Unfortunately with Florida's "Stand your Ground" law, this looks like an easy walk. The onus is entirely on the prosecution to prove he did not act in self-defence.
Yes right, and in the absence of other witnesses it shouldn't happen. The problem is with the ridiculous law, you can just shoot and kill someone and then just hold up your hands and say, "he was coming at me". If there was ever a joke pre-written for a family guy sketch this is it (perhaps it has been done already?)
Although no doubt it will now be turned into a political issue - his death will be used as a vent for the outpourings and frustrations of the under-privileged class/race/strata of society he was a part of.
No its not as simple as "You can just shoot someone and claim self defense" For example if you shoot them incorrectly, IE in the back, or while they are on the ground and so on, your guilty. If they think you shot the victim in excess, then your guilty. There are other things to consider for a guilty charge, so no its not as you put it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: But yea, Id be VERY surprised if the charges stick. I still say the guy acted in defense. Might of been stupid on his part of how he went about it, but still self defense
The difference here, KingCracker, is that in Florida it's up to the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman did not act in self-defence, rather than the onus on Zimmerman to prove that he did (as is usually the case). It's easy to say that immediately gives Zimmerman a huge advantage since, without damning evidence to suggest his story is completely fabricated, the prosecution can't do anything.
Hazardous Harry wrote:Unfortunately with Florida's "Stand your Ground" law, this looks like an easy walk. The onus is entirely on the prosecution to prove he did not act in self-defence.
How gakky it is that the Gov't has to prove guilt when prosecuting an alleged infraction of a law the gov't passed.
Its up the prosecution here as well to prove guilt. So still, you cant just say "shoot and say you defended yourself" it REALLY doesnt work that way. But, again, it looks like he really was defending himself, and due to lack of witnesses, the prosecution will have to rely on what I was just talking about. Does it look excessive? Does it look like shot the other fella in the wrong? Is there anything out of the ordinary? Does his story not mesh with how the kid was killed? No? Ok then, looks like hes not guilty.
Hazardous Harry wrote:Unfortunately with Florida's "Stand your Ground" law, this looks like an easy walk. The onus is entirely on the prosecution to prove he did not act in self-defence.
How gakky it is that the Gov't has to prove guilt when prosecuting an alleged infraction of a law the gov't passed.
Oh wait. That is what rule of law is all about.
Other, more sane, jurisdictions have to prove guilt. The onus is on the defendant to prove any defences.
In the case of SYG laws, this leans altogether far too favourably in the defendant's favour.
I think you might have your judgment clouded by this whole fiasco. To many people heard the story and instantly thought that Zimmerman was a bad guy, therefore hes already guilty. Not how it works
Hazardous Harry wrote:Unfortunately with Florida's "Stand your Ground" law, this looks like an easy walk. The onus is entirely on the prosecution to prove he did not act in self-defence.
How gakky it is that the Gov't has to prove guilt when prosecuting an alleged infraction of a law the gov't passed.
Oh wait. That is what rule of law is all about.
Other, more sane, jurisdictions have to prove guilt. The onus is on the defendant to prove any defences.
In the case of SYG laws, this leans altogether far too favourably in the defendant's favour.
As has been demonstrated in similar cases.
What makes this jurisdiction less than sane?
He is charged with 2nd degree murder, the State has to prove he committed that crime. All the defense has to do is produce reasonable doubt. Pretty frickin simple concept.
KingCracker wrote:Its up the prosecution here as well to prove guilt. So still, you cant just say "shoot and say you defended yourself" it REALLY doesnt work that way. But, again, it looks like he really was defending himself, and due to lack of witnesses, the prosecution will have to rely on what I was just talking about. Does it look excessive? Does it look like shot the other fella in the wrong? Is there anything out of the ordinary? Does his story not mesh with how the kid was killed? No? Ok then, looks like hes not guilty.
Generally, the onus has always been on the defendant to prove any ground of self-defence. To shift this over to the prosecution is very unorthodox and leads to ridiculous trial outcomes.
Apparently there are witnesses who say the victim on top of Zimmerman immediately before he was shot, so if he's found not-guilty that in itself isn't shocking. I do find it shocking that, even if he had shot him straight in the chest, or provoked him into attacking, the onus would still be on the prosecution to disprove Zimmerman's claim, even if he had virtually no evidence. He wouldn't even need scars on the back of his head (as some have hypothesised he had) he would only have to claim that Martin ran at him and looked set to kill him.
Hazardous Harry wrote:Unfortunately with Florida's "Stand your Ground" law, this looks like an easy walk. The onus is entirely on the prosecution to prove he did not act in self-defence.
How gakky it is that the Gov't has to prove guilt when prosecuting an alleged infraction of a law the gov't passed.
Oh wait. That is what rule of law is all about.
Other, more sane, jurisdictions have to prove guilt. The onus is on the defendant to prove any defences.
In the case of SYG laws, this leans altogether far too favourably in the defendant's favour.
As has been demonstrated in similar cases.
What makes this jurisdiction less than sane?
He is charged with 2nd degree murder, the State has to prove he committed that crime. All the defense has to do is produce reasonable doubt. Pretty frickin simple concept.
OK generally its much harder than that. In other jurisdictions, "self defense" is an affirmative defense. The defendant has to prove it. The prosecution doesn't have to affirmatively disprove it. Florida may be different, but I'd bet its not. Unless there are other provisions "stand your ground" is just terminology overturning historical judicial precedent that you have a duty to retreat if at all possible, which in many jurisdictions (New York) was taken to rediculous extremes.
KingCracker wrote:Thats how it works everywhere else I think. *To Capt Jake obviously
Not at all, defence is on the onus of the defendant.
To have the prosecution have to disprove a defence, beyond reasonable doubt, from the get go gives the defendant a massive advantage. One that I haven't heard of in other US states, and certainly isn't considered fair game in Australia.
KingCracker wrote:Its up the prosecution here as well to prove guilt. So still, you cant just say "shoot and say you defended yourself" it REALLY doesnt work that way. But, again, it looks like he really was defending himself, and due to lack of witnesses, the prosecution will have to rely on what I was just talking about. Does it look excessive? Does it look like shot the other fella in the wrong? Is there anything out of the ordinary? Does his story not mesh with how the kid was killed? No? Ok then, looks like hes not guilty.
Generally, the onus has always been on the defendant to prove any ground of self-defence. To shift this over to the prosecution is very unorthodox and leads to ridiculous trial outcomes.
Apparently there are witnesses who say the victim on top of Zimmerman immediately before he was shot, so if he's found not-guilty that in itself isn't shocking. I do find it shocking that, even if he had shot him straight in the chest, or provoked him into attacking, the onus would still be on the prosecution to disprove Zimmerman's claim, even if he had virtually no evidence. He wouldn't even need scars on the back of his head (as some have hypothesised he had) he would only have to claim that Martin ran at him and looked set to kill him.
Of course the onus should be on the prosecutor, no matter what. That is the way our carefully designed system works. It prevents the Gov't from coming up with trumped up charges and forcing some poor schmuck to prove a negative. You may not like the way it applies to this case, tough. It is this way for a reason, and it works.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hazardous Harry wrote:
KingCracker wrote:Thats how it works everywhere else I think. *To Capt Jake obviously
Not at all, defence is on the onus of the defendant.
To have the prosecution have to disprove a defence, beyond reasonable doubt, from the get go gives the defendant a massive advantage. One that I haven't heard of in other US states, and certainly isn't considered fair game in Australia.
They don't have to disprove a defense, they have to PROVE guilt. And yes, they have to do so 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Yes that gives the defendant an advantage, and again, it is designed that way for a reason.
KingCracker wrote:Its up the prosecution here as well to prove guilt. So still, you cant just say "shoot and say you defended yourself" it REALLY doesnt work that way. But, again, it looks like he really was defending himself, and due to lack of witnesses, the prosecution will have to rely on what I was just talking about. Does it look excessive? Does it look like shot the other fella in the wrong? Is there anything out of the ordinary? Does his story not mesh with how the kid was killed? No? Ok then, looks like hes not guilty.
Generally, the onus has always been on the defendant to prove any ground of self-defence. To shift this over to the prosecution is very unorthodox and leads to ridiculous trial outcomes.
Apparently there are witnesses who say the victim on top of Zimmerman immediately before he was shot, so if he's found not-guilty that in itself isn't shocking. I do find it shocking that, even if he had shot him straight in the chest, or provoked him into attacking, the onus would still be on the prosecution to disprove Zimmerman's claim, even if he had virtually no evidence. He wouldn't even need scars on the back of his head (as some have hypothesised he had) he would only have to claim that Martin ran at him and looked set to kill him.
Of course the onus should be on the prosecutor, no matter what. That is the way our carefully designed system works. It prevents the Gov't from coming up with trumped up charges and forcing some poor schmuck to prove a negative. You may not like the way it applies to this case, tough. It is this way for a reason, and it works.
Thats NOT how it works though CJ.
When you put in the affirmative defense of "self defense" you're effectively saying 'yes I did it, but it was a legal kill. Here's why.'
And the prosecution must still prove guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the crime they have charged you with. The 'self defense' if presented correctly helps inject that reasonable doubt.
It gives the prosecutor a very good start point because the defendant already agrees they commited a physical action, which relieves the prosecution from having to prove that.
In this case IF Zimmerman wants to avoid prosecution under the SYG law, he must show a preponderence of evidence that he was threatened and the kill was justified and if he does he cannot be prosecuted. If instead he goes to trial, the prosecutor is going to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Z is guilty of 2nd degree murder. A component of that includes proving intent. Z's lawyers are going to just have throw reasonable doubt into the mix.
Hazardous Harry wrote:Unfortunately with Florida's "Stand your Ground" law, this looks like an easy walk. The onus is entirely on the prosecution to prove he did not act in self-defence.
Support for this? I'm not disputing that you may have heard this somewhere, I just wanted to verify it.
This is surprising, and nothing I've read about Florida's statute shifts the burden to the prosecution to disprove self defense.
edit: Nevermind, found it: "Once a defendant makes a prima facie showing of self-defense, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense." Fields v. State, 988 So.2d 1185, 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)
Zimmerman does have to make a prima facie showing, which means "defendant's only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could have been reasonable."
Also, it seems Florida doesn't have an imperfect self defense rule, which explains why the prosecutor is going for murder rather than manslaughter.
Frazzled wrote:
When you put in the affirmative defense of "self defense" you're effectively saying 'yes I did it, but it was a legal kill. Here's why.'
Bingo.
CptJake wrote:And the prosecution must still prove guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the crime they have charged you with. The 'self defense' if presented correctly helps inject that reasonable doubt.
It gives the prosecutor a very good start point because the defendant already agrees they commited a physical action, which relieves the prosecution from having to prove that.
In this case IF Zimmerman wants to avoid prosecution under the SYG law, he must show a preponderence of evidence that he was threatened and the kill was justified and if he does he cannot be prosecuted. If instead he goes to trial, the prosecutor is going to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Z is guilty of 2nd degree murder. A component of that includes proving intent. Z's lawyers are going to just have throw reasonable doubt into the mix.
This isn't how it works, you're confusing reasonable doubt with legal defences.
Testify wrote:Can't say I've heard of it. Not exactly "bigger than O J Simpson". Who is this Zimmerman guy anyway?
Don't you know? He wrote a note once.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
Hazardous Harry wrote:Unfortunately with Florida's "Stand your Ground" law, this looks like an easy walk. The onus is entirely on the prosecution to prove he did not act in self-defence.
Support for this? I'm not disputing that you may have heard this somewhere, I just wanted to verify it.
This is surprising, and nothing I've read about Florida's statute shifts the burden to the prosecution to disprove self defense.
edit: Nevermind, found it:
"Once a defendant makes a prima facie showing of self-defense, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense." Fields v. State, 988 So.2d 1185, 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)
Zimmerman does have to make a prima facie showing, which means "defendant's only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could have been reasonable."
Also, it seems Florida doesn't have an imperfect self defense rule, which explains why the prosecutor is going for murder rather than manslaughter.
Wow that is different if I read that correctly. To restate, the defendant only has to show minimal evidence of the legal self defense, and then the burden shifts to the prosecution to disprove that? I'm pretty hard core but thats disconcerting.
Wow that is different if I read that correctly. To restate, the defendant only has to show minimal evidence of the legal self defense, and then the burden shifts to the prosecution to disprove that? I'm pretty hard core but thats disconcerting.
IWhen frazzled says this I hope everyone realizes it's equivalent to Darth Vader balking at the destruction of Alderan.
Wow that is different if I read that correctly. To restate, the defendant only has to show minimal evidence of the legal self defense, and then the burden shifts to the prosecution to disprove that? I'm pretty hard core but thats disconcerting.
IWhen frazzled says this I hope everyone realizes it's equivalent to Darth Vader balking at the destruction of Alderan.
Yes Sig worthy again!
Alderaan had it coming, those hippy treehuggers! -Vader after a few shots of rum.
From what I have seen the whole "self defense" aspect is a separate act from the actual trial.
Step 1) Prosecution gives the judge the evidence they have to determine if an arrest warrant should be issued. This is where the prosecution gave their probable cause to believe that Zimmerman did not act in self defense and that he should be charged.
Step 2) After arrest and arraignment, defense files a motion to dismiss the case based on the "stand your ground" law. At this point, in order for Zimmerman to get immunity based on that law, the DEFENSE has to prove that he acted in self defense. If he wins the motion the case is dismissed, pending appeals of course.
Step 3) If the motion to dismiss is not successful, the actual trial starts. At this point Zimmerman would have already admitted to killing the victim through his motion to dismiss. At this point the prosecution has to prove that the killing rises to the level of 2nd degree murder and the evidence has to seed enough doubt with the jury to get a not-guilty verdict.
tl;dr
The "who proves what" tango
1) Zimmerman says self-defense cops don't arrest.
2) Prosecution proves to a judge that it was not self defense - warrant issued.
3) Defense tries to prove it was self defense - motion to dismiss.
4) Trial - no longer about self defense. Prosecution tries to prove it was murder. Defense tries to argue it wasn't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
olympia wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:Maybe the Stand Your Ground law is a bad law and this case will be used as the test case to get it reviewed.
But wouldn't he have to be found guilty for it to get kicked up to the Supreme Court?
Prosecution can appeal all the way to the top as well I think.
Prosecution can appeal all the way to the top as well I think.
Really? In Australia prosecution can only appeal sentences and particular points of law being erred on.
I don't think our prosecution can appeal actual sentences. They can appeal procedural motions and such. If a judge dismisses the case based on stand-your-ground laws, I think they could appeal based on that interpretation, since it is a procedural thing.
If the case actually goes to trial and he is found not guilty, then I don't think they could appeal.
One of our more law-versed members might be a better resource for that though.
Given that a majority of the current members of the Supreme Court think that ROUTINE strip-searching of disabled children and nuns is fine I don't think they'll have a problem with this law.
The prosecutors must prove Zimmerman's shooting of Martin was rooted in hatred or ill will and counter his claims that he shot Martin to protect himself while patrolling his gated community in the Orlando suburb of Sanford. Zimmerman's lawyers would only have to prove by a preponderance of evidence - a relatively low legal standard - that he acted in self-defense at a pretrial hearing to prevent the case from going to trial.
Seems to jive with what I have argued. Maybe they are wrong.
olympia wrote:Given that a majority of the current members of the Supreme Court think that ROUTINE strip-searching of disabled children and nuns is fine I don't think they'll have a problem with this law.
Hazardous Harry wrote:Unfortunately with Florida's "Stand your Ground" law, this looks like an easy walk. The onus is entirely on the prosecution to prove he did not act in self-defence.
Support for this? I'm not disputing that you may have heard this somewhere, I just wanted to verify it.
This is surprising, and nothing I've read about Florida's statute shifts the burden to the prosecution to disprove self defense.
edit: Nevermind, found it:
"Once a defendant makes a prima facie showing of self-defense, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense." Fields v. State, 988 So.2d 1185, 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)
Zimmerman does have to make a prima facie showing, which means "defendant's only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could have been reasonable."
Also, it seems Florida doesn't have an imperfect self defense rule, which explains why the prosecutor is going for murder rather than manslaughter.
Wow that is different if I read that correctly. To restate, the defendant only has to show minimal evidence of the legal self defense, and then the burden shifts to the prosecution to disprove that? I'm pretty hard core but thats disconcerting.
Yeah. This is exactly why Florida's "stand your ground" law is so insane. Other states that have adopted "stand your ground" laws are much more reasonable. I still don't like them, but that's an entirely different discussion, and I can fully respect the opposing position. Florida's, however, is absolutely nuts and everyone should be in agreement it needs to be revoked or modified.
d-usa wrote:1) Zimmerman says self-defense cops don't arrest. 2) Prosecution proves to a judge that it was not self defense - warrant issued. 3) Defense tries to prove it was self defense - motion to dismiss. 4) Trial - no longer about self defense. Prosecution tries to prove it was murder. Defense tries to argue it wasn't.
I don't think this is correct. The prosecution doesn't have to prove to a judge that it was not self defense, only that they have probable cause to believe it wasn't self defense.
The motion to dismiss argues even if all of the Prosecution's facts are true a reasonable jury couldn't find that he killed Martin not in self defense.
d-usa wrote:Prosecution can appeal all the way to the top as well I think.
I don't think so. This raises double jeopardy concerns. I don't know enough about double jeopardy law.
Kilkrazy wrote:Maybe the Stand Your Ground law is a bad law and this case will be used as the test case to get it reviewed.
Maybe this specific law is a bad law, but "Stand Your Ground" laws are not themselves bad. The alternative is worse.
Frazzled wrote:Wow that is different if I read that correctly. To restate, the defendant only has to show minimal evidence of the legal self defense, and then the burden shifts to the prosecution to disprove that? I'm pretty hard core but thats disconcerting.
They have to show evidence to support self defense, which Florida essentially presumes is "reasonable doubt." It's part of the prosecution's case to prove that the defendant killed the victim "beyond a reasonable doubt."
It's certainly different, but I don't think it's really "hard core."
Frazzled wrote:
olympia wrote:Given that a majority of the current members of the Supreme Court think that ROUTINE strip-searching of disabled children and nuns is fine I don't think they'll have a problem with this law.
You'll have to explain that one.
The Supreme Court decided that when a person is routinely entered into jail the police have the authority to strip search them for contraband. I think the alternative was "reasonable suspicion" of contraband.
I don't really see a problem with the decision, tbh.
The prosecutors must prove Zimmerman's shooting of Martin was rooted in hatred or ill will and counter his claims that he shot Martin to protect himself while patrolling his gated community in the Orlando suburb of Sanford. Zimmerman's lawyers would only have to prove by a preponderance of evidence - a relatively low legal standard - that he acted in self-defense at a pretrial hearing to prevent the case from going to trial.
Seems to jive with what I have argued. Maybe they are wrong.
That is what you've been saying. And, that is what the prosecutors have to do. However, this is the only state where that's the case. Everywhere else, if you have an affirmative defense, you have to prove it.
It's the prosecutor's job to prove that you did the crime. It's your job to either introduce doubt into the prosecutor's case, OR to prove that although you did the crime, it was justified.
olympia wrote:Given that a majority of the current members of the Supreme Court think that ROUTINE strip-searching of disabled children and nuns is fine I don't think they'll have a problem with this law.
You'll have to explain that one.
The Supreme Court decided that when a person is routinely entered into jail the police have the authority to strip search them for contraband. I think the alternative was "reasonable suspicion" of contraband.
I don't really see a problem with the decision, tbh.
Ayah I remember that. I am not seeing the link with nuns and disabled children.
d-usa wrote:Prosecution can appeal all the way to the top as well I think.
I don't think so. This raises double jeopardy concerns. I don't know enough about double jeopardy law.
Actually I'm pretty sure the prosecution can appeal an overturned appeal to a higher court. I think that has happened before where a conviction was overturned in appeal and then overturned again by prosecutorial appeal.
However it can generally be only be appealed on questions of law. Facts can be overturned probably but the standard is really high and appellate courts will often over turn a fact pattern using a law argument. Its all very silly but in general issues of fact are at the actual trial court.
Being from Orlando, I used to work with a lot of red necks who were into guns. (Now I'm not saying you are a red neck if you are into guns, just that these guys I worked with were). They carried concealed and did a lot of research into gun laws. They repeatedly made the claim that their lawyers had told them that if they were ever charged with unlawful discharge of their firearm with intent(my words), all they had to say was that they "feared for their life" and they would get off.
generalgrog wrote:Being from Orlando, I used to work with a lot of red necks who were into guns. (Now I'm not saying you are a red neck if you are into guns, just that these guys I worked with were). They carried concealed and did a lot of research into gun laws. They repeatedly made the claim that their lawyers had told them that if they were ever charged with unlawful discharge of their firearm with intent(my words), all they had to say was that they "feared for their life" and they would get off.
GG
Thats a mistake. You'll get off if legally correct, but if there's an issue it will be a legal battle that will harm you forever.
Thats why i carry full auto wiener dogs. Everyone underestimates the lethality of a pack of wiener dogs. They are cute and a comedic riot when they walk, but they're lethal. Lethal i tells ya.
There is a pretty massively different legal standard here.
Every jurisdiction requires that a crime be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, by the prosecution.
That's going to be stupidly easy in the this case. Nobody disputes that Zimmerman shot Martin.
Now, in a normal jurisdiction, Zimmerman could argue self defense, and would need to prove to the court that he acted reasonably. I'm not sure, but I'd imagine this is preponderance, meaning that the jury decides it if is more likely that he acted in self defense, or not.
In flordia, even after proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendent commited the act, the prosecution most also prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he did not act in self defense.
This means that as long as the evidence supports a reasonable doubt that a person acted out of genuine fear, he cannot be convicted.
Basically, it goes from the defendent arguing that it's more likely than not that he acted in self defnese, to only need to show that it is reasonable think he might have acted in self defense.
generalgrog wrote:Being from Orlando, I used to work with a lot of red necks who were into guns. (Now I'm not saying you are a red neck if you are into guns, just that these guys I worked with were). They carried concealed and did a lot of research into gun laws. They repeatedly made the claim that their lawyers had told them that if they were ever charged with unlawful discharge of their firearm with intent(my words), all they had to say was that they "feared for their life" and they would get off.
GG
What they were talking about is what Law enforcement officers call "Articulation." It's all about how you paint the picture, what they should have said was, "if I ever discharge my firearm, I call the cops myself and when they get there I use the 5th to shut my mouth and call my lawyer."
OK...but my point is that if you parralell the "feared for my life" argument with the zimmerman case. It's similar, and I think he will probably not be found guilty.
generalgrog wrote:They repeatedly made the claim that their lawyers had told them that if they were ever charged with unlawful discharge of their firearm with intent(my words), all they had to say was that they "feared for their life" and they would get off.
Oddly enough, this is pretty much what cops do too.
However, these were obviously terrible lawyers, because if you're ever approached by a cop all you should say is "I'm not going to answer any questions, I do not consent to any searches."
generalgrog wrote:Being from Orlando, I used to work with a lot of red necks who were into guns. (Now I'm not saying you are a red neck if you are into guns, just that these guys I worked with were). They carried concealed and did a lot of research into gun laws. They repeatedly made the claim that their lawyers had told them that if they were ever charged with unlawful discharge of their firearm with intent(my words), all they had to say was that they "feared for their life" and they would get off.
GG
What they were talking about is what Law enforcement officers call "Articulation." It's all about how you paint the picture, what they should have said was, "if I ever discharge my firearm, I call the cops myself and when they get there I use the 5th to shut my mouth and call my lawyer."
Which is the advice you get from pretty much any concealed carry instructor in the country, to the best of my knowledge, and why Stand Your Ground laws are important. If I'm attacked in the street and I shoot the assailant(s), I shouldn't be required to run before being allowed to protect myself, nor should I have my savings wiped out defending myself from prosecution.
generalgrog wrote:OK...but my point is that if you parralell the "feared for my life" argument with the zimmerman case. It's similar, and I think he will probably not be found guilty.
GG
Especially as the prosecution needs to prove that he did not fear for his life.
Seaward wrote:Which is the advice you get from pretty much any concealed carry instructor in the country, to the best of my knowledge, and why Stand Your Ground laws are important. If I'm attacked in the street and I shoot the assailant(s), I shouldn't be required to run before being allowed to protect myself, nor should I have my savings wiped out defending myself from prosecution.
The problem with Stand you ground laws is that they attack a real problem in a really dumb way.
Nobody is required to "run" from a threat. Common self defense simply requires that a person that can safely retreat do so. The ability to "safely retreat" is a factual issue of course.
the problem is that in many jurisdictions it can be hard to show that you could not safely retreat. Stand Your Ground sounds great, but it allows people to literally look for trouble.
Essentially, the policy behind Stand Your Ground laws is that the State thinks that it's better to legally shoot somebody than to simply walk away.
generalgrog wrote:OK...but my point is that if you parralell the "feared for my life" argument with the zimmerman case. It's similar, and I think he will probably not be found guilty.
GG
Eh, what I've always told my friends is that you never clear your holster until you have already made the decision to use your firearm. And after that there can only be one story: yours. The implication is that you shoot to kill not to wound. After that you can easily articulate (the assumption here is truthfully) that you had a "reasonable fear for you life, or the life of another" and that you had not provoked the incident.
Arizona has laws very similar to FL, or so the media has claimed. In the ARS section on self defense that claim cannot be made if you provoke the incident...which Zimmerman did by following Martin. The Prosecution needs only prove that Z provoked the incident to invalidate SYG, which by calling 911 and then following M he provided ample evidence towards that conclusion, if AZ and FL law really are that similar.
generalgrog wrote:Being from Orlando, I used to work with a lot of red necks who were into guns. (Now I'm not saying you are a red neck if you are into guns, just that these guys I worked with were). They carried concealed and did a lot of research into gun laws. They repeatedly made the claim that their lawyers had told them that if they were ever charged with unlawful discharge of their firearm with intent(my words), all they had to say was that they "feared for their life" and they would get off.
GG
Most 2nd amendment attorney I ever talked to generally advocate not saying anything when it comes to the motive behind the shooting until after you talked to them. They recommended keeping your statement to basically "My name is xxx, I have a concealed carry license, I was carrying, I defended myself. I would like to speak to my attorney before making any other statements please." They informed us that we should not be surprised to be arrested, or at least be brought in for questioning, and that you should not say anything else until after you got a hold of an attorney.
The idea of "I was fearing for my life, so I shot him" followed by a "oh well then, good day to you sir, here is your gun back, carry on" that some of my friends have is pretty silly.
generalgrog wrote:They repeatedly made the claim that their lawyers had told them that if they were ever charged with unlawful discharge of their firearm with intent(my words), all they had to say was that they "feared for their life" and they would get off.
Oddly enough, this is pretty much what cops do too.
However, these were obviously terrible lawyers, because if you're ever approached by a cop all you should say is "I'm not going to answer any questions, I do not consent to any searches."
Wait, you're not supposed to shout out " you coppers! You'll never get me see!"
that explains so much.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:Well, I think it's safe to say that unlawful discharge is easier to win with a self defense argument than, say, murder.
The problem with affirmative defenses, of course, is that they (under the common law) jury issues, meaning you have to take it to trial.
Of course, good prosecutors will realize a viable defense and offer an apporpriate plea bargain.
Which, IMO, is what should happen in the Zimmerman case. Offer a plea to a very low felony, and recommend probation.
I don't think politically that can be done in this circumstance. Its balls to the wall time to maybe avoid a riot. Cue latest black panthers statement....now.
d-usa wrote:The idea of "I was fearing for my life, so I shot him" followed by a "oh well then, good day to you sir, here is your gun back, carry on" that some of my friends have is pretty silly.
It can happen, but rarely outside of home defense situations.
Cops, and most people I would think, aren't exactly wild about the idea of people shooting each other dead in the streets.
When the cops show up to see a big guy with a gun and a ski mask in your living room, they're probably going to believe that you shot him out of self defense. (yay Castle Doctrine!)
Not to sound like a bleeding heart liberal, but I am ok with that fact that ending a human life will probably result in an inconvenience, no matter how justiifed it was.
Seaward wrote:Which is the advice you get from pretty much any concealed carry instructor in the country, to the best of my knowledge, and why Stand Your Ground laws are important. If I'm attacked in the street and I shoot the assailant(s), I shouldn't be required to run before being allowed to protect myself, nor should I have my savings wiped out defending myself from prosecution.
The problem with Stand you ground laws is that they attack a real problem in a really dumb way.
Nobody is required to "run" from a threat. Common self defense simply requires that a person that can safely retreat do so. The ability to "safely retreat" is a factual issue of course.
the problem is that in many jurisdictions it can be hard to show that you could not safely retreat. Stand Your Ground sounds great, but it allows people to literally look for trouble.
Essentially, the policy behind Stand Your Ground laws is that the State thinks that it's better to legally shoot somebody than to simply walk away.
That is incorrect the policy behind SYG is that in the mid 90's several states quietly passed self defense laws that required people who injured or killed assailants in self-defense had to admit to guilt before being able to claim self defense. Making convictions easy for Prosecutors, and defense hard for people who defend their lives,homes, or families. *Shock* to force prosecutors to actually prove guilt against a "reasonable person" standard.
Polonius wrote:Well, I think it's safe to say that unlawful discharge is easier to win with a self defense argument than, say, murder.
The problem with affirmative defenses, of course, is that they (under the common law) jury issues, meaning you have to take it to trial.
Of course, good prosecutors will realize a viable defense and offer an apporpriate plea bargain.
Which, IMO, is what should happen in the Zimmerman case. Offer a plea to a very low felony, and recommend probation.
I don't think politically that can be done in this circumstance. Its balls to the wall time to maybe avoid a riot. Cue latest black panthers statement....now.
The problem is that if the law reads the way I think it does, zimmerman will walk after (at least one) dragged out trial.
generalgrog wrote:Being from Orlando, I used to work with a lot of red necks who were into guns. (Now I'm not saying you are a red neck if you are into guns, just that these guys I worked with were). They carried concealed and did a lot of research into gun laws. They repeatedly made the claim that their lawyers had told them that if they were ever charged with unlawful discharge of their firearm with intent(my words), all they had to say was that they "feared for their life" and they would get off.
GG
The idea of "I was fearing for my life, so I shot him" followed by a "oh well then, good day to you sir, here is your gun back, carry on" that some of my friends have is pretty silly.
It seemed to have worked for zimmerman, in that he wasn't initially arrested, and if the media hadn't had whipped this thing up, he probably would not have been.
Seaward wrote:Which is the advice you get from pretty much any concealed carry instructor in the country, to the best of my knowledge, and why Stand Your Ground laws are important. If I'm attacked in the street and I shoot the assailant(s), I shouldn't be required to run before being allowed to protect myself, nor should I have my savings wiped out defending myself from prosecution.
The problem with Stand you ground laws is that they attack a real problem in a really dumb way.
Nobody is required to "run" from a threat. Common self defense simply requires that a person that can safely retreat do so. The ability to "safely retreat" is a factual issue of course.
the problem is that in many jurisdictions it can be hard to show that you could not safely retreat. Stand Your Ground sounds great, but it allows people to literally look for trouble.
Essentially, the policy behind Stand Your Ground laws is that the State thinks that it's better to legally shoot somebody than to simply walk away.
Actually that is a problem, depending on the jurisdiction. in texas "safely retreat" means retreat to a gun store to reload your supplies after you've fired enough rounds to impress Zombie Zhukov. in New York it means you have to have abandoned your vehicle, ran three miles, dug a tunnel, escaped out of that tunnel, climbed a telephone towerm leaped to a roof and jumped into the ocean.
ok I exagerate. in NY its actually much harder than that.
Seaward wrote:Which is the advice you get from pretty much any concealed carry instructor in the country, to the best of my knowledge, and why Stand Your Ground laws are important. If I'm attacked in the street and I shoot the assailant(s), I shouldn't be required to run before being allowed to protect myself, nor should I have my savings wiped out defending myself from prosecution.
The problem with Stand you ground laws is that they attack a real problem in a really dumb way.
Nobody is required to "run" from a threat. Common self defense simply requires that a person that can safely retreat do so. The ability to "safely retreat" is a factual issue of course.
the problem is that in many jurisdictions it can be hard to show that you could not safely retreat. Stand Your Ground sounds great, but it allows people to literally look for trouble.
Essentially, the policy behind Stand Your Ground laws is that the State thinks that it's better to legally shoot somebody than to simply walk away.
People certainly are required to "run" from a threat. NPR had a guy from Indiana on who was visiting his girlfriend's house. Girlfriend's ex quite literally broke in and started swinging a golf club at him. The guy eventually wound up putting him down with a baseball bat he'd gotten from upstairs. He got convicted of assault and battery because, according to the judge, his duty was to have run out the back door rather than defend himself.
There's a reason Stand Your Ground laws exist, and it's not because evil Republicans want to legalize murder. It's because we still believe in a right to defend yourself from a threat in this country, and most of us, myself included, would not be capable of taking twenty minutes' time out to parse the law and determine if we have both the opportunity and duty to retreat if some jackass is coming at us swinging a golf club.
Seaward wrote:Which is the advice you get from pretty much any concealed carry instructor in the country, to the best of my knowledge, and why Stand Your Ground laws are important. If I'm attacked in the street and I shoot the assailant(s), I shouldn't be required to run before being allowed to protect myself, nor should I have my savings wiped out defending myself from prosecution.
The problem with Stand you ground laws is that they attack a real problem in a really dumb way.
Nobody is required to "run" from a threat. Common self defense simply requires that a person that can safely retreat do so. The ability to "safely retreat" is a factual issue of course.
the problem is that in many jurisdictions it can be hard to show that you could not safely retreat. Stand Your Ground sounds great, but it allows people to literally look for trouble.
Essentially, the policy behind Stand Your Ground laws is that the State thinks that it's better to legally shoot somebody than to simply walk away.
That is incorrect the policy behind SYG is that in the mid 90's several states quietly passed self defense laws that required people who injured or killed assailants in self-defense had to admit to guilt before being able to claim self defense. Making convictions easy for Prosecutors, and defense hard for people who defend their lives,homes, or families. *Shock* to force prosecutors to actually prove guilt against a "reasonable person" standard.
I'm not an expert in the matter, but a defense pretty much always acknowledges that the action happened.
Still, the way to correct that is to change the laws governing how self defense is shown, not to change the law as to when a person can use the defense.
I can't think of any good policy reason to encourage people to use lethal force instead of disengaging.
How to handle yourself after a justified shooting is just as important as the actual act of defending yourself. Some of the stuff I have heard from my buddies is pretty amazing.
There is the "call your attorney before you call 911" argument. That is pretty silly IMO. If the guy you shot isn't dead yet, but you let him bleed to death while chatting with your attorney instead of calling an ambulance, that will not look good.
I also strongly believe in the "the first person to call 911 is the victim" argument. In the mindset of many cops, if you call 911, then you are the good guy. If somebody else calls 911 and they show up to find you with a gun over a dead body, then you will start out as the bad guy.
I also have heard people say that you basically assume a defensive position with your gun drawn in case any other bad guys show up. I am a believer of finding a save spot without leaving the scene if able (running away makes you look like a bad guy), holstering your weapon (holding it in your hand makes you a bad guy, throwing it away makes you a dumb guy), don't approach the cops once they show up (they don't know who the bad guy is and will react badly to anybody marching up to them). Give your name, let them give you the customary pat-down, be prepared to surrender your gun and be handcuffed, and ask for an attorney because anything you say WILL get used against you. You can still be pleasant with the cops, that actually goes a long way. But realize that at this point they are not your friends. Somebody is dead and you killed that person, that is all the cops have to work with.
Seaward wrote:
People certainly are required to "run" from a threat. NPR had a guy from Indiana on who was visiting his girlfriend's house. Girlfriend's ex quite literally broke in and started swinging a golf club at him. The guy eventually wound up putting him down with a baseball bat he'd gotten from upstairs. He got convicted of assault and battery because, according to the judge, his duty was to have run out the back door rather than defend himself.
There's a reason Stand Your Ground laws exist, and it's not because evil Republicans want to legalize murder. It's because we still believe in a right to defend yourself from a threat in this country, and most of us, myself included, would not be capable of taking twenty minutes' time out to parse the law and determine if we have both the opportunity and duty to retreat if some jackass is coming at us swinging a golf club.
but... stand your ground doesn't apply to that fact pattern!
If he got the baseball from upstairs, he then returned to the fight.
I believe in a right to defend yourself. I agree that the problem is the reasonableness standard of safe retreat. I'd buy chanign the rule to require that the prosecution prove that you could have safely retreated.
But if a person can safely retreat, shouldn't we encourage that?
Polonius wrote:I can't think of any good policy reason to encourage people to use lethal force instead of disengaging.
Do I have to disengage in my home?
What about my car?
What if I'm with my wife and child on the street? Am I supposed to run because the assailants are coming after me, and leave them behind?
If I'm a fifty-five year-old fatass, am I still required to run from a pair of former high school track stars? I think that race is a foregone conclusion.
If I've retreated for three miles and they're still after me, can I finally start throwing rocks at them?
I can't think of any good policy reason to force people to value the life of someone trying to do them physical harm over their own life.
Seaward wrote:Which is the advice you get from pretty much any concealed carry instructor in the country, to the best of my knowledge, and why Stand Your Ground laws are important. If I'm attacked in the street and I shoot the assailant(s), I shouldn't be required to run before being allowed to protect myself, nor should I have my savings wiped out defending myself from prosecution.
The problem with Stand you ground laws is that they attack a real problem in a really dumb way.
Nobody is required to "run" from a threat. Common self defense simply requires that a person that can safely retreat do so. The ability to "safely retreat" is a factual issue of course.
the problem is that in many jurisdictions it can be hard to show that you could not safely retreat. Stand Your Ground sounds great, but it allows people to literally look for trouble.
Essentially, the policy behind Stand Your Ground laws is that the State thinks that it's better to legally shoot somebody than to simply walk away.
That is incorrect the policy behind SYG is that in the mid 90's several states quietly passed self defense laws that required people who injured or killed assailants in self-defense had to admit to guilt before being able to claim self defense. Making convictions easy for Prosecutors, and defense hard for people who defend their lives,homes, or families. *Shock* to force prosecutors to actually prove guilt against a "reasonable person" standard.
I'm not an expert in the matter, but a defense pretty much always acknowledges that the action happened.
Still, the way to correct that is to change the laws governing how self defense is shown, not to change the law as to when a person can use the defense.
I can't think of any good policy reason to encourage people to use lethal force instead of disengaging.
You are not getting it: When the judge says "how do you plead" a person using self defense as justification had to plead "guilty" That is not normal.
In some random bloggers words:
prosecutors had the law changed in their favor so that people involved in self defense had to admit guilt before proving their own innocence by "justification," which resulted in a complex and extremely expensive legal process for the innocent.
Seaward wrote:
People certainly are required to "run" from a threat. NPR had a guy from Indiana on who was visiting his girlfriend's house. Girlfriend's ex quite literally broke in and started swinging a golf club at him. The guy eventually wound up putting him down with a baseball bat he'd gotten from upstairs. He got convicted of assault and battery because, according to the judge, his duty was to have run out the back door rather than defend himself.
There's a reason Stand Your Ground laws exist, and it's not because evil Republicans want to legalize murder. It's because we still believe in a right to defend yourself from a threat in this country, and most of us, myself included, would not be capable of taking twenty minutes' time out to parse the law and determine if we have both the opportunity and duty to retreat if some jackass is coming at us swinging a golf club.
but... stand your ground doesn't apply to that fact pattern!
If he got the baseball from upstairs, he then returned to the fight.
I believe in a right to defend yourself. I agree that the problem is the reasonableness standard of safe retreat. I'd buy chanign the rule to require that the prosecution prove that you could have safely retreated.
But if a person can safely retreat, shouldn't we encourage that?
You should listen to the story. I'll see if I can find it. They were fighting all the way up the stairs.
Even if they weren't, you're still taking a ludicrous stance here. He's really supposed to run from the house and leave his girlfriend in there with a guy who's shown clear intent to assault people?
Polonius wrote:I can't think of any good policy reason to encourage people to use lethal force instead of disengaging.
Do I have to disengage in my home?
What about my car?
What if I'm with my wife and child on the street? Am I supposed to run because the assailants are coming after me, and leave them behind?
If I'm a fifty-five year-old fatass, am I still required to run from a pair of former high school track stars? I think that race is a foregone conclusion.
If I've retreated for three miles and they're still after me, can I finally start throwing rocks at them?
I can't think of any good policy reason to force people to value the life of someone trying to do them physical harm over their own life.
You seem not to understand the word "safely."
If you feel that you cannot retreat, and that's a reasonable belief, than you shouldn't have to retreat.
It may be a standard improperly applied by many places, but if so, fix that.
AustonT wrote:[You are not getting it: When the judge says "how do you plead" a person using self defense as justification had to plead "guilty" That is not normal.
In some random bloggers words:
prosecutors had the law changed in their favor so that people involved in self defense had to admit guilt before proving their own innocence by "justification," which resulted in a complex and extremely expensive legal process for the innocent.
then why not change that? What does that have to do with not having a duty to retreat?
I think that's pretty stupid, but thinking that allowing people to not retreat from deadly force will fix that is equally wierd to me.
Seaward wrote:You should listen to the story. I'll see if I can find it. They were fighting all the way up the stairs.
Even if they weren't, you're still taking a ludicrous stance here. He's really supposed to run from the house and leave his girlfriend in there with a guy who's shown clear intent to assault people?
I don't know the whole story. You said he got a bat from upstairs.
Give me all the facts, and I'll give you my analysis.
What you're describing sounds like a bad ruling by a trial judge, not bad law. BTW, indiana has had "stand your ground" since at least 2006:
Polonius wrote:I can't think of any good policy reason to encourage people to use lethal force instead of disengaging.
Do I have to disengage in my home?
What about my car?
What if I'm with my wife and child on the street? Am I supposed to run because the assailants are coming after me, and leave them behind?
If I'm a fifty-five year-old fatass, am I still required to run from a pair of former high school track stars? I think that race is a foregone conclusion.
If I've retreated for three miles and they're still after me, can I finally start throwing rocks at them?
I can't think of any good policy reason to force people to value the life of someone trying to do them physical harm over their own life.
You seem not to understand the word "safely."
If you feel that you cannot retreat, and that's a reasonable belief, than you shouldn't have to retreat.
It may be a standard improperly applied by many places, but if so, fix that.
thats the problem Polonius, you're making a reasoned argument on "safely." In many jurisdictions, the concept of "safely" and "reasonable" in regards to retreat has become rediculous.
Frazzled wrote:thats the problem Polonius, you're making a reasoned argument on "safely." In many jurisdictions, the concept of "safely" and "reasonable" in regards to retreat has become rediculous.
Fair enough. If legislatures don't trust courts to apply a good standard, you can just eliminate the requirement.
I'd still prefer some effort to make a showing that a person could not retreat. Make the prosecution prove that the person knew he could retreat safely. That'd be a pretty tough burden to show.
Frazzled wrote:thats the problem Polonius, you're making a reasoned argument on "safely." In many jurisdictions, the concept of "safely" and "reasonable" in regards to retreat has become rediculous.
Fair enough. If legislatures don't trust courts to apply a good standard, you can just eliminate the requirement.
I'd still prefer some effort to make a showing that a person could not retreat. Make the prosecution prove that the person knew he could retreat safely. That'd be a pretty tough burden to show.
I still have yet to see a reason why anyone should have a duty to retreat. If someone chooses to assault another individual, why is it incumbent upon the victim to do everything possible to protect the assailant?
1) that people that genuinely defended themselves will be convicted, or spend a fortune in legal fees. Or to avoid these, they will be readily victimized.
vs.
2) people will be killing each other a lot more, because there is less fear of convication or expense.
Now, if I were a cynical state government, I'd go with the latter under the "it's cheapter to investigate a self defense than it is to imprison a murdered" policy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote:
Polonius wrote:
Frazzled wrote:thats the problem Polonius, you're making a reasoned argument on "safely." In many jurisdictions, the concept of "safely" and "reasonable" in regards to retreat has become rediculous.
Fair enough. If legislatures don't trust courts to apply a good standard, you can just eliminate the requirement.
I'd still prefer some effort to make a showing that a person could not retreat. Make the prosecution prove that the person knew he could retreat safely. That'd be a pretty tough burden to show.
I still have yet to see a reason why anyone should have a duty to retreat. If someone chooses to assault another individual, why is it incumbent upon the victim to do everything possible to protect the assailant?
Well, it helps if you understand what duty to retreat means. It's not "everything possible to protect the assailant." It's the idea that if a situation can be diffused by retreating, a person should do that rather than escalate it.
and it's good because the State has decided that people shouldn't kill each other, as a very general rule.
But if a person can safely retreat, shouldn't we encourage that?
Most people do encourage it. I simply (and I'm not alone) don't feel that I should be mandated to retreat when it is infeasible, or in my home. It is unreasonable to expect someone to retreat from their own home. In the street if I was confronted with my wife, I would expect her to retreat immediately while I "stood my ground" to increase her probability of escape (presumably in the future with our children which would preclude her from using her own firearm in my support once she is safe).
Actually this video has a portion that describes very well how one SHOULD react if you are alone and don't have to consider the safety of another person.
from 4:25 to 6:25 is the relevant portion
I especially agree with the part where he says, "I don't want to shoot anyone, even a bad guy," with the caveat "unless I had no other choice"
But if a person can safely retreat, shouldn't we encourage that?
Most people do encourage it. I simply (and I'm not alone) don't feel that I should be mandated to retreat when it is infeasible, or in my home. It is unreasonable to expect someone to retreat from their own home.
If it's infeasible to retreat, than pretty much by definition a person cannot safly retreat, right? I mean, unless there's a subtle semantic I'm missing.
And duty to retreat predates firearms. There's really no way to safely retreat from a handgun.
Stand your ground can just create some nasty results, is all. So, a person with a limp can come at you with a baseball bat. Under Stand your ground, that's lethal force. Even though you could easily just walk away, you can shoot the guy.
It's a weird case, I know. But that seems like a really unnecessary killing. Self Defense, after all, is a justification.
I can't watch videos, but what you quoted shows my point. My ideal self defense law would allow for self defense any time there wasn't a reasoanble, safe alternative.
biccat wrote:However, these were obviously terrible lawyers, because if you're ever approached by a cop all you should say is "I'm not going to answer any questions, I do not consent to any searches."
If you learn nothing else from Dakka, please learn this.
But if a person can safely retreat, shouldn't we encourage that?
Most people do encourage it. I simply (and I'm not alone) don't feel that I should be mandated to retreat when it is infeasible, or in my home. It is unreasonable to expect someone to retreat from their own home.
If it's infeasible to retreat, than pretty much by definition a person cannot safly retreat, right? I mean, unless there's a subtle semantic I'm missing.
And duty to retreat predates firearms. There's really no way to safely retreat from a handgun.
Stand your ground can just create some nasty results, is all. So, a person with a limp can come at you with a baseball bat. Under Stand your ground, that's lethal force. Even though you could easily just walk away, you can shoot the guy.
It's a weird case, I know. But that seems like a really unnecessary killing. Self Defense, after all, is a justification.
I can't watch videos, but what you quoted shows my point. My ideal self defense law would allow for self defense any time there wasn't a reasoanble, safe alternative.
In reality that also falls under the reasonable standard. if McGimpy is coming at me with a bat then its not reasonable for me to fear for my life. Unless of course I'm also gimpy or some other circumstance.
Most castle doctrine states presume no duty to retreat in your own abode.
AustonT wrote:I especially agree with the part where he says, "I don't want to shoot anyone, even a bad guy," with the caveat "unless I had no other choice"
I have a gun and I would hope that I am prepared to kill somebody if I had no other option, but I hope that it would never get to that point.
I would hope that most people who carry have the same mindset. I know that if a place or a person gives me a bad feeling, I would try to remove myself from that situation. I don't think that you should have to try to run away from an attack. But if you can do something to prevent that attack in the first place, then that is the best course of action IMO.
If there is a group of thugs roaming a dark parking lot and you know you would have to pass them to get to your car, then make the decision to not engage that group. Awareness of your surroundings can prevent the wast majority of instances where self defense would have been needed.
The way I see it, the problem is not with people defending themselves. The problem is that you will always have people who feel that carrying a gun makes them a tough guy who will willingly put themselves into dangerous situations that should have been avoided because "if something bad happens, I will just shoot the bad guy".
To put that back into the parking lot situation, you can have two options:
1) See a group of suspicious people loitering, get a bad feeling, decide to walk away and come back another time. You were not in imminent danger, and were able to keep yourself safe without having to discharge a firearm.
2) See a group of suspicious people loitering, get a bad feeling, decide "I got a gun, bring it punks" and walk into a dangerous situation that could have been avoided.
Polonius wrote:If it's infeasible to retreat, than pretty much by definition a person cannot safly retreat, right? I mean, unless there's a subtle semantic I'm missing.
It's not semantics you're missing, it's the fact that prosecutors make their bones on winning prosecutions.
d-usa wrote:[
1) See a group of suspicious people loitering, get a bad feeling, decide to walk away and come back another time. You were not in imminent danger, and were able to keep yourself safe without having to discharge a firearm.
2) See a group of suspicious people loitering, get a bad feeling, decide "I got a gun, bring it punks" and walk into a dangerous situation that could have been avoided.
What about:
1) See a group of suspicious people loitering, get a bad feeling, and decide to mug them cause Daddy need a new pair of everything?
But if a person can safely retreat, shouldn't we encourage that?
Most people do encourage it. I simply (and I'm not alone) don't feel that I should be mandated to retreat when it is infeasible, or in my home. It is unreasonable to expect someone to retreat from their own home.
If it's infeasible to retreat, than pretty much by definition a person cannot safly retreat, right? I mean, unless there's a subtle semantic I'm missing.
And duty to retreat predates firearms. There's really no way to safely retreat from a handgun.
Stand your ground can just create some nasty results, is all. So, a person with a limp can come at you with a baseball bat. Under Stand your ground, that's lethal force. Even though you could easily just walk away, you can shoot the guy.
It's a weird case, I know. But that seems like a really unnecessary killing. Self Defense, after all, is a justification.
I can't watch videos, but what you quoted shows my point. My ideal self defense law would allow for self defense any time there wasn't a reasoanble, safe alternative.
In reality that also falls under the reasonable standard. if McGimpy is coming at me with a bat then its not reasonable for me to fear for my life. Unless of course I'm also gimpy or some other circumstance.
Most castle doctrine states presume no duty to retreat in your own abode.
That seems to be the point that doesnt get across, laws with a "duty" to retreat remove the ability to make a decision and muddy the legal waters. If you go to court and say, "a guy chainsawed the door to my house down, so I shot him in the face" that's pretty clear cut, with a duty to retreat you have to say "a guy chainsawed the door to my house down, so I scurried away and let my children fend for themselves until they were trapped, then I shot him in the face,"
Clearly I'm being hyperbolic.
The point is that the "duty" to retreat does not predate firearms. The castle doctrine does though.
d-usa wrote:
1) See a group of suspicious people loitering, get a bad feeling, decide to walk away and come back another time. You were not in imminent danger, and were able to keep yourself safe without having to discharge a firearm.
2) See a group of suspicious people loitering, get a bad feeling, decide "I got a gun, bring it punks" and walk into a dangerous situation that could have been avoided.
What about:
1) See a group of suspicious people loitering, get a bad feeling, and decide to mug them cause Daddy need a new pair of everything?
Quit trying to use your army of Wiener Dogs to do evil
d-usa wrote:
1) See a group of suspicious people loitering, get a bad feeling, decide to walk away and come back another time. You were not in imminent danger, and were able to keep yourself safe without having to discharge a firearm.
2) See a group of suspicious people loitering, get a bad feeling, decide "I got a gun, bring it punks" and walk into a dangerous situation that could have been avoided.
What about:
1) See a group of suspicious people loitering, get a bad feeling, and decide to mug them cause Daddy need a new pair of everything?
Quit trying to use your army of Wiener Dogs to do evil
Some call it evil, some call call an honest man just trying to make his way in the galaxy.
biccat wrote:However, these were obviously terrible lawyers, because if you're ever approached by a cop all you should say is "I'm not going to answer any questions, I do not consent to any searches."
If you learn nothing else from Dakka, please learn this.
Unless you committed a crime. In that case, please consent to all searches and provide the police with a detailed confession.
biccat wrote:However, these were obviously terrible lawyers, because if you're ever approached by a cop all you should say is "I'm not going to answer any questions, I do not consent to any searches."
If you learn nothing else from Dakka, please learn this.
Unless you committed a crime. In that case, please consent to all searches and provide the police with a detailed confession.
In reality that also falls under the reasonable standard. if McGimpy is coming at me with a bat then its not reasonable for me to fear for my life. Unless of course I'm also gimpy or some other circumstance.
Most castle doctrine states presume no duty to retreat in your own abode.
Polonius wrote:But if a person can safely retreat, shouldn't we encourage that?
No, because that gives authority to anyone who threatens violence to control where you are legally allowed to be. If I can force you to leave with "I'm going to kill you," then (absent stand-your-ground rules) you are under a legal obligation to leave the area.
The next question is: what else is a person required to do? If a mugger says "give me your wallet or I'll kill you", are you under a legal obligation to surrender your life (assuming there's no opportunity to retreat), or do you have the right to self defense? What about other crimes? Is a woman who is threatened with rape under a legal obligation to submit, or can she use deadly force to defend herself?
By the time the trial began in January, 2007, there was no dispute between the Commonwealth and the defendant that the victim had died as a result of stab wounds inflicted by the defendant with a knife during a fight between the two young men outside of the victim’s home in Pittsfield…. In particular, at the time of his arrest on May 30, 2005, some hours after the fight with and resulting death of the victim, the defendant gave a statement to the police in which he said that immediately before the actual physical confrontation between him and the victim began, the victim “was on his porch saying that, ‘I’m going to stab you [see forum posting rules], this and that.’”
...
The defendant claims that he was entitled to an instruction on self-defense and that the judge erroneously refused to instruct the jury on this theory. When deadly force is used, such as in this case, the deadly force standard is applied. “In order to create a right to defend oneself with a dangerous weapon likely to cause serious injury or death, it must appear that the person using the weapon had a reasonable apprehension of great bodily harm and a reasonable belief that no other means would suffice to prevent such harm.” Moreover, the privilege to use self-defense arises only in circumstances in which the defendant uses all proper means to avoid physical combat.
...
In the defendant’s statement to the police, he said that, as he was about ten feet from the victim on the porch, the victim yelled, “I’m going to stab you [see forum posting rules],” and that the victim jumped or “skipped” off the porch and “came at” the defendant and the defendant’s friend, Brandon Johnson. The defendant “figured that [the victim] had a knife, too, because he was going to stab us.” At that point, the defendant and Johnson talked about what to do, and Johnson gave the defendant a knife.
The case was remanded on other grounds, but the defendant pleaded guilty to manslaughter (he was denied an instruction of self defense).
Kilkrazy wrote:Just being lethally threatened doesn't create a legal obligation to leave an area.
That's true, you could always get killed.
I suppose you consider this a sensible alternative?
I eagerly await your next post in 3-4 pages tossing out a pithy line or two.
Not sure what you mean.
If a law were to be passed making it a crime not to run away when lethally threatened then obviously you would be committing a crime by not running away when lethally threatened.
That's not the state of the law, though, so if threatened you have no legal duty to run away.
Couldn't it be considered dangerous to "run away" in some cases? If I run away... what's to prevent the guy I ran away from, from tracking me down and doing away with me.
generalgrog wrote:Couldn't it be considered dangerous to "run away" in some cases? If I run away... what's to prevent the guy I ran away from, from tracking me down and doing away with me.
I'm no criminal defense lawyer but I seem to remember there being exceptions to duty to retreat. For one thing, you don't have to retreat if you're already in your house (castle laws). For another, I don't think you have the duty if retreating would also be dangerous or if you can't retreat.
Not exact:
"Trayvon Martin's mother listened to the 911 tapes and IDed the voice calling for help as her son"
WELL THAT SEALS IT.
victims mother who was not present as an expert witness: value=0.
They could have left that out and used a real expert.
biccat wrote:"Once a defendant makes a prima facie showing of self-defense, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense." Fields v. State, 988 So.2d 1185, 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)
Zimmerman does have to make a prima facie showing, which means "defendant's only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could have been reasonable."
Also, it seems Florida doesn't have an imperfect self defense rule, which explains why the prosecutor is going for murder rather than manslaughter.
Wow that is different if I read that correctly. To restate, the defendant only has to show minimal evidence of the legal self defense, and then the burden shifts to the prosecution to disprove that? I'm pretty hard core but thats disconcerting.
This point has been raised in literally every thread on the subject in the last month.
What happens in Florida is that before it can get to a jury trial, they hold an evidentiary hearing before a judge. He decides if a preponderance of the evidence indicates that the defendent thought he was defending himself. If so, he is granted immunity from prosecution, and it never goes to trial.
In some cases people have pursued, and still been granted immunity. There was a case in Miami recently where a guy chased a thief who had stolen his car stereo. Chased the thief down and stabbed him to death. The thief was only armed with the bag holding a couple of stolen stereos. The judge granted the killer immunity.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/27/2717572/miami-dade-issues-ruling-in-stand.html
A bag of stolen car radios — swung during a confrontation — amounted to a lethal threat to a Little Havana man who chased down a thief and stabbed him to death, a Miami-Dade judge said in her written ruling Tuesday in dismissing the murder charge against the man.
Circuit Judge Beth Bloom issued her written ruling six days after deciding that based on Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, Greyston Garcia was immune from prosecution in the killing of Pedro Roteta, who swung the four- to six-pound bag at Garcia just before the stabbing.
Last week’s ruling drew widespread attention at a time when critics are assailing Florida’s self-defense law in the wake of the fatal shooting of a Miami Gardens youth, Trayvon Martin, 17, by a self-appointed neighborhood watchman.
Citing the law, Sanford police did not arrest the shooter, George Zimmerman, 28. Trayvon’s supporters have said Zimmerman targeted the unarmed teen because he was black.
In Garcia’s case, police painted the defendant as a vigilante who chased Roteta for more than a block before stabbing him during a confrontation Jan. 25.
But Bloom, in her order, said that under the law, Garcia “was well within his rights to pursue the victim and demand the return of his property . . . the defendant had no duty to retreat and could lawfully pursue a fleeing felon who has stolen his property.”
Bloom acknowledged in her order that Garcia did not call police or 911, but went home and fell asleep. He later sold two of the car radios and hid the knife. Those actions, however, did not sway the judge in ruling in favor of his self-defense claim.
I'm aware of the purpose of an affidavit, and if I wasn't the last paragraph makes it clear. All I'm saying is that even for the purpose of determining probable cause. A non-witness, who just so happens to be the victims mother is useless as evidence towards PC. Or think rather in the reverse, if Zimmerman's mother said he was the voice calling for help. It's useless, and can probably be latched onto by the defense(however in what capacity I do not know: not being a lawyer and all).
AustonT wrote:I'm aware of the purpose of an affidavit, and if I wasn't the last paragraph makes it clear. All I'm saying is that even for the purpose of determining probable cause. A non-witness, who just so happens to be the victims mother is useless as evidence towards PC. Or think rather in the reverse, if Zimmerman's mother said he was the voice calling for help. It's useless, and can probably be latched onto by the defense(however in what capacity I do not know: not being a lawyer and all).
generalgrog wrote:Couldn't it be considered dangerous to "run away" in some cases? If I run away... what's to prevent the guy I ran away from, from tracking me down and doing away with me.
GG
If they wanted to kill you they would just kill you without warning.
Unless it's some kind of James Bond gloating scenario.
Seaward wrote:
It's not semantics you're missing, it's the fact that prosecutors make their bones on winning prosecutions.
Yes, and?
Innocent people will be convicted of crimes, news at 11.
Well, as long as we're all okay with innocent people being convicted of crimes, you're right, it's not an issue at all.
But that wasn't even the point I was making. Without Stand Your Ground laws, I'm going tens of thousands of dollars into debt the second I quite legally use deadly force to defend myself, unless I want to chance my freedom to an overworked public defender. I'm also losing my job - it's hard to work a nine to five when you're in jail awaiting trial - and getting vilified by the media if the guy who tried to kill me happens to be of an advantageous character for any number of special interest groups out there.
I don't want citizens taking the law into their own hands. I don't want the OK Corral on the average street. But when seconds count, the police are only minutes away, and if someone is trying to assault/rape/kill someone else and happens to bite off more than they can chew? Hey, sucks to be them, maybe don't be a criminal next playthrough.
Seaward wrote:
Well, as long as we're all okay with innocent people being convicted of crimes, you're right, it's not an issue at all.
Any system of justice has to be ok with some innocents being convicted. There's no practical way around it.
Seaward wrote:
But that wasn't even the point I was making. Without Stand Your Ground laws, I'm going tens of thousands of dollars into debt the second I quite legally use deadly force to defend myself, unless I want to chance my freedom to an overworked public defender. I'm also losing my job - it's hard to work a nine to five when you're in jail awaiting trial - and getting vilified by the media if the guy who tried to kill me happens to be of an advantageous character for any number of special interest groups out there.
Too bad, shouldn't have placed yourself in a position where you were likely to commit a questionable act.
Seaward wrote:
I don't want citizens taking the law into their own hands. I don't want the OK Corral on the average street. But when seconds count, the police are only minutes away, and if someone is trying to assault/rape/kill someone else and happens to bite off more than they can chew? Hey, sucks to be them, maybe don't be a criminal next playthrough.
And I want them to bear the responsibility of killing another person, even if it was done legitimately, by way of monetary penalty. Because, ultimately, I don't care about them at all (hint, the population of the US is north of 300 million, you're (and so am I) irrelevant because of that), I care about a society that involves disincentives to assault, or kill, regardless of intent.
Makes for less work, and involves less money being spent.
dogma wrote:Any system of justice has to be ok with some innocents being convicted. There's no practical way around it.
No. Any system of justice has to acknowledge that such will happen. Working to keep that number as low as possible is certainly within the realm of possibility for a good system of justice, however.
Too bad, shouldn't have placed yourself in a position where you were likely to commit a questionable act.
Oh? What position was that? Walking through a city center? Driving home from work? Visiting a girlfriend with a violent ex?
And I want them to bear the responsibility of killing another person, even if it was done legitimately, by way of monetary penalty. Because, ultimately, I don't care about them at all (hint, the population of the US is north of 300 million, you're (and so am I) irrelevant because of that), I care about a society that involves disincentives to assault, or kill, regardless of intent.
Makes for less work, and involves less money being spent.
I would say the potential for getting shot in the face is a pretty good incentive not to assault or try to kill somebody.
dogma wrote:Any system of justice has to be ok with some innocents being convicted. There's no practical way around it.
No. Any system of justice has to acknowledge that such will happen. Working to keep that number as low as possible is certainly within the realm of possibility for a good system of justice, however.
At some point every system will have to admit that it's chosen the best possible balance between convicting innocent people and letting guilty people off.
I would say the potential for getting shot in the face is a pretty good incentive not to assault or try to kill somebody.
You're assuming that only people legitimately acted only in self defence (rather than due to a mean streak or a sense of vigilantism). For example, the above case of someone hunting down and stabbing a thief to death.
I am not sure that many criminals have a thought process like this:
1. I should assault that person for criminal purposes.
2. Could be a bad idea -- maybe they've got a gun?
3. It doesn't matter. They won't shoot me because then they would have to hire a lawyer to defend their self and miss days off work, etc.
4. ???
5. Profit!!
Kilkrazy wrote:I am not sure that many criminals have a thought process like this:
1. I should assault that person for criminal purposes.
2. Could be a bad idea -- maybe they've got a gun?
3. It doesn't matter. They won't shoot me because then they would have to hire a lawyer to defend their self and miss days off work, etc.
4. ???
5. Profit!!
I don't think they do, either. There is, however, evidence to support the notion that the more citizens carry concealed firearms, the lower crime rates go.
What really blows my mind in this discussion, frankly, is the amount of people who seem to be, for lack of a better way of putting it, sticking up for the hypothetical assailant.
Kilkrazy wrote:I am not sure that many criminals have a thought process like this:
1. I should assault that person for criminal purposes.
2. Could be a bad idea -- maybe they've got a gun?
3. It doesn't matter. They won't shoot me because then they would have to hire a lawyer to defend their self and miss days off work, etc.
4. ???
5. Profit!!
I don't think they do, either. There is, however, evidence to support the notion that the more citizens carry concealed firearms, the lower crime rates go.
What really blows my mind in this discussion, frankly, is the amount of people who seem to be, for lack of a better way of putting it, sticking up for the hypothetical assailant.
There's also evidence for the notion that the more citizens carry concealed firearms, the higher crime rates go.
Crime rates in states that implemented CC laws indeed fall quite dramatically from pre-law days.
Whats interesting about this case is that how it impacts neighborhood associations or just neighbors. If you follow the fact pattern, even if you follow the police mantra “observe and report” and do nothing else, you are now liable for the complete ruination of your life up to being castigated by the President of the United States and the UN (look it up), and potentially spending decades in jail.
To play Devil's Advocate, what exactly keeps you safe if you're on a neighborhood watch?
The only difference apparently is that Zimmerman followed Martin for a period of time (its disputed whether or not he turned back when the 911 operator told him to, which to me is the actual crux of that trial). If neighborhood watch sees BG and calls it in, unless they immediately run/drive away they are in the same position as Zimmerman if attacked. Further, given the fact pattern above, even if they are leaving the area and the BG appears and attacks them, well they're going to jail.
Please demonstrate the difference?
Moral of the story: don't be on a neighborhood watch. Mnd your business. If rampaging monkeys attack the street behind you, too bad, so sad.Don't report it because you could be the next Zimmerman when the nattering nabobs star flapping their lips on the TV. Cops get sued all the time for good busts, whats makes civilians think they are safe in any way whatsoever?
Way to go USA.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Seaward wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:I am not sure that many criminals have a thought process like this:
1. I should assault that person for criminal purposes.
2. Could be a bad idea -- maybe they've got a gun?
3. It doesn't matter. They won't shoot me because then they would have to hire a lawyer to defend their self and miss days off work, etc.
4. ???
5. Profit!!
I don't think they do, either. There is, however, evidence to support the notion that the more citizens carry concealed firearms, the lower crime rates go.
What really blows my mind in this discussion, frankly, is the amount of people who seem to be, for lack of a better way of putting it, sticking up for the hypothetical assailant.
There's also evidence for the notion that the more citizens carry concealed firearms, the higher crime rates go.
Thats false actually. Violent crime and robbery rates in Florida, Texas, and Tennessee went down significantly within 2 years after introduction of CHL laws.
The reason Zimmerman got into trouble is because he continued to follow Martin after being told to give it up.
If Zimmerman had just driven home at that point he would be fine, Martin would have been picked up by the police and let go after a brief questioning, and no-one would have been hurt.
Kilkrazy wrote:The reason Zimmerman got into trouble is because he continued to follow Martin after being told to give it up.
If Zimmerman had just driven home at that point he would be fine, Martin would have been picked up by the police and let go after a brief questioning, and no-one would have been hurt.
Thats a question of fact actually. Zimmerman says he turned around once the 911 operator said they didn't need him to do that. The fact the incident occurred in front of Zimmerna's truck supports his statement.
It also has nothing to do with enforcing a valid self defense claim. If Zimmernan was attacked there, at the truck, or at Taco Bell, he then has the right to self defense. As long as Zimmerman was not completing an illegal act he's good.
Again no god damn difference.
EDIT: thats not correct, just being in Taco Bell gives you the right of self defense. A person should be presumed automatically to have a reasonable fear of his life from Taco Bell's menu. NOW WITH MORE CAT!
Kilkrazy wrote:The reason Zimmerman got into trouble is because he continued to follow Martin after being told to give it up.
All you are really saying here is "don't talk to the cops." how many 911 calls do we hear on the news? You'd think people would learn.
Frazzled wrote:
It also has nothing to do with enforcing a valid self defense claim. If Zimmernan was attacked there, at the truck, or at Taco Bell, he then has the right to self defense. As long as Zimmerman was not completing an illegal act he's good.
That would usually be true. The direction I assume this will take is that him following Martin constituted a provocation which removes the ability to claim self defense; then it will be a trial about murder. Even in gun toting, Tom Brokaw scaring, Wild West AZ you can't egg someone into a fight and then shoot him in self defense.
Kilkrazy wrote:The reason Zimmerman got into trouble is because he continued to follow Martin after being told to give it up.
All you are really saying here is "don't talk to the cops." how many 911 calls do we hear on the news? You'd think people would learn.
Frazzled wrote:
It also has nothing to do with enforcing a valid self defense claim. If Zimmernan was attacked there, at the truck, or at Taco Bell, he then has the right to self defense. As long as Zimmerman was not completing an illegal act he's good.
That would usually be true. The direction I assume this will take is that him following Martin constituted a provocation which removes the ability to claim self defense; then it will be a trial about murder. Even in gun toting, Tom Brokaw scaring, Wild West AZ you can't egg someone into a fight and then shoot him in self defense.
Actually you can. I can stand there and give you a 5 year old's hienie dance, NY salute, and even the dreaded macarena. under the law, unless I am otherwise violating the law you cannot then attack me.
I'm just wondering if it would make sense, that if you are going to organize a neighborhood watch, that you might want to have a buddy system, instead of playing lone ranger?
generalgrog wrote:I'm just wondering if it would make sense, that if you are going to organize a neighborhood watch, that you might want to have a buddy system, instead of playing lone ranger?
So Lone Ranger and Tanto?
It's a good suggestion as long as one of the buddies is a reasonable person.
Troy wrote:Actually you can. I can stand there and give you a 5 year old's hienie dance, NY salute, and even the dreaded macarena. under the law, unless I am otherwise violating the law you cannot then attack me.
Provocation has a specific meaning. The things you're describing don't constitute provocation.
Seaward wrote:
I don't think they do, either. There is, however, evidence to support the notion that the more citizens carry concealed firearms, the lower crime rates go.
There's also evidence to support the absence of said effect.
Pretending its somehow a clean cut issue is just nonsense.
Seaward wrote:
What really blows my mind in this discussion, frankly, is the amount of people who seem to be, for lack of a better way of putting it, sticking up for the hypothetical assailant.
Zimmerman?
But, trolling aside, that a contentious issue is viewed as contentious, or that people are taking sides regarding it, is shocking to you speaks pretty clearly to your inability to remove yourself from the consideration of said issue.
Troy wrote:Actually you can. I can stand there and give you a 5 year old's hienie dance, NY salute, and even the dreaded macarena. under the law, unless I am otherwise violating the law you cannot then attack me.
Provocation has a specific meaning. The things you're describing don't constitute provocation.
Provocative speech isn't always unlawful speech.
The New star wars movies are better than the original movies.
The thing that really bothers me about this is the whole "felt threatened" issue. I might get into an argument with someone, it gets heated, he shoves me, I stumble back, now pissed, I glare at him looking like a murderous psycopath(its just my angry face), he gets scared, shoots me before I can do anything, I'm dead, the only witnesses see two men in a scuffle, he claims self-defense, gets off scott-free. These "stand-your-ground" laws are too vague and cheapen human life, the act of taking a human life is the most heinous of crimes for a reason, and should only be legal if there is imminant danger to you or another person, where no other choice to survive exists.
Your right, clearly I should be a doormat because anyone I disagree with can shoot me because they felt threatened, oh wait, how about about I buy a gun and anytime someone gives me lip I show off my .45 and if thye get within 10ft of me I shoot them dead. Problem solved.
I must say, the idea that it's OK to draw a weapon and kill someone simply because you feel threatened by them is totally barbarian. And what's worse, there are people that are not only defending it, but that actually seem to be quite smug about it. It's an awful, paranoid, middle-ages law.
I'll take restrictions on hate-speech and verbal harrassment over turning the streets into the fething wild-west any day of the week. You can keep your idealism, I'll keep my life.
The problem is that is appears that most people think that simply saying "I felt threatened" is a free pass kill anybody you like.
If you shoot somebody in self defense, you will usually be a subject until the police or DA is satisfied that the facts back up your claim of self defense.
Statistics will show that the vast majority of wild-west type shootings are conducted by people who are carrying unlawfully anyway.
^That's the point though, people aren't stable creatures, we are slaves to our emotions, on Monday a guy might be in a great mood while buying gas, so he doesn't mind that someone cut him off at the pump, on Friday he might not have slept well, might be under-threat of being laid-off at work etc so when someone cuts him off at the gas pump, he gets mad and shouts at them for cutting him off an approaches them.
The person feels scared, now, under stand your ground, he can shoot the man because he feels scared, he'd heard about the law passing months earlier and so has his gun on him incase something happens, he reacts and now a man is dead. Meanwhile, without stand you ground, the man isn't as careless with his firearm, he could go to jail, so he hesitates, the pissed man yells, some more, then goes back to his car. Incident over. Now, if the pissed guy was swinging an axe in his hand, approaching the scared guy, then he'd be able to claim self-defense. See the difference?
Evidence seems to suggest that a legal situation like they have in Florida results in a lot more killings being considered "justifiable homicide".
In principle I actually agree with Seaward that a person should be able to employ deadly force when necessary without resulting in automatic jail time or severe financial repercussions. But it does seem like Florida's law and/or their specific implementation of that law has taken the idea a bit too far.
d-usa wrote:And the vast majority of people who carry concealed will not shoot random people for "looking angry and walking towards them".
I will take a society that lets me defend myself over a society where I have to depend on the mercy of my assailant any day.
I'm not saying you can't defend yourself D, but you also have a responsibility as a human being to do as much as possible to not end a life. To not act on pride, on anger or impulse. For every story about someone sucessfully defending themselves with a gun, there are dozens more where it only made things worse, not to mention accident, mis-fires and children killing themselves or their friends, a self-defense art like Krav Maga is MUCH more effective in the real-world.
d-usa wrote:And the vast majority of people who carry concealed will not shoot random people for "looking angry and walking towards them".
That's not actually the point. The point is that people can say that someone was "looking angry and walking towards them" as a murder defence.
People can use anything as a murder defense, that doesn't mean that it will be a successful defense though.
I will take a society that lets me defend myself over a society where I have to depend on the mercy of my assailant any day.
Woah, so people must make attempts on your life pretty regularly, eh? Have you considered moving to a nicer area?
As soon as you can recommend an area where I am 100% risk free of ever being attacked, then I will gladly turn over my weapons.
I live in a pretty nice part of Oklahoma City. But even houses in nice areas get broken into. I work in a rough area downtown, and much can happen on my way to and from work.
Do you always wear your seatbelt to keep you safe? You must be a pretty horrible driver if you do. Have you considered taking a cab with a better driver?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Exalted Pariah wrote:
d-usa wrote:And the vast majority of people who carry concealed will not shoot random people for "looking angry and walking towards them".
I will take a society that lets me defend myself over a society where I have to depend on the mercy of my assailant any day.
I'm not saying you can't defend yourself D, but you also have a responsibility as a human being to do as much as possible to not end a life. To not act on pride, on anger or impulse.
And anybody who shoots somebody based on pride, anger, or impulse deserves to rot in jail. None of these emotions have anything to do with self defense. People can act on these same emotions and use a car to run somebody over.
d-usa wrote:And the vast majority of people who carry concealed will not shoot random people for "looking angry and walking towards them".
I will take a society that lets me defend myself over a society where I have to depend on the mercy of my assailant any day.
I'm not saying you can't defend yourself D, but you also have a responsibility as a human being to do as much as possible to not end a life. To not act on pride, on anger or impulse. For every story about someone sucessfully defending themselves with a gun, there are dozens more where it only made things worse, not to mention accident, mis-fires and children killing themselves or their friends, a self-defense art like Krav Maga is MUCH more effective in the real-world.
Justifiable Homicide is governed on a reasonable person standard. No reasonable person feels thier life is threatened by a look. Niether are pride, anger, or impulse reasonable justification for self deffence: that's called motive not justification. But by all means continue to rant on about how easy it is to kill someone under SYG without bothering to check how it works. In fact there's actually a clause in SYG that says if you are white and own a firearm you can shoot anyone else with impunity, especially if you don't like thier face.
As soon as you can recommend an area where I am 100% risk free of ever being attacked, then I will gladly turn over my weapons.
Do you have any idea how cranky and paranoid that sounds? I can't imagine what it must be like to be that fearful of my fellow human beings.
Do you always wear your seatbelt to keep you safe? You must be a pretty horrible driver if you do. Have you considered taking a cab with a better driver?
That's a horrible analogy. You don't carry a gun in case someone accidentally shoots you. Do you wear a bullet-proof vest everywhere you go?
And all of a sudden we're not talking about 'Stand Your Ground' (or 'Stand and Fight', as it probably should be more accurately titled...) any more. Why?
Ok people, let's get back on topic, the thing about the Trayvon Martin case that upsets people, is that because of SYG, since the evidence wasn't glaringly against what Zimmerman said happend, the police didn't look too closely at what happend and he would have gotten off scott-free. If it wasn't for social media there would not have been a second(and more intensive) investigation. If this had occured without SYG, Zimmerman would have been investigated, interrogated while a complete investigation was done to determine what happend. THAT's the issue with SYG
Exalted Pariah wrote:Ok people, let's get back on topic, the thing about the Trayvon Martin case that upsets people, is that because of SYG, since the evidence wasn't glaringly against what Zimmerman said happend, the police didn't look too closely at what happend and he would have gotten off scott-free. If it wasn't for social media there would not have been a second(and more intensive) investigation. If this had occured without SYG, Zimmerman would have been investigated, interrogated while a complete investigation was done to determine what happend. THAT's the issue with SYG
Which, if you go through the thread, is why SYG laws are a good thing. If I need to pull a gun and cap someone to protect my family or self, automatically being arrested and probably going bankrupt as I work through the trial process is not a good thing.
Albatross wrote: all of a sudden we're not talking about 'Stand Your Ground' (or 'Stand and Deliver', as it probably should be more accurately titled...) any more. Why?
Exalted Pariah wrote:Ok people, let's get back on topic, the thing about the Trayvon Martin case that upsets people, is that because of SYG, since the evidence wasn't glaringly against what Zimmerman said happend, the police didn't look too closely at what happend and he would have gotten off scott-free. If it wasn't for social media there would not have been a second(and more intensive) investigation. If this had occured without SYG, Zimmerman would have been investigated, interrogated while a complete investigation was done to determine what happend. THAT's the issue with SYG
Which, if you go through the thread, is why SYG laws are a good thing. If I need to pull a gun and cap someone to protect my family or self, automatically being arrested and probably going bankrupt as I work through the trial process is not a good thing.
I beleive the Miranda rights state that "if you can't afford an attorney then one will be provided for you" which, say, a guy was breaking into your home with an axe, and you shot him, should be easy to prove who was using justifiable self-defense, as opposed to SYG which will let murderers kill without consequence.
As long as people are going to continue to argue that SYG let's people murder to their heart content without any actual evidence that this is a real problem, then there is really no point in posting anything else.
One state has a problematic SYG law, yet somehow that makes anybody who carries concealed a ruthless murderer just looking for his next victim.
I carry, and I will thank God if I can go my entire life without ever having to defend myself or my family.
Exalted Pariah wrote:Ok people, let's get back on topic, the thing about the Trayvon Martin case that upsets people, is that because of SYG, since the evidence wasn't glaringly against what Zimmerman said happend, the police didn't look too closely at what happend and he would have gotten off scott-free. If it wasn't for social media there would not have been a second(and more intensive) investigation. If this had occured without SYG, Zimmerman would have been investigated, interrogated while a complete investigation was done to determine what happend. THAT's the issue with SYG
Which, if you go through the thread, is why SYG laws are a good thing. If I need to pull a gun and cap someone to protect my family or self, automatically being arrested and probably going bankrupt as I work through the trial process is not a good thing.
I beleive the Miranda rights state that "if you can't afford an attorney then one will be provided for you" which, say, a guy was breaking into your home with an axe, and you shot him, should be easy to prove who was using justifiable self-defense, as opposed to SYG which will let murderers kill without consequence.
Only an idiot would trust his freedom to a 'free' state appointed attourney when charged with murder if he/she had ANY other choice.
Stating SYG allows 'murderers to kill without consequence' is an opinion, and NOT one based on facts.
Albatross wrote:I must say, the idea that it's OK to draw a weapon and kill someone simply because you feel threatened by them is totally barbarian.
Fortunately, we don't have anything like that.
I'd be more worried about a country that throws people in jail for saying they don't like someone. Your mileage may vary.
Exalted Pariah wrote:I beleive the Miranda rights state that "if you can't afford an attorney then one will be provided for you" which, say, a guy was breaking into your home with an axe, and you shot him, should be easy to prove who was using justifiable self-defense, as opposed to SYG which will let murderers kill without consequence.
Whoa there buddy, you just claimed Stand Your Ground.
If you're really opposed to these types of laws, when someone breaks into your house with an axe you are supposed to run away. He could just be a misguided lumberjack*, and then how would you feel?
* leaping from tree to tree. As they float down the mighty rivers of British Columbia! With my best girl by my side!
Don't worry. The guy mugging you at knifepoint is a misunderstood honor student, the guy breaking into your house is just an uninvited house guest, and you are a blood thirsty manic.
Thank you,
And may god bless these United States.
And everyone knows Krav Maga will save you without the need to shoot that guy with the gun.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:But, trolling aside, that a contentious issue is viewed as contentious, or that people are taking sides regarding it, is shocking to you speaks pretty clearly to your inability to remove yourself from the consideration of said issue.
Not at all. I'm perfectly fine recognizing that SYG is contentious. What shocks me is that you feel it is perfectly acceptable for a citizen that legally defends himself from someone looking to kill him to have his life ruined. I don't get that, and I never will. You're essentially saying that, if it comes down to a choice between letting someone kill you or killing them, you'd choose letting them kill you.
Exalted Pariah wrote:I beleive the Miranda rights state that "if you can't afford an attorney then one will be provided for you" which, say, a guy was breaking into your home with an axe, and you shot him, should be easy to prove who was using justifiable self-defense, as opposed to SYG which will let murderers kill without consequence.
Whoa there buddy, you just claimed Stand Your Ground.
Funny, you've misunderstood what the difference between regular self-defence and Stand your Ground again.
While some wacky states rule that you have to flee your own home, and others say its okay to shoot them if you feel threatened, Her Majesty's Colonies seem to have self-defence figured out.
Why is this case any different from any other "Murder" or "Self-defence" case, people get killed all the time in the states, like 5 every hour or something?
Seaward wrote:
What shocks me is that you feel it is perfectly acceptable for a citizen that legally defends himself from someone looking to kill him to have his life ruined. I don't get that, and I never will. You're essentially saying that, if it comes down to a choice between letting someone kill you or killing them, you'd choose letting them kill you.
No, that isn't what it comes down to. You believe it does because you're assuming that people like Zimmerman necessarily have their lives ruined, and further that having a ruined life is worse than having no life. gak happens to people, no way around that, the whole of this game is essentially driven by probability, and deciding "Hey, I want to prevent some possible person from having their stuff stolen." is a pretty good way to increase the probability that you either die, or come under scrutiny that damages your life. Sure, there are legal fees, but Zimmerman could also have kept driving.
Zimmerman may have been engaged in self-defense, but ultimately he inserted himself into a situation which was more likely to end in his life being threatened than the most likely alternative, and now he's paying the price. Too bad, next time don't be an idiot.
Before SYG was introduced, the legal expectation was that you should retreat from a confrontation if possible, in order to avoid unnecessary effusion of blood.
dogma wrote:No, that isn't what it comes down to. You believe it does because you're assuming that people like Zimmerman necessarily have their lives ruined, and further that having a ruined life is worse than having no life. gak happens to people, no way around that, the whole of this game is essentially driven by probability, and deciding "Hey, I want to prevent some possible person from having their stuff stolen." is a pretty good way to increase the probability that you either die, or come under scrutiny that damages your life. Sure, there are legal fees, but Zimmerman could also have kept driving.
Zimmerman may have been engaged in self-defense, but ultimately he inserted himself into a situation which was more likely to end in his life being threatened than the most likely alternative, and now he's paying the price. Too bad, next time don't be an idiot.
You are making the rather asinine assumption that every Stand Your Ground case is going to be exactly like Zimmerman's, in which an individual allegedly pursued the individual he ended up shooting. Know what? Most self-defense shootings do not fall under that archetype.
But even in situations where that scenario doesn't apply, you've made it clear that you don't believe a person who is assaulted by another should be able to defend themselves without penalty:
dogma, way back on page four, wrote:And I want them to bear the responsibility of killing another person, even if it was done legitimately, by way of monetary penalty. Because, ultimately, I don't care about them at all (hint, the population of the US is north of 300 million, you're (and so am I) irrelevant because of that), I care about a society that involves disincentives to assault, or kill, regardless of intent.
Makes for less work, and involves less money being spent.
That, of course, is ludicrous. If you defend yourself using lethal force from an unprovoked attack, there's no reason in the world why you should have to pay so much as a cent.
Kilkrazy wrote:Before SYG was introduced, the legal expectation was that you should retreat from a confrontation if possible, in order to avoid unnecessary effusion of blood.
That's the difference.
And SYG acknowledges that it's quite easy to determine in hindsight, with all the time in the world, whether or not someone could have safely retreated, but that it's much more difficult in half a second or so when being attacked.
A. There has been a significant increase in violent crime.
B. There has been an increase in convictions in cases where the defendant claimed self defence, of which a significant number have been overturned on appeal, meaning the conviction was incorrect.
SYG was introduced so that;
1. Innocent people would be relieved of the burden of a trial on a defence of self-defence.
2. This would let them fight back more effectively, and violent crime would fall.
Kilkrazy wrote:Before SYG was introduced, the legal expectation was that you should retreat from a confrontation if possible, in order to avoid unnecessary effusion of blood.
Not true, actually.
Albatross wrote:OK, perhaps I have misunderstood. You're a lawyer, correct? Care to explain 'Stand Your Ground' to a layman, and point out where I went wrong?
Stand your Ground means that if you're in a situation where you are in a situation where you have a reasonable, actual, and immediate apprehension of death or serious injury you do not have the duty to retreat prior to using deadly force to defend yourself.
The opposite is what's called "Duty to Retreat" - if you are in immediate apprehension of death or serious injury, you may not use lethal force to defend yourself so long as there is a reasonably safe opportunity to retreat from the danger.
There's a separate rule known as the "Castle Doctrine" that says there is no duty to retreat in your own home. However, this is a subset of the general "Stand Your Ground" law (which applies everywhere the person has a lawful right to be).
Albatross wrote:Care to explain 'Stand Your Ground' to a layman.
Luckily SYG is written by laymen in laymens terms.
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.
I welcome specific questions based on the actual SYG law in Florida.
Just in case you are wondering why SYG doesn't apply to this case if in fact Martin DID attack Zimmerman AND(or) cried for help.
Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant;
As Zimmerman clearly provoked any altercation that may have occured by stalking Martin he did in fact have a duty to retreat; under Stand Your Ground.
You are assuming the 'stalking Martin' part there. As far as I have read, that is in doubt to some extent and not yet proven fact. One of the reasons the court needs to figure it out.
What is not clear cut is if he stopped at that point. So no, it is not close to an established fact that he was 'stalking' Martin at the time of the actual incident.
He didn't have to still be following him. He provoked an altercation as the aggressor by following him suspiciously in the first place. He left evidence on a 911 tape and the victim told the person he was on the phone with he was being followed 2+2=4 where I come from.
How exactly is running away meant to protect you? In some cases if your a fantastic runner...maybe. But most cases they'd catch upto you, and you'd be too exhausted to defend yourself. The idea of using martial arts on a guy with a gun is laughable. That suggestion is helluva dumb.
The law is fine until better non-violent defence methods come out that actually work.
This is why crime is awful in this country. There is no way to protect ourselves nor an effective deterrent apart from phoning police who take like an hour to arrive anyway.
SlaveToDorkness wrote:Can I get a legal definition of "following suspiciously" please?
A person who intentionally follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat, either express or implied, with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm.
Mr Hyena wrote:How exactly is running away meant to protect you? In some cases if your a fantastic runner...maybe. But most cases they'd catch upto you, and you'd be too exhausted to defend yourself. The idea of using martial arts on a guy with a gun is laughable. That suggestion is helluva dumb.
The law is fine until better non-violent defence methods come out that actually work.
This is why crime is awful in this country. There is no way to protect ourselves nor an effective deterrent apart from phoning police who take like an hour to arrive anyway.
Yet the USA has a murder rate triple the UK's.
Back to the topic, I understand that the whole timeline and narrative of the events is disputed. That is of course why there is a court case about it.
The point about Martin doubling back, if he did, is that he would have been justified under SYG in doing so, if he was afraid of the person following him.
All these arguments will be brought out in court, I am sure.
Mr Hyena wrote:How exactly is running away meant to protect you? In some cases if your a fantastic runner...maybe. But most cases they'd catch upto you, and you'd be too exhausted to defend yourself. The idea of using martial arts on a guy with a gun is laughable. That suggestion is helluva dumb.
The law is fine until better non-violent defence methods come out that actually work.
This is why crime is awful in this country. There is no way to protect ourselves nor an effective deterrent apart from phoning police who take like an hour to arrive anyway.
But...but...KRAV MAGA.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:Yet the USA has a murder rate triple the UK's.
Which has nothing at all to do with US concealed carry laws. You can run the statistics to show crime goes down when citizens are allowed to conceal carry, or stays the same, but you won't find any showing it goes up.
Our murder rate isn't high solely due to the fact that we're awash with guns, though that plays a part. We've had this discussion before. It's better to deal with the reality of the situation than pretend we can just get rid of the 210 million firearms in the US.
Before I say anything else, I just want to point out that if you read the 911 call transcript, at no point does the dispatcher tell Zimmerman to "stop" following Martin. The dispatcher tells Zimmerman that he "doesn't have to".
Many people are getting this point confused, and I believe that it will ultimately be a large factor in this case.
Another thing: People are getting "threat of deadly force or grievous bodily harm" confused with general fear itself. The law is designed so that people cannot just kill when they are scared.
AustonT wrote:In the ARS section on self defense that claim cannot be made if you provoke the incident...which Zimmerman did by following Martin.
Simply following someone is not provocation. If Zimmerman had been following Martin with his pistol drawn, or if he was aggressively pursuing him, then that could be considered provocation.
Frazzled wrote:ok I exaggerate. in NY its actually much harder than that.
Amen to that, brother.
Polonius wrote:I can't think of any good policy reason to encourage people to use lethal force instead of disengaging.
To protect yourself or another from death or grievous bodily injury. It all comes down to an individuals moral views. Do I want to potentially save someone else's life, or do I want protection from litigation? The choice is very clear to me. You cannot put a price tag on a life.
Seaward wrote:I still have yet to see a reason why anyone should have a duty to retreat. If someone chooses to assault another individual, why is it incumbent upon the victim to do everything possible to protect the assailant?
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Albatross wrote:I must say, the idea that it's OK to draw a weapon and kill someone simply because you feel threatened by them is totally barbarian. And what's worse, there are people that are not only defending it, but that actually seem to be quite smug about it. It's an awful, paranoid, middle-ages law.
I'll take restrictions on hate-speech and verbal harassment over turning the streets into the fething wild-west any day of the week. You can keep your idealism, I'll keep my life.
That's why the laws state that you must be threatened with deadly force or grievous bodily injury. Sensible people won't shoot someone that puts up their fists.
So then what you're saying is that it's okay for someone to threaten your life and you won't do anything about it? What about the barbarian who is threatening you? Is he alright then?
Albatross wrote:Exalted is right - this law basically amounts to killing another person over what MIGHT happen. That's paranoid.
This is where intent comes into play. If someone walks over to you and pulls out a pistol, what do you think they're going to do? They might say hi and talk about the weather, but they'll probably shoot you.
Have fun pondering the might's and what-if's in heaven, hell, or wherever you end up.
Albatross wrote:That's not actually the point. The point is that people can say that someone was "looking angry and walking towards them" as a murder defence.
Except that is not a viable legal defense, as has been stated previously in this thread.
Albatross wrote:Woah, so people must make attempts on your life pretty regularly, eh? Have you considered moving to a nicer area?
When did he say that? He simply stated that he would rather have the ability to defend himself than live in...say, the UK?
AustonT wrote:As Zimmerman clearly provoked any altercation that may have occured by stalking Martin he did in fact have a duty to retreat; under Stand Your Ground.
Lets not use words that are incorrect. Stalking is not the appropriate term, and implies that this situation could have been premeditated.
Following is not provocation. Until there is clarification on whether or not Zimmerman was headed back to his car, we cannot be certain that he did not "exhaust every reasonable means to escape such danger."
AustonT wrote:A person who intentionally follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat, either express or implied, with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm.
What was the threat? I see no threat. Please clarify.
What exactly is provocation with regard to SYG? If I'm in Florida and say to somebody that there mother was a hamster (without french accent) and get shot, is that provocation.
This is why Shakesphere said kill all the lawyers. Provocation and it's interpretation will make millionaires out of lawyers as they drag this through the Supreme court for many a long year.
The real question is, why was a neighberhood watchmen
1) carrying a gun
2) confronting someone he thought was suspicious
3) doing anything other than being "the eyes and ears of the police"
Exalted Pariah wrote:The real question is, why was a neighberhood watchmen
1) carrying a gun
2) confronting someone he thought was suspicious
3) doing anything other than being "the eyes and ears of the police"
Dunno. It doesn't really matter. The first two are both perfectly legal. They may not be particularly bright, but they're legal.
Provocation is defined as conduct by which one induces another to do a particular deed; the act of inducing rage, anger, or resentment in another person that may cause that person to engage in an illegal act.
In regards to SYG, it basically means that you lose your legal justification to use deadly force if you provoke the individual.
For example. Person A spots someone acting suspiciously. If Person A were to pull a gun on them (even just lifting up the edge of his shirt and making a movement for it), it would be considered provocation. Person A would have no justification to reveal his firearm because there was no forcible felony being committed.
The person that the gun was flashed at (Person B) could assume that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm, and could defend himself accordingly.
If Person B then proceeded to pull out a gun (in response to A's drawn weapon), then the SYG law would be flipped in favor of Person B, provided that Person B was, in fact, not doing anything illegal.
Nocturn wrote:
For example. Person A spots someone acting suspiciously. If Person A were to pull a gun on them (even just lifting up the edge of his shirt and making a movement for it), it would be considered provocation.
Any place I have been, if a concealed weapon becomes visible, even accidentally, the person with the weapon can be charged with brandishing. If that person had a CCW they would most likely lose it.
Albatross wrote:OK, perhaps I have misunderstood. You're a lawyer, correct? Care to explain 'Stand Your Ground' to a layman, and point out where I went wrong?
Stand your Ground means that if you're in a situation where you are in a situation where you have a reasonable, actual, and immediate apprehension of death or serious injury you do not have the duty to retreat prior to using deadly force to defend yourself.
So you can kill someone if you feel threatened by them? How is that different to what I said?
The opposite is what's called "Duty to Retreat" - if you are in immediate apprehension of death or serious injury, you may not use lethal force to defend yourself so long as there is a reasonably safe opportunity to retreat from the danger.
Yeah, that sounds more sensible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nocturn wrote:
Albatross wrote:I must say, the idea that it's OK to draw a weapon and kill someone simply because you feel threatened by them is totally barbarian. And what's worse, there are people that are not only defending it, but that actually seem to be quite smug about it. It's an awful, paranoid, middle-ages law.
I'll take restrictions on hate-speech and verbal harassment over turning the streets into the fething wild-west any day of the week. You can keep your idealism, I'll keep my life.
That's why the laws state that you must be threatened with deadly force or grievous bodily injury. Sensible people won't shoot someone that puts up their fists.
Hmm. Isn't that what we're talking about? The Trayvon Martin case? He was unarmed wasn't he?
So then what you're saying is that it's okay for someone to threaten your life and you won't do anything about it? What about the barbarian who is threatening you? Is he alright then?
How is that person threatening my life? Is he pointing a gun at me? In that case, I'm pretty much dead, as would you be. Even if you were lucky enough to draw your weapon and kill your attacker, you could still claim self-defence, as there is no way a judge would expect you to have outrun the bullets of your assailant.
Albatross wrote:Exalted is right - this law basically amounts to killing another person over what MIGHT happen. That's paranoid.
This is where intent comes into play. If someone walks over to you and pulls out a pistol, what do you think they're going to do? They might say hi and talk about the weather, but they'll probably shoot you.
If that happens, SYG hasn't helped me because I'd be dead either way. He's already got the gun out. SYG appears to allow you to pre-empt that.
Albatross wrote:That's not actually the point. The point is that people can say that someone was "looking angry and walking towards them" as a murder defence.
Except that is not a viable legal defense, as has been stated previously in this thread.
That post was adressing someone else, who had implied that being given a death-stare was sufficient cause to use deadly force to defend themself.
Albatross wrote:Woah, so people must make attempts on your life pretty regularly, eh? Have you considered moving to a nicer area?
When did he say that? He simply stated that he would rather have the ability to defend himself than live in...say, the UK?
I'd rather make points than score them, especially if they're crude nationalist ones, but since we're playing that game all of a sudden: We have the right to self-defence here. What we don't have is mountains of corpses every year, like you guys.
AustonT wrote:As Zimmerman clearly provoked any altercation that may have occured by stalking Martin he did in fact have a duty to retreat; under Stand Your Ground.
Stalking doesn't mean "aggressor" under any definition of the term.
AustonT wrote:As Zimmerman clearly provoked any altercation that may have occured by stalking Martin he did in fact have a duty to retreat; under Stand Your Ground.
Lets not use words that are incorrect. Stalking is not the appropriate term, and implies that this situation could have been premeditated.
Following is not provocation. Until there is clarification on whether or not Zimmerman was headed back to his car, we cannot be certain that he did not "exhaust every reasonable means to escape such danger."
AustonT wrote:A person who intentionally follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat, either express or implied, with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm.
What was the threat? I see no threat. Please clarify.
To lay the ground I am making the assumption that both parties react the way that I would.
First, in Z's shoes I wouldn't call 911 immediately after seeing someone to say the were suspicious, I'd wait and watch long enough to make a judgement, in his case that seems to mean "follow" so I assume that he followed him from somewhere else TO the clubhouse and beyond. The impetus being that as Z I believe M has or is about to commit a crime, when he runs in an attempt to evade me I am now convinced he is a criminal and pursue.
Second in M's shoes some guy is following me in a neighborhood I am unfamiliar with, when I look at him he's watching me intently and I run in fear in an attempt to evade him; he chases me. At this point if I am M I believe this person has implied the intent to harm me by following me first and then pursuing me.
Were I think this will be resolved is the altercation and "John"'s statement.
I feel reasonably confident I could articulate the position of either party: but especially I think I could (and have little doubt the Prosecutor will be able to) convince a jury that Z's pursuit would convince a reasonable person to fear the intent of injury or death:I see Z as the aggressor and I believe that the prosecutor will probably be able to convince the jury of that too. If he was the aggressor then under SYG he has a duty to make every possible attempt to retreat before using deadly force.
On the other side of the coin Z had no credible reason to think M was about to commit a forcible felony, followed him, chased him, and at some point a confrontation happened. M rather than Z has the force of SYG behind him.
I don't understand how street crime could be so rampant in the USA and you would expect people not to get nervous if someone starts following them around.
Why carry a gun if not to confront someone who was following you in a suspicious way?
2nd degree won't stick. The investigation was botched which gives Zimmerman's defense a lot to work with. Manslaughter should stick, but this is Florida we are talking about. You know the same state that acquitted Casey Anthony last year.
I don't understand how street crime could be so rampant in the USA and you would expect people not to get nervous if someone starts following them around.
Why carry a gun if not to confront someone who was following you in a suspicious way?
First you need to define 'following you in a suspicious way' so as to rule out the 'I'm a paranoid git and feel you are following me in a suspicious way' crap.
Also, carrying a weapon isn't to deter 'being followed' or to confront a 'follower at all'. If you pull out the weapon because some one is 'following you' you are gonna get charged with brandishing at a minimum and rightly so.
The weapon is a last resort so that when the guy following you corners you, or grabs you, or shows intent to harm you (perhaps by pulling a knife, displaying a 2 foot length of metal pipe, or what ever, perhaps by approaching you, stopping you and telling you he wants your wallet or he will pummel the snot out of you) you have an option other than being hurt or killed. In the 'being followed' scenario, it may give you the confidence to turn around and ask the guy 'why are you following me?'. His actions at that point are going to determine if you have a valid reason to pull out the gun or not. In most cases you will not.
I don't understand how street crime could be so rampant in the USA and you would expect people not to get nervous if someone starts following them around.
Why carry a gun if not to confront someone who was following you in a suspicious way?
First you need to define 'following you in a suspicious way' so as to rule out the 'I'm a paranoid git and feel you are following me in a suspicious way' crap.
No. All you need to do is feel a reasonable fear for your safety that anyone might feel.
Given that street crime is so rampant, any reasonable person might feel fear in that kind of situation.
Isn't that why so many Americans carry guns? You never know when someone is going to attack, so you have to be ready.
Obviously you don't get it. I'm guessing it is because you don't want to vice incapability. I'm guessing that is the case based on you ignoring the sentences on brandishing and so on which would negate your comments on the one sentence you chose to quote.
That's cool. You are entitled to your opinion and world view. If you choose to base your view of the US and our laws on other than fact, it is up to you.
Seaward wrote:
You are making the rather asinine assumption that every Stand Your Ground case is going to be exactly like Zimmerman's, in which an individual allegedly pursued the individual he ended up shooting. Know what? Most self-defense shootings do not fall under that archetype.
Of course they don't, but since I'm speaking specifically about the Zimmerman case it doesn't really matter.
Seaward wrote:
That, of course, is ludicrous. If you defend yourself using lethal force from an unprovoked attack, there's no reason in the world why you should have to pay so much as a cent.
Sure there is, it makes your decision to kill have real weight, and therefore disincentivizes killing, which is socially disruptive.
Is doing that moral? No, not at all. But morality is secondary.
Again, individuals are irrelevant.
Either way, I think it was Fraz that said it best. To paraphrase, permitting self-defense is all well and good, but the Florida law is poorly written.
Also, while the 2nd degree murder charges are unlikely to stick (though with Zimmerman being recorded as saying "these fething punks, they always fething get away" on the 911 tapes, and a a neighborhood watchmen you are NEVER supposed to be armed or confront anybody, the chance of it sticking and him getting life is too big a chance to rick, so he'll settle on a plea deal) HE is still responsible for Trayvons death, even if he didn't murder him. If anything SYG applie to trayvon, not zimmerman.
Also, why the hate for a self-defense art? Its a hell of a lot more reliable and safe than packing heat.
In my experience, multiple assailants quickly lose their stomach for fighting if you do something suitably gruesome to the first person you get your hands on.
Exalted Pariah wrote:
Also, why the hate for a self-defense art? Its a hell of a lot more reliable and safe than packing heat.
Something about my arms being 3ft long and my effective handgun range being something in the order of 100ft.
Oh that and how easy it is to be stabbed while you think you are a ninja. Having trained soldiers and been trained in 2 different services unarmed combat systems there's one mantra I'll never forget and I taught all my joes: "in a fight the guy who wins is the guy whose buddy shows up with a gun first."
Monster Rain wrote:In my experience, multiple assailants quickly lose their stomach for fighting if you do something suitably gruesome to the first person you get your hands on.
This is true, though the safer alternative may be to simply book it.
Monster Rain wrote:In my experience, multiple assailants quickly lose their stomach for fighting if you do something suitably gruesome to the first person you get your hands on.
Multiple assailants also loose their stomach by the time you shoot the first one
Monster Rain wrote:In my experience, multiple assailants quickly lose their stomach for fighting if you do something suitably gruesome to the first person you get your hands on.
This is true, though the safer alternative may be to simply book it.
Depends on how quick you are, though.
Better to die than live as a craven!
d-usa wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:In my experience, multiple assailants quickly lose their stomach for fighting if you do something suitably gruesome to the first person you get your hands on.
Multiple assailants also loose their stomach by the time you shoot the first one
Exalted Pariah wrote:
Also, why the hate for a self-defense art? Its a hell of a lot more reliable and safe than packing heat.
Clearly someone has never had to deal with multiple assailants.
Actually, I have been in a situation with a couple armed assailants who were acting like they were on crack . The fact that I knew how to fight ended with them running away from me after I slammed one of them around.
Relapse wrote:
Actually, I have been in a situation with a couple armed assailants who were acting like they were on crack . The fact that I knew how to fight ended with them running away from me after I slammed one of them around.
I have as well, way back in the way back I fought off a couple guys that were trying to mug me, but I was much bigger then.
A year or two ago something similar happened, and I, apparently accurately, assessed that the better alternative was running. Got away pretty easily, they stopped chasing once I hit a main street. Don't really know why they chased rather than seeking another target, though. Most likely stupidity.
Generally, unless your own physical superiority is clear (or they have guns), I would stick with the "See you later gak lords!" response.
@ Dogma
Definitely good advice. It sounds like the first situation you were in was simular to mine in that you didn't have a choice but to fight.
What was funny was that a couple of weeks earlier, at the same hotel I worked at in New Orleans, I had to take down a guy with a gun.
I shortly decided after the second incident with the knife guys, I wasn't getting paid enough by the Clarion and quit.
Well, even Bruce Lee said he'd rather have a gun than fight hand-to-hand, but I'm just saying in most violent encounters, you don't have 100ft of space between you an dthem, more like 5, so reaching for a gun, aiming it, shooting and not missing in the time it takes them to stab/hit/tackle etc you is unlikely. I'd love to learn to shoot, even own a rifle or two, but a handgun? I can't think of a (realistic) scenario where I'd have to(and be able to) use it. Thats all I meant.
Relapse wrote:
Definitely good advice. It sounds like the first situation you were in was simular to mine in that you didn't have a choice but to fight.
Pretty much. In the first situation it was unlikely I was running from anyone, its hard to move around 250 pounds. In the second, I had been training for a half marathon for about a year, so I was pretty confident they weren't going to catch me.
Relapse wrote:Maybe it could be argued by the defense he was on a sugar rush.
You missed SlavetoDorkness' point.
The fact that Martin was out "buying candy" does not mean that he could not have attacked Zimmerman during the confrontation when Martin was shot.
It's an emotional factor, "Oh that poor boy was out buying candy when he was heartlessly gunned down!".
If Martin was meeting force with force because Z was the aggressor, then it doesn't make Z any less guilty.
Yeah but if M confronted Z with force simply because Z was tailing him, then it does make Z a whole hell of a lot less guilty.
There is no situation, period, where it is acceptable to attack someone when they are simply following you...especially if you do not actually know with definitive certainty that they are following you.
Relapse wrote:Maybe it could be argued by the defense he was on a sugar rush.
You missed SlavetoDorkness' point.
The fact that Martin was out "buying candy" does not mean that he could not have attacked Zimmerman during the confrontation when Martin was shot.
It's an emotional factor, "Oh that poor boy was out buying candy when he was heartlessly gunned down!".
That's one view.
Another view is that Zimmerman followed Martin because he was suspicious of him as Martin was a black guy in a place where black guys are not supposed to go.
Which is an aspect of racial divisions in present-day USA.
Relapse wrote:Maybe it could be argued by the defense he was on a sugar rush.
You missed SlavetoDorkness' point.
The fact that Martin was out "buying candy" does not mean that he could not have attacked Zimmerman during the confrontation when Martin was shot.
It's an emotional factor, "Oh that poor boy was out buying candy when he was heartlessly gunned down!".
That's one view.
Another view is that Zimmerman followed Martin because he was suspicious of him as Martin was a black guy in a place where black guys are not supposed to go.
Which is an aspect of racial divisions in present-day USA.
That's nothing to do with Martin being out buying candy.
The whole reason that Martin was out is irrelevant to the case, unless one can actually prove that he was committing some kind of criminal activity.
What's relevant is this:
1) Did Zimmerman kill Martin in cold blood after initiating a confrontation to achieve the result of killing him?
2) Did Zimmerman target Martin specifically because of his ethnicity and did Zimmerman make a conscious effort to kill Martin because of that ethnicity?
3) Did Martin actually initiate the confrontation without provocation by Zimmerman outside of Zimmerman following Martin?
Relapse wrote:Maybe it could be argued by the defense he was on a sugar rush.
You missed SlavetoDorkness' point.
The fact that Martin was out "buying candy" does not mean that he could not have attacked Zimmerman during the confrontation when Martin was shot.
It's an emotional factor, "Oh that poor boy was out buying candy when he was heartlessly gunned down!".
That's one view.
Another view is that Zimmerman followed Martin because he was suspicious of him as Martin was a black guy in a place where black guys are not supposed to go.
Which is an aspect of racial divisions in present-day USA.
You keep posting crap like that, which seems to be completely devoid of any factual basis at this point. It doesn't fit the known timelines and movements of the two parties (Martin made it to his house and then went BACK to Z for example).
Until you have some factual basis for your race baiting, you ought to chill out on it.
Relapse wrote:Maybe it could be argued by the defense he was on a sugar rush.
You missed SlavetoDorkness' point.
The fact that Martin was out "buying candy" does not mean that he could not have attacked Zimmerman during the confrontation when Martin was shot.
It's an emotional factor, "Oh that poor boy was out buying candy when he was heartlessly gunned down!".
I was not meaning to be taken seriously.
My bad then.
You'd be surprised how silly some people's honest points can be in regards to these kinds of cases. The Duke Lacrosse case was a good one, which was constantly discussed in one of my courses at college (civil law). One woman in the class kept insisting that the boys had managed to bribe the state into investigating Mike Nifong to draw attention off of themselves.
Honestly, I slogged my way through law school. Since day one, my attitude has been "I wasn't there, I'm not involved, I don't know the facts except what the news is tossing about." My biggest concern with this whole thing isn't the case itself, so much as how different groups of people of all different political stripes can potentially corrupt the process by using the thing as a narrative baseball bat to advance whatever agenda they happen to be pushing.
Honestly, I slogged my way through law school. Since day one, my attitude has been "I wasn't there, I'm not involved, I don't know the facts except what the news is tossing about." My biggest concern with this whole thing isn't the case itself, so much as how different groups of people of all different political stripes can potentially corrupt the process by using the thing as a narrative baseball bat to advance whatever agenda they happen to be pushing.
Now I didn't get no fancy lawyer papers or nothin, but that there spells things out just about right.
Jesse Jackson told the Los Angeles Times that “blacks are under attack” and that “targeting, arresting, convicting blacks and ultimately killing us is big business,” adding that Martin is “a martyr.”
SlaveToDorkness wrote:So then there's more money in housing Blacks?
I suspect he's trying to allude to slavery. The idea being that keeping blacks down maintains an underclass that has to do all the jobs white folks don't want to if they want to live.
SlaveToDorkness wrote:So then there's more money in housing Blacks?
I suspect he's trying to allude to slavery. The idea being that keeping blacks down maintains an underclass that has to do all the jobs white folks don't want to if they want to live.
Like PotUS?
Really that kind of excuse is a bit outdated. They need to find another one.
SlaveToDorkness wrote:So then there's more money in housing Blacks?
I suspect he's trying to allude to slavery. The idea being that keeping blacks down maintains an underclass that has to do all the jobs white folks don't want to if they want to live.
Like PotUS?
Really that kind of excuse is a bit outdated. They need to find another one.
It is almost as outdated as the notion that because one person, or small group, does well that it must mean that a social problem suddenly no longer exists.
Black Man Given Nation's Worst Job
November 5, 2008 | ISSUE 44•45
WASHINGTON—African-American man Barack Obama, 47, was given the least-desirable job in the entire country Tuesday when he was elected president of the United States of America. In his new high-stress, low-reward position, Obama will be charged with such tasks as completely overhauling the nation's broken-down economy, repairing the crumbling infrastructure, and generally having to please more than 300 million Americans and cater to their every whim on a daily basis. As part of his duties, the black man will have to spend four to eight years cleaning up the messes other people left behind. The job comes with such intense scrutiny and so certain a guarantee of failure that only one other person even bothered applying for it. Said scholar and activist Mark L. Denton, "It just goes to show you that, in this country, a black man still can't catch a break."
Ahtman wrote:It is almost as outdated as the notion that because one person, or small group, does well that it must mean that a social problem suddenly no longer exists.
That's true. Because if you think about it, only 42 old rich white guys have actually managed to become president. That doesn't mean that we, as a society, still don't have a problem with old rich white guys.
Honestly, I slogged my way through law school. Since day one, my attitude has been "I wasn't there, I'm not involved, I don't know the facts except what the news is tossing about." My biggest concern with this whole thing isn't the case itself, so much as how different groups of people of all different political stripes can potentially corrupt the process by using the thing as a narrative baseball bat to advance whatever agenda they happen to be pushing.
The purpose of laws is to server the interests of society.
It's usual for some test cases to follow the introduction of a new law in order to establish the limits and merits of the Act as written. This case seems like such a case.
Given the highly politicised and emotional subject matter -- white police support person shoots black teenager -- it's hardly surprising that there should be so much political interest.
Stand your ground law is being over simplified here, there are provisions and it is always open to legal review if the situation falls in a grey area.
This case, like any other, you are innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof is on the prosecutors... Central Florida’s crime rate is astronomical, and if someone decides to take away your right to safety then they have forfeit their own. If Zimmerman made the wrong call, which nobody at this point really knows, then he will be punished. If Zimmerman made the right call then everyone will throw a fit and claim the laws are wrong and he is a racist… but he will get to walk, as he should.
Here is a true example. I live in Orlando and the gas station close to my house was getting robbed by a man with a gun about 3 years ago... a customer with a concealed permit then pulled his gun and killed the robber, stopping him from taking any money or an innocent life. The robber decided to threaten to end others lives, and by doing so knew the risk he was taking. Most cases are not as foggy as Zimmermans.
Threaten my safety and ill kill you too, its that simple.
SlaveToDorkness wrote:The mobs judging a man without the facts (or the medias distortion of them) shouldn't be. Zimmerman has already been tried and sentenced to death.
Although regrettable I don't think there is anything to be done about that now.
It would have been better if the police had charged Zimmerman early on, rather than let the case fester for over a month.
That said, the USA lacks the sub judice law of the UK so speculation might have continued anyway.
Perhaps the best thing is to put Zimmerman on trial, hope that he is found innocent and, if necessary, the state should pay for him to be rehoused somewhere under the same kind of arrangements as the witness protection programme.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Bear in mind there are mobs on both sides.
KingCracker wrote:No its not as simple as "You can just shoot someone and claim self defense" For example if you shoot them incorrectly, IE in the back, or while they are on the ground and so on, your guilty. If they think you shot the victim in excess, then your guilty. There are other things to consider for a guilty charge, so no its not as you put it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: But yea, Id be VERY surprised if the charges stick. I still say the guy acted in defense. Might of been stupid on his part of how he went about it, but still self defense
well thank god you have nothing to do with the legal system then
self defense never involves killing someone who is unarmed. What ever happened to winging someone? Shoot to injure not kill. Bloody hell, don't fething shoot at all
Perhaps the best thing is to put Zimmerman on trial, hope that he is found innocent and, if necessary, the state should pay for him to be rehoused somewhere under the same kind of arrangements as the witness protection programme.
He should also be able to sue the police and the media for a hefty sum of money.
self defense never involves killing someone who is unarmed. What ever happened to winging someone? Shoot to injure not kill. Bloody hell, don't fething shoot at all
Thats easy to say when you have a violent individual pretty much on top of you, or an armed assailant.
KingCracker wrote:No its not as simple as "You can just shoot someone and claim self defense" For example if you shoot them incorrectly, IE in the back, or while they are on the ground and so on, your guilty. If they think you shot the victim in excess, then your guilty. There are other things to consider for a guilty charge, so no its not as you put it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: But yea, Id be VERY surprised if the charges stick. I still say the guy acted in defense. Might of been stupid on his part of how he went about it, but still self defense
well thank god you have nothing to do with the legal system then
self defense never involves killing someone who is unarmed. What ever happened to winging someone? Shoot to injure not kill. Bloody hell, don't fething shoot at all
I am equally glad you are not involved in the legal process either.
biccat wrote:
That's true. Because if you think about it, only 42 old rich white guys have actually managed to become president. That doesn't mean that we, as a society, still don't have a problem with old rich white guys.
Of course, as old rich, white guys clearly have a rough lot in life. All that money is a difficult burden to bear after having lived long enough to require a hip replacement.
SlaveToDorkness wrote:The mobs judging a man without the facts (or the medias distortion of them) shouldn't be. Zimmerman has already been tried and sentenced to death.
Conversely, many have already judged his actions to be justifiable.
What's this? Most people make judgments without sufficient information regarding most things? Revelation!
So who wants to bet that if the facts of the case exonerate Zimmerman you will never hear an apology from Al Sharpton. This guy is a complete douche as always!
well thank god you have nothing to do with the legal system then
self defense never involves killing someone who is unarmed. What ever happened to winging someone? Shoot to injure not kill. Bloody hell, don't fething shoot at all
Sorry I can only see this playing out as a Python skit.
"Excuse me old boy, I was wondering if you could refrain from the continued slamming of my head into the ground. You see, you are making it hard for me to aim at any none vital areas. Be a chap and just let me wing your toe here if you would and we can call it a day! Right right!"
"Core, well of course kind sir. That's right considerate of you, seeing as I was intending to bash your skull in. I appreciate the effort, seeing as you could have shot me in me vitals! I'd be happy to step back. Could you just wing me pinky toe then! I don't think I much need it! Have some skittles?"
Thank God he didn't have a pointed stick or some raspberries, we might have gotten to see a tiger!
Ronin-Sage wrote:Is 'excessive force' not an issue here, or what?
Nope, that just applies to cops:
A law enforcement officer has the right to use such force as is reasonably necessary under the circumstances to make a lawful arrest. An unreasonable seizure occurs when a law enforcement officer uses excessive force in making a lawful arrest.
Ronin-Sage wrote:Is 'excessive force' not an issue here, or what?
Nope, that just applies to cops:
A law enforcement officer has the right to use such force as is reasonably necessary under the circumstances to make a lawful arrest. An unreasonable seizure occurs when a law enforcement officer uses excessive force in making a lawful arrest.
I might be using the wrong term, then. My understanding is that one can get into trouble very quickly if greater-than-equal force is used in defense situations, particularly when deadly force is involved.
Ronin-Sage wrote:Is 'excessive force' not an issue here, or what?
Nope, that just applies to cops:
A law enforcement officer has the right to use such force as is reasonably necessary under the circumstances to make a lawful arrest. An unreasonable seizure occurs when a law enforcement officer uses excessive force in making a lawful arrest.
I might be using the wrong term, then. My understanding is that one can get into trouble very quickly if greater-than-equal force is used in defense situations, particularly when deadly force is involved.
"Police officers may use deadly force in specific circumstances when they are trying to enforce the law. Private citizens may use deadly force in certain circumstances in Self-Defense. The rules governing the use of deadly force for police officers are different from those for citizens."
Generally speaking of course, it varies state by state.
Ronin-Sage wrote:Is 'excessive force' not an issue here, or what?
Why would it? If your only choice is between getting your skull bashed in and shooting the assailant that is in turn bashing your skull in, where do you see the excessive force. If anything isn't expressive force being used by the guy attacking someone for keeping an eye on him?
What evidence is there that Zimmerman was about to get his head bashed in? Both 'sides' to this story seem to have contradictory snippets of info regarding that.
Ronin-Sage wrote:What evidence is there that Zimmerman was about to get his head bashed in? Both 'sides' to this story seem to have contradictory snippets of info regarding that.
thats for the jury to work out, but if its not true zimmerman is in trouble.
A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:
Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.
Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.
Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force. "
Ronin-Sage wrote:Is 'excessive force' not an issue here, or what?
Nope, that just applies to cops:
A law enforcement officer has the right to use such force as is reasonably necessary under the circumstances to make a lawful arrest. An unreasonable seizure occurs when a law enforcement officer uses excessive force in making a lawful arrest.
I might be using the wrong term, then. My understanding is that one can get into trouble very quickly if greater-than-equal force is used in defense situations, particularly when deadly force is involved.
Your understanding would be incorrect
I'll just leave this here in case anyone is interested.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Why would it? If your only choice is between getting your skull bashed in and shooting the assailant that is in turn bashing your skull in, where do you see the excessive force.
That's never your only choice.
You have a gun, so pistol whipping is an option, as is shooting.
You have hands, so punching is an option, as is strangling.
You have feet, and legs, so kicking and running are options.
You have a car, so not getting out of it is an option, as is the use of the vehicle as a weapon.
You have a brain, and are apparently intelligent, so not placing yourself in this particular situation is an option.
Ronin-Sage wrote:Is 'excessive force' not an issue here, or what?
Nope, that just applies to cops:
A law enforcement officer has the right to use such force as is reasonably necessary under the circumstances to make a lawful arrest. An unreasonable seizure occurs when a law enforcement officer uses excessive force in making a lawful arrest.
I might be using the wrong term, then. My understanding is that one can get into trouble very quickly if greater-than-equal force is used in defense situations, particularly when deadly force is involved.
Your understanding would be incorrect
I'll just leave this here in case anyone is interested.
So he shot him to resolve the fist fight? Doesn't seem like that was justified, to me. It's certainly tricky territory, though.
Ronin-Sage wrote:What evidence is there that Zimmerman was about to get his head bashed in? Both 'sides' to this story seem to have contradictory snippets of info regarding that.
Have you not been paying attention? Go watch the above video or read about the case! Zimmerman was wrestling with Martin on the ground after Martin had already punched him in the face and broke his nose. The back of Zimmermans head was bashed and bloody and he had grass stains all over his back from the ground. The least you could do before commenting is ....well read what was reported to have happened.
This is why there is such an uproar about this. Most people just knee jerk and presume Zimmerman just pulled the gun out and shot at range. The media does not seam to be explaining this point very well either.
Of course the story being reported is Black teen out shopping for candy, ruthlessly gunned down by racist. Never mind that Zimmerman's background seams to scream multi cultural non racist.
Andrew1975 wrote:
This is why there is such an uproar about this. Most people just knee jerk and presume Zimmerman just pulled the gun out and shot at range. The media does not seam to be explaining this point very well either.
There are also people that seem to be willing to trust the killer, and witnesses, which is foolish.
Ronin-Sage wrote:What evidence is there that Zimmerman was about to get his head bashed in? Both 'sides' to this story seem to have contradictory snippets of info regarding that.
Have you not been paying attention? Go watch the above video or read about the case! Zimmerman was wrestling with Martin on the ground after Martin had already punched him in the face and broke his nose. The back of Zimmermans head was bashed and bloody and he had grass stains all over his back from the ground. The least you could do before commenting is ....well read what was reported to have happened.
This is why there is such an uproar about this. Most people just knee jerk and presume Zimmerman just pulled the gun out and shot at range. The media does not seam to be explaining this point very well either.
'About to get his head bashed in' makes it sound like a situation where serious injury or death was a certainty; it makes it sound as if lethal force were the only and most appropriate response. From what I know about the situation, I can't say that his response was appropriate, given the level of the threat and the result.
I have been keeping up with this thread(mildly) and some news coverage, but I *do* make a note to take obviously biased 'facts' from either side of the debate with a grain of salt.
Ronin-Sage wrote:So he shot him to resolve the fist fight? Doesn't seem like that was justified, to me. It's certainly tricky territory, though.
It IS rather tricky territory. Maybe that's why I've said more than once I think Z killed M in cold blood I tend to think if I mounted you and began to beat you(a general you not you specifically) to death that you would probably shoot me too, but I'm rather much larger,better trained, and quite likely meaner than Trayvon Martin (or am I)
Sure, you can't take what Zimmerman said as Gospel, but most of the facts so far seam to support it. That's what investigators are for. There are plenty of people that are just completely ignoring or completely unaware of the facts or even the situation as described by Zimmerman and another witness.
Of course its excessive force if he just shot the guy, there is no reason to even ask the question. Its not excessive force though if Zimmerman's story is accurate.
From what I care to know about the situation, I can't say that his response was appropriate, given the level of the threat, because I just want to say killing and guns are bad ok!
fixed that for you!
There are also people that seem to be willing to trust the killer, and witnesses, which is foolish.
Yes there are. I tend to trust the facts of the case that have been released so far. Now it's completely possible that Zimmerman went out of his way to cover up his crime. Occam's razor would say that you should probably trust the first story as it is backed by facts (spurious as they may be).
Andrew1975 wrote:Sure, you can't take what Zimmerman said as Gospel, but most of the facts so far seam to support it. That's what investigators are for. There are plenty of people that are just completely ignoring or completely unaware of the facts or even the situation as described by Zimmerman and another witness.
Of course its excessive force if he just shot the guy, there is no reason to even ask the question. Its not excessive force though if Zimmerman's story is accurate.
From what I care to know about the situation, I can't say that his response was appropriate, given the level of the threat, because I just want to say killing and guns are bad ok!
fixed that for you!
Not sure if serious.
(in regard to that last part)
Andrew1975 wrote:
Of course its excessive force if he just shot the guy, there is no reason to even ask the question. Its not excessive force though if Zimmerman's story is accurate.
In order to discuss the story, and the underlying law, you have to ask the question.
Either way, I suspect Zimmerman will be exonerated because there isn't a whole lot of evidence on which to convict him. But I also think that being raked over the coals in the fashion is entirely appropriate given how stupid his actions were.
Andrew1975 wrote:
Of course its excessive force if he just shot the guy, there is no reason to even ask the question. Its not excessive force though if Zimmerman's story is accurate.
In order to discuss the story, and the underlying law, you have to ask the question.
Either way, I suspect Zimmerman will be exonerated because there isn't a whole lot of evidence on which to convict him. But I also think that being raked over the coals in the fashion is entirely appropriate given how stupid his actions were.
The guys background says that he is a do gooder, I mean the guy donates time to charity and helps underprivileged children, which yes in dogma vision is massively stupid because selflessness is stupid. I just think the guy is probably being treated harshly by a segment of society that is never at responsible for anything that happens to them. Sure he's a sucker, but he doesn't deserve this either.
AustonT wrote:
I'm familiar...we used to call it checking the oil.
Yeah, I heard that at some tournaments out West.
OT, but I agree with the sentiment in that article, wrestling has always been a little gay.
Andrew1975 wrote:
The guys background says that he is a do gooder, I mean the guy donates time to charity and helps underprivileged children, which yes in dogma vision is massively stupid because selflessness is stupid.
It is when being selfless massively increases the likelihood that you will be involved in a violent confrontation.
Andrew1975 wrote:
I just think the guy is probably being treated harshly by a segment of society that is never at responsible for anything that happens to them. Sure he's a sucker, but he doesn't deserve this either.
And he's being defended by people that often want others to suffer the consequences of their actions.
Two quick questions for those who are on the side that Zimmerman is guilty:
If it's found that Zimmerman was attacked as he claimed, would you still think Zimmerman is guilty of murder?
If you were accosted by someone at night who knocked you down then as you called for help started hitting you on the ground in a dark area, would you fear for your life?
And he's being defended by people that often want others to suffer the consequences of their actions.
Shouldn't that be the standard? That you should be responsible for your actions? Zimmerman is being held responsible for his actions justified or not he will be held responsible for them.
If you were accosted by someone at night who knocked you down then as you called for help started hitting you on the ground in a dark area, would you fear for your life?
On the other hand, if someone had been following you in a dark area for (judging from the map) quite a while, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that they had some sort of criminal intent? Either to mug you or case your place? Is it unreasonable to confront them?
I can only imagine Zimmerman's response when the person he has been chasing turned around and asked him what the hell he was doing.
biccat wrote:Two quick questions for those who are on the side that Zimmerman is guilty:
If it's found that Zimmerman was attacked as he claimed, would you still think Zimmerman is guilty of murder?
If you were accosted by someone at night who knocked you down then as you called for help started hitting you on the ground in a dark area, would you fear for your life?
1) As it stands, I don't see any solid evidence suddenly emerging to sway anyone's beliefs at this point. Now, if evidence *did* exist to support the idea that Zimmerman had little choice but to use lethal force, then obviously I would adjust my position.
2) Is there any evidence that points to Zimmerman being knocked down and basically stomped on, as you seem to describe? As far as I know 'we' don't know how he got on the ground(since we're on the topic on of wrestling, that's something to consider).
I'll probably get my CCW license within the year and eventually carry my Glock 19(although I'm open to an XDM 3.8 sub-compact :p), so this debate is certainly relevant. That said, It will be my responsibility to ensure that use of my weapon is justified and I maintain a reasonable state and cool head. I don't see justification existing for Zimmerman's actions(but I see where the logic of his defense comes from).
If you were accosted by someone at night who knocked you down then as you called for help started hitting you on the ground in a dark area, would you fear for your life?
On the other hand, if someone had been following you in a dark area for (judging from the map) quite a while, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that they had some sort of criminal intent? Either to mug you or case your place? Is it unreasonable to confront them?
I can only imagine Zimmerman's response when the person he has been chasing turned around and asked him what the hell he was doing.
Read the timeline and look at the maps that have been linked to? Watch the video? It is VERY possible Martin made it to the house he was staying at and went back after Zimmerman. If that is the case (as it appears to be) your 'following in a dark area' theory (and that is all it is because known evidence does not support it) goes out the window.
SlaveToDorkness wrote:Explain that last one to me, Dog.
Many people defending Zimmerman are of the "tough on crime" ilk, specifically those that are claiming the charges are baseless or wrong. They feel he should not be affected by the legal system if he killed a person under legitimate threat. This position is often defended by claiming that people should be responsible for their own actions, which is something I agree with. However, the question moves further to an issue of sensibility. Broadly, Zimmerman is being held responsible for shooting Trayvon (don't recall last name), whether he did so legitimately or not is separate, but under our system of justice doing controversial things, essentially, costs money and time.
On the other hand, if someone had been following you in a dark area for (judging from the map) quite a while, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that they had some sort of criminal intent? Either to mug you or case your place? Is it unreasonable to confront them?
I can only imagine Zimmerman's response when the person he has been chasing turned around and asked him what the hell he was doing.
If someone is following you do you just go and attack them? Or do you maybe threaten them and tell them to go away. Again we don't really know what happened but we have a guy whose history is not of a race hater, but actually a equal opportunity helper, and a kid who in the past had just randomly punched strangers.
1) As it stands, I don't see any solid evidence suddenly emerging to sway anyone's beliefs at this point. Now, if evidence *did* exist to support the idea that Zimmerman had little choice but to use lethal force, then obviously I would adjust my position.
Right, you don't see ay evidence, what evidence so you need though. You have a bloody and beaten Zimmerman, I'm not really sure what else you need. What evidence do you have to refute his story? I'm sure I'm just blaming the victim though.....wait.....which one is the victim at this point?
2) Is there any evidence that points to Zimmerman being knocked down and basically stomped on, as you seem to describe? As far as I know 'we' don't know how he got on the ground(since we're on the topic on of wrestling, that's something to consider).
Yes there is evidence, did you read the police report or the witness statement. Now this is not 100% concrete evidence.....but what is?
It may turn out that it was a cover-up, but I just can't believe the amount of people that are just assuming he is guilty and damning him. Most would probably no matter what the evidence was anyway.
I'm not saying the charges are baseless, or that no investigation should be done, nobody gets a free pass. However if detectives confirm the story within a reasonable doubt I don't see why this has to go to trial.
Perkustin wrote:I'll be honest the british media portrayed this as a cut and shut case: 'Nasty white gun-nut kills nice African American boy in cold blood'.
Perkustin wrote:I'll be honest the british media portrayed this as a cut and shut case: 'Nasty white gun-nut kills nice African American boy in cold blood'.
I didnt know there may be more to it.
Sounds about right! That's how most of the media have covered it and almost no one mentions that Zimmerman showed signs of being beaten pretty bad. Sure Zimmerman sounds like the kind of guy I would beat up, you know when he was a kid he was the one that reminded the teacher to give out homework and such. Still, lets not crucify him until we need to shall we.
you coppers! You'll never get me see!"
The New star wars movies are better than the original movies.
