General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDuty to retreat vs stand your ground and castle laws: Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater
Last edited Sun Mar 25, 2012, 09:44 PM - Edit history (1)
In times of high emotion, people want action taken. They want broad, sweeping changes made to prevent bad things from happening again. After 9/11, we wanted to "feel safe." So we didn't mind (by we, I mean the majority of Americans) when Bush started spying on us, torturing alleged terrorists, or declaring his authority to detain indefinitely.
Now Trayvon's killing has us all stirred up. And rightfully so. We know some disturbing things. An unarmed black youth was deemed "suspicious" and "probably on drugs" with no apparent justification. He was followed, questioned, and shot after his shooter was advised to leave him alone.
But we don't have a clear, internally consistent picture of what happened. Witnesses have not been cross-examined. We don't have the forensic reports. And some of the information we have may be false.
The media reports poorly all the time, as people who have watched broadcasts on subjects they understand can attest. Not only are reporters sloppy in reporting on mundane subjects, they are motivated to enrage us on more emotional issues. The stronger our outrage, the higher their ratings.
If forty people stood still and watched a baby carriage roll into traffic, the report on the nightly news might neglect to tell you that a healthy young man—who was the closest person to the carriage—sprinted after it and almost lost his own life trying to save the child. If they did mention that tidbit, it would be at the end of the story. Or you might find out several days later. News media is a business—its purpose is to generate money. Outrage generates money.
Now there's a frenzy to get rid of "stand your ground." But there is a serious problem with the standard legal alternative—"duty to retreat." It elevates violent criminals over the law-abiding and innocent.
In our society we hire police officers, assign them certain duties and empower them to carry those duties out. Police have the power to disperse crowds and remove innocent people from public places. If a few families are in a park playing and a police officer comes along and tells them they have to leave, they are legally obligated to do so.
In a "duty to retreat" jurisdiction, a violent felon has the same power. A felon armed with a knife or bat who comes along and orders you to leave must be obeyed. It matters not if you and your friends are innocent. It matters not if some of you are legally armed. As long as all of you can safely retreat, you are legally obligated to do so. The felon's word carries the force of law—just like a police officer's.
{Removed paragraph that may be in error, and that in any case I cannot support. Thanks to alcibiades_mystery for challenging my statement.}
This is my problem with "duty to retreat." It is why I support the best versions of "stand your ground." “Duty to retreat” elevates violent criminals above society. Under duty to retreat violent aggressive people can go anywhere. They can jog in the park. They can walk down the street. They can stroll through the parking lot. They can also force you to leave any of those places by simply threatening violence. In the most extreme jurisdictions, they can expel you from your own vehicle. {{Removed words that may be in error, and that in any case I cannot support. Thanks to alcibiades_mystery for challenging me.}
If you do not yield to the criminal, if you defend yourself from an unjustified assault and kill or injure him, you will face charges, lawsuits, or imprisonment. Even if you did not see a safe escape path, your judgment will be second-guessed by a safe, warm, comfortable jury. “Stand your ground” prevents relaxed, Monday morning quarterbacks from sending you to prison because they can, with their 20-20 hindsight, work out a theoretical escape route or strategy.
People who oppose "stand your ground" often portray it as being an ego-driven, macho policy. But the legitimate principle is freedom. If I am a violent criminal, that fact should not empower me to force you to leave any place you have a right to be, under penalty of law. You should, of course, have the choice to flee. But I should not have the legal authority to make you flee, simply because I choose to threaten you.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
CAPHAVOC
(1,138 posts)A while ago a crawler was saying Zimmerman will not use the stand your ground defense.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)
guitar man
(15,996 posts)I get the feeling Zimmerman's lawyer doesn't want to open that door for the prosecution to walk through. With Zimmerman in pursuit, if Trayvon punched him, it might just be that Trayvon would be found to be the one who was standing his ground
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)
Little Star
(17,055 posts)
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)Confrontations go to "kill or be killed" immediately without any graduated response. This toon illustrates what I was saying in my post.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)There is a continuum of force. A police officer cannot {legitimately} shoot you because you simply shoved him.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)I really never gave these laws much thought before the horrible killing of Trayvon. Thanks for taking the time to write about being careful to not throw the baby out with the bath water.
States who have castle laws have differing versions of it. Not all of them are bad. And the duty to retreat doctrine is down right scary once you understand what that can actually mean. Stand your ground is even more scary, imho. Its all very complicated.
I think wiki did a pretty good job of putting together their state by state castle doctrine page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#State-by-state_positions
iverglas
(38,549 posts)One of the characteristics of "castle doctrine" laws it lists is:
In Florida-style laws, the entire point is that there is NO requirement of any such belief on the part of the occupant.
The law creates an IRREBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION that an occupant who reasonably believes that someone has unlawfully or forcibly entered the home has such a fear. The occupant need not even assert the fear, let alone offer any evidence or argument to show that it was reasonable.
An occupant who kills or injures someone they reasonably believed had entered the home forcibly or illegally -- and yes, that absolutely includes the sleeping 10-year-old who broke in a basement window and drank the liquor cabinet contents -- is IMMUNE from prosecution.
A lot of people don't bother to read and understand what these laws say. And a lot of other people don't want anybody to understand what they say.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=125237&mesg_id=125237
(20) Fla. S. Rep. No. 107-436, 6pt. III, at 6 (2005) (Judiciary Rep.) (“Legal presumptions are typically rebuttable. The presumptions created by the committee substitute, however, appear to be conclusive.”). Accord Fla. H.R. Rep. No. 107-249 (2005) pt. B, at 4 (Judiciary Rep.) (“A person is presumed, rather than having the burden to prove, to have a reasonable fear.”).
Suich
(10,642 posts)Every news cast, there seems to be "Breaking News" from Sanford, when, in fact, nobody really knows anything yet.
The media is driving this bus.
I'd rather wait until some facts come out.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts).. is that 'Stand Your Ground' is not 'be the aggressor and go free'.
Even in Florida, you cannot avail yourself of this defense if you are the aggressor, or are in the process of committing a crime.
http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/776.041.html
Excellent post.
shrdlu
(487 posts)TPayne7 has expressed better than I am able the essence of my thoughts: We should not allow our gut-wrenching remorse over the tragic actions of a bigoted fool to damage a useful policy for personal security. While I am ashamed to even imagine a benefit from this horror, perhaps serious scrutiny of hobby cops and wannabe Charles Bronsons will result.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)whether your killing was in self-defense, that is whether your belief that you were defending yourself or others was reasonable. So I think that this statement may not represent the meaning of the law.
If you do not yield to the criminal, if you defend yourself from an unjustified assault and kill or injure him, you will face charges, lawsuits, or imprisonment. Even if you did not see a safe escape path, your judgment will be second-guessed by a safe, warm, comfortable jury. “Stand your ground” prevents relaxed, Monday morning quarterbacks from sending you to prison because they can, with their 20-20 hindsight, work out a theoretical escape route or strategy.
As I read the law, it simply gives you a slightly better chance of arguing the defense of self-defense in court. But you probably will still have to face a jury.
If a person could just work up a paranoid fear about the presence of a stranger in his community, shoot the stranger and walk away without proving that the fear was reasonable under the circumstances, the law would protect the criminal.
In fact, it is possible that Zimmerman will be found to have committed a crime. We shall see. The Stand your ground law does not give people a license to murder anyone who scares them.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)In a "duty to retreat" jurisdiction, you must yield to the criminal. In a "stand your ground" jurisdiction you will not face charges simply because you failed to yield to an assailant.
Of course your apprehension of danger must be reasonable. But the type of argument that can be used against you changes. In "duty to retreat" jurisdictions, for example, if an older person charges you with a knife and you shoot him the prosecution can argue "but you were 10 years younger, why didn't you simply outrun him?" A jury may find that plausible and your counterargument--"I wasn't sure I could outrun him and if I turned my back and he was faster than he looked I could have been killed"--convincing.
Failing to yield to criminals is not itself a crime in "stand your ground" jurisdictions. That was my point in the first sentences.
I am talking about a jury second-guessing whether you can flee. In stand your ground jurisdictions, there is no duty to flee, so the issue of whether you can flee should never arise.
If I'm missing your point, please elaborate.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)criminal law so I may not have the experience needed to understand this), is whether the belief in a threat of imminent danger to oneself or others is reasonable in the view of the jury. Self-defense is a defense, a justification for killing.
The Florida law that I read specifically stated that self-defense is a justification and that the belief in the threat of imminent danger has to be reasonable. I don't think that the reasonableness of that belief can be determined in most cases without a trial. How does that work?
In this case, Zimmerman stated on 911 that Trayvon Martin was running away. So Trayvon under this law as you explain it would have the right to stand and defend himself. Unfortunately, Trayvon did not have a gun. Zimmerman, Trayvon's assailant had the gun. I don't think that this law would exonerate Zimmerman. He will have a tough time proving that Trayvon was the aggressor and that standing and defending himself was necessary. I don't see how he can prove that Trayvon attacked him rather than the other way around. No matter what anyone saw out their window or who had a broken nose, it will be very hard to prove that Trayvon was the attacker considering Zimmerman's admissions in his 911 call. That is what I see thus far, but certainly we do not know about all the evidence.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Based on the information the cops provide the DA/State's Attorney, he may choose not to prosecute- either because he doesn't think the case will stand up, or because he thinks it's justified.
Even if the State's Attorney chooses to prosecute and takes it before a Grand Jury, the GJ may not agree, and may refuse to indict.
A judge could issue a summary judgement, releasing the defendant.
So there are a couple of extra steps between the incident and a criminal jury. Any one of those steps could be the end for a particular case. Just because it didn't go all the way to a criminal jury doesn't mean that the 'reasonableness' wasn't examined.
I agree with your last paragraph- if anything, it could be switched around. The fact that the Sanford PD is hiding behind this law just makes me wonder how corrupt they really are.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I was basing my comments on very standard laws in the Florida statutes.
This law invites bullying. It is horrible. I'm shocked that any governor would sign it and even more shocked that a legislature could pass it. Don't they have anyone in the legislature of Florida with a law degree? Horrors!
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)The law specifically says that the initiator does have a duty to retreat. How can a law requiring aggressors to retreat invite bullying?
(1)?Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(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; or
(b)?In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
Florida law quoted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Bullies think that their victims have wronged them.
This Zimmerman/Martin case is a rather good example. Zimmerman claims he was attacked. While it is possible that he could persuade a jury that he was attacked, the evidence I have seen and heard thus far indicate that Zimmerman followed Martin. That is something a bully does.
Yet we see that Zimmerman got off. Since Martin is dead, the police only heard one side of the story. That is how I think this law will encourage bullies.
Bullies always feel that they have to do what they do. They do not see themselves as bullies -- not at all.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)That's a bunch of anti-justice system bullshit. No one should be above the law, we should all be accountable for our actions; these laws are a license to murder.
By JOHN F. TIMONEY
Published: March 23, 2012
John F. Timoney is a former Miami police chief, Philadelphia police commissioner and deputy police commissioner in New York. He is now senior police adviser to the Bahrain Minister of the Interior.
THE very public controversy surrounding the killing on Feb. 26 of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed 17-year-old, by a crime watch volunteer, George Zimmerman, was predictable.
In fact, I, along with other Florida chiefs of police, said so in a letter to the Legislature in 2005 when we opposed the passage of a law that not only enshrined the doctrine of “your home is your castle” but took this doctrine into the public square and added a new concept called “stand your ground.”
Use-of-force issues arose often during my 41-year policing career. In fact, officer-involved shootings were the No. 1 problem when I became Miami’s police chief in January 2003. But after we put in place new policies and training, officers went 20 months without discharging a single bullet at a person, while arrests increased over 30 percent.
Trying to control shootings by members of a well-trained and disciplined police department is a daunting enough task. Laws like “stand your ground” give citizens unfettered power and discretion with no accountability. It is a recipe for disaster.
More: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/opinion/floridas-disastrous-self-defense-law.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)Ok, you disagree.
Who said anyone should be above the law?! What I said, and what you quoted me as saying, is that "duty to retreat" "elevates violent criminals over the law-abiding and innocent." I also explained why. It legally empowers violent criminals to dismiss the law abiding and innocent from places where they have every right to otherwise be. In extreme jurisdictions, it legally empowers them to kick you out of your own home.
Do you disagree with either of those objective, factual statements supporting my argument? If they're bullshit, refute them.
True but irrelevant. So what? I agree with personal accountability, but how does that principle relate to your argument?
And your supporting facts and reasoning are, what exactly? That a former police chief disagrees with the law?
He's obviously biased to the point of lying--or at the very least extreme overstatement:
Look up "unfettered" if you need to and you will see that this statement is simply false. The law gives no one unfettered power. The New York deputy commissioner's unsurprising position is that only police should be able to use lethal force without being forced to flee.
That's neither surprising nor impressive.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)Read the article. That's by the former Chief of Miami PD, who is surely more expert than you.
Yeah, biased toward justice, I thought justice was a good thing.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)TPaine7
(4,286 posts)The authorities--and yes that means police departments and city administrators--often interpret the law to suit their biases and enhance their positions.
As I've shown here, they are not above lying and making things up: http://www.democraticunderground.com/117221745
Quoting an opinion piece by someone who agrees with you is amusing, but not much else. If you want to address the facts or use some logic of your own, expressed in your own words, feel free.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)...over someone who has bought the gun nut line bait and sinker any day of the week. 
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Absolute bullshit. In no jurisdiction is anyone obliged to retreat if in their own home. This is settled law.
Duty to retreat means that you exhaust, within reason, non-violent means to avoid conflict. This isn't an undue burden, but a basic sense of common decency. The "stand your grounders" have invented some nonsense like your post that ,makes the duty to retreat into the "duty to be ordered around by criminals." It is a ludicrous claim. You retreat to safety if possible and call the police. If not possible, you respond with force adequate to the situation. You need not do so in your own home. This is the hallmark of a decent society, not some evil state burden coddling to criminals.
Before I have a legitimate claim of self-defense, I should certainly have to demonstrate that force on my part was necessary. NECESSARY. Your high flown nonsense about "freedom" aside, that's the simple principle. If force was not necessary, then I was not really engaged in self-defense. Rather, I CHOSE a conflict. Bottom line there. The notion that you shouldn't "have to be moved" is, in fact, the precise "ego-driven, macho" understanding of society that drives such stupid laws. The non-ego driven non-macho understanding would be that we do no social harm we NEED NOT DO. Taking stupid machismo and calling it "freedom" is not an answer.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)Idaho (Homicide is justified if defending a home from "tumultuous" entry; duty to retreat not specifically removed)
South Dakota "Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is." SD Codified Laws 22-16-34 (2005).
Nebraska
New Mexico
Virginia
Vermont
District of Columbia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)of places where specific laws state there is no duty to retreat under various circumstances.
In each of these cases, as your own link mentions, the castle doctrine is "upheld in general," which is to say, the law recognizes an implicit exemption to duty to retreat in the home (and generally in other circumstances, such as in one's car, with a child, etc.). Case law (and, as in Virginia's case, the particular use of common law) means that these exemptions can be challenged case by case, but that does not remove the exemption as the general criterion.
You're confusing your evidence (whether a state has a specific castle law) with the claim (that one has a duty to retreat in the first instance); a state need not have a specific castle law in order for the exemption on the duty to retreat to have the force of law in that jurisdiction: indeed, of the cases mentioned there, please point out which of these would override the exemption and under what circumstances. It would be nice if you could do that argumentative work in terms of your initial hyperbolic example. Once again, you said,
"If an armed robber comes into your bedroom at night, you are obligated to flee if you safely can. It doesn't matter if you are armed. It doesn't matter if you are innocent. A criminal can dismiss you from your own home."
Show me any one of the jurisdictions mentioned in the Wikipedia article on whether a state has an explicit Castle statute (because that's what the list was about) where that has or actually would actually happen as you claimed.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)after a violent argument, and now the jury was asked to determine
whether it was murder or self-defense.' During closing argument, the
prosecutor emphasized what the state believed was the critical legal
point: Under the law, the jury could not consider the killing justifiable
"unless {the defendant} had exhausted every reasonable means to
escape the danger, including fleeing from {her} home."{2} The prosecutor
continued:
away? No. Did she go out the door where her baby was sitting
next to? [sic] No. Did she get in the car that she had driven all
over town drinking and boozing it up all day? No. {3}
The prosecution obtained a second degree murder conviction against
Kathleen Weiand in the killing of her husband Todd, bolstered in part
by a traditional duty to retreat jury instruction that stated: "The fact that
the defendant was wrongfully attacked cannot justify her use of force
likely to cause death or great bodily harm if by retreating she could have
avoided the need to use that force."{4}
http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1290&context=mulr&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Ddeclaring%2520that%2520the%2520duty%2520to%2520retreat%2520is%2520premised%2520on%2520the%2520%25E2%2580%259Crecognition%2520of%2520...%2520the%2520great%2520value%2520of%2520human%2520life%25E2%2580%259D%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CCMQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarship.law.marquette.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1290%2526context%253Dmulr%26ei%3DLnJvT7OHFMOfiALd-aTKBQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNHqXtPpYejhLoQRoYLm0em6ni3adw#search=%22declaring%20duty%20retreat%20premised%20%E2%80%9Crecognition%20...%20great%20value%20human%20life%E2%80%9D%22
A criminal took steps that legally dismissed this woman from her own home, but she refused to be dismissed. Apparently, she should have picked up her baby and run out of her own home. Her failure to do so led to her conviction for murder.
Fortunately, Florida law has been corrected on this point. I won't have time to look for more until later today.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)One will always find these limit cases; indeed, the whole article is about how fraught the Castle Doctrine itself is in the case of cohabitants: both the duty to retreat and the Castle Doctrine come up against their limits in such cases (otherwise the article wouldn't exist). In any case, her conviction was obtained partly, which is to say, not SOLELY, on the duty to retreat, meaning that there was other evidence implicating her in an actual second degree homicide under the statute and disabling her self-defense claim. And even for that partial causation, it was itself, again, only due to the very fraught nature of the Castle Doctrine in such cases; that's what the whole article argues, as you would have seen if you bothered to read past the first page. It's not even clear that a similar undermining of her position wouldn't have been possible in an explicit Castle Doctrine state.
Here's the basic point: obviously, there are going to be limit cases to the exception (there is no universal principle in common law), but the exception generally holds, just as I've argued throughout. I'll leave you to finding these little limit cases: they are not the standard interpretation in any jurisdiction (the exception IS), and they do not even approach your hyperbolic claim, which you still refuse to support - largely because you cannot.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)I did read past the first page. But even the first page makes it clear that it wasn't a case directly on point--a burglar in your bedroom. I knew, from that paper and other legal sources, that it was a case involving cohabitants.
It does appear that most, if not all, US jurisdictions do not have laws saying you must retreat from your own home. So my statement, based as it was on memory, may not be true today. I don't have the time to look into all the jurisdictions in the US to prove that there are still outliers, even if there are. Any cases I found would be "little limit cases" so what would be the point?
Be that as it may, I am pretty sure that there is still a practical duty to retreat in many jurisdictions. Only two years ago did Maryland remove this practical duty:
Before this, a felon's family could financially ruin you in Maryland for having the temerity to defend yourself. I seriously doubt every state has civil immunity.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)the families of home invaders shot by the upstanding citizens of Maryland, who were then bankrupted by the home invader's family?
Come on, dude. I mean, really. Come on.
These were always statutes that were completely unnecessary, whether it's the imagined prosecutors all over the nation sending the upstanding homeowner to prison for shooting the bedroom rapists or the civil jury awarding million dollar judgments to the families of home invaders. These are both convenient little mythologies spread by very good PR operations, and that's about all they are. It's why you can only find these obscure limit cases that don't come close to proving your initial assertions: your initial assertions are based on silly little myths and invented advertising rather than real cases.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)issue is a myth?
If you don't think innocent people in prison is a myth, how many would there have to be for you to care? If there aren't "prosecutors all over the nation sending" innocent people to prison for crimes they didn't commit and lying and cheating under cover of immunity, if there are only a few dozen, would that not matter to you?
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)I would expect next to none of them are people who were merely defending themselves against aggressive home invaders.
Clearly, one can believe that prosecutors aggressively pursue cases against innocent people, and still see that few prosecutors pursue self-defense in the home cases that turn on the Castle Doctrine. It's ludicrously rare, especially when compared to the supporters of unnecessary Castle Doctrine laws imagination of their frequency.
Most innocent people in prison look decidedly like young Mr. Martin, and in fact had nothing to do with the associated crime at all: they were not self-defense cases disbelieved by a jury.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)Innocent convictions are thought to be rare, but that doesn't mean they aren't worthy of serious consideration.
Innocent convictions of defenders in the home are thought to be rare, but that doesn't mean they aren't worthy of serious consideration.
Rare things aren't necessarily unworthy of serious consideration.
Now I agree with you that innocent convictions of defenders in the home are rare. I also agree that they are rarer than innocent convictions overall--that's elementary logic. We may differ on exactly how rare they are, but I think they are worthy of serious consideration.
Putting the home aside, do you think that the status quo on public places--a violent criminal can dismiss an innocent person from any place provided that innocent person can safely flee--is proper? Is that what the law should be?
To me that is clearly wrong. It means that the criminal is privileged by his criminality.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)You see a violent criminal "dismissing a person" from a place.
I see the person doing everything in his or her power not to harm another, within reason and within his or her margin of safety.
You think the ultimate duty is top never be forced into action by another. I think the ultimate duty is to never harm another unless absolutely necessary.
You lean toward the absolute autonomy of the individual above all else. I lean toward the balancing of the social good.
These are not new arguments. With the conservative revolution of 30 some odd years ago, the pendulum swung toward the version you're currently espousing. It will swing back again, and likely because of the excessive violence of the individual autonomy above all else position.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)I don't believe in any duty not to be forced into action. I believe in a right not to be forced. I believe the state has a duty to protect my right, not that I have any duty to exercise it.
From my post 56:
All civilizations believe in the right of individuals to not have other individuals arbitrarily force them into certain actions. You are just willing to violate that right by legally compelling the innocent to submit to the whims of the violent in order that the more violent be protected.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)(a)?The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;
The Florida law wouldn't have applied to this woman since the husband was a lawful resident.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)I didn't read the Florida statute, but I suspected that the severe difficulties of applying the castle Doctrine in the case of cohabitants would likely apply there as well, since it is a substantive problem rather than something that can be decided by statute. Hence my claim "It's not even clear that a similar undermining of her position wouldn't have been possible in an explicit Castle Doctrine state."
The substantive problem is clear: when an "armed robber"--which is to say, a stranger with no good reason to be there--is found dead in Jimmy's bedroom, to use TPaine7's hyperbolic and subsequently unsupported example, it is fairly clear what has occurred. If, on the other hand Jimmy's wife is found dead in the same bedroom (butcher knife still in hand, so to speak), his claims of self-defense are at least somewhat more dubious. Of course, Jimmy might have plotted with the armed robber to invade the home and attack his own wife, at which point Jimmy shoots the man as planned (this sort of thing has happened more than once, needless to say), but the investigation is there for a reason. Castle doctrine for cohabitants is clearly a difficult issue for this reason. Indeed, I'd bet that even those many states listed by TPaine7 as having no duty to retreat hedge and hem on this issue, as you demonstrate for Florida.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)I think you're talking about laws from before and after the changes, though I can't be sure since you cite no source.
If that is today's law, it wouldn't have been relevant in that case.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)2005:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;
http://law.justia.com/codes/florida/2005/TitleXLVI/ch0776.html
2011:
(a)?The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/Chapter0776/All
Looks the same to me. YMMV.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Here is your claim:
Here's what you were specifically asked:
So not only did you fail to provide a relevant example from the list, you provided an example from Florida that wouldn't have been changed with or without a shoot first law.
We're still waiting for your example, and so far you haven't provided one.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Remember the cops and courts don't know "who started it." The point of a duty to retreat is to prevent further violence and bloodshed and let the legal system handle it. I'm not "obeying" a criminal if I run away from him rather than attacking him. I'm just getting out of there to call police.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)The "obeying a criminal" nonsense is a standard NRA propaganda line. A very effective line that has helped enact foolish legislation like SYG.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)Where does or did the NRA say any such thing?
Just because a position doesn't support your version of gun control doesn't mean it came from the NRA.
TeamsterDem
(1,173 posts)I agree with much of what you say, TPaine, and I've never been involved in any way with them. It's the standard ad hominem attack they use to try and make you out to be some groupthink robot; they seem to think it's clever. It's red-baiting, basically, to strip the person's respect away and make them be viewed as simply a part of some OTHER monolithic entity.
I'm a proud and responsible gun owner who detests the NRA. If someone doesn't understand that it's their problem.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)It's just a standard, point-free claim.
I've never heard or read anyone else make the "obey the criminal" argument. I make it that way to get people thinking. It seems valid to me, but truthfully the fact that a criminal can dismiss an innocent person using nonverbal threats is just as bad.
TeamsterDem
(1,173 posts)I've heard cops make that statement. Not on duty, but amongst friends ... colloquially. It just suits the anti-gun side to call everyone with a gun an NRA member. They think it dismisses the person's argument when in reality it does nothing of the sort.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Does it matter who made it up, it's total bullshit and you know it. I love it when you guys crawl out of the Gungeon to sell your nonsense to the general membership. Maybe you'd like to enlighten us as to where you picked up the propaganda phrase? The only place I've seen it is on extreme pro-gun, wingnut sites and blogs.
DTR is not about "obeying criminals". It is about avoiding confrontation, reducing violence, defusing situations, saving lives, public safety and sound common sense.
Stop being an apologist for ultra right-wing gun legislation.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)Don't like my application of "stand your ground"? Why don't YOU leave, then? Isn't that what you believe in?
LOL
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)and I think you would do the right thing, if it came down to it. But, unfortunately, this bill wasn't passed by folk who think like you or me. It was passed by Repukes, bought and paid for by the NRA, which pushed this legislation in Florida as a priority. DGU killings have tripled since it passed and this debacle is the latest and hopefully, the last.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/22/449961/how-nra-fueled-floridas-stand-your-ground-law/?mobile=nc
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)on the revised laws, especially for CCW permittees.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)The duty to retreat is not a duty to "obey criminals." The justice system doesn't know who started it. The duty to retreat is only applicable where it can be easily done, rather than kill somebody. Most people would prefer that to having a killing on their conscience, no matter how justified.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)of deadly force.
If you fail to obey his words, you face prosecution and jail time. That is a fact.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)It's just as odious if he can do it non-verbally.
The idea that you lose your legal right to be there because he threatened you is the problem, not obedience per se.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Both parties had a legal right to be there before the violence started.
The retreat requirement only seeks to prevent just the kind of thing that happened here. Someone is dead now and we don't have a way of knowing what happened other than the word of the "winner" of the battle.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)And the very best case for the baby you can make is some completely unrelated case of a drunk woman who shot her husband?
Here's the flaws in your arguments:
Sorry, but this just demonstrates binary thinking. It suggests that there are only two alternatives, which is pretty much the idiotic mindset which gives us these idiotic laws in the first place. The shooting of Trayvon Martin is an excellent example of why the Florida law in particular (as well as some others) are failures. They allow people like Zimmerman to shoot unarmed people with no criminal or civil repercussions whatsoever. Furthermore, Trayvon Martin is almost undoubtedly not the only victim of this piss-poor law in Florida alone.
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/03/20/deaths-nearly-triple-since-stand-your-ground-enacted/
You're really trying to suggest that every case of self defense results in "charges, lawsuits, or imprisonment" without these laws? I beg to differ. Believe it or not, thousands of cases of self defense resulted in no charges or lawsuits being filed, years before the Dirty Harry bullshit laws were enacted. In fact, cases where someone was prosecuted for failure to retreat are exceedingly rare, and generally always involve extenuating circumstances just like the very poor example you provided.
They suggest that because that's exactly what it is. The Florida law was driven by the NRA, which is the epicenter of "ego-driven, macho policy". If your definition of "freedom" includes the right to deprive someone else of theirs including the most basic right of life itself, I'll have to say that your definition diverges considerably from mine.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)No they don't. The NAACP, Zimmerman's lawyer, the law's author and many others disagree with you. It's idiotic thinking to believe that that's what the law allows.
No. If you ran and got cornered after your assailant had killed three other people, you wouldn't be prosecuted. But in many less extreme cases, if you don't run, you face charges, lawsuits, or imprisonment. Of course I'm not saying you'll be convicted (or even prosecuted) 100% of the time, just that you face the possibility.
So you agree that it is right that any criminal can dismiss you from any public place simply by offering you violence, and that you should be required to retreat, every time, as long as you can do so safely?
We do disagree, then.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Did you no even bother to read the link I provided? The cases of so-called "justified" killings in Florida tripled since the law was passed and in the vast majority of cases where it is cited, the person killed wasn't armed. For anyone who looks at the statistics since the law passed, there can be little other conclusion that people are getting off without prosecution in cases with extremely weak self-defense arguments. If you want examples, I'll give you some.
Actually that's exactly what you said, but what you're saying now is not much better. You're claiming that only in extremely obvious cases will you not be charged, and that's just not within a cab ride of reality. The number of egregious cases is extremely rare. Try coming up with one for a start, in Florida, and then you might have the beginnings of an argument. As yet your assertion is extremely weak and all but completely unsupported.
We do disagree, then.
You're assuming that the person on the receiving end of deadly force is always a criminal, and that is an extremely piss poor assumption. The law is being used to defend those who shoot unarmed people in road rage incidents, bar fights, drunk people who knock on the wrong doors, and people getting shot just for being at the wrong place at the wrong time.
So perhaps you think that making obviously false assumptions strengthens your argument, but quite the reverse is true.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)Now I have read it. The link is wrong. The NAACP is right. The law does NOT allow you to shoot unarmed people with no criminal or civil repercussions whatsoever. It does not legalize murder, as long as the victim is unarmed. (I thought I would give you a taste of your own interpretive methods):
No, you cannot "shoot unarmed people" except in very narrow circumstances. If the DA can prove you didn't meet those circumstances, you will face criminal and civil repercussions. (Hint: you will face X does not mean that X will certainly happen 100% of the time, nor did it mean that in my earlier post. There are scenarios where the DA could prove that you didn't meet those circumstances and you would still not face criminal and civil repercussions. You will face X is shorthand for the fact that X is a distinct possibility.)
Your assumption that shooting unarmed people is always unjustified is false. There are many situations where shooting an unarmed person is justified. Police and citizens justifiably shoot unarmed people all the time.
That in itself proves little. Think about it; after the original Castle Law were initiated, wouldn't you expect that killing of home invaders went up in England (or wherever that legal principle originated)? Then they went down.
We do disagree, then.
You're assuming that the person on the receiving end of deadly force is always a criminal, and that is an extremely piss poor assumption. The law is being used to defend those who shoot unarmed people in road rage incidents, bar fights, drunk people who knock on the wrong doors, and people getting shot just for being at the wrong place at the wrong time.
The assumption that I'm a criminal is implicit in the assumption that I am offering you violence. Think it through. If you are minding your business and I threaten your life or limb, I am a criminal.
Should I, by offering you violence, be able to make you leave any public place (as long as you can safely retreat)? Why do you find it necessary to avoid that simple question?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Which means you can "shoot unarmed people", which means you didn't contradict me, yet pretended to contradict me. Furthermore, the circumstances aren't nearly so narrow as you pretend.
Here's exactly what the law says, which you claimed to read, but apparently can't or won't understand:
...
(3)?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.
So all the "narrow circumstances" you claim to apply, amount to little more than if the person believes they are at risk of bodily harm or they believe a "forcible felony" is being committed. Those aren't "narrow" circumstances. Those are circumstances you can drive a Mack truck through. And what you don't seem to be able to comprehend is that rather than holding people accountable if they choose to use deadly force, the law requires the DA to prove the person believed the taking of human life wasn't necessary. This is an almost impossible standard, especially if the only other witness is dead.
Now you're just going down the road of bullshit mongering. Read what I wrote, which you even copied. I never claimed shooting unarmed people is "always unjustified", nor did I suggest as much. I said it allows people to do so and in fact this has happened many times, just as I said. So unlike your unlikely and ill related scenarios, the very things I'm telling you are happening ARE happening. And it wasn't as if they weren't completely predictable.
The examples not only prove it can happen, it proves it does happen. Did you think I was just bullshitting you when I said I had examples? You claimed to have read the link I provided. It appears you didn't.
The original "Castle Law" came from 17th century England. I seriously doubt you have relevant statistics from the time, but even if you did it would prove nothing once the simple principle of correlation does not imply causation is applied. Home invasions went down in Florida after 2005, but they also went down everywhere else and had been going down since 2000. There's no reason to suspect the NRA authored law in Florida had any effect whatsoever. I can see how someone who believes fringe nut LaPierre's bullshit talking points(not sayin you, just sayin many are) might be swayed by such meaningless statistics, but most people who have the cognative ability of a garter snake wouldn't be so easily convinced. Furthermore the "Castle Law" as the name implies, refers to your castle, not pretty much the whole state of Florida as that law applies.
OK, so either you didn't read the law, or you have no hope of understanding it, or you're simply parroting LaPierre. Read the law again, slower this time. Nowhere in the law is the requirement that the person you shoot be a criminal, or "offering you violence", or anything even remotely close to what you're claiming. You just have to have the belief that they are "offering you violence" or you believe they are in the commission of a forcible felony. Belief does not equal reality, and it's a nearly impossible standard to prove.
There is no simple yes or no answer to that question as you pretend. The answer is, it depends. Furthermore your question does not even come close to addressing what happened to Trayvon Martin and lots of other people who were innocent, but got shot anyway by clueless gun crazy yahoos.
Instead of dreaming up hypothetical situations, why don't you take a look at real people in real situations who are getting shot while their shooters are walking the street freely. Try looking up David James, who wasn't "offering violence" to a man who got into an argument with him, pulled a gun, and shot him in front of his daughter. Michael Frazzini wasn't "offering violence" when he was killed in his mother's back yard by a neighbor. Billy Kuch wasn't "offering violence" when he got drunk and knocked on the wrong door. He put up his hands and the homeowner shot him through his liver. Not only was none of the shooters convicted, but their family members can't even sue the shooters all thanks to this fringe nut LaPierre authored law which you think is a baby not to be thrown out.
So should those shooters(and many others) be able to walk freely with no risk of criminal or civil penalties? Try answering that much more relevant question without avoiding it.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)What you said in your post 31 was that
I disagreed. The NAACP, the law's sponsor and many others disagree. Given the facts as presented by the media, the Stand Your Ground law did not allow Zimmerman to act as he did.
The laws of Florida do allow you to shoot unarmed people in certain circumstances, but even that is not some new development under Stand Your Ground. YOU COULD ALWAYS SHOOT UNARMED PEOPLE UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
So you are wrong several different ways:
1) SYG did not authorize what Zimmerman did, at least not what he did as reported in the national media.
2) SYG did not change the law so that you can now shoot unarmed people wheras before you could not shoot unarmed people. You could always shoot unarmed people under the proper circumstances, without any criminal repercussions. (SYG did remove civil repercussions, if I understand it correctly.)
3) The implication that "shooting unarmed people" is something that only an idiotic law would allow is itself idiotic. You should be able to shoot unarmed people with no criminal or legal repercussion, under the right circumstances.
And your whole argument about belief is silly. First it's not simple belief, it's "reasonable belief." And if reasonable belief, or what a reasonable person would believe in a given circumstance were so hard to establish, the law as we know it would collapse.
Unless there is some special difference between reasonable belief in SYG and the prudent person standard or reasonable man standard, it's no big deal. Really.
Reasonable belief is not the simple belief that you keep representing it as. it has a well established legal meaning, unless I'm missing something. Didn't think I'd notice the dropped "reasonable" did you?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Cherry picking my statments and then making disengenuous claims regarding them, while completely ignoring other more relevant parts of what I wrote might make you think you're more credible, but actually the reverse is true.
So let me break it down for you using a healthy dose of reality...
Since when does "like Zimmerman" mean 'Zimmerman'? Just another example of how you read, but don't comprehend.
I provided you numerous specific examples of obviously dubious self-defense claims where people have gotten away with never being convicted and in many cases were never so much as charged or arrested. So you can disagree all you want, you can pretend others agree with you, and you can pretend I didn't include the specific examples I included. That doesn't change reality.
Furthermore in regards to Zimmerman himself (which I wasn't talking about regardless of how many times you pretend I was), in case you haven't noticed, he has yet to be charged or so much as arrested. The Sanford police chief said the shoot first law tied his hands. Numerous sponsors and those who voted for the shoot first law say it needs to be changed. So no, there isn't the consensus you claim and there's little doubt that without the shoot first law, Zimmerman would have already been arrested and charged, just as he should be. As it is, he will almost certainly get off completely if he's ever charged at all, all thanks to the LaPierre authored law that you support. So you can keep claiming the shoot first law doesn't make a difference with Zimmerman if it makes you feel better. That doesn't change reality.
So let's go over your strawm.. er, points one by one...
1) SYG did not authorize what Zimmerman did, at least not what he did as reported in the national media.
Kinda hard to be wrong about something I never claimed, no?
I'm going to mark this one as complete bullshit.
Here we have another instance of you just claiming I wrote something I didn't so you can then refute it. This is known as building a strawman for you to burn down and must also be listed as complete bullshit.
Yes, sure you can. And if I had claimed you can't, you might actually have something there, but I didn't, and you don't. Sorry, but this one has to be chalked up to complete bullshit just like the rest.
Try reading exactly what I claimed, then instead of focusing on the word "unarmed" and inventing strawmen, try actually looking at the specific examples I have provided not once, but twice, which you have completely ignored and pretended didn't exist, not once, but twice. Then tell me again how this law doesn't specifically allow people to shoot those unarmed people in those exact circumstances. Tell me again how those people were "offering violence". Tell me again how this law didn't allow them to get away with murder at worst or manslaughter/aggravated assault at best, not to mention civil charges for the pain and suffering they caused. Again, specific examples which were used to illustrate my point in crystal clarity. Not hypothetical rhetoric you invented, not strawman BS, but specific examples. Try to stay focused. I know you can do this.
Unless there is some special difference between reasonable belief in SYG and the prudent person standard or reasonable man standard, it's no big deal. Really.
Reasonable belief is not the simple belief that you keep representing it as. it has a well established legal meaning, unless I'm missing something. Didn't think I'd notice the dropped "reasonable" did you?
I quoted the relevant parts of the exact law, which you claimed to read, but obviously are only vaguely familiar. So I suppose you can pretend I dropped "reasonable" but anyone smart enough to work their way back up the thread can see your claim is bullshit. Pointing out that I didn't include the exact verbiage of the law every single time I mentioned belief, is disengenuous at best and duplicitous at worst.
And yes, there is "some special difference" between reasonable belief in the shoot first law and the "reasonable person" standard. Big difference. Damn big difference. So yes, it is a big deal. A damn big deal in fact.
Your confusion of the "reasonable belief" standard quoted by the shoot first law and the "reasonable person" standard from common law pretty much epitomizes your basic ignorance of jurisprudence and this law in particular. The "reasonable person" standard means a reasonable person would have acted the same under the same circumstances. This is nothing like the "reasonable belief" standard mentioned. Apparently the word "reasonable" is throwing you off because you're completly ignoring the difference between "person" and "belief". Once again this points to your basic comprehension difficulties. If the Florida shoot first law had a reasonable person standard (and it doesn't), this would be a much higher standard. "Reasonable belief" standard is even lower than 'reasonable self-control' and points to what the person in questioned believed. It doesn't matter if they are a complete idiot. It doesn't matter if they were wrong. It doesn't even matter if they behaved irresponsibly and/or irrationally. Their state of mind and what they "reasonably" believed is the only thing that matters, and for a jury or anyone else to guess the mindset of these people in these situations is dubious at best. That's why Zimmerman will almost certainly never be convicted of any state charges once he makes a claim of self-defense. That's why this law is fucked up. That's why people can get away with murder. That's why there is no "baby" in this law. It's all bathwater. If you can't understand that basic point, you have no hope of understanding what's wrong with this law.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)Ok, I’ve had some important family and business stuff to take care of, so I haven’t been on here for a while. It may very well be that no one is following this thread anymore, but I think it’s wrong to let posts like this go unchallenged.
First I’ll acknowledge your single legitimate point:
That is correct. And let me hasten that I am probably on my way to another partial failure. I tried, and I’m trying now, to break this down so that you can see how foolish and transparent your arguments are. I didn’t succeed before, and I don’t have high hopes now.
I think that I am in good company, however. There have probably been people in your life who have tried to show you the benefits of manners, logic, self-control and English literacy. I wish them the best.
This time my likely failure will be mitigated by the fact that I am mostly writing for any others who read this, not for you.
You asked for a review, so here’s mine:
I came in here with a very calm OP. It hurled no insults; it addressed the concerns of those, who like me, are very concerned about the Trayvon Martin shooting:
Your response was clueless in the extreme:
In the baby-bathwater scenario the baby is valuable, the bathwater disposable. No one cares about the bathwater—that’s the point.
But where in the OP do I even hint that I don’t care about Trayvon’s death? I said that we are “all stirred up” about “Trayvon’s killing”—“and rightly so.” Any literate, thinking person can see that Trayvon Martin’s killing cannot be the bathwater in the analogy. But you didn’t.
When meeting a new person, I try to avoid quickly concluding that they’re an illiterate, unthinking fool. People have bad days, people make mistakes. So I let the implication that I couldn’t care less about the death of Trayvon Martin slide. I answered the factual issue, not the insult and hysteria:
Your cluelessness continued:
No.
Once again, as any literate, thinking person can see, that case was about someone being driven from their own home (as opposed to any public place). The baby I was arguing for—the freedom of the perfectly innocent not to be legally obliged to flee from violent aggressors—is supported by the entire OP.
The OP still stands—with the exception of a single paragraph and a sentence fragment—and the OP makes my case. Anyone can see that my main point doesn’t hinge on whether people can be driven from their bedrooms by robbers or by the “unrelated case” I cited. Anyone but you.
It gets worse:
Sorry, but this just demonstrates binary thinking. It suggests that there are only two alternatives, which is pretty much the idiotic mindset which gives us these idiotic laws in the first place….
Ok, I read that my thinking is “idiotic” coming from a guy who doesn’t take the time to digest what he’s reading. Obviously the term “standard legal alternative,” shows that I know there are other, less common alternatives. They are in the minority, however. I discussed the most popular laws.
But there is another, more fundamental reason to compare “duty to retreat” and “stand your ground.” Florida and several other states had “duty to retreat.” The law said that if you were minding your business and someone credibly threatened you with death or serious bodily injury you had to leave if you safely could. It was required.
The legislature decided to change that immoral law. That is a binary situation, by its nature. Either totally innocent people have a “duty to retreat” from violent attackers in every situation where they safely can or they don’t. Intelligent people can’t simply throw their hands up and say “it depends” as you did.
It’s not as if there isn’t nuance in the law. A person who helped start hostilities can’t stand his ground—he still has a duty to retreat under Florida law:
(1)?Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(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; or
(b)?In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
That part of the law gets the principle exactly right. If you started or helped to start hostilities, you should have a duty to retreat. If you are totally innocent, you have the option to retreat but no legal duty to retreat.
The legislature owes the people clear guidance as to what is legal and what is not. Going from “duty to retreat” to a vacuous “it depends” is irresponsible. Requiring the innocent to flee the violent under penalty of law is immoral. To wave your hands and say “it depends”—leaving the innocent wide open to judges, prosecutors and juries who still believe in the “duty to retreat” is stupid. Binary thinking is laudable in this case.
Your next statement, along with your later comments, shows rare cluelessness even for the internet. It’s one thing to misunderstand common idioms and the writings of others; it’s a rarer mistake to misunderstand one’s own statements.
Since you clearly don’t understand what you said next I will explain it to you, in detail.
You are clearly saying that the shooting of Trayvon Martin is an excellent example of why the Florida law in particular is a failure. “The Florida law in particular”—along with some other laws—is a failure. The Florida law IN PARTICULAR.
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/03/20/deaths-nearly-triple-since-stand-your-ground-enacted/
What is the antecedent of “they”? Clearly the antecedent is “The Florida law in particular (as well as some others).” Your grammar mistake makes this a little harder to follow than it should be, but there is no other possibility.
Using the well-accepted principles of the language, you are unquestionably saying:
Those are your words, rendered in grammatically correct English.
Now let's look at your confusion (I am assuming you are ignorant, as opposed to being a liar):
Kinda hard to be wrong about something I never claimed, no?
I'm going to mark this one as complete bullshit.
I hope that you see the truth, even if you lack the character to admit it, and that you eventually learn to admit mistakes. People who do not learn and grow are lifelong fools.
You're really trying to suggest that every case of self defense results in "charges, lawsuits, or imprisonment" without these laws? I beg to differ. Believe it or not, thousands of cases of self defense resulted in no charges or lawsuits being filed, years before the Dirty Harry bullshit laws were enacted. In fact, cases where someone was prosecuted for failure to retreat are exceedingly rare, and generally always involve extenuating circumstances just like the very poor example you provided.
Is English your first language? “Face” in this context does not mean what you think it does. When you read in the news that someone faces charges or jail time, do you really think they’re saying that person will be charged or jailed with 100% certainty—or to use your words, in “every case”?
If so, you should stop begging and consult a dictionary:
verb
facedfac•ing
Definition of FACE
transitive verb
…
6
a : to have as a prospect : be confronted by <face a grim future> b : to be a prospect or a source of concern for <the problems that face us> c : to bring face-to-face <he was faced with ruin>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/face?show=1&t=1333308030
I try, when meeting new people, to avoid drawing the conclusion that they are intentionally misconstruing things or are simply too ignorant to understand.
So I tried to explain that you were misunderstanding. To no avail:
Actually that's exactly what you said,…
That’s a mistake no literate, clear thinking person should make, but you made it. Yet again I resisted drawing the obvious conclusion.
But there’s more:
This is a standard line of attack from ignorant or dishonest folks. There is no “right to kill people” inherent in the right to self-defense. If I am charging you with a knife and you hit me in the head with a baseball bat in order to stop me, your legitimate purpose is to DEFEND life. If I die, that is a side effect that I brought on myself.
To conflate your right to defend yourself with an imaginary freedom to deprive me of life is contemptible. Killing is not the objective; you are acting to stop the attack.
Yet I still resisted the obvious conclusions about your character.
So in your first post, I was faced with a person who:
1. Doesn’t understand basic English and common idioms
2. Repeatedly insults my thoughts and ideas without actually understanding them
3. Is rude and aggressive
4. Can’t understand his own points
5. Apparently believes that since I disagree with him, I don’t deserve civility
As I said before, I try to put off the conclusion that a person is ignorant, uncouth, stupid, illiterate, thuggish, boorish, contemptible or otherwise unworthy of consideration until the last possible moment. I pride myself on being able to learn from anyone—children and fools included. But you are a tough case. The only thing I’ve managed to glean from your posts is that you are impervious to reasoned discourse.
That’s not very interesting.
So I will not bother to answer your reply, should you choose to make one, unless you shock me by being cogent and logical and making a legitimate point. (Or if you weave a sophistry so good that I fear people of goodwill may be deceived.)
I’m sure that you have some legitimate insight. Everyone does. But the return on investment is far too low to seek it by talking to you.
You’re dismissed.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)If you're not going to be objective and answer specific points as I've addressed yours, I'm not sure why you'd think anyone would want to read your lengthy reply. I gave you no less than three tries to address the specific examples I provided that show the Florida law is a failure and no less than three times you just pretended they never existed.
Feel free to have the last word as I'm sure such things are of great importance to you. If I need another chuckle I'll skim over it, but don't count on it. If nothing else it will give you one last soapbox to spew random thoughts which also seems to be of great importance to you.
Cheers!
spin
(17,493 posts)You mention that in many of the stand your ground incidents in Florida, the person who was killed was unarmed.
Suppose you are a 5' 2" female weighing 100 pounds attacked by a 6 foot 200 pound man or an elderly man with back and hip problems (like me) who is attacked by a much younger individual in far better shape.
Suppose that you are evenly matched in size, weight and health with your attacker but he has far more martial arts experience and he is beating the crap out of you and you honestly fear that he intends to kill you.
Suppose that you are much larger than your attacker and in good shape but he is the far better fighter and he intends at the the minimum to put you in the hospital for an extended stay. Should you allow him to do so because he is unarmed?
A small experienced fighter can easily defeat and injure a much larger less inexperienced fighter, In fact, a good street fighter can whip an experienced martial artists. The street fighter may only know a few techniques but he may be damn good at using them and these "tricks" maybe something that the martial artist never was exposed to in a dojo. Street fighters do not follow rules. They fight to win and possibly to kill their opponent.
Every situation is different and just because an attacker is unarmed does not necessarily mean that he can not seriously injure you. Obviously lethal self defense should be your last option. If you start the incident and refuse to break off the altercation and leave and therefore allow the situation to escalate to the point that you use lethal force, you should have a very difficult time claiming legitimate self defense.
The The Miami Herald ran an investigation on the Stand Your Ground Cases in Florida.
Number of "stand your ground" cases rises as legislators rethink law
Posted on Thursday, 03.22.12
***snip***
The Times analysis shows that more than 70 percent of the 130 cases involved a fatality. In the majority of the cases, the person who plunged the knife or swung the bat or pulled the trigger did not face a trial.
In 50 of the cases, the person who used force was never charged with a crime. Another nine defendants were granted immunity by a judge and nine cases were dismissed.
In 10 cases, the defendant pleaded guilty to lesser crimes.
Of the 28 cases that made it to trial, 19 people were found guilty of a crime.
Twenty-two cases are still pending. (The outcomes of two could not be learned by press time.)
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/22/2708767/number-of-stand-your-ground-cases.html#storylink=cpy
Much of the news media appears to wish to convince their audience that the "Stand Your Ground" law enables people to simply murder others without prosecution and in some cases this might be true. I would argue that in the majority of the cases the evidence shows that the person who claimed he used lethal force because he feared for his life had good reason to do so. Therefore there was no reason to arrest or prosecute those individuals. However there have been some questionable cases, some of which have went to a jury.
I personally feel that any case that involves self defense especially a claim that invoves the "Stand Your Ground" law should be reviewed by authorities higher than the local police. It is my suspicion, based on media reports, that the Sanford Police Department is hiding behind the "Stand Your Ground" law in order to avoid charging the shooter. I should point out that I have no full knowledge of the results of the police department investigation revealed and very few people do. From what I have read, the investigation was at best sloppy and conducted poorly.
It has been pointed out by some knowledgeable people that the Trayvon Martin shooting was not an incident in which the "Stand Your Ground" law would apply. If this is true, it makes little sense to attack the law as it doesn't apply.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)And that just isn't reality. To make an actual argument for this law you'd have to show that people who had a legitimate claim of self defense were being routinely prosecuted in Florida and that just isn't the case. The NRA pushed this law through under the objections of prosecutors who knew better and fully predicted the problems it would create. So the law claimed to fix a problem that wasn't there to begin with, as it created a far worse problem.
The problem with the law is that instead of forcing people to be accountable for the use of deadly force, it creates a ridiculously low standard for those who claim self defense. So instead of scenarios where you're up against Chuck Norris, think about the much more likely scenario of getting into an argument with your neighbor, they pull out a gun, shoot you dead, and all they have to do is claim they thought they were in fear of bodily harm. Not only will the DA not charge them, but your family members can't sue. This very scenario has played out time and time again. Prosecutors and law enforcement officials warned the legislature that was going to happen. They passed the law anyway. Then they let the law stand for 7 years without a thought even though numerous instances were occurring just as predicted. Only now when political pressure is starting to become great are they giving any thought to reconsidering the law.
That's what happens when you let the nutbags at the NRA write your public policy.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)Belated Welcome to DU! 
spin
(17,493 posts)to require that the investigation of a stand your ground incident should be reviewed by a higher authority than the local police and the local prosecutor, perhaps the State Attorney's office.
In many cases there might be little question that retreat was not a viable option. For example, I am 65 years old, a candidate for a hip replacement, suffer from degenerative disk disease and have been diagnosed as having nerve damage. Now obviously if I start a fight and refuse to break it off before it turns violent, I should be accountable for my actions. Admittedly if there were no witnesses and I killed my attacker, it would be hard to determine exactly what happened. My record and the record of my attacker should be considered. I have a spotless record and if my assailant has a record of violent crimes, that should be a major consideration. If serious questions still remained, I should be charged and face a jury.
There are cases that fall in a grey area but is it a good idea to force everyone who uses a firearm for self defense to be arrested and prosecuted? I could easily lose all my life savings and end up on the street in order to defend myself from an overzealous prosecutor when I was obviously in the right to utilize legitimate self defense.
One big advantage of the Stand Your Ground law is that if the authorities do determine that I did use legitimate self defense, I can't be sued by his survivors. Once again, if I was in the right, why should I lose my life savings in a civil court?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)You're suggesting that everyone who uses a firearm in self defense gets arrested and prosecuted and that's not even close to reality both before and after the shoot first law. There's still a grand jury system. There's still prosecutorial standards which must be met. As far as civil cases go, if a case will be easily dismissed if there isn't sufficient relevant facts to support the lawsuit and those that bring frivolous lawsuits can be countersued for doing so.
The fringe nuts at the NRA manage to frighten everyone into thinking these things happen all the time. They don't. They are exceedingly rare, and when they do there are plenty of protections built into the justice system already for those who have legitimate cases of self defense. So why do we need a law that fixes a "problem" that didn't exist in the first place and only serves to cheapen life? Instead of worrying what you should do if you're charged or sued for protecting yourself, you should be more worried about someone ending your life because they can't control their anger.
The NRA tries to paint the US as the wild west and everyone needs to become Wyatt Earp. The problem is that even the wild west wasn't that way, so the reality is they are just selling some fucked up John Wayne notion of how things are or should be.
spin
(17,493 posts)for any self defense incident in which the "victim" used lethal force, a review by a higher authority than the local police and DA would be required. If the results showed that the force used was appropriate, no charges would be filed. In any case where the action was questionable, the individual would be prosecuted. If the action were found to involve legal self defense or if a jury acquitted the defendant, no civil law suits could be filed against the defendant.
Sounds like a fair compromise to me.
There will be cases where a person uses self defense but no witnesses are available and the evidence is inconclusive. I fear many would love to automatically assume that the person who used lethal self defense and survived was guilty of murder but under our system of justice we have a presumption of innocence. That's why in such cases the background of the two individuals should be considered. If the supposed attacker is a street thug with a long history of muggings and robbery and the shooter has a spotless record, this should be a mayor consideration in determining if self defense was justified.
Remember that such self defense shootings are relatively rare. Over 800,000 Floridians have Concealed Weapons Permits and there here been only a few incidents where an individual with a carry permit has used his weapon to stop an attack on the street. If you live outside Florida, the attention that such incidents receive from the media might lead you to believe that such incidents are a daily occurrence. That would be false.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)The way the law goes now is that in order to claim self-defense, you have to admit to the act that harmed or killed the aggressor. The system then requires that you prove that your action was justified. In a situation with no witnesses and insufficient forensics, that could be well nigh impossible.
TeamsterDem
(1,173 posts)I think the general concept of a "stand your ground" law isn't a bad one, but this one is written so broadly as to give an almost unlimited shoot-authority in almost every case. I realize it doesn't apply in Trayvon's case, but what I mean is that if I go to Starbucks, am seated within EASY escape distance to one door, and a criminal comes in through a different door, that I - as a regular citizen, not a police officer - have the right to stay there and open fire on him. That seems to invite me to act as a vigilante AND as a police officer - which I'm not - and it also seems to invite innocent bystanders getting shot by me. I'm pretty proficient with guns but I'm not a Navy Seal: I might miss; the probability of me missing is higher than a police officer. That's a big problem, one made worse if the carrier in question doesn't have military training (which I do, but not the cool Navy Seal stuff).
I like the idea of a Castle doctrine inasmuch as it says I don't cede my house to a criminal but it also doesn't give me ROVING powers. I should be able to defend my home, but defending the aforementioned Starbucks is a power given to the police. I am not a police officer. I have no business defending Starbucks, and if I could've easily retreated - assuming I could have - then only a vigilante would open fire. But stand your ground basically empowers vigilantes to do just that - maybe not intentionally, but in effect that's exactly what it does.
Put another way: I wouldn't want to be in a public place and have some person open fire, striking my daughter, simply because he felt it'd be cool to stop a robbery. If an off-duty police officer were to fire and hit her (in an effort to stop a robbery), as much as that would kill me, at least that officer was tasked with that duty.
Still rec'ing your post because it was well reasoned and heart felt.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)If your are defending yourself or another innocent person from imminent attack or death, that does not meet the definition of vigilantism. That word is grossly overused.
Remember, you have no obligation to act. Indeed you shouldn't act unless lives or bodies are at stake and your probability of hitting an innocent is very low. But even before stand your ground, if you shot someone who was stabbing me unprovoked you would be golden. Unless I am grossly misinformed, you could shoot in defense of someone at Starbucks even before stand your ground.
I still think you're misusing the word "vigilante." If a criminal had just shot one Starbucks employee and was preparing to shoot another one and you were in position to stop him without endangering others or yourself, I would think you had a moral duty to do so. That would be true whether you used a baseball bat, a chair, or a gun.
Of course each case is different. But unless I am grossly uninformed, in most areas you already were able to act in such cases and even perform citizens arrest in certain cases. Stand your ground is personal and has little to do with that as far as I can tell.
TeamsterDem
(1,173 posts)But I guess what I'm referring to - perhaps misusing "vigilante" in the process - is a case in which you've now got an armed population stepping into roles in public areas which they're not trained to handle. I realize that the law doesn't inhibit the freedom to flee, but when you give someone the right to a gun and the right to "stand their ground" (in a public venue) I think you'll find that fleeing is considered less often and in some cases AFTER firing a shot would be. Not everyone. Of course there are responsible gun owners - the majority, but I suspect you'll also have the types who are offended by the very notion of fleeing, and not altogether too worked up over stray bullets because "that sum bitch criminal ought'a get what's comin." Something like that.
With respect to my Starbucks example, let me be more specific: If a man enters a Starbucks with a firearm visible and makes it verbally known that he's there to rob the place, I think there's a big difference between a police officer (off duty or otherwise) confronting him versus, for example, me. I do have weapons training, but it's military weapons training, not civilian law enforcement training. Additionally, it's been some 10 years since I was in the military, so while the training doesn't just up and die, the sharpness - crispness - of the skills does erode after time owing to the fact that I no longer have ample time to keep my shooting skills as good as they'd need to be to control my fire with extremely sharp precision in a public venue. For that reason I don't think I belong opening fire because the odds of me being able to fire a guaranteed on-target shot (as opposed to even some slim-chance innocent bystander accident) is far from certain and, if we're discussing me preventing an imminent threat to another is concerned, we must then assume that the robber and victim are in close proximity to one another - further upping the odds that I accidentally hit the person I'm ostensibly saving.
That and target acquisition/discrimination is not like riding a bike. Yes, I could probably still - after all these years - do a better job of it than the majority of untrained individuals, but without somewhat constant training in that regard you tend to lose a bit of the quickness and agility in doing so. Moreover, if someone enters a Starbucks to rob the place, I'm not immediately convinced just by that fact alone that THE PUBLIC would be better off by me killing them than simply allowing them to take the money and vamoose. Maybe some people might feel more "manly" for doing so, but perhaps the round I fire hits an innocent person. Perhaps the soft tissue expelled on exit strikes a child, causing a worse and longer lasting psychological trauma than the mere robbery would have. And perhaps I wasn't right about the "gun" in his hand, perhaps he had a toy gun, perhaps I simply saw it wrong and shot, for example, a mentally ill person who was simply having some sort of episode. That is why police officers need to be doing that job unless the very LIFE of that other person is without question in mortal danger. Then yes, I'd agree I have a duty to help. But one person's "mortal danger" is another person's "been there, done that a thousand times."
You're right, I did misuse the word "vigilante," but I'm not sure my semantics make my argument any worse. Civilian law enforcement is responsible for interdicting a threat, not just some armed individual. I have no more business intervening in a robbery than I do heading into the Mexican border area to interdict cartel shipments: I'm not a police officer/border agent. Could and perhaps should I keep my eyes out for such criminal violations? Of course. But only to report them to a proper authority whose job it is to intervene and interdict. The only interdiction I should be doing is within my own home; my castle.
If the question becomes your OWN safety (or that of loved ones) then I think the solution changes; I think you do have a right to protect yourself or your family, or perhaps even friends with you at the time. But to say that I shouldn't first have a duty to flee (if safe to do so) from a public place BEFORE determining that I have no other alternative but to stand and fight seems to be a very dangerous precedent indeed.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)It should be illegal to bring deadly force to bear in your Starbucks scenario unless life (or rape, severe bodily injury, kidnapping) were being credibly threatened.
We only disagree on duty to retreat. In fact, I would advise retreat or evasion or non-engagement, in almost all circumstances where life or rape or severe injury or kidnapping were not at issue.
I just think giving it the force of law is unjust. The innocent should not be required by law to yield to violent attackers.
TeamsterDem
(1,173 posts)And I think that in perfect theory - subtracting the idiots who always ruin everything for everyone with their stupidity - we could reach 100% agreement. It's just that perfect theory doesn't work in an imperfect world as you know, and some jerk always winds up abusing laws (or worse, other human beings). You seem like a perfectly nice and rational person, and I'm sure there's no public safety threat from you. But you know the people about whom I'm talking, people like Zimmerman who I'm sure we can find agreement in saying that he had no business near a firearm.
I do agree, though, that innocent folks shouldn't have to yield to any criminal. How we resolve that (protecting the rights of innocent bystanders in public versus a stand your ground law in which an individual is free to use deadly force in emergencies) is a great question. Again, my only hesitation is that neither the law nor any human can control the behavior of any person. We can try, and I suspect in things like the law we should try (well, otherwise it'd be anarchy). But as always what concerns me is not just the rights I have, but also the rights others have to not have my "rights" infringe upon theirs. For example, I would never go for target practice (assuming a law wasn't already in place) on someone's property because of course they might not enjoy my right (the noise), and if I hit them I'd both feel terrible and serve a lengthy prison sentence. But it's not just their property rights if we're discussing public places: In my view, a gun owner has a right to carry their weapon right up until the point that their "right" infringes upon someone else's, a stray bullet striking a non-gun carrier being my example of that.
Maybe a good example of what I mean could be expressed by analogy. I'm well over 21 years old, so I may legally drink alcohol. But I may not get drunk (as legal as that is in the abstract sense) and then go drive because that infringes on others' rights to a roadway not occupied by drunken drivers. Maybe I'm not saying it in the best way, but one person's drunkenness can and sometimes does cause a non-drinker quite a bit of problems. And it's in that vein which I see a "stand your ground" law.
This being a message board it's perhaps not wise to reveal one's self to such a degree, but I'll tell you a brief story about myself. I used to have a CCW, and I carried my weapon with me to the places I was allowed to carry it. I always stressed about it, thinking of the very few situations in which I could legally use it (my state does not have a "stand your ground" law), and finally what got to me is one day I was standing in line, fretting as usual about all of the things that could go wrong, and I saw this little boy playing with a plastic squirt gun. I started thinking (his plastic squirt gun it made me think of the very real gun concealed under my shirt), what if something happened and out of a justifiable fear I went to shoot someone else- a robber, whatever - but accidentally hit this little boy? How would I live with myself? I never could answer that question, and I gave up my CCW literally because of some little kid who I didn't know. I don't say that to make a show out of it, but I do say it because I think until we can all answer a question like that we have a very solemn choice to make about carrying guns - however legally - in public.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)...I don't get the premise of this argument. It's as if its designed to scare people into accepting a bad law.
The fact that law enforcement and "stand your ground" supporters have been using this law to justify the situation involving the killing of Trayvon Martin has set a horrible precedent.
It's a bad law, and people saw the misue of it coming.
Opponents Of Florida’s 2005 ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law Predicted ‘Racially Motivated Killings’
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002459977
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)This is simply parroting the extreme rhetoric that nutjob Pierre and all the other crazies at the NRA used to pass these horrible laws.
Even if it were true (an it ain't even close to reality), one could just as easily say the existing law elevates criminals and idiots over the law-abiding and innocent, because that's exactly the effect the law has had.
Let's say your neighbor hears about a prowler next door, grabs a toy baseball bat, and goes to investigate. Then let's say his neighbor shoots him dead, and then claims they were in fear for their life. Not only does the shooter not get prosecuted, the family of the deceased can't even sue for negligence.
Or lets say you've been out drinking, and you accidentally knock on the wrong door and instead of locking the door and calling police, the person stupidly opens the door and shoots the drunk. Same outcome.
These are real stories of the problems with this law and there are plenty more. If this NRA written law wasn't on the books, Zimmerman would be awaiting his well deserved trial already, or better yet would have just stayed home playing with his gun (or his pistol).
csziggy
(34,140 posts)Is that they are taking the provision that the killer can NOT be arrested if this defense is invoked on the scene and using it as an excuse to not investigate.
Every violent death should be investigated, no matter what the claim of the surviving person is. It is in the public interest to make sure that the claims by the only person left to make a statement are verified by the evidence. Otherwise, it would simple enough to set up situations in which a confrontation is provoked, a victim is killed, and a murderer gets away completely free.
From the statements of the legislators that sponsored this bill, they never thought it could be used in this fashion. I don't know if they actually wrote the language or just accepted a boilerplate bill from the NRA and ALEC, but the effective application is that too many times it has been used to short cut the investigations needed to determine the truth.
Then there is the problem of a cop wanna be like George Zimmerman. In his capacity as a neighborhood watch member, he was NOT supposed to carry a gun and he was NOT supposed to confront any suspicious person. Instead he apparently provoked a confrontation with a young man who had RUN AWAY from him. "Stand Your Ground" does not apply in this case and Zimmerman's attorney has said it will not be used. But the Sanford police seemed to think it was applicable and may not have done a sufficient investigation.
No matter whether you think the entire concept of "stand your ground" is good or bad, at the very least the Florida version of the law needs to be changed. Every violent death needs to be investigated and the killer involved needs to be put in a position where they cannot evade arrest if they are found to be criminally at fault.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)should be thoroughly investigated.
However, I don't think even without SYG all self-defense defendants are arrested and jailed--assuming that's you mean by their being "put in a position where they cannot evade arrest if they are found to be criminally at fault."
I think perhaps for cases where the suspect has a story that appears to match the evidence, perhaps the police could use a leg collar--something that won't potentially ruin the life of an innocent person (because, for instance, she can't make her mortgage when she isn't working) but will still allow police to keep tabs just in case.
csziggy
(34,140 posts)As you say, sometimes and arrest is not needed. But the police do need to keep tabs on a suspect.
Look at the high profile murders where suspects have been let go free until the prosecution can make a case tight enough to go to trial. The way that police departments are choosing to use this law, though, preempts the state attorney's prerogative to make that decision.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)caseymoz
(5,763 posts)Mark my words, and there's a good chance he won't even be arrested. The facts won't come out. We're not going to find out what happened. All due to the SYG law. Due to police not finding probable cause at the scene, Zimmerman is now immune to arrest, prosecution and civil action.
You don't believe me? Just watch.
I'll give you evidence so far: a governor doesn't assign a task force to investigating a homicide if it can be tried by normal means. The Seminole County Prosecutor took one look at this case and ran away in terror. Or that's how it looked. His reasons for removing himself looked very dodgy.
Want more evidence? When the law was being debated in 2005, prosecutors and police chiefs warned that things like this would happen if the law were passed.
There is no doubt it's a bad law. I can see giving self-defense cases more leeway in court, but to declare that the shooters are immune to arrest, prosecution or civil action? (That's what the law says.) Our legal system becomes unworkable if lawmakers proceed from the assumption that going to court itself is an injustice. (Though it might be literally true, that has to be approached with general reform.) If they do, the entire system of jurisprudence becomes unworkable.
Plus, it pretty much declares that in some situations, a homicide is no big thing. Whether justifiable or not, a homicide is a big thing. It's one thing to see to it that people who defend themselves be treated justly. It goes too far when it declares they shouldn't even be inconvenienced over a small matter of homicide.
SYG is an example of ideology undercutting good intentions. Now you're in denial that such good intentions could have terrible, unforeseen consequences. Unforeseen, only by those blinded by the gun rights ideology.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)according to experts:
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/01/10963191-trayvon-martin-case-911-call-screams-not-george-zimmermans-2-experts-say
I agree with you that Florida law needs reform. My point is that we shouldn't throw the baby (the right of totally innocent people not to be legally obligated to flee from assailants) out with the bathwater (the flaws in Florida law).
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)I'm willing to say people using self-defense should get more deference in investigations, but to make them immune from arrest, prosecution or civil complaint is a matter of giving some murderers "special rights." I mean, name any other situation that involves somebody killed where the only other party involved is immune to civil action. Certainly doesn't apply in vehicular deaths, and arguably there's less likely to be criminal intent in those cases than there is in shootings.
If shooting somebody isn't the last resort, which resort is it? One reason for making it acceptable only as the most extreme measure is that criminal intent becomes much harder to determine. With "reasonable doubt," there's going to be at least one person on a jury who sees Zimmerman in compliance with the letter of the law, if not its purpose.
Any way it happens, killing somebody should be a hassle, especially when it looks deliberate. You make it easier, and more people innocent and guilty, will get killed. Paranoia will rise, and stresses in society such as racial tensions just gets worse, leading to unrest and possibly to more people getting killed.
I'll stick by what I say until events prove me wrong. If I'm incorrect about everything else, trial will be a hung jury. Prosecutors and police chiefs warned about this before SYG was passed. So, I refer you to the experts, who weren't just pissing and moaning.
It's not like there were thousands of innocent self-defenders in prison. No, then it would resemble the War on Drugs, which they're not about to reform. What actually happened was a private think-tank, ALEC, a sort of conspiracy of corporations, wrote this law and passed it on a lawmaker for vote. It's McLegislation.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)This thread, for instance, doesn't have the benefit of the posts from the actual lawyer telling you that your scenarios are garbage, as does the thread in the Guns forum.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=24560
If these laws are not firearms policy issues and thus belong in GD, they don't belong in the Guns forum.
I added my thoughts there. This latest in your pretend-lawyer series doesn't merit any more attention.
