allegedly, if you feel threatened in Florida, you can do a lot more than pepper spray someone.

I think the Supreme Court made an error here.

using the cover of free speech.

and then claim they "felt threatened" by them.

or, for extra excitement, both ways at once

be exiting. Grotesque.

There have to be specific threats of bodily harm.

So I don't think it will be an issue in SYG states. It is not like SYG is anything new - we have decades of experience with it. We have centuries of case law on self defense and rational fear.

The ultimate "wait till dad comes home"

Now if they were to threaten suffering directly at their hands, for example "We'll/I'll fuck you up" then it's more credible as a threat.

Last edited Sat Jun 28, 2014, 09:38 AM - Edit history (1)

Unless it could be proven that person had god like powers.

That's just very false. 'You will burn to death' is a threat which takes a liter of gas and a match to make real, not 'god like powers'.

However, saying that u will burn in hell is not a threat

Last edited Sat Jun 28, 2014, 01:08 PM - Edit history (1)

Then it would be reasonable to assume your life is in danger and you can defend yourself. Just like if they had a gun or knife. Absent that can of gas it is not an immanent threat and you cannot shoot them. There is a couple of centuries of case law on the subject.

police were called. Is MA even a SYG state?

MA allows using deadly force for self defense if you fear for your life. Every state does.

In that case, open fire early and often.

Interracial murder is rare so I am not that familiar with issue.

Tell you what. Just Google the name "Trayvon Martin"

So only one example?.

Because I'm not...

But you can't provide examples? No real surprise there.

The legal standard is a hell of a lot more than 'feeling threatened'.

protesters and that if confronted (protester in my face) I would use pepper spray to protect myself.

Honest to gawd, if one can shoot and kill someone who you believe is threatening you as has occurred all too frequently, how the hell can you not pepper spray?

They are objectively and reasonably in fear of injury. For deadly force to be lawful, the objective and reasonable fear of serious injury or death must be present.

If the woman can convince a jury that her fear was reasonable and objective, she certainly is entitled to lawfully defend herself.

"Take your hands out of your pockets. You are scaring me."

seeking medical attention if she refuses to make eye contact with them?

Methinks the bought-&-paid-for SCOTUS whores would say yes.

The original law was made because workers and patients were harmed by these lunatics. I really hope something bad doesn't happen, but as worked up as they already are, it's bound to happen. This country is not safe for women.

have no problem with Stand Your Ground for the woman and her escort. Let the 2nd Amendment serve a true purpose for once.

Maybe the Global War on Terrorism needs to come home.

When shaming and screaming don't work, they kill people.

That is one of the most doublespeak terms ever.

I don't know about the legalities of pepper spray but, I can tell you they don't like to be video taped! Had a man video taping me all the while telling me he was gonna post it on youtube to show the world the women who sinned. So I proceeded to tape him and told him I was going to post it on youtube to show the world the type of cowards who want to harass women for seeking contraceptives and health screenings.
Pissed him off to no end!!
It was the most satisfying experience of my life!!

because most folks going into a family planning or OB/GYN Clinic are not raging a$$hats.

While it would be tempting to "stand your ground" with some of these "Old Testament Christians" (folks who call themselves Christians, but haven't made it past the Book of Leviticus in their Bibles yet)...I prefer the suggestion from one of the DUers

Find out what churches are behind the protests and be just as "effing" obnoxious as they are as they try to go to church on Sunday. Take signs with pictures of abused children and scream that their priest/pastor quick being pedophiles.

Take bloody coat-hangers pass them out.

Take air-horns and blast them as they try to have service.

Tell their kids that they're cannibals

Form a human shield blocking the entrance and refuse to move.

Spit on them and call them murderers in recognition of the billions killed in the name of their God.

Video tape them and post their names and addresses on ISIS/ISIL websites.

Tell them you "know where they and their children live".

Then take them to the Supreme Court when they try to block your right to "converse with them"

Sauce for the goose...

if she could just pull her gun and shoot them?

Unless there were explicit threats of bodily harm.

They do make threats of bodily harm, engage in campaigns of intimidation and harassment, and they're not above putting their hands on you...a SYG issue isn't remote if this spreads, it's inevitable.

MA allows the use of deadly force to protect your life if you have a reasonable fear of death or severe injury. Every state allows self defense.

Remember, these are people who have killed Dr.s and blown up clinics or support those who do or have. I would think if a woman encountered these anti choice people and they were blocking her attempts to enter the clinic. Her fear of death or great bodily harm could justify her standing her ground.

Killing someone for standing in your way or even grabbing you may be a hard sell though. There is two centuries of case law on self defense. I would make sure I understood exactly what the law says first.

I would make sure YOU understood the facts and the REALITY.

But, you have no intention of doing that.

the judge will tell the jury exactly what constitutes self defense and what does not.

I understand the reality of what happens outside of clinics. But I would never recommend that someone shoot and kill someone else unless I knew exactly what the law is. What is wrong with that? I would hate for someone to wrongfully kill someone else and spend the rest of their lives in prison.

And your attempt to defend Poppy Bush's alliance with Rev Moon that you, at first, tried to deny in that certain way you have of trying to sound benign.

And....Funny how you pop into certain issues and always take up for the RW narrative.

And that you need to understand what the law actually says is that a RW position?

I said many time that Zimmerman was guilty. I also knew that it was a problematic prosecution because there were no eye witnesses besides Z. The fact that prosecution witnesses supported Z's story didn't help.

Always benign.

LOL. Yeah....sure.

I will go now so you can regain your inner calm. Peace.

And have an excellent memory.

protestors. Laws and policies need to be shaped to address that reality. Surely you remember that policies are made based on what people do, don't you, hack? Or do you cherry pick to suit your politics?

It is driven by legal precedent.

I supported the 30 foot buffer. However we are talking about self defense laws. Before you shoot someone you better know what the law actually is. Don't you agree?

into clinics. I have not done this, but I have a friend who volunteers to do this on weekends all the time. Several women ( or men I guess could do it just as well) act as human buffers to protect the patients from any harrassers. You don't engage on any level ... You just are there to make sure the women don't have to endure unwanted interventions.

They tend to be quite restrictive. And before SYG can be claimed, you first have to claim self defense.

I have to wonder if they really think that 'feeling threatened' is all the justification they need to respond with force.

Because it is worth exactly what you paid for and you could end up in jail on felony charges for following the advice.

The laws vary from state to state, so what flies in Texas will get you arrested in Massachusetts.

The GENERAL rule of thumb for lethal force is "a reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm"

If you want real advice, check with a lawyer that does criminal law

Over words can get you locked up for assault.

"Though the image often represents illegal speech, "shouting fire in a crowded theater" refers to an outdated legal standard. At one point, the law criminalized such speech, which created a "clear and present danger." But since 1969, for speech to break the law, it can’t merely lead others to dangerous situations. It must directly encourage others to commit specific criminal actions of their own."

http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com/civil-liberties-general/is-it-legal-to-shout-%22fire%22-in-a-crowded-theater-19421.html

Would a reasonable person, in the same circumstances, feel that grave bodily injury is imminent?

No? Then force isn't justified.

There's a first time for everything, I guess......

And while each state varies a little, the general question to ask is "Would a jury reviewing a tape of this believe I was legitimately in fear for my life, great bodily harm or sexual assault?". Note- always assume there is a tape, even if there isn't, cameras are everywhere.

If yes, then the standard for use of deadly force in self defense has been met. This is a general rule, of course, each state will vary.

SYG doesn't even apply to that standard- it comes in next. In a SYG state self defense is ok once the answer is yes. In a non-SYG state the next question is "can I retreat or run away or do anything else diffuse the situation?" In a non SYG state if the answer to that is yes than you are legally obligated to attempt retreat or whatever other means to end the confrontation before using force in self defense if at all possible.

That would be the sticky point in a duty to retreat state (one without SYG). A prosecutor could possibly argue that a person in fear from a protester could diffuse that situation by turning around and retreating away from the confrontation, and as a result prosecute a use of force in self defense. The argument would be that the victim should have retreated to diffuse the situation and reported the threat to authorities and attempted to seek the medical treatment later, and that by failing to they are guilty of murder or manslaughter even though the other party was the aggressive and violent one.

That is why I oppose duty to retreat laws- they make victims accountable for the safety of their attackers and make it safer for asshats like these protesters to be violent without fearing anyone resisting them.

when they ask for money?

I think there actually has to be a specific threat or action that would make a reasonable person fearful for their safety.

Let's play by their rules and see how they like it.

Discuss among yourselves, then get back to us.

I think so...I mean I would feel threatened by them....Schadenfreude?

I'm a male but I think a woman should do the same. No one has the right to harass anyone or make them feel threatened. I think they have a legal right to do so.

intent to do bodily harm. I will be having them indicted. If they indict for revenge, I know the ropes well enough.
I have been very successful with this in the past and confident for any future situations.

If you not careful with that pepper spray.

I thank them for making the location of the clinic so visible and explain that most women have no idea where such clinics are. Lots of dumb fuck facial expressions when I do that.

As for pepper spray, I think the rabid nutjobs would use that as an excuse to attack en masse.

Pro-liberty people pledged to donate a certain dollar amount to Planned Parenthood or NARAL for every terrorist who showed up to protest a clinic for a week. It totally got the terrorists in a huff as their being there directly caused NARAL or PP to get extra money.

It was awesome.

Does somebody NOT have to have in order to spend your time worrying about a stranger's reproductive life- based on their concern over a fetus? There are so many born children and people in need of help and many of these so-called "pro-lifers" are actually trying to make it harder for them to get various forms of assistance.

But to your question, sure.

If she feels threatened, she can...

Stand her ground.

Pretty sure that is what "stand your ground" is all about.

Oh, and before anyone alerts the mods, this is a joke, of course.

I verbally threatened him if he didn't get out of my face, BUT if someone is physically "imprisoning" you, is assault justifiable means? Stand your Ground, minus a GUN????

Has nobody here been part of an organized civil disobedience action? One that actually has a lawyer or two on staff? One that would explain what you can and can't do? Where protest crosses the line into disturbing the peace, assault, or harassment?

People rarely get acquitted for assaulting someone over 'fighting words'.