Stand Your Ground

Off Topic
181

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I’ve been to New Jersey (Newark) and New York City in the last 3 weeks.

I felt comfortable in NYC when i was there. It was day time. A couple of the people in my group while walking were bumped into, but no one came close to trying to bump me. 6’5" 315 lbs. Everyone saw me coming.

Newark was a different place. The people there told us to get to our vans immediately. We had a group of about 120 people and had 8 vans to fill up. It was midnight and we were about a mile down the street from Seton Hall. It was a rough neighborhood. We made it out alright with no issues, but when people that live there tell you to get out quickly you listen.

I live in the 3rd-4th largest city in the US. Chicago and Houston change places. I also live near one of the roughest places in Houston and it is nothing compared to Newark (That place scared me, maybe because the people told me it was unsafe).

I like having my gun near me at night. I sleep better, but have never had to use it, but will not hesitate if someone comes in my house.

Castle Doctrine, Stand your Ground, and Self-Defense are 3 different legal matters. [/quote]

I’m almost tempted to say your gun would not protect you at all. At one time I worked in all those areas, I still go to some and have friends R.I.P. people all the time from there(literally R.i.p not kill them but make a shirts or a wall for someone that died yesterday or last week). I can say in almost all the cases the people never saw the bullet coming. If it was an argument the person came back later, if not it was someone else getting shot at and they got hit with a stray.

My point to all this is your gun would have little if any value in saving your life and would more likely get you shot.

182

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I’ve been to New Jersey (Newark) and New York City in the last 3 weeks.

I felt comfortable in NYC when i was there. It was day time. A couple of the people in my group while walking were bumped into, but no one came close to trying to bump me. 6’5" 315 lbs. Everyone saw me coming.

Newark was a different place. The people there told us to get to our vans immediately. We had a group of about 120 people and had 8 vans to fill up. It was midnight and we were about a mile down the street from Seton Hall. It was a rough neighborhood. We made it out alright with no issues, but when people that live there tell you to get out quickly you listen.

I live in the 3rd-4th largest city in the US. Chicago and Houston change places. I also live near one of the roughest places in Houston and it is nothing compared to Newark (That place scared me, maybe because the people told me it was unsafe).

I like having my gun near me at night. I sleep better, but have never had to use it, but will not hesitate if someone comes in my house.

Castle Doctrine, Stand your Ground, and Self-Defense are 3 different legal matters. [/quote]

I’m almost tempted to say your gun would not protect you at all. At one time I worked in all those areas, I still go to some and have friends R.I.P. people all the time from there(literally R.i.p not kill them but make a shirts or a wall for someone that died yesterday or last week). I can say in almost all the cases the people never saw the bullet coming. If it was an argument the person came back later, if not it was someone else getting shot at and they got hit with a stray.

My point to all this is your gun would have little if any value in saving your life and would more likely get you shot.
[/quote]

My house is a strategic advantage. Someone has to make it in my house which they would make noise all window and doors are on the alarm, and make it up to the third floor to get to me. I have 30 secs maybe more because they have no clue how to make it through my house and I have my gun right next to me and it takes less than 5 secs to get it. I have the advantage in this situation.

Outside on the street you have a good point and in Newark especially. That was the most vulnerable I have ever felt, and having 100-120 rich white teenagers that would not keep their mouths shut, screaming and yelling oblivious to the situation, and not going to the vans only made it worse.

183

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I’ve been to New Jersey (Newark) and New York City in the last 3 weeks.

I felt comfortable in NYC when i was there. It was day time. A couple of the people in my group while walking were bumped into, but no one came close to trying to bump me. 6’5" 315 lbs. Everyone saw me coming.

Newark was a different place. The people there told us to get to our vans immediately. We had a group of about 120 people and had 8 vans to fill up. It was midnight and we were about a mile down the street from Seton Hall. It was a rough neighborhood. We made it out alright with no issues, but when people that live there tell you to get out quickly you listen.

I live in the 3rd-4th largest city in the US. Chicago and Houston change places. I also live near one of the roughest places in Houston and it is nothing compared to Newark (That place scared me, maybe because the people told me it was unsafe).

I like having my gun near me at night. I sleep better, but have never had to use it, but will not hesitate if someone comes in my house.

Castle Doctrine, Stand your Ground, and Self-Defense are 3 different legal matters. [/quote]

I’m almost tempted to say your gun would not protect you at all. At one time I worked in all those areas, I still go to some and have friends R.I.P. people all the time from there(literally R.i.p not kill them but make a shirts or a wall for someone that died yesterday or last week). I can say in almost all the cases the people never saw the bullet coming. If it was an argument the person came back later, if not it was someone else getting shot at and they got hit with a stray.

My point to all this is your gun would have little if any value in saving your life and would more likely get you shot.
[/quote]

That is because you can not look at the gun as a “Do all” or “Fix all” type of thing. You do not buy a gun and think well now I can not be touched. You must, train, play out situations in your mind and actually TRY TO AVOID CONFLICT.

As a owner I am MORE carful of my actions than I was before I carried. And I grew up in East New York so I was cautious to start with. A gun does not excuse you from thinking. But I rather have and not need than need and not have.

184

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:
You are not permitted to shoot someone just because they are in your home, even if you were able to access your properly stored firearm and lock and load in time to do so. You need to be able to show that they posed a credible threat of grievous bodily injury or death to yourself or others in your home at the time that you shot them. [/quote]

I don’t know man, this one bothers me.

I don’t feel it is safe to hang around and ask the person breaking into your home what their intentions are. The only assumption that is 100% is they intend to do you harm, and to end the threat.

I’ve had more than one CO tell me that 9 times out of 10, the person breaking into your home is going to go through you if they have to in order to get what they want.

[/quote]

Agree. A reasonable person would feel for their life the instant someone broke into their home while they were inside. The first reaction is “this person is here to abduct/rape/kill/harm my children.” Nobody breaks into someone’s home to bake them a cake. [/quote]

Well, like I said in my post, I personally know no fewer than 5 people who have inadvertently ended up in someone else’ house. Most of them were drunk off their ass. 2 thought they were paying a surprise visit to a relative who had moved. I also wouldn’t doubt that my grandma wandered in a few places when she had Alzheimer’s. On the other hand, I personally know no one who has been the victim of a violent crime in their home (with the exception of one or two of my shadier acquaintances). These are not statistics, just my experience.

This is not meant to imply that home invasions don’t happen, far from it. I also don’t mean to suggest that a person shouldn’t have the right to defend their home. I absolutely believe they should. My point is that there are ways a stranger can end up in your house that don’t necessitate killing them and in my experience these ways are at least as likely as situations where you do need to use lethal force.

Had the home owners opted to “execute with extreme prejudice” any of my misguided friends or relatives, as was suggested elsewhere in this thread it would have been a bad day for everyone even if it was a “clean shoot” legally. Absolutely no harm was intended by any of them. I know that many people advocate shooting from ambush and using your superior knowledge of the layout of your home to your advantage for home defense. This is probably very tactically sound. Depending on where live it might be completely justified. However, I’d find personally find it difficult to live with if I blasted my drunk 19 year old neighbour while he was stumbling around my living room drunk…

185

[quote]Hell-Billy wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

You are not permitted to shoot someone just because they are in your home, even if you were able to access your properly stored firearm and lock and load in time to do so. You need to be able to show that they posed a credible threat of grievous bodily injury or death to yourself or others in your home at the time that you shot them.

[/quote]

While i am unsure of Canadian storage laws, and i understand the need to keep firearms locked out of the reach of children and increasing the difficulty of there theft. It is generally a bad idea to keep them all locked away and useless, for self defense purposes you always need to have a firearm in your personal control. Personally i always keep mine either on my hip, ankle, or on a holster rigged to my bed while im sleeping.[/quote]

Yep, gotta store 'em locked up and unloaded. Different standards for different categories of firearms. I won’t bore you with the details. Not conducive to launching an immediate armed response at all. I said I liked our use of force laws, no comment on our firearms laws.

186

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

Please take a look at the crime statistics for the blue states and liberal run cities and get back to me. Where gun control is always heavy. So, yes those states have a higher concentration of criminals. If I were a criminal, I would go where I am going to be protected by the courts at every turn. General common sense there.
[/quote]

Well since you asked I went ahead and took the liberty to inject some facts into this conversation.

Source: http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html
2006 State Rankings - Violent Crimes (murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault…basically things you are discussing as allowable for a stand your ground defense) per 100,000 Population

Though I’m sure you will find SOMETHING to complain about here…but don’t waste your breathe complaining to me, I won’t be posting here again.

[quote]Bauber wrote:

Good keep all the criminals up there too. We enjoy your states being infested with them, so they don’t come here.[/quote]

lulz[/quote]

That is interesting. I know NH is very pro-liberty with their gun laws. I am under the impression VT and ME are as well, particularly given the “blue state” status. (I also know a lot of the Northern NH folks complain that it is all the people from MA moving up that make it a blue state… No idea if that is true.)

*Disclaimer: I know gun laws are only a portion of the equation in looking at violent crime rates, just found it interesting that most of the states listed in that graphic are pretty much on the citizen’s side when it comes to the 2nd. That said, Stalin was pro-gun compared to MA.

187

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I’ve been to New Jersey (Newark) and New York City in the last 3 weeks.

I felt comfortable in NYC when i was there. It was day time. A couple of the people in my group while walking were bumped into, but no one came close to trying to bump me. 6’5" 315 lbs. Everyone saw me coming.

Newark was a different place. The people there told us to get to our vans immediately. We had a group of about 120 people and had 8 vans to fill up. It was midnight and we were about a mile down the street from Seton Hall. It was a rough neighborhood. We made it out alright with no issues, but when people that live there tell you to get out quickly you listen.

I live in the 3rd-4th largest city in the US. Chicago and Houston change places. I also live near one of the roughest places in Houston and it is nothing compared to Newark (That place scared me, maybe because the people told me it was unsafe).

I like having my gun near me at night. I sleep better, but have never had to use it, but will not hesitate if someone comes in my house.

Castle Doctrine, Stand your Ground, and Self-Defense are 3 different legal matters. [/quote]

I’m almost tempted to say your gun would not protect you at all. At one time I worked in all those areas, I still go to some and have friends R.I.P. people all the time from there(literally R.i.p not kill them but make a shirts or a wall for someone that died yesterday or last week). I can say in almost all the cases the people never saw the bullet coming. If it was an argument the person came back later, if not it was someone else getting shot at and they got hit with a stray.

My point to all this is your gun would have little if any value in saving your life and would more likely get you shot.
[/quote]
I lived in Newark for a few years. A gun doesn’t mean anything as it’s all about situations and circumstance. There are people who will walk up behind you and shoot you in the head. No gun or fighting skills will matter. You are walking somewhere and approaching someone. He may already be planning on pulling a gun. He has the tactical advantage as you have to wait for him to make his move (assuming you are carrying). There are some pro gun rights people who think Zimmerman’s case proves how effective a gun is for self-defense.

It proves the opposite. Zimmerman was only able to use his gun effectively because he was in a fight with someone who did not outweigh him, was a kid, and had no fighting skills. The majority of violent criminals, and I’m not saying Trayvon was or wasn’t one as we only have one side of things, would have ended up with Zimmerman’s gun and shot him or, they would have shot him with their own gun as apparently Trayvon got the drop on Zimmerman.

Given Zimmerman’s lack of self defense ability or backbone I would think the average adult (imagine if it was just a big guy or someone with some training) would have gotten the better of him in a fight. The point being that if you carry a gun you should have an understanding about weapons retention and tactical awareness. Don’t put yourself in a situation in which your own gun can get used against you. It happens to cops and they are trained to not have that happen.

188

Guys, again, this isn’t the Zimmerman thread. Take your grievances up in that thread.

189

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

Well I would go with statistics from crime per person. Obviously you can’t compare gross numbers… Geez.

[/quote]

Doesn’t Florida have strong stand your ground laws? Those are working out great. Hold on, is a higher number good or bad???[/quote]

Seems they are half of D.C.'s which does not have them… If people opt not to stand their ground, it’s their right.[/quote]

50% of DC’s, but 600% of Maine’s which also does not have them…
[/quote]

Maine? Maine has 1/600th the population of Florida. Rural areas tend to have less crime. Looking at the stats, gun laws either way do not correlate with the amount of crime. So I don’t think either side has an argument there on a large scale. You would actually have to parse down the crime rates with where the guns actually are or are not to make the connection. Entire states have to many factors. Often crime is concentrated in small areas of the larger land mass heavily skewing the states en masse.
Like NM seems to have a lot of crime issues, but I bet balls on nuts most of it is concentrated on the border.
If you are trying to make an argument to or fro, these stats are 100% useless to you. They show nothing.[/quote]

LOL like I said, someone will always try to explain away the data that doesn’t agree with their opinions…I find it particularly hilarious you talk about the population of Maine, but one post before it you were talking about the crime rate in DC, a CITY (not a state) with a mere 600,000 residents.

[/quote]

You brought it up, I found the D.C.'s numbers quite staggering in comparison. Besides your the one that brought up the data that does not substantiate your claims. When I looked at the data closer, I realized it doesn’t substantiate any claims. No conclusion regarding guns and crime can be drawn on the statistics you provided as proof for your claim. There is no proof in those stats. The only conclusion that can be drawn based on those stats is that D.C. is the most dangerous place in the country when it comes to major crimes. No correlations can be drawn though.

190

ARTICLE 7. JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE; EXONERATION

(720 ILCS 5/7 1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7 1)
Sec. 7 1. Use of force in defense of person.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.
(b - In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7 4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.

(Source: P.A. 93 832, eff. 7 28 04.)

(720 ILCS 5/7 2) (from Ch. 38, par. 7 2)
Sec. 7 2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
    (1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent,
 riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or

    (2) He reasonably believes that such force is
 necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

( b - In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of “aggressor” set forth in Section 7 4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93 832, eff. 7 28 04.)

(720 ILCS 5/7 3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7 3)
Sec. 7 3. Use of force in defense of other property.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(b - In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7 4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.

(Source: P.A. 93 832, eff. 7 28 04.)

Some interesting aspects of IL law:

You don’t have to let the aggressor take the first shot. If you think an attack is imminent, you can use force to defend yourself or another. However, you can use deadly force only if you think death or grave bodily injury is imminent or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. A forcible felony is defined as: “Forcible felony” means treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnapping, kidnapping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

Illinois legally protects the defender from suits brought by the aggressor or others associated with the aggressor. This is a huge point in favor of IL law, which doesn’t have Stand Your Ground of Castle Doctrine laws on it’s book - or at least, not by those names.

You can beat up someone entering your house, however, you can only use deadly force if they enter in a “violent,
riotous, or tumultuous manner” and you believe they are going to assault someone in the house. So, some drunk neighbor who walks in through an unlocked door…can’t kill 'em.

The only time you can use deadly force to defend property is in the case of aggravated arson, however, if someone tries to mug you or steal your shit, you can beat the crap out of them. Just keep the blows below the shoulders if you’ve got a bat.

IL protects your right to legally defend your property as well.

All in all, I think IL is spot on. I think the legal indemnifications they offer makes IL statute better than many other states that have SYG or CD laws on their books.

191

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

Please take a look at the crime statistics for the blue states and liberal run cities and get back to me. Where gun control is always heavy. So, yes those states have a higher concentration of criminals. If I were a criminal, I would go where I am going to be protected by the courts at every turn. General common sense there.
[/quote]

Well since you asked I went ahead and took the liberty to inject some facts into this conversation.

Source: http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html
2006 State Rankings - Violent Crimes (murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault…basically things you are discussing as allowable for a stand your ground defense) per 100,000 Population

Though I’m sure you will find SOMETHING to complain about here…but don’t waste your breathe complaining to me, I won’t be posting here again.

[quote]Bauber wrote:

Good keep all the criminals up there too. We enjoy your states being infested with them, so they don’t come here.[/quote]

lulz[/quote]

That is interesting. I know NH is very pro-liberty with their gun laws. I am under the impression VT and ME are as well, particularly given the “blue state” status. (I also know a lot of the Northern NH folks complain that it is all the people from MA moving up that make it a blue state… No idea if that is true.)

*Disclaimer: I know gun laws are only a portion of the equation in looking at violent crime rates, just found it interesting that most of the states listed in that graphic are pretty much on the citizen’s side when it comes to the 2nd. That said, Stalin was pro-gun compared to MA. [/quote]

Gun laws give law abiding citizens the chance to defend themselves in situations where other states do not give citizens of the same stature the same chance.

Keep in mind that gun ownership is an actual constitutionally protected right, not a privilege, not for some elevated citizen status, a right afforded to every American. These states infringing on these rights can be constitutionally challenged and when they are, many of those laws would fold.

A gun may not protect you, but it does protect me. You must do what you deem necessary to protect yourself.

194

[quote]pat wrote:

Besides your the one that brought up the data that does not substantiate your claims. When I looked at the data closer, I realized it doesn’t substantiate any claims. No conclusion regarding guns and crime can be drawn on the statistics you provided as proof for your claim. There is no proof in those stats. The only conclusion that can be drawn based on those stats is that D.C. is the most dangerous place in the country when it comes to major crimes. No correlations can be drawn though.[/quote]

LOLOL you really aren’t too bright are you? The reason it doesn’t substantiate my claims is, wait for it, I DIDNT MAKE ANY CLAIMS!!! Seriously dude you either have me confused with someone else or have a serious reading impediment.

Dude made a claim that blue states have all the criminals and high crime rates (it was quoted verbatim) and red states dont, when it is shown that of the Top 5 and Bottom 5 states in regards to violent crime, blue states have less and red states have more. I even threw you a bone by not omiting the DC statistics since we were talking about “STATES” here, of which DC ain’t. Seriously dude I don’t know who you think you are arguing against but I don’t have a horse in this race.

195

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Besides your the one that brought up the data that does not substantiate your claims. When I looked at the data closer, I realized it doesn’t substantiate any claims. No conclusion regarding guns and crime can be drawn on the statistics you provided as proof for your claim. There is no proof in those stats. The only conclusion that can be drawn based on those stats is that D.C. is the most dangerous place in the country when it comes to major crimes. No correlations can be drawn though.[/quote]

LOLOL you really aren’t too bright are you? The reason it doesn’t substantiate my claims is, wait for it, I DIDNT MAKE ANY CLAIMS!!! Seriously dude you either have me confused with someone else or have a serious reading impediment.

Dude made a claim that blue states have all the criminals and high crime rates (it was quoted verbatim) and red states dont, when it is shown that of the Top 5 and Bottom 5 states in regards to violent crime, blue states have less and red states have more. I even threw you a bone by not omiting the DC statistics since we were talking about “STATES” here, of which DC ain’t. Seriously dude I don’t know who you think you are arguing against but I don’t have a horse in this race.

[/quote]

I wish we could drill down to Red and Blue Counties. That might shed some light on the subject.

196

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

Well I would go with statistics from crime per person. Obviously you can’t compare gross numbers… Geez.

[/quote]

Doesn’t Florida have strong stand your ground laws? Those are working out great. Hold on, is a higher number good or bad???[/quote]

Seems they are half of D.C.'s which does not have them… If people opt not to stand their ground, it’s their right.[/quote]

50% of DC’s, but 600% of Maine’s which also does not have them…
[/quote]

Maine? Maine has 1/600th the population of Florida. Rural areas tend to have less crime. Looking at the stats, gun laws either way do not correlate with the amount of crime. So I don’t think either side has an argument there on a large scale. You would actually have to parse down the crime rates with where the guns actually are or are not to make the connection. Entire states have to many factors. Often crime is concentrated in small areas of the larger land mass heavily skewing the states en masse.
Like NM seems to have a lot of crime issues, but I bet balls on nuts most of it is concentrated on the border.
If you are trying to make an argument to or fro, these stats are 100% useless to you. They show nothing.[/quote]

LOL like I said, someone will always try to explain away the data that doesn’t agree with their opinions…I find it particularly hilarious you talk about the population of Maine, but one post before it you were talking about the crime rate in DC, a CITY (not a state) with a mere 600,000 residents.

[/quote]
lol

197

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

I wish we could drill down to Red and Blue Counties. That might shed some light on the subject.
[/quote]

Why would drilling down to the county level be relevant in a discussion about particular STATE’S stand your ground laws? Do those laws vary county to county?

198

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

I wish we could drill down to Red and Blue Counties. That might shed some light on the subject.
[/quote]

Why would drilling down to the county level be relevant in a discussion about particular STATE’S stand your ground laws? Do those laws vary county to county?

[/quote]

You mad?

199

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

I wish we could drill down to Red and Blue Counties. That might shed some light on the subject.
[/quote]

Why would drilling down to the county level be relevant in a discussion about particular STATE’S stand your ground laws? Do those laws vary county to county?

[/quote]

You mad?[/quote]

???

I don’t believe so. Did something about my post lead you to conclude that I was?

200

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

I wish we could drill down to Red and Blue Counties. That might shed some light on the subject.
[/quote]

Why would drilling down to the county level be relevant in a discussion about particular STATE’S stand your ground laws? Do those laws vary county to county?

[/quote]

You mad?[/quote]
No, he just writes that way. It’s tricky at times.