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.
Links: SB 2386 Public Act 093-0832, 720 ILCS 5/
Instalanche! Thanks Glenn!
Fireworks Finale from Six Flags Great America two years ago.
I was born on Fathers’ Day, and every so often my birthday falls on Fathers’ Day again. It did last year.
It was the Queen’s Birthday a few years ago (the date the UK celebrates, not her actual birthday which is in April).
I share my birthday with MC Escher, Newt Gingrich, Mohammed El Baeredai, the former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone, Erin and Diane Murphy (Tabitha Stephens from Bewitched), Venus Williams, Barry Manilow, Greg Kinnear, Jason Patric, Thomas Hayden Church, Bobby Farrelly, Mark Linn Baker, Ralph Bellamy, Joe Piscopo, Kimber Eastwood (Clint‘s daughter), James Shigeta, George Clinton, Kami Cotler (the Waltons – Goodnight Elizabeth), Will Forte (SNL), and more.
I also share my birthday with Twitter friends @onefinejay and @littlebytesnews!
Me and my dad, my first birthday, and Fathers’ Day the day before. I was born on Fathers’ Day. Dad‘s been gone since 2002. I miss him dearly. That’s a mixer beater in my hand, covered in frosting (so is my face). Mom was making a birthday cake.
Happy Fathers’ Day to all the fathers I know, husband, brothers-in-law, cousins, uncles, friends. Have a great day!
So Adam Levine said, “I hate this country” on The Voice. He was expressing his disappointment in the results of the popular vote on the show.
People are saying that he shouldn’t have said that. That he “should watch what he says.”
NO. The First Amendment preserves his right to say anything he wants to say. It’s up to those who hear or listen to decide if they agree or disagree. If they are offended, or not. They will decide whether or not to purchase this man’s albums or songs. They will decide whether or not to watch The Voice. They will decide if it is something that they even care about.
He tweeted several things later to explain. But he shouldn’t need to. There should be no need to apologize unless he truly felt that he shouldn’t have said it. What other people think shouldn’t have anything to do with it.
Political Correctness has gone too far. It has undermined our right to free speech. You can’t say that! I can. If someone doesn’t like it, they can stop associating with me (another part of our rights that the First Amendment preserves and protects). If they are a client or customer of mine, they can stop using me as a vendor. If I’m in the entertainment industry they can stop watching my movies or TV shows, reading my books, listening to my music, or whatever.
First, my prayers go out all those injured or killed and their families and friends.
If we run and hide under the bed as a result of this, they win. It’s as simple as that.
Whoever is responsible for this, the intent was to terrorize. Whether this was “sophisticated” or “unsophisticated” (and what difference does it make in any case?) to the bomber(s) it was successful. It may not have been as successful as the bomber(s) wanted it to be, but it worked.
We mustn’t let them win. We mustn’t let ourselves be afraid to do everyday things. We mustn’t let ourselves be afraid to be in crowds, or participate in organized events. We mustn’t be afraid to let ourselves have fun.
We also need to let our local, state, and federal government representatives and officials know that “reactionary legislation” is NOT what is needed now. That’s shutting the barn door after the horses have escaped. Reactionary legislation almost always causes more harm than good, and the harms are always “unintentional.”
In our zeal to find out who is responsible and bring them to justice, let’s also not have another situation like Richard Jewell in Atlanta. Let’s not focus on, and ruin the life of, an innocent person.
To every person who ran in to help, those who pulled aside the barricades and flags, who ran in with wheelchairs to transport the injured out of the area, to those who treated all the injured: Thank you.