Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mannahnin wrote:Hopefully not, on this occasion. Unlike the occasion when the two gangs killed an innocent bystander and got off because they both argued they were standing their ground.

That's not what actually happened. The 'innocent bystander' was the gangmember who fired the first shots.

Harry, in many states there is a duty to retreat before using deadly force in self defense.

I actually agree with Frazzled and 2nd Amendment advocates that a person should have the right to respond to the threat of deadly force with deadly force without necessarily having to retreat; in many cases retreat really isnt an option, especially for older or disabled people.

That being said, the law on the books in Florida, and the way it is interpreted by their courts, clearly is a bad one, and goes further than Texas' law, apparently. And that's saying something.

Frazzled is lazy in discussions like this, and rarely actually looks at links, even when they provide the exact documentation (many court cases, the opinions of the State Attorney General, etc.) that he's asking for. That's his choice. If he blinds himself and claims someone else is blowing smoke, hopefully everyone else can see that he's being silly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bookwrack wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Hopefully not, on this occasion. Unlike the occasion when the two gangs killed an innocent bystander and got off because they both argued they were standing their ground.

That's not what actually happened. The 'innocent bystander' was the gangmember who fired the first shots.

Thanks for the correction; my apologies. Looking further the judge's decision does note that one/some of the witnesses said that someone in his car fired first.

In his order, Judge Terry Lewis was critical of the stand your ground law, however. "The law would appear to allow a person to seek out an individual, provoke him into a confrontation, then shoot and kill him if he goes for his gun. Contrary to the State's assertion, it is very much like the Wild West."

It does seem strange that someone who kills another person can completely avoid arrest or any real investigation in some cases by simply claiming they were acting in self defense, without having to prove it.

Yeah, the recent judicial decision that catching someone burgling your vehicle, and when they run away, you chase them for a block and stab them to death = 'standing your ground,' is bizarre.

In NY, you are required to retreat first. Attacked in your car? Nope, you've to to run before you can fight. Caught in your apartment? I hope you can get to the fire escape. People have gone to prison for getting cornered and killing their attacker... in their own homes.

Vulcan wrote:In NY, you are required to retreat first. Attacked in your car? Nope, you've to to run before you can fight. Caught in your apartment? I hope you can get to the fire escape. People have gone to prison for getting cornered and killing their attacker... in their own homes.

Who made these laws?

You will notice that the stricter the laws, the more infamous the locations when it comes to violent crime.

Like Tombstone?

I don't think that's an accurate assessment. Florida's getting pretty infamous now, too.

Mannahnin wrote:Like Tombstone?

I think this has really devolved into a debate of racism and when use of force is applicable. After reading through the topic I want to share a few things on self-defense, law, and police procedure. I don't know (or care) if it is relevant to you, but I am just compelled to give some facts on them.

First off, New York and most states don't require you to retreat in your apartment. The section that outlines when you can use force in self defense in NY is in their criminal code in section 35.15. The vehicle one is a grey one, but would be very dependant on the situation.

To clear a few things out of the way I want to start with the idea of mutual combat which would be your typical idea of two guys trading blows outside a bar. It's called that because the fight is on equal grounds. Mind you, this is still not legal, most states/cities have laws against fighting or general disorderly conduct laws (or both). So, if Guy A and Guy B are fist fighting and Guy B all the sudden picks up a piece of wood laying near by and starts swinging it at Guy A, Guy A then gains the right of self defense. That means once you have the right of self defense you can use force that is reasonable and necessary to stop the attack. That is how most state laws have it exactly written. When I was trained at the police academy, and every year and retraining, this is what they tell us as well.

So the question is: When is deadly force justified? Well the legal definition is, "whenever someone is danger of death or serious bodily injury." Obviously, you can repel your own slaying by killing your attacker. You have to be put under the reasonable person test though which asks the question of, "did that person act as any other reasonable person would?" If you can look at the prima facie evidence of that, then it can be determined by a jury. This goes for any level of force.

Police and people have the ability to use what is reasonably and necessary to defend themselves and others. I have been straight up told in use of force training to use the +1 rule, which is if you are being punch at kicked, you can use an intermediate weapon to stop the attack. An intermediate weapon is something like pepperspray, a baton (with proper training as striking for the head is deadly force), or a Taser. There are levels of 'resistance' and levels of 'control.' I won't go through them as its not really necessary, unless someone decides they want me to later. This can be open for debate too. If a female officer who is 5'1, 110 pounds is attacked by an unarmed male who is 6'6 350 pounds and she has attempted intermediate weapons on him, they have failed, and he continues to attack her? I would think she would be justified in shooting him. Remember, she's not trying to kill him, she's trying to stop him.

On the question of why the police did what they did. So here's the thing. Cops are not experts on constitutional law. Neither are their Sergeants, or Captains, or even Chiefs. I understand, but do not condone, why they did not arrest Zimmerman. Because there are facts in this case that may or may not lead to arrest. So what happens in a case like that, you write up the report as a police officer would, you collect all the facts, you interview witnesses, you get statements, you attach any evidence. Then you forward that report to the city, district, or states attorney. Then if the attorney (who'd job it is to determine if a law has been broken in some situations) would end up filing the report for criminal procedings and issuing a warrant for arrest. It happens this way for several reasons. One time I made a double traffic stop between two cars. I found that each car had paint transfer for eachother and that each was accusing each other of road rage. Because no one was being forthcoming with the truth, I used the available facts to me to collect and finish a report. I talked to my supervisor and had him look it over, he agreed that we didn't have enough to charge anyone with anything as it was. I forwarded it to the city attorney and he ended up citing both drivers for a few different things.

Why did I (or other officers do that?) Limit liability. If i go all Wyatt Earp (There is my Tombstone reference) and start deciding who is guilty and who isn't just because I know in my gut that they are (and they probably are) doesn't mean I should. Because if I arrest a guy and he turns out to be innocent then the fault is my own, and honestly, it should be. That is how you keep police honest and make sure it doesn't come to some sort of police state. I'm not saying this is the reason why they didn't arrest Zimmerman on scene, but it gives you an idea of the level of liability. In some cases I have everything I need to make an arrest, and don't. "You cad!" you're thinking. On a completely different traffic stop, I make a stop, find that the driver has a suspended license and cannot be driving. I cite and release him, but because I'm feeling lucky I ask him if I can search his car. He tells me yes. I search, find a cigarette carton with a small amount of dope in it under the drivers seat. I tell him that if he admits to me it's his, I will write up a report, he will still be charged, but I won't take him to jail to sit till Monday (It was a Friday or Saturday I think.) Why fill up the jail with some guy who's probably not going to hurt anyone, when I know that the county jail is already overcrowded as hell? Again, I wrote the report and forwarded it to the district attorney, I don't know what happened with that, must have plead guilty.

So why did they 'cover up' the tapes? Probably to finish the investigation. This is a little out of my league now because I'm not a detective. Occassionally they will keep evidence from press if they think that it will hinder the investigatory process. I honestly don't know what happened with that in Sanford PD's case, because this department has a history of racial problems and whether or not people like it this has been a racially motivated story.

In conclusion,

So that was probably not interesting to anyone and maybe confused or enraged others but that is all fact. It was probably a little less relevant to most but for some reason I needed to get that off my chest. I am in no way condoning what anyone did here. George Zimmerman brought a gun to a fist fight. Even if he is unaware of everything I just posted, ignorance of the law is never an affirmative defense in court. The police clearly have not done what was in the public's best interest, so please don't accuse me of this thin blue line crap. Whenever a cop does something stupid, it makes the rest of us look bad. No one wants that because it makes my job a hell of a lot harder. The reason charges may or may not surface is because the facts are muddled and a lot of people and poor state law is to blame.

Editted for a few spelling mistakes, its real late...

An excellent post, Brennus. Bravo!

Brennus, that was an excellent post. Thanks for sharing your perspective.

I think one of the reasons folks are critical of the law and the lack of arrest are that they seem to have had the effect of motivating the officers to not investigate properly.

Hazardous Harry wrote:Frazzled, you should probably stop claiming that Mannahnin is blowing smoke out of his arse. He has offered real and very strong evidence that it is much, much easier to walk away from murder in Flordia because the onus is on the prosecution to disprove self-defence the whole time. In this particular case he may still be convicted but there are other cases (which Mannahnin has shown) where this has led to real injustice.

Also, I'm not really on top of the law in the US but I don't think there is a legal requirement to flee from an attacker. The difference in Florida is that the defendant has no onus to prove self-defence.

He hasn't but thats ok. The Manster and I routinely accuse each other of blowing smoke out of our asses. In his defense I eat a lot of Cajun food still, so its easier for me.

When Manster makes it to Austin I'll introduce him to something called "dark" rum. We'll end up in a ditch somewhere smelling of wiener dog pee but it will be so worth it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote: If he blinds himself and claims someone else is blowing smoke, hopefully everyone else can see that he's being silly.

ON the positive, per the Texas legal code i'm legally blind


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bookwrack wrote:Yeah, the recent judicial decision that catching someone burgling your vehicle, and when they run away, you chase them for a block and stab them to death = 'standing your ground,' is bizarre.

Can't do that in Texas fyi.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vulcan wrote:In NY, you are required to retreat first. Attacked in your car? Nope, you've to to run before you can fight. Caught in your apartment? I hope you can get to the fire escape. People have gone to prison for getting cornered and killing their attacker... in their own homes.

And thats how the no retreat needed laws got started.

Looks like the whole issuing is getting less clear cut now (but more like I thught might have happened). Its an interesting legal discussion. If you confront someone, and in response they start beating you to death, can you then claim self defense?

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_arizona-iced-tea-suv-unarmed-black-teenager

Frazzled wrote:If you confront someone, and in response they start beating you to death, can you then claim self defense?

It would depend on your idea of 'confront'.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Frazzled wrote:If you confront someone, and in response they start beating you to death, can you then claim self defense?

It would depend on your idea of 'confront'.

Vaguely tickle from a distance with a feather attached to a fishing rod.

fluffstalker wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Frazzled wrote:If you confront someone, and in response they start beating you to death, can you then claim self defense?

It would depend on your idea of 'confront'.

Vaguely tickle from a distance with a feather attached to a fishing rod.

Wait, I thought you had to pay for that, er did I say to much?

Frazzled wrote:

fluffstalker wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Frazzled wrote:If you confront someone, and in response they start beating you to death, can you then claim self defense?

It would depend on your idea of 'confront'.

Vaguely tickle from a distance with a feather attached to a fishing rod.

Wait, I thought you had to pay for that, er did I say to much?

Not enough.

Pics or GTFO Frazzled.

fluffstalker wrote:Pics or GTFO Frazzled.

DON'T SAY THAT!

The dacshunds are coming....