Dave Weigel writing for Slate says: No, President Obama Didn’t Support a “Stand Your Ground” Law in Illinois. He says this comparing what he says is the Illinois law that was amended by SB 2386. He says:
No: “Stand your ground” is substantively different than what Obama backed in Illinois. He backed a tweak to the “castle doctrine,” which reads like this:
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.
“Stand your ground” takes the concept of the castle doctrine and turns it into a traveling force field of sorts. Here’s Florida’s language:
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.
It’s a pretty obvious difference, which probably means that the “Obama used to support this” theory is essentially trolling.
Public Act 093-0832 has 3 sections, each of which were amended by SB 2386. Weigel quotes section 3, but ignores section 1 which states:
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.
Nothing in either section 3 (quoted by Weigel) or section 1 (quoted above) mentions any limitation of place. Weigel is saying that section 3 is tied to place because he says Stand Your Ground becomes a “traveling force field of sorts”. The only section of the Illinois law that is tied to place is section 2 which says:
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.
Only Section 2 actually relates to a “Castle Doctrine”. Only Section 2 is tied to a place. All three sections were amended by the same wording from SB 2386:
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.
The law does not state a duty to retreat, therefore in Illinois there is no duty to retreat. Illinois is one of 33 states with no duty to retreat. No duty to retreat IS Stand Your Ground.
Instalanche! Thanks Glenn!
I had posted on this ad the other day. Office was misspelled with only one f. A commenter noted that the “s” in Dallas also kind of looks like an “x.”
Since then I’ve noticed an different ad with office spelled correctly on a pink background, and today there’s a corrected ad with the blue background.
I noticed that this ad has a different toll free number as well as the corrected word. Dallas still looks as if it ends in an “x” although I think that’s just the font choice since the x in Tx is a sharper x.
So, did we have anything to do with the correction?
Cross-posted at Schratwieser Consulting
I happened to look up at the TV during a commercial for Freese and Goss this morning and something really jumped out at me. This is the “full screen”:
and this is the close-up:
Did you catch it? Somebody didn’t run spell check. This ad has been running for several months. I generally don’t actually watch the commercials, but I happened to look up at just the right moment today and hit pause on the TiVo.
Cross-posted to Schratwieser Consulting.
Back in September, Walter Olson at Overlawyered brought a curious story to our attention. Apparently Kelloggs thought that the toucan in the logo of the Maya Archeology Initiative too closely resembled Toucan Sam of Froot Loops fame.
There’s now an update to the story. Kevin Underhill writing at Forbes tells us that there is a resolution:
At last report the two sides were trying to work things out, and it now appears that they have. The Battle Creek Enquirer reports that after several meetings over the past two months, the parties have reached a compromise: MAI will keep doing what it’s doing, and Kellogg will give it $100,000.
He finishes the piece with:
The fate of whoever decided it would be a good idea to send a cease-and-desist letter to some archaeologists in the first place is not yet known.
Would that more of these ridiculous cases turned out better for the defendant…
Instapundit brings us a story today by David McElroy about a mine owner titled “‘I’m just quitting’: A scene right out of ‘Atlas Shrugged’ in Birmingham.” Insty focuses on the part of the story where the mine owner says:
“I got a permit to open up an underground coal mine that would employ probably 125 people. They’d be paid wages from $50,000 to $150,000 a year. We would consume probably $50 million to $60 million in consumables a year, putting more men to work. And my only idea today is to go home. What’s the use? I don’t know. I mean, I see these guys — I see them with tears in their eyes — looking for work. And if there’s so much opposition to these guys making a living, I feel like there’s no need in me putting out the effort to provide work for them. So as I stood against the wall here today, basically what I’ve decided is not to open the mine. I’m just quitting. Thank you.”
I’d like to focus on another small part of the story:
Ronnie Bryant wasn’t there to talk about that particular mine. As a mine operator in a nearby area, he was attending the meeting to listen to what residents and government officials were saying. He listened to close to two hours of people trashing companies of all types and blaming pollution for random cases of cancer in their families. Several speakers clearly believe that all of the cancer and other deaths they see in their families and communities must be caused by pollution. Why? Who knows? Maybe just because it makes for an emotional story to blame big bad business. It’s hard to say.
I might have an answer for that question. People nowadays feel that they are entitled to be compensated for adverse events. If they can blame “pollution” for random cancers in their families then perhaps there’s someone out there to pay. We are bombarded with commercials asking us if we ever took this medicine or that medicine and “suffered” an adverse effect. We are told that we might be “entitled to compensation” for that adverse effect, just call 1-1800- blahblahblah. If we took a certain anti-seizure medication while pregnant and the child had pretty much *any* kind of birth defect at all, we might be entitled to compensation. If we took a medication for oesteoporosis (brittle bones) and subsequently suffered a broken bone, we might be entitled to compensation.If we trip and fall on a city sidewalk we can sue the city to compensate us for our injury.
I look at that second example above and think: I have osteoporosis and I broke a bone. Apparently the medication did not work for me. That is really an expected outcome. It’s not one you want to happen, but no medication works the same for everyone. Efficacy of some medications may even change over time with a specific patient. I used to be able to take NSAIDs (Non-steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs) e.g. aspirin, ibuprofen, and naproxen sodium. I developed an ulcer and can no longer take those types of medications. This makes it hard to deal with inflammation for me as other pain medications don’t reduce the inflammation that is causing the pain in the first place.
When I was a kid my sister and I and a bunch of neighborhood kids were running around the construction zone where a house was being built next door. Sis tripped and fell on a 2 x 4 with a nail in it. The nail punctured her thigh and nicked her femoral artery. She was bleeding like a stuck pig. Luckily it was a weekend and Dad was home. He and mom bundled sis up, asked the neighbor to keep an eye on me, and went to the hospital. A few hours later they were all home and that was the end of it. There was never any thought of suing the builder or the homeowner next door for anything. There wasn’t even a thought of having the builder or homeowner’s insurance cover the expenses.
If something like that happened today, to someone else, I can see suing the builder, the homeowner, the manufacturer of the nails, the manufacturer of the nail gun, the manufacturer of the hammer, the lumber mill, the contractors, and any other entity that could even remotely be connected to the accident that happened as a result of a kid running around where the kid wasn’t supposed to be.