground law IMO.
The High Court wants to be sure it is not enticing husbands and wifes to start killing each ohter
and then expect immunity for it under stand your ground.
If you have domestic problems, you just simply need to document them, and if your partner is a threat, file a police report,
and have him or her removed, or you find a different place to live.
I understand the Court's narrow ruling, and IMHO, it has not done much at all to effect the
vast number of cases where Stand Your Ground Immunity is asked for. Your stand your ground
law remains except for these narrow instances that the Court is not comfortable giving immunity,
and believes a full investigation, and possibly a trial with a Judge or Jury as afinder of fact
in these limited number of cases.
The days of going unarmed in America are over.
Shoot what you like; like what you shoot.
Posted Jun. 16 2018 - 10:38 AM
John, I'm not complaining about the new law in reference to the domestic abuse situation which brought it to fruition. I can understand why it was modified on the basis of that particular situation. What I'm worried about is how it might (probably will, in this day and age) be used in the "gray" areas of it to say I can't stand my ground in a self-defense situation. I fully understand my first responsibility is to take myself out of harms way as fast a possible. But there are times/situations where that just isn't possible. Example: I live out in the country. We have one of those little "country corner" stores that sells everything you don't want to drive 10 miles to town for. If I'm in the store getting a cup of coffee and some stupid pot-head comes in with a gun and threatens the cashier, I'm stuck inside a 30' x 30' structure with the gunman blocking the door. He's effectively threatening any and everyone in the store. If he points that gun in my direction, it will be the last thing he does.............period. But I want to feel reasonably assured I won't spend time in the pokey for my actions. I'm just afraid, with this new change in the law, that some defense attorney will delve into those gray areas and mess up what has been a very sensible law, in my opinion.
Posted Jun. 16 2018 - 10:47 PM
I don't live in your State, but in ready what the Court wrote, I don't think anything has changed unless you end up offing your spouse you have been
cohabiting with in peace, and then you ask for the amnesty afforded by this law. All the Court is saying, IMO, that in these narrow cases, they want a complete investigation, a Grand Jury, or an indictment if the DA fells it is appropriate, and the case to be heard by finders of fact. Or a Grand Jury could be seated, and you are released, or the DA could decide the Police Investigation indicates the use of lethal force was justified.
I see absolutely nothing that is going to affect your right to protect your Castle, or for you to defend yourself when an armed robber points a gun in your direction. I honestly do not believe you have any reason to be concerned that your Stand Your Ground Law has been weakened in any practicable way.
If you kill your spouse where there is reason to believe you may have committed premeditated murder, the Court has decided this is not an appropriate scenario to consider amnesty. This does not mean that the Police Investigation and the decision of the DA can not be one of justifiable homicide if that is what the facts bear out, the automatic amnesty is simply not going to kick in regarding these very specific set of circumstances. A Grand Jury could return with no True Bill. It does not mean you are going to trial. Yes, it is a burden to go through the investigative process, and even worse if you go to trial.
I don't know how to say it any better, so if you don't agree, that's fine. You live in the State. If you think the Court doing away with Stand your Ground amnesty for a wife killing her husband with no evidence it was self defense equates to you shooting an armed robber pointing a gun at you, it appears there is no way I am going to convince you otherwise.
Please keep us posted if the ruling ends up taking away amnesty from those appropriately using lethal force while standing their ground.
I will be very surprised if it does, but I have been wrong before. If I had your concerns, I would look at the case law the Appeals Court cited to support their ruling, get copies of those cases and rulings, and see if any of them involve the types of scenarios that you now feel this ruling now effects. What cases like you shooting an armed robber, or someone trying to break into your home were used in this ruling causes you to believe you are in jeopardy of being prosecuted instead of being protected by your Stand Your Ground Law by this ruling ? I believe your fears are unfounded, brother.
We shall have to agree to disagree, but it is your bacon you are concerned with, and that counts for a lot. You may also want to have a conversation with your local DA, or the ASA who handles this type of case, and get their reading on how this ruling affects the scenarios you are concerned with. I'll bet you a Dr. Pepper and a moon pie you will be pleasantly surprised.
Edited by Retcop, Jun. 16 2018 - 10:54 PM.
Posted Jun. 17 2018 - 07:38 AM
Thanks for your comments, John. I don't think I was arguing...........so it isn't really a "We shall have to agree to disagree" kind of thing. I was just voicing my opinion as I saw it. Your comments were helpful and you having been in Law Enforcement, so I'm inclined to agree with you. I was just shocked that U S Law Shield sent that article in an e-mail to me, worded in that way . Sounded pretty bleak the way it was put forward. We'll just have to wait, as you say, and see what the courts do with it.
Posted Jun. 17 2018 - 08:00 AM
The only thing I want to add is that when I use "arguing" in this context, it is not a negative thing.
I should have picked my words better and used "debate" or "discuss".
In this context, putting forth an "argument" for your position is totally different than two people arguing.
It essentially means making your case.
I hope that makes sense.
It's all good, brother.
I really hope I am right on this one, not for ego's sake, but for the people of Oklahoma.
I have some family there.
I sincerely hope you keep us informed if this decision ends up weakening your the SYG statute as a whole in the final analysis.
Posted Jun. 17 2018 - 08:07 AM
That's fine, John. It's all good. That's the one thing I hate the most about the Internet.....................even with emojis, it's impossible to see a persons face or read the tone of their voice. Face to face communication is still "king" for me. Even though I spend a lot of time in forums, I refuse to use Facebook, Twitter and any other social communication like them for that very reason.
As far as the subject we were discussing, I truly hope you are correct in your opinion. I'm just seeing too many times our gooberment (in OK as well as other states) makes a law or rule and then abuses it, turning it into something that's far from the initial intent of the law/rule. Gettin' pretty durned sick of it, too!
Edited by Chris645, Jun. 17 2018 - 08:08 AM.
Posted Jun. 17 2018 - 08:49 AM
I guess we are going to have to wait and see how the lower courts apply this precedence.
Posted Jun. 17 2018 - 09:49 AM
Exactly, Homer...........that's my concern.
Posted Jun. 17 2018 - 10:57 AM
I am the same way with communication, my friend.
I'm gonna resist repeating myself.
Do not hesitate to defend yourself when in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.
Posted Jun. 17 2018 - 11:02 AM
Thanks, John. I've never felt I would hesitate................just don't want to have to add the concern of going to prison on top of all the other decisions necessary to make in that fateful instant. Almost makes me wish I lived in the 1800's. "Shoot or hang them varmints and be done with it".
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users