There are three of them, all favoring the Right of an individual not to retreat and stand his ground when defending himself and dating as far back to 1895.
Beard v. United States – 158 U.S. 550 (1895)
The defendant was where he had the right to be, when the deceased advanced upon him in a threatening manner and with a deadly weapon, and if the accused did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm, he was not obliged to retreat nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon in such way and with such force as, under all the circumstances, he at the moment, honestly believed, and had reasonable grounds to believe, were necessary to save his own life or to protect himself from great bodily injury.
Next:Rowe v. U S, (1896)
if the accused did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or to do him great bodily harm, he was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground, and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force as, under all the circumstances, he, at the moment, honestly believed, and had reasonable grounds to believe, was necessary to save his own life, or to protect himself from great bodily injury.’
and:
Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921)
The law has grown, and even if historical mistakes have contributed to its growth it has tended in the direction of rules consistent with human nature. Many respectable writers agree that if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant he may stand his ground and that if he kills him he has not succeeded the bounds of lawful self defence. That has been the decision of this Court. Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.
It will be tough for any group hating SYG to go against one SCOTUS established case, much less three of them. Which might be the reason that after all the scandal and all the screaming, tearing at clothes and tossing ashes up in the air, not one single Gun Control group has even tried to challenge the laws in Superior Courts.
[…] Supreme Court of the United States: Stand Your Ground Cases. […]
That, and the fact that you can’t challenge SYG unless you have standing. In order to get standing, one must have been harmed by the law. Since the Martin/Zimmerman event had NOTHING to do with SYG, that case couldn’t be used challenge SYG.
I don’t think any of the bleating sheep and the lying press are trying to get the law struck down in the courts. They are trying to get weak-kneed pols to repeal or neuter it, which has more of a chance.
Unfortunately the whole reason for the law was to reign in the out of control, anti-liberty prosecutors who were using law-fare and the unlimited power of the state on innocent victims by making the process the punishment. The legal foundation of SYG has always been there.
“Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.”
That’s one of my all-time favorite quotes.
[…] Stand Your Ground was not a Florida concoction. Stand Your Ground cases before the Supreme Court date back to 1895, yet he seems to need to continue the false narrative that it was an evil preparation one in the […]