Lets do a car analogy.

[rrneck]

I hate them, but what the hell.

There are a lot of laws governing the safe operation of motor vehicles. Speed limits, prohibitions against drinking, texting and seatbelt requirements establish parameters for the safe and prudent operation of cars. And those laws can be enforced using the rules of evidence.

But what if an accident happens? Is it possible to write a law that requires people to do certain things in the event of an accident? "Hit the brakes and turn left?" "Hit the brakes and turn right?" "Apply x foot pounds of pressure to the brake pedal?" It sounds absurd doesn't it?

If someone makes a mistake and pulls out in front you or runs a stop sign you will have to react to the situation as best you can. The law can help you by requiring you not drive under the influence of alcohol and avoid distractions like texting, but when the fit hits the shan it's up to you to deal with it. That's because each situation will be different and the circumstances surrounding the event can not be predicted or controlled.

Just as people make driving mistakes, they make life mistakes. Sometimes they try to rob others, or beat them up, or even kill them. You can't write a law that would require people to do certain things under those circumstances because those circumstances cannot be controlled by the system or the person under threat. That lack of control is why the situation happens in the first place.

[frazzled]

1. Let's not

Sorry, but before Stand Your Ground, the jury instructions for self-defense would have been as follows, by Florida law:

"The defendant cannot justify the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless he used every reasonable means within his power and consistent with his own safety to avoid the danger before resorting to that force.

The fact that the defendant was wrongfully attacked cannot justify his use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if by retreating he could have avoided the need to use that force."

After Stand Your Ground, those jury instructions were required to read:

In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

The law USED TO require you to do everything possible to avoid the circumstance that would lead to the use of force. Retreat was not just an option but a duty before SYG.

[rrneck]

2. "Reasonable means"

cannot be defined in generic terms exclusive of the unique situation.

All the defendant has to do is say, "I couldn't outrun him or turn my back on him". Without other evidence any law that mandates a specific action is moot.

[customerserviceguy]

3. And why was that law changed in so very many states?

Because the calm deliberation of many people over a long period of time, examining each possible alternative in detail is just not the way a person in a crisis situation thinks. That's why the OP was using that analogy, enough of us here are drivers exposed to the possibility of having to figure out what to do in an amazingly short period of time.

You don't like the analogy because of the result the thought experiment produces, and you're afraid other people are going to see the point of it.

[NuclearDem]

4. Or lobbying by ALEC and the NRA

Which is what actually happened.

[customerserviceguy]

9. Because they didn't want to see people go to prison

for simply defending themselves. Stacking up a situation fraught with immediate danger against a bunch of "woulda, coulda, shouldas" of people who would never own a weapon was bound to fail. I don't think ALEC has been around long enough to push the majority of these laws, but you are right, the NRA has stood up for self defense.

That's what the Second Amendment is all about.

[Major Nikon]

13. Funny how they couldn't provide any relevant examples of it

And not funny ha-ha.

[frazzled]

5. ALEC and NRA (not a guess, but the facts)

I aim to provide accurate customer service.

[Fumesucker]

6. The good driver is constantly planning what to do if another driver does something stupid

Most dangerous situations on the road can be anticipated with adequate experience and thought, that's the main reason that some people are much safer drivers than others, for whatever reason they are better at anticipating and properly reacting to road hazards including other drivers.

After a while that planning goes on almost below a conscious level but it's there in the experienced safe driver.

[rrneck]

7. Gettin out of your car and chasing people with a gun

is tantamount to reckless driving while drunk.

[Wounded Bear]

8. In addition to that...

There is a rational presumption that other drivers on the road are of the same mindset. Frankly, virtually all drivers will attmept to avoid 'confrontational' activity to protect their lives, health and property.

With SYG, and concerning the use of lethal weaponry, I'm not so sure that is the case.

[customerserviceguy]

10. Ah, the old "it's never going to happen to me, because I prepare" argument

Doesn't work 100% of the time for everybody. I wish it worked in practice as much as you think it works for you.

[Fumesucker]

12. What part of "most" did you fail to understand?

Reading is fundamental.

[Major Nikon]

15. This is entirely too funny

The idea that "calm deliberation" could come from NRA's paranoid head ogre Wayne LaPierre is a real knee slapper.

[Major Nikon]

11. Sounds like a pretty piss poor reading of the law

The law USED TO require you to do everything possible to avoid the circumstance that would lead to the use of force. Retreat was not just an option but a duty before SYG.

The law USED TO require you to do everything possible reasonable, consistent with your own safety to avoid the circumstance that would lead to the use of force. Retreat was not just an option but a duty before SYG.

Fixed it for you.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

14. Really sick of right wing trolls on DU

Are you also sick of them?

[rrneck]

16. I'm not that worried about it. Trolls is trolls, no matter which wing they're from. nt