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.

Albatross wrote:Do you wear a bullet-proof vest everywhere you go?

Doesn't everyone?

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

AustonT wrote:

Albatross wrote:Do you wear a bullet-proof vest everywhere you go?

Doesn't everyone?

I fething would if I lived in Florida!

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?

Fixed.

Albatross wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Albatross wrote:Do you wear a bullet-proof vest everywhere you go?

Doesn't everyone?

I fething would if I lived in Florida!

I lived in FL for several years. Went to high school in Ft Lauderdale and college in Miami. There are some rough areas.

My actual answer is "When my employer provides one"
although I have considered buying vests for the wife, me, and the cat.

CptJake wrote:

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:

CptJake wrote:

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.

biccat wrote:

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.

That's the difference.

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.

If I understand your argument correctly,

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.

Am I correct?

biccat 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.

Fortunately, we don't have anything like that.

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?

I'd be more worried about a country that throws people in jail for saying they don't like someone.

Yes, that sounds awful.

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).

You seem to be saying that the introduction of the SYG laws did not change the legal situation.

Kilkrazy wrote:You seem to be saying that the introduction of the SYG laws did not change the legal situation.

It didn't. Most common law jurisdictions didn't require you to retreat from a threat.

Stand Your Ground laws just tended to codify the already existing rule.

I don't see why there is such a controversy about it, then.

Because Al Sharpton says there is.

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.

"are you following him"
"yes"
"we don't need you to do that"
Sounds pretty clear cut.

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.

Here is one timeline of the event I found: http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/evidence-that-trayvon-martin-doubled-back

AustonT wrote:"are you following him"
"yes"
"we don't need you to do that"
Sounds pretty clear cut.

By this logic you are free to attack anyone walking behind you without reprisal.