Stand Your Ground Laws

[Rage Against the McKee]

I was actually hoping someone had a rational reason to dispute what I typed, or that I missed something in my scenario.

If not, we are basically regressing to what the wild west was glorified to be.

I'm pretty sure that is the goal of the authors of these laws.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

So, aggressor(guy #1) starts fight, soon finds out that he isn't as good of a fighter of the other person(guy #2), starts losing fights, panics because he(guy #1) may actually get badly hurt in the fight he(guy #1) started, shoots other guy(guy #2) for winning the fight, claims self defense because guy #2 was super good at defending himself and could have really hurt Guy #1.

How does SYG account for this?  It basically punishes the victim for defending themselves if the originating aggressor is an armed dummy that sucks at traditional fighting.

If the SYG laws stay, they need to have changes to account for this.

Using your hypo, if aggressor (Guy 1) starts the fight, he has no right to SYG. According to KSA 21-5226(c)(1), he has no right to self defense, period, unless (a) he has reasonable grounds to believe that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and (b) he "has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of deadly force."

So, again, SYG just doesn't come into play in your hypothetical.

[Rage Against the McKee]

The law should say

"A person has the right to use reasonable force in self defense."

That is where it should start and stop.

[CNS]

So, aggressor(guy #1) starts fight, soon finds out that he isn't as good of a fighter of the other person(guy #2), starts losing fights, panics because he(guy #1) may actually get badly hurt in the fight he(guy #1) started, shoots other guy(guy #2) for winning the fight, claims self defense because guy #2 was super good at defending himself and could have really hurt Guy #1.

How does SYG account for this?  It basically punishes the victim for defending themselves if the originating aggressor is an armed dummy that sucks at traditional fighting.

If the SYG laws stay, they need to have changes to account for this.

Using your hypo, if aggressor (Guy 1) starts the fight, he has no right to SYG. According to KSA 21-5226(c)(1), he has no right to self defense, period, unless (a) he has reasonable grounds to believe that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and (b) he "has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of deadly force."

So, again, SYG just doesn't come into play in your hypothetical.

If guy #2 falls on top of him and hits him a bunch?  Seems like it would at that point.  At that point, it seems like who ever kills the other one is the winner and the law doesn't benefit either more than the other.

The law should say

"A person has the right to use reasonable force in self defense."

That is where it should start and stop.

I agree.

[Daddy Claxton]

The law should say

"A person has the right to use reasonable force in self defense."

That is where it should start and stop.

How about this:
A person is justified in the use of force against an agressor when and to the extent it appears to him and he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such agressor's imminent use of unlawful force.

(That used to be the law in kansas, and I don't see anything there that would require retreat where it is reasonable to not retreat)

[Kat Kid]

Self defense law has been just fine since before this country was founded.  Reasonableness is supposed to be murky so that particular facts can always be taken into account.  Why don't you want a jury to consider every possible factor in determining reasonableness?  If you're acting reasonably, great, juist convincve the jury.  If you're not, why do you expect to be protected?

I understand your point, and we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. I favor the added clarity and protection of SYG provisions for people who are attacked.

The real problem most people here have articulated is that SYG creates an enormous loophole for instigating a-holes with firearms:

21-5226. Use of force by an aggressor. [Amends K.S.A. 2010 Supp. § 21-3214]
The justification described in sections K.S.A. 21-3211, 21-3212 and 21-3213, prior to
their repeal, or K.S.A. 21-5222, 21-5223, and 21-5225, and amendments thereto, is not available
to a person who:
(a) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping from the commission of a forcible
felony; or
(b) Initially provokes the use of any force against himself such person or another, with
intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant; or
(c) Otherwise initially provokes the use of any force against himself such person or
another, unless:
(1) Such person has reasonable grounds to believe that such person is in imminent danger
of death or great bodily harm, and such person has exhausted every reasonable means to escape
such danger other than the use of deadly force, or
(2) In good faith, such person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and
indicates clearly to the assailant that such person desires to withdraw and terminate the use of
such force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of such force.
History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-3214; L. 2010, ch. 124, § 7; L. 2010, ch. 136, § 24; L. 2011, ch.
30, § 10, July 1.

21-5230. No Duty to Retreat; exceptions. [Amends K.S.A. 2010 Supp. § 21-3218]
(a) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in a place
where such person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand such person’s
ground and use any force which such person would be justified in using under article 32 of
chapter 21 of the Kansas Statute Annotated, prior to their repeal, or K.S.A. 21-5202 through 21-
5208 and K.S.A. 21-5222 through 21-5228 and K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 21-3212a, 21-3220 and 21-
3221, and amendments thereto.
History: L. 2006, ch. 194, § 1; L. 2010, ch. 124, § 10; L. 2010, ch. 136, § 28; L. 2011, ch. 30, ?
13, July 1

Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but the statute you cite, 21-5226(c)(1), states that if an aggressor provokes a fight, they have no right to self defense unless (a) he has reasonable grounds to believe that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and (b) he "has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of deadly force."

The KS SYG statute, 21-5230, does not override the statute above, because it only applies to people who are "not engaged in unlawful activity" and are attacked.

So, if you're the "instigating a-hole with a firearm" and provoke the fight, you've got no right to SYG.

I read it as repealing the "exhaust" qualification above.  Am I wrong?

[Rage Against the McKee]

The law should say

"A person has the right to use reasonable force in self defense."

That is where it should start and stop.

How about this:
A person is justified in the use of force against an agressor when and to the extent it appears to him and he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such agressor's imminent use of unlawful force.

(That used to be the law in kansas, and I don't see anything there that would require retreat where it is reasonable to not retreat)

I don't like the term "reasonably believes". Nobody knows what the person believes at the time. I would just strike "he reasonably believes that" and replace "necessary" with "reasonable".

[Daddy Claxton]

The law should say

"A person has the right to use reasonable force in self defense."

That is where it should start and stop.

How about this:
A person is justified in the use of force against an agressor when and to the extent it appears to him and he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such agressor's imminent use of unlawful force.

(That used to be the law in kansas, and I don't see anything there that would require retreat where it is reasonable to not retreat)

I don't like the term "reasonably believes". Nobody knows what the person believes at the time. I would just strike "he reasonably believes that" and replace "necessary" with "reasonable".

Fair enough. My point was (not to you, NK, because we agree on this issue) is that the law was close to what you were suggesting (and in line with what self defense law has been since sometime in the middle ages) before a bunch of dumbasses decided that reasonableness was too high a standard for them.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but the statute you cite, 21-5226(c)(1), states that if an aggressor provokes a fight, they have no right to self defense unless (a) he has reasonable grounds to believe that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and (b) he "has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of deadly force."

The KS SYG statute, 21-5230, does not override the statute above, because it only applies to people who are "not engaged in unlawful activity" and are attacked.

So, if you're the "instigating a-hole with a firearm" and provoke the fight, you've got no right to SYG.

I read it as repealing the "exhaust" qualification above.  Am I wrong?

These two statutes were passed as part of the same package on the same day. One does not repeal a portion of the other. The SYG statute only applies to people who are not engaging in unlawful activity and are attacked, whereas the other statute applies to the aggressor, so the two are not inconsistent.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I also really don't like how the law makes somebody who is engaged in unlawful activity open game for any type of punishment that somebody wants to give him/her with absolutely no legal means of defense.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

The law should say

"A person has the right to use reasonable force in self defense."

That is where it should start and stop.

How about this:
A person is justified in the use of force against an agressor when and to the extent it appears to him and he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such agressor's imminent use of unlawful force.

(That used to be the law in kansas, and I don't see anything there that would require retreat where it is reasonable to not retreat)

I don't like the term "reasonably believes". Nobody knows what the person believes at the time. I would just strike "he reasonably believes that" and replace "necessary" with "reasonable".

Generally speaking, a vague law is a weak, unpredictable law. The legislature decided to give prosecutors, and jurors, some guidance in what constitutes self defense. While it ultimately boils down to subjective and objective definitions of "reasonable," we at least know with the current laws that (a) you have to have a reasonable fear or death or serious bodily harm before responding with lethal force (that's good for the aggressor), (b) if you're the aggressor, there are only certain very limited situations where you can act in self defense (good for those who are attacked), and (c) if you are attacked, your ability to retreat is irrelevant to your right to self defense (good for the those who are being attacked).

[Rage Against the McKee]

The law should say

"A person has the right to use reasonable force in self defense."

That is where it should start and stop.

How about this:
A person is justified in the use of force against an agressor when and to the extent it appears to him and he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such agressor's imminent use of unlawful force.

(That used to be the law in kansas, and I don't see anything there that would require retreat where it is reasonable to not retreat)

I don't like the term "reasonably believes". Nobody knows what the person believes at the time. I would just strike "he reasonably believes that" and replace "necessary" with "reasonable".

Generally speaking, a vague law is a weak, unpredictable law. The legislature decided to give prosecutors, and jurors, some guidance in what constitutes self defense. While it ultimately boils down to subjective and objective definitions of "reasonable," we at least know with the current laws that (a) you have to have a reasonable fear or death or serious bodily harm before responding with lethal force (that's good for the aggressor), (b) if you're the aggressor, there are only certain very limited situations where you can act in self defense (good for those who are attacked), and (c) if you are attacked, your ability to retreat is irrelevant to your right to self defense (good for the those who are being attacked).

Well, generally speaking, I think that self defense should be a vague and weak defense.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I also really don't like how the law makes somebody who is engaged in unlawful activity open game for any type of punishment that somebody wants to give him/her with absolutely no legal means of defense.

It doesn't. Read KSA 21-5226 above. Kansas has a whole statute dedicated to spelling out when someone engaged in unlawful activity might nonetheless be entitled to self defense.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

The law should say

"A person has the right to use reasonable force in self defense."

That is where it should start and stop.

How about this:
A person is justified in the use of force against an agressor when and to the extent it appears to him and he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such agressor's imminent use of unlawful force.

(That used to be the law in kansas, and I don't see anything there that would require retreat where it is reasonable to not retreat)

I don't like the term "reasonably believes". Nobody knows what the person believes at the time. I would just strike "he reasonably believes that" and replace "necessary" with "reasonable".

Generally speaking, a vague law is a weak, unpredictable law. The legislature decided to give prosecutors, and jurors, some guidance in what constitutes self defense. While it ultimately boils down to subjective and objective definitions of "reasonable," we at least know with the current laws that (a) you have to have a reasonable fear or death or serious bodily harm before responding with lethal force (that's good for the aggressor), (b) if you're the aggressor, there are only certain very limited situations where you can act in self defense (good for those who are attacked), and (c) if you are attacked, your ability to retreat is irrelevant to your right to self defense (good for the those who are being attacked).

Well, generally speaking, I think that self defense should be a vague and weak defense.

Fair enough - just gonna have to disagree on that one.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I also really don't like how the law makes somebody who is engaged in unlawful activity open game for any type of punishment that somebody wants to give him/her with absolutely no legal means of defense.

It doesn't. Read KSA 21-5226 above. Kansas has a whole statute dedicated to spelling out when someone engaged in unlawful activity might nonetheless be entitled to self defense.

So basically the aggressor has exactly the same rights as the victim? Isn't the belief of the possibility of imminent great bodily harm exactly the same standard for people who aren't committing a crime? Why even mention unlawful activity, then?

[Daddy Claxton]

The law should say

"A person has the right to use reasonable force in self defense."

That is where it should start and stop.

How about this:
A person is justified in the use of force against an agressor when and to the extent it appears to him and he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such agressor's imminent use of unlawful force.

(That used to be the law in kansas, and I don't see anything there that would require retreat where it is reasonable to not retreat)

I don't like the term "reasonably believes". Nobody knows what the person believes at the time. I would just strike "he reasonably believes that" and replace "necessary" with "reasonable".

Generally speaking, a vague law is a weak, unpredictable law. The legislature decided to give prosecutors, and jurors, some guidance in what constitutes self defense. While it ultimately boils down to subjective and objective definitions of "reasonable," we at least know with the current laws that (a) you have to have a reasonable fear or death or serious bodily harm before responding with lethal force (that's good for the aggressor), (b) if you're the aggressor, there are only certain very limited situations where you can act in self defense (good for those who are attacked), and (c) if you are attacked, your ability to retreat is irrelevant to your right to self defense (good for the those who are being attacked).

The law worked fine for 500 years.  Also, please remember that self defense is a license to kill. The standard for using it should reflect that.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I also really don't like how the law makes somebody who is engaged in unlawful activity open game for any type of punishment that somebody wants to give him/her with absolutely no legal means of defense.

It doesn't. Read KSA 21-5226 above. Kansas has a whole statute dedicated to spelling out when someone engaged in unlawful activity might nonetheless be entitled to self defense.

So basically the aggressor has exactly the same rights as the victim? Isn't the belief of the possibility of imminent great bodily harm exactly the same standard for people who aren't committing a crime? Why even mention unlawful activity, then?

Yeesh - that's not what the law says at all...

[Rage Against the McKee]

I also really don't like how the law makes somebody who is engaged in unlawful activity open game for any type of punishment that somebody wants to give him/her with absolutely no legal means of defense.

It doesn't. Read KSA 21-5226 above. Kansas has a whole statute dedicated to spelling out when someone engaged in unlawful activity might nonetheless be entitled to self defense.

So basically the aggressor has exactly the same rights as the victim? Isn't the belief of the possibility of imminent great bodily harm exactly the same standard for people who aren't committing a crime? Why even mention unlawful activity, then?

Yeesh - that's not what the law says at all...

Minus the SYG garbage it appears to be exactly the same.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

NK, advocating for self defense law and against syg statutes makes you look like an misinformed dolt

Shut up, idiot.

[HeinBallz]

"Because when seconds count, the police are minutes away."

[Kat Kid]

"Because when seconds count, the police are minutes away."

I have been to the majority of the continents on planet Earth.  I've walked around after dark Aggieville, Austin, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Botswana, Venezuela, Italy, France and Spain and I have never once been accosted, threatened or robbed.  Am I doing something wrong?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

"Because when seconds count, the police are minutes away."

I have been to the majority of the continents on planet Earth.  I've walked around after dark Aggieville, Austin, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Botswana, Venezuela, Italy, France and Spain and I have never once been accosted, threatened or robbed.  Am I doing something wrong?

Yes, clearly assaults only happen to people looking to get assaulted.  Just like the only women that get raped are those "asking for it".  These are victimless crimes, ya'll.

Good grief, kk. Have you been taking Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) pills lately?

[Kat Kid]

"Because when seconds count, the police are minutes away."

I have been to the majority of the continents on planet Earth.  I've walked around after dark Aggieville, Austin, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Botswana, Venezuela, Italy, France and Spain and I have never once been accosted, threatened or robbed.  Am I doing something wrong?

Yes, clearly assaults only happen to people looking to get assaulted.  Just like the only women that get raped are those "asking for it".  These are victimless crimes, ya'll.

Good grief, kk. Have you been taking Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) pills lately?

My point was, crime is pretty rare.

[sys]

My point was, crime is pretty rare.

violent crime directed at young adult males by perpetrators unknown to them is pretty rare.  the world looks like a very different place to a woman.

[Kat Kid]

My point was, crime is pretty rare.

violent crime directed at young adult males by perpetrators unknown to them is pretty rare.  the world looks like a very different place to a woman.

Good qualifications.  Agree.