Re: Stand Your Ground law was a
posted at 7/23/2013 5:20 PM EDT
In response to GregStillinMeffa's comment:
SB 2836, July 28, 2004
Flip flop is ok so long as your a dem and its convenient
Slow down....you have to be careful with a CLC post. Two points.
(a) the law Obama backed wasn't a stand your ground law; and
(b) backing a stand your ground law would have been particularly stupid of Obama since there already was no duty to retreat, and duty to retreat is what SYG removes.
This is Florida's Stand Your Ground law:
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
This is the modification (to a 1961 law) that Obama co-sponsored:
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 her 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.
So that's not a stand your ground law....it allows use of force to defend property and real estate.
Second, Illinois already had no duty to retreat way before Obama was even born, which means there would have been no purpose in passing a SYG law:
In 1902, the Illinois court remarked:
The ancient doctrine of the common law that the right of self-defense did not arise until every effort to escape, even to retreating until an impassable wall or something of that nature had been reached, has been supplanted in America by the doctrine that a man, if unlawfully assaulted in a place where he has a right to be, and put in danger, real or reasonably apparent, of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm, is not required to endeaver to escape from his assailant, but may stand his ground and repel force with force, even to the taking of the life of his assailant, if necessary, or in good reason apparently necessary, for the preservation of his own life, or to protect himself from receiving great bodily harm.
Hammond v. People
, 199 Ill. 173, 182 (1902). This remained good law. "The State has cogently pointed out that Illinois has not required retreat for the right to self-defense since the case of
Hammond v. Illinois
, 199 Ill 173, 64 N.E. 980 (1902)."
Illinois v. Harris
, 260 N.E. 2d 325, 329 (Ill. App. Ct. 1970).
As defendant notes, there is no duty to retreat before one is entitled to defend himself or another.
People v. Rodriguez
, 187 Ill. App. 3d 484, 490 (1989)