# Stand your Ground **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 6, 2013, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stand-your-ground/673254 "2013-11-06T16:37:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2013, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stand-your-ground/673254/1 "2013-11-06T16:37:41Z")
A Federal Complaint has been filed by the Rainbow coalition challenging Georgia’s SYG statute. In part; 1. For this reason, the Act provides differing levels of protection and justification to individuals based upon their race violating the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Any chance of success? [http://www.georgiacarry.com/state/stand\_your\_ground/Complaint.pdf](http://www.georgiacarry.com/state/stand_your_ground/Complaint.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2013, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stand-your-ground/673254/2 "2013-11-06T16:52:14Z")
> [@lawbuff](#): > > A Federal Complaint has been filed by the Rainbow coalition challenging Georgia’s SYG statute. > > In part; > > 1. > > For this reason, the Act provides differing levels of protection and justification > to individuals based upon their race violating the equal protection clause of the > Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. > > Any chance of success? > [http://www.georgiacarry.com/state/stand\_your\_ground/Complaint.pdf](http://www.georgiacarry.com/state/stand_your_ground/Complaint.pdf) I don’t understand the argument (it seems awfully badly written). It sounds like the claim is that the statute apparently codified something that existed at common law (no duty to retreat) without providing an alternative definition for “reasonable,” so it must mean that race is now a factor in reasonableness? ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2013, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stand-your-ground/673254/3 "2013-11-06T16:55:57Z")
As a non-lawyer I can’t comment on its likelihood of success, but as a writer I can state confidently that they should’ve proofread it better for typos. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2013, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stand-your-ground/673254/4 "2013-11-06T17:00:10Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > I don’t understand the argument (it seems awfully badly written). It sounds like the claim is that the statute apparently codified something that existed at common law (no duty to retreat) without providing an alternative definition for “reasonable,” so it must mean that race is now a factor in reasonableness? That’s what the claim is as I see it too. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2013, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stand-your-ground/673254/5 "2013-11-06T17:04:12Z")
> [@lawbuff](#): > > That’s what the claim is as I see it too. Then it strikes me as ridiculous. Why wouldn’t the state just adopt the common law definition of reasonableness? Beyond which, “reasonably belief” is always a factor in self-defense. And a fairly common (if admittedly murky) legal standard. Now, if the claim was that it imposed a \*subjective \* reasonableness standard, and there was evidence that people felt at greater risk when confronted by members of a different race (which seems plausible), then I guess I can comprehend the claim, but I’m not sure that would make the law unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2013, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stand-your-ground/673254/6 "2013-11-06T17:04:46Z")
It looks destined to fail on standing grounds, regardless of the merits. The plaintiff is just a dude (a black minister, specifically) who doesn’t like the law. He’s not going to be able to show that he’s been harmed or that harm is imminent. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2013, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stand-your-ground/673254/7 "2013-11-06T17:04:52Z")
Non-lawyer, but I think I can spot a problem with the complaint. > [@](#): > > Additionally, courts around the country have accepted that the race of an > individual is relevant evidence in determining the reasonableness of a claim of > self-defense. See People v. Goetz, 68 N.Y.2d 96 (2001). I read [that decision](http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/archives/p_goetz.htm), and it doesn’t mention race at all. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2013, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stand-your-ground/673254/8 "2013-11-06T17:10:11Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > Then it strikes me as ridiculous. Why wouldn’t the state just adopt the common law definition of reasonableness? Beyond which, “reasonably belief” is always a factor in self-defense. And a fairly common (if admittedly murky) legal standard. > > Now, if the claim was that it imposed a \*subjective \* reasonableness standard, and there was evidence that people felt at greater risk when confronted by members of a different race (which seems plausible), then I guess I can comprehend the claim, but I’m not sure that would make the law unconstitutional. The complaint itself is confusing as to me, no factual information is cited as was in NYC’s stop and frisk complaint/decision. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2013, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stand-your-ground/673254/9 "2013-11-06T17:11:29Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It looks destined to fail on standing grounds, regardless of the merits. The plaintiff is just a dude (a black minister, specifically) who doesn’t like the law. He’s not going to be able to show that he’s been harmed or that harm is imminent. But (and my memory is rusty) to facially challenge a penal statute (does it apply to a justifiction?), don’t you just need to show a credible threat of enforcement? Isn’t that the lesson of _Doe_? He just needs to demonstrate a propensity for attacking white people. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2013, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stand-your-ground/673254/10 "2013-11-06T17:13:17Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Non-lawyer, but I think I can spot a problem with the complaint. > > I read [that decision](http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/archives/p_goetz.htm), and it doesn’t mention race at all. The eye direction in Goetz is focused on that those assaulted were blacks, and the motive to harm them was racial, no other factor. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2013, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stand-your-ground/673254/11 "2013-11-06T17:16:42Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It looks destined to fail on standing grounds, regardless of the merits. The plaintiff is just a dude (a black minister, specifically) who doesn’t like the law. He’s not going to be able to show that he’s been harmed or that harm is imminent. I’m seeing that too, the complaint has no mention of a personal SYG conflict where he seeks redress? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2013, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stand-your-ground/673254/12 "2013-11-06T17:22:01Z")
> [@lawbuff](#): > > The eye direction in Goetz is focused on that those assaulted were blacks, and the motive to harm them was racial, no other factor. That doesn’t support the claim that “courts around the country have accepted that the race of an individual is relevant evidence in determining the reasonableness of a claim of self-defense”, does it? ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2013, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stand-your-ground/673254/13 "2013-11-06T17:24:00Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > That doesn’t support the claim that “courts around the country have accepted that the race of an individual is relevant evidence in determining the reasonableness of a claim of self-defense”, does it? I totally agree! ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2013, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stand-your-ground/673254/14 "2013-11-06T18:11:53Z")
The attorney representing the plaintiff d[oesn’t seem to be particularly qualified to do so](http://www.robertpatillo.com/) (he’s a PI/whatever walks in the door solo practitioner), so it’s not all that surprising that the complaint reads like a crank filing. Googling indicates he’s a sometime candidate for the state legislature, so he’s probably just trying to get his name out in the black community. > [@Falchion](#): > > But (and my memory is rusty) to facially challenge a penal statute (does it apply to a justifiction?), don’t you just need to show a credible threat of enforcement? Isn’t that the lesson of _Doe_? He just needs to demonstrate a propensity for attacking white people. Strictly speaking, this isn’t a challenge to a penal statute. It is, but not from the side where those are usually made - that is, the defendant’s. I think this has to be analyzed as an equal protection challenge to a non-criminal statute. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2013, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stand-your-ground/673254/15 "2013-11-06T19:14:29Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Strictly speaking, this isn’t a challenge to a penal statute. It is, but not from the side where those are usually made - that is, the defendant’s. I think this has to be analyzed as an equal protection challenge to a non-criminal statute. I’m not familiar with any other cases challenging a justification provision. But, I think you’re right that it won’t get standard “penal statute” standing principles. Then again, I would have liked to see the “habitual cracker-beater” standing argument. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2013, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stand-your-ground/673254/16 "2013-11-06T19:17:13Z")
I suspect the minister is probably a bad choice of test plaintiff in that regard. 🙂 Having said that, I don’t think he needs to show that he habitually attacks white people, just that white people are more likely to believe they need to defend themselves from him. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2013, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stand-your-ground/673254/17 "2013-11-06T19:39:47Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I suspect the minister is probably a bad choice of test plaintiff in that regard. 🙂 Having said that, I don’t think he needs to show that he habitually attacks white people, just that white people are more likely to believe they need to defend themselves from him. I guess you’re right. He needs to show that he’s regularly in situations in which white people might use his race to inform their belief that he poses an imminent threat. The cracker-beater issue might work better if this statute made a clearer distinction between deadly force and other force (so that his habitual attacks on whites would be viewed as posing greater risk to the victim than a white person’s). Although, thinking about this reasonably takes the fun out of it. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2013, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stand-your-ground/673254/18 "2013-11-06T19:48:48Z")
Well, maybe for you, but I’m not white, so I’m still entertained. I’M GONNA GIT YOU, WHITEY! ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2013, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stand-your-ground/673254/19 "2013-11-06T19:49:15Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > I guess you’re right. He needs to show that he’s regularly in situations in which white people might use his race to inform their belief that he poses an imminent threat. And that that would be a reasonable belief as well, correct? ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2013, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stand-your-ground/673254/20 "2013-11-06T19:57:34Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > And that that would be a reasonable belief as well, correct? That’s his claim, as I understand it. That the law would permit (or require?) the finding that his race would inform the reasonableness of the belief. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stand-your-ground/673254.md?page=2)