First, before you even consider getting a CPL license evaluate yourself. Just because you were never admitted into a hospital for psychiatric reasons doesn’t mean you should have a CPL license. Do you have impulse control? Are you quick to anger? Do you have road rage? Do you enjoy the TV series Justified (A series where someone forces a person into a situation where he would be justified in shooting them.). If your answer is yes to these questions do not apply for a CPL license.
Second, think about what your principles of life are. If the situation asked for it, could you, would you kill another human being to save your life or the life of another? Do you think you could live with knowing that you have taken or ended a life? If you answer no, then don’t apply for a CPL license.
Absolutely nothing good can come from taking another human beings life. if you have a CPL and shoot someone, chaos follows. Police inquiries and civil law suits to name a few. It is always best to not place yourself in a situation were deadly force is necessary. If you find yourself in a dangerous situation look for ways of escape.
The “Stand Your Ground Law” in Michigan does not allow for someone to instigate a dangerous situation and then claim their life was in imminent danger allowing them to use deadly force. When someone instigates the initial contact placing them in a dangerous situation they should never be allowed to use Stand Your Ground” as a defense In any state. The individual placed in that situation by the CPL holder has every right to “Stand Their Ground” as well. Making this situation mutual combat and the one instigating the initial contact should be guilty of murder if deadly force was used.
As a NRA Certified Instructor and a CPL holder, I am vehemently opposed to allowing anyone who instigated initial contact with someone and when they start losing the battle result to deadly force being allowed to use “stand your ground” as a defense for murder. Not only are people using this law to get away with murder, they are actually getting away with murder. I am outraged. “Stand Your Ground” law in some states almost give a person a right to hunt another human being like an animal. Maybe that statement is not true. At least an animal knows he is being hunted.
letsweighin 
“In the most recent case of “stand your ground” a man named Zimmerman was clearly the instigator of the initial contact with a young man.”
The jury looked at the evidence and found him not guilty.
“As a NRA Certified Instructor and a CPL holder in Michigan I have strong opinions about this issue.”
As Vietnam veteran I have strong views too. I have a series of links on my blog to some articles written by Massad Ayoob who testified at the trial as an expert witness. They are well worth reading:
Inside the Zimmerman Trial
http://free2beinamerica2.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/inside-the-zimmerman-trial/
“If the situation asked for it, could you, would you kill another human being to save your life or the life of another?”
I seriously doubt anyone who hasn’t been there knows the real answer, and that includes sworn police officers. What people say, or how macho they talk doesn’t mean a lot. Read “On Killing” by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman some time. A really good, if somewhat disturbing read. There really is only one way to find out the truth on that one.
“Absolutely nothing good can come from taking another human beings life.”
I think I understand where you are coming from. A lot of people have not thought through the consequences. Read “On Killing,” really. But in human history just about everything that has been really settled was settled by some people killing other people. People say violence doesn’t settle anything? Bullshit. Almost everything that has been settled has been settled by violence. That is human history.
Sometimes the results of “settling” things was good. A lot of times it was not. It is a good idea to try to find alternatives to violence where possible, but the reality is that some things can only be settled with violence, with killing.
“The “Stand Your Ground Law” in Michigan does not allow for someone to instigate a dangerous situation and then claim their life was in imminent danger allowing them to use deadly force.”
Is that not a general principle just about everywhere? Ok, I admit I am not totally up on all the laws of all the states, but I know for a fact that in Texas you damn well better not have any part in starting the fight if you plan to claim any type of self defense in a court in Texas.
That is probably the number one thing they taught in the class for concealed carry. That is a principle that has to be pounded into everyone’s head who plans to carry concealed. But I guess I am “preaching to the choir” on that one. 🙂
“Not only are people using this law [stand your ground] to get away with murder, they are actually getting away with murder.”
I don’t believe so. I don’t think it had anything to do with the Zimmerman verdict (read the Ayoob articles). In this latest Dunn case I don’t think it played out either. Dunn claimed it but obviously the jury didn’t believe Jordan had a gun. I think they would have convicted him of 2nd degree murder but the total political animal prosecutor overcharged with 1st degree murder. It was obviously 2nd degree – no premeditation, an event that escalated from an emotional encounter.
Read the Ayoob articles. He is an expert witness who testifies in court. In one of the articles he says that in the vast majority of cases the physical evidence either clearly exonerates, or clearly convicts. In the Zimmerman case the physical evidence is what won the not guilty verdict.
regards,
lwk
I appreciate your input on this issue. I followed the Zimmerman trial and you are absolutely correct as to the evidence and the outcome. My opinion is of the mindset of the initial contact. If you instigate the contact and a battle then takes place, you should not be able to claim “Standing your ground” when the sequence of events would of never happened ending in deadly force if one person had JUST left the other alone. If I could rewrite the law, if you instigated the initial contact “standing your ground” could not be used in this situation. You would be obligated to retreat.
“…the sequence of events would of never happened ending in deadly force if one person had JUST left the other alone.”
Well a lot of criminals would not suffer deadly force if people just left them alone. It is NOT a crime, and it is not “instigation” to follow someone at a distance to observe them for the purpose of being able to identify them to the police when they arrive.
There is absolutely no evidence that Zimmerman intended to follow Martin with an intent to confront him, to have any sort encounter with him, or to in any way take him into custody. But the evidence does support the contention that Martin felt “dissed” by someone observing him and doubled back and attacked Zimmerman starting with a “sucker punch” that broke Zimmerman’s nose and knocked him down.
That is what the evidence showed in court and why Zimmerman was found not guilty. Under law the actions that he took that were supported by the evidence did not constitute in any Zimmerman “instigating” the encounter.
“If I could rewrite the law, if you instigated the initial contact “standing your ground” could not be used in this situation. You would be obligated to retreat.”
Zimmerman did not use a “stand your ground” defense. It was simple self defense and at the point he shot Martin there was no possibility of him retreating.
I wrote about stand your ground in an article some time ago:
Stand Your Ground and Self Defense
http://free2beinamerica2.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/stand-your-ground-and-self-defense/
An obligation to retreat in the past has frequently put decent people at risk and led to many convictions that were very unjust.
regards,
lwk
Touché