goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: Kat Kid on July 17, 2013, 02:29:33 PM
-
These seem like a terrible idea.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mDUIqZN3SgY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mDUIqZN3SgY)
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133 (http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133)
-
The law itself is questionable, and deserves debate, but what many are missing is that the Zimmerman/Martin case is not SYG.
-
:bwpopcorn:
-
It just seems to me these SYG laws are awful and have already contributed to the deaths of several people. Why are people in favor of these?
-
It just seems to me these SYG laws are awful and have already contributed to the deaths of several people. Why are people in favor of these?
To kick ass
-
SYG doesn't just apply to firearms. If some drunk hits you in a bar you can defend yourself. Without SYG you would have to constantly run away from any threat of force to avoid prosecution and going to jail.
There is no rough ridin' victim in SYG. They are fighting you, stop being a bitch about it.
Over 13,000 aggravated assaults involving a weapon in Florida last year. Less than 190 cases of SYG.
-
If you like to fight you need to be ready to die.
-
SYG doesn't just apply to firearms. If some drunk hits you in a bar you can defend yourself. Without SYG you would have to constantly run away from any threat of force to avoid prosecution and going to jail.
I'm pretty sure that this just isn't true.
-
What's the benefit of syg? Self defense is always justification for an appropriate response to a reasonably perceived threat of imminent harm. Why not just let the availability of avoidance be part of the overall determination of whether the threat is reasonably perceived and worthy of the reaction to it? Just like it always has been.
-
What's the benefit of syg? Self defense is always justification for an appropriate response to a reasonably perceived threat of imminent harm. Why not just let the availability of avoidance be part of the overall determination of whether the threat is reasonably perceived and worthy of the reaction to it? Just like it always has been.
I think the benefit is probably that you might actually one day be able to use that gun and ammo you purchased, and then go and tell all of your friends how badass it was killing that punk.
-
Meh, I'm sure that "stand your ground" enhancements to typical self defense (you still need to have a reasonable fear - you just don't have to retreat) can be abused. I'd still rather err on the side of the guy who was attacked.
If you're attacked, we're gonna let you argue self defense even if you could have run away, and if you attack someone, there's a chance you'll be shot even if the guy you attack could have run away. I'm ok with this.
-
If you're attacked, we're gonna let you argue self defense even if you could have run away, and if you attack someone, there's a chance you'll be shot even if the guy you attack could have run away. I'm ok with this.
You're the lawyer, so why couldn't you argue self defense if you could have run away? Seems that all you have to prove is reasonably perceived fear and appropriate response. The only change SYG seems to make is to allow unreasonableness and inappropriate response. Is that what you want?
If it is reasonable to stand your ground, you don't need SYG. If it's not reasonable and appropriate, why should it be protected?
-
If you're attacked, we're gonna let you argue self defense even if you could have run away, and if you attack someone, there's a chance you'll be shot even if the guy you attack could have run away. I'm ok with this.
You're the lawyer, so why couldn't you argue self defense if you could have run away? Seems that all you have to prove is reasonably perceived fear and appropriate response. The only change SYG seems to make is to allow unreasonableness and inappropriate response. Is that what you want?
If it is reasonable to stand your ground, you don't need SYG. If it's not reasonable and appropriate, why should it be protected?
You are correct that it ultimately all comes down to "reasonable fear." These laws just strengthen self defense in favor of those who are attacked by taking the ability to retreat "off the table" in deciding whether the person had a reasonable fear. I'm in favor of strong self defense laws. Reasonable fear is already murky enough as it is without having the jury also asking "well, could she have run away?"
-
Self defense law has been just fine since before this country was founded. Reasonableness is supposed to be murky so that particular facts can always be taken into account. Why don't you want a jury to consider every possible factor in determining reasonableness? If you're acting reasonably, great, juist convincve the jury. If you're not, why do you expect to be protected?
-
don't want to get shot?
Don't attack people.
-
Self defense law has been just fine since before this country was founded. Reasonableness is supposed to be murky so that particular facts can always be taken into account. Why don't you want a jury to consider every possible factor in determining reasonableness? If you're acting reasonably, great, juist convincve the jury. If you're not, why do you expect to be protected?
I understand your point, and we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. I favor the added clarity and protection of SYG provisions for people who are attacked.
-
There is a large number of senior citizens in Florida. So, instead of taking a chance of being mugged/beaten/killed, etc., you can just shoot a mf'er if you feel threatened. It's for octogen's...
:peek:
-
Self defense law has been just fine since before this country was founded. Reasonableness is supposed to be murky so that particular facts can always be taken into account. Why don't you want a jury to consider every possible factor in determining reasonableness? If you're acting reasonably, great, juist convincve the jury. If you're not, why do you expect to be protected?
I understand your point, and we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. I favor the added clarity and protection of SYG provisions for people who are attacked.
The real problem most people here have articulated is that SYG creates an enormous loophole for instigating a-holes with firearms:
21-5226. Use of force by an aggressor. [Amends K.S.A. 2010 Supp. § 21-3214]
The justification described in sections K.S.A. 21-3211, 21-3212 and 21-3213, prior to
their repeal, or K.S.A. 21-5222, 21-5223, and 21-5225, and amendments thereto, is not available
to a person who:
(a) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping from the commission of a forcible
felony; or
(b) Initially provokes the use of any force against himself such person or another, with
intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant; or
(c) Otherwise initially provokes the use of any force against himself such person or
another, unless:
(1) Such person has reasonable grounds to believe that such person is in imminent danger
of death or great bodily harm, and such person has exhausted every reasonable means to escape
such danger other than the use of deadly force, or
(2) In good faith, such person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and
indicates clearly to the assailant that such person desires to withdraw and terminate the use of
such force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of such force.
History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-3214; L. 2010, ch. 124, § 7; L. 2010, ch. 136, § 24; L. 2011, ch.
30, § 10, July 1.
21-5230. No Duty to Retreat; exceptions. [Amends K.S.A. 2010 Supp. § 21-3218]
(a) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in a place
where such person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand such person’s
ground and use any force which such person would be justified in using under article 32 of
chapter 21 of the Kansas Statute Annotated, prior to their repeal, or K.S.A. 21-5202 through 21-
5208 and K.S.A. 21-5222 through 21-5228 and K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 21-3212a, 21-3220 and 21-
3221, and amendments thereto.
History: L. 2006, ch. 194, § 1; L. 2010, ch. 124, § 10; L. 2010, ch. 136, § 28; L. 2011, ch. 30, ?
13, July 1
-
don't want to get shot?
Don't attack people.
Don't want to go to jail for using deadly force? Act reasonably and appropriately.
Seems like any responsible gun owner would gladly accept the duty to act reasonably and appropriately.
-
Self defense law has been just fine since before this country was founded. Reasonableness is supposed to be murky so that particular facts can always be taken into account. Why don't you want a jury to consider every possible factor in determining reasonableness? If you're acting reasonably, great, juist convincve the jury. If you're not, why do you expect to be protected?
I understand your point, and we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. I favor the added clarity and protection of SYG provisions for people who are attacked.
The real problem most people here have articulated is that SYG creates an enormous loophole for instigating a-holes with firearms:
21-5226. Use of force by an aggressor. [Amends K.S.A. 2010 Supp. § 21-3214]
The justification described in sections K.S.A. 21-3211, 21-3212 and 21-3213, prior to
their repeal, or K.S.A. 21-5222, 21-5223, and 21-5225, and amendments thereto, is not available
to a person who:
(a) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping from the commission of a forcible
felony; or
(b) Initially provokes the use of any force against himself such person or another, with
intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant; or
(c) Otherwise initially provokes the use of any force against himself such person or
another, unless:
(1) Such person has reasonable grounds to believe that such person is in imminent danger
of death or great bodily harm, and such person has exhausted every reasonable means to escape
such danger other than the use of deadly force, or
(2) In good faith, such person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and
indicates clearly to the assailant that such person desires to withdraw and terminate the use of
such force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of such force.
History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-3214; L. 2010, ch. 124, § 7; L. 2010, ch. 136, § 24; L. 2011, ch.
30, § 10, July 1.
21-5230. No Duty to Retreat; exceptions. [Amends K.S.A. 2010 Supp. § 21-3218]
(a) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in a place
where such person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand such person’s
ground and use any force which such person would be justified in using under article 32 of
chapter 21 of the Kansas Statute Annotated, prior to their repeal, or K.S.A. 21-5202 through 21-
5208 and K.S.A. 21-5222 through 21-5228 and K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 21-3212a, 21-3220 and 21-
3221, and amendments thereto.
History: L. 2006, ch. 194, § 1; L. 2010, ch. 124, § 10; L. 2010, ch. 136, § 28; L. 2011, ch. 30, ?
13, July 1
Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but the statute you cite, 21-5226(c)(1), states that if an aggressor provokes a fight, they have no right to self defense unless (a) he has reasonable grounds to believe that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and (b) he "has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of deadly force."
The KS SYG statute, 21-5230, does not override the statute above, because it only applies to people who are "not engaged in unlawful activity" and are attacked.
So, if you're the "instigating a-hole with a firearm" and provoke the fight, you've got no right to SYG.
-
So, aggressor(guy #1) starts fight, soon finds out that he isn't as good of a fighter of the other person(guy #2), starts losing fights, panics because he(guy #1) may actually get badly hurt in the fight he(guy #1) started, shoots other guy(guy #2) for winning the fight, claims self defense because guy #2 was super good at defending himself and could have really hurt Guy #1.
How does SYG account for this? It basically punishes the victim for defending themselves if the originating aggressor is an armed dummy that sucks at traditional fighting.
If the SYG laws stay, they need to have changes to account for this.
-
So, aggressor(guy #1) starts fight, soon finds out that he isn't as good of a fighter of the other person(guy #2), starts losing fights, panics because he(guy #1) may actually get badly hurt in the fight he(guy #1) started, shoots other guy(guy #2) for winning the fight, claims self defense because guy #2 was super good at defending himself and could have really hurt Guy #1.
How does SYG account for this? It basically punishes the victim for defending themselves if the originating aggressor is an armed dummy that sucks at traditional fighting.
If the SYG laws stay, they need to have changes to account for this.
Just think of it in the context that a large number of these laws were promoted by the NRA. Then, think of your average NRA member. Then, do the armed dummy math.
-
So, aggressor(guy #1) starts fight, soon finds out that he isn't as good of a fighter of the other person(guy #2), starts losing fights, panics because he(guy #1) may actually get badly hurt in the fight he(guy #1) started, shoots other guy(guy #2) for winning the fight, claims self defense because guy #2 was super good at defending himself and could have really hurt Guy #1.
How does SYG account for this? It basically punishes the victim for defending themselves if the originating aggressor is an armed dummy that sucks at traditional fighting.
If the SYG laws stay, they need to have changes to account for this.
They just need to eliminate SYG and every other broad stroke in the law for self defense cases. The laws should be very vague so that a jury of peers can use their own common sense judgement to determine if the killer is in the right or in the wrong.
-
So, aggressor(guy #1) starts fight, soon finds out that he isn't as good of a fighter of the other person(guy #2), starts losing fights, panics because he(guy #1) may actually get badly hurt in the fight he(guy #1) started, shoots other guy(guy #2) for winning the fight, claims self defense because guy #2 was super good at defending himself and could have really hurt Guy #1.
How does SYG account for this? It basically punishes the victim for defending themselves if the originating aggressor is an armed dummy that sucks at traditional fighting.
If the SYG laws stay, they need to have changes to account for this.
They just need to eliminate SYG and every other broad stroke in the law for self defense cases. The laws should be very vague so that a jury of peers can use their own common sense judgement to determine if the killer is in the right or in the wrong.
Leaves a small chance an armed dummy might take the rap for shooting a minority. CAN NOT HAVE
-
I was actually hoping someone had a rational reason to dispute what I typed, or that I missed something in my scenario.
If not, we are basically regressing to what the wild west was glorified to be.
-
I was actually hoping someone had a rational reason to dispute what I typed, or that I missed something in my scenario.
If not, we are basically regressing to what the wild west was glorified to be.
I'm pretty sure that is the goal of the authors of these laws.
-
So, aggressor(guy #1) starts fight, soon finds out that he isn't as good of a fighter of the other person(guy #2), starts losing fights, panics because he(guy #1) may actually get badly hurt in the fight he(guy #1) started, shoots other guy(guy #2) for winning the fight, claims self defense because guy #2 was super good at defending himself and could have really hurt Guy #1.
How does SYG account for this? It basically punishes the victim for defending themselves if the originating aggressor is an armed dummy that sucks at traditional fighting.
If the SYG laws stay, they need to have changes to account for this.
Using your hypo, if aggressor (Guy 1) starts the fight, he has no right to SYG. According to KSA 21-5226(c)(1), he has no right to self defense, period, unless (a) he has reasonable grounds to believe that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and (b) he "has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of deadly force."
So, again, SYG just doesn't come into play in your hypothetical.
-
The law should say
"A person has the right to use reasonable force in self defense."
That is where it should start and stop.
-
So, aggressor(guy #1) starts fight, soon finds out that he isn't as good of a fighter of the other person(guy #2), starts losing fights, panics because he(guy #1) may actually get badly hurt in the fight he(guy #1) started, shoots other guy(guy #2) for winning the fight, claims self defense because guy #2 was super good at defending himself and could have really hurt Guy #1.
How does SYG account for this? It basically punishes the victim for defending themselves if the originating aggressor is an armed dummy that sucks at traditional fighting.
If the SYG laws stay, they need to have changes to account for this.
Using your hypo, if aggressor (Guy 1) starts the fight, he has no right to SYG. According to KSA 21-5226(c)(1), he has no right to self defense, period, unless (a) he has reasonable grounds to believe that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and (b) he "has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of deadly force."
So, again, SYG just doesn't come into play in your hypothetical.
If guy #2 falls on top of him and hits him a bunch? Seems like it would at that point. At that point, it seems like who ever kills the other one is the winner and the law doesn't benefit either more than the other.
The law should say
"A person has the right to use reasonable force in self defense."
That is where it should start and stop.
I agree.
-
The law should say
"A person has the right to use reasonable force in self defense."
That is where it should start and stop.
How about this:
A person is justified in the use of force against an agressor when and to the extent it appears to him and he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such agressor's imminent use of unlawful force.
(That used to be the law in kansas, and I don't see anything there that would require retreat where it is reasonable to not retreat)
-
Self defense law has been just fine since before this country was founded. Reasonableness is supposed to be murky so that particular facts can always be taken into account. Why don't you want a jury to consider every possible factor in determining reasonableness? If you're acting reasonably, great, juist convincve the jury. If you're not, why do you expect to be protected?
I understand your point, and we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. I favor the added clarity and protection of SYG provisions for people who are attacked.
The real problem most people here have articulated is that SYG creates an enormous loophole for instigating a-holes with firearms:
21-5226. Use of force by an aggressor. [Amends K.S.A. 2010 Supp. § 21-3214]
The justification described in sections K.S.A. 21-3211, 21-3212 and 21-3213, prior to
their repeal, or K.S.A. 21-5222, 21-5223, and 21-5225, and amendments thereto, is not available
to a person who:
(a) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping from the commission of a forcible
felony; or
(b) Initially provokes the use of any force against himself such person or another, with
intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant; or
(c) Otherwise initially provokes the use of any force against himself such person or
another, unless:
(1) Such person has reasonable grounds to believe that such person is in imminent danger
of death or great bodily harm, and such person has exhausted every reasonable means to escape
such danger other than the use of deadly force, or
(2) In good faith, such person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and
indicates clearly to the assailant that such person desires to withdraw and terminate the use of
such force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of such force.
History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-3214; L. 2010, ch. 124, § 7; L. 2010, ch. 136, § 24; L. 2011, ch.
30, § 10, July 1.
21-5230. No Duty to Retreat; exceptions. [Amends K.S.A. 2010 Supp. § 21-3218]
(a) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in a place
where such person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand such person’s
ground and use any force which such person would be justified in using under article 32 of
chapter 21 of the Kansas Statute Annotated, prior to their repeal, or K.S.A. 21-5202 through 21-
5208 and K.S.A. 21-5222 through 21-5228 and K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 21-3212a, 21-3220 and 21-
3221, and amendments thereto.
History: L. 2006, ch. 194, § 1; L. 2010, ch. 124, § 10; L. 2010, ch. 136, § 28; L. 2011, ch. 30, ?
13, July 1
Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but the statute you cite, 21-5226(c)(1), states that if an aggressor provokes a fight, they have no right to self defense unless (a) he has reasonable grounds to believe that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and (b) he "has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of deadly force."
The KS SYG statute, 21-5230, does not override the statute above, because it only applies to people who are "not engaged in unlawful activity" and are attacked.
So, if you're the "instigating a-hole with a firearm" and provoke the fight, you've got no right to SYG.
I read it as repealing the "exhaust" qualification above. Am I wrong?
-
The law should say
"A person has the right to use reasonable force in self defense."
That is where it should start and stop.
How about this:
A person is justified in the use of force against an agressor when and to the extent it appears to him and he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such agressor's imminent use of unlawful force.
(That used to be the law in kansas, and I don't see anything there that would require retreat where it is reasonable to not retreat)
I don't like the term "reasonably believes". Nobody knows what the person believes at the time. I would just strike "he reasonably believes that" and replace "necessary" with "reasonable".
-
The law should say
"A person has the right to use reasonable force in self defense."
That is where it should start and stop.
How about this:
A person is justified in the use of force against an agressor when and to the extent it appears to him and he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such agressor's imminent use of unlawful force.
(That used to be the law in kansas, and I don't see anything there that would require retreat where it is reasonable to not retreat)
I don't like the term "reasonably believes". Nobody knows what the person believes at the time. I would just strike "he reasonably believes that" and replace "necessary" with "reasonable".
Fair enough. My point was (not to you, NK, because we agree on this issue) is that the law was close to what you were suggesting (and in line with what self defense law has been since sometime in the middle ages) before a bunch of dumbasses decided that reasonableness was too high a standard for them.
-
Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but the statute you cite, 21-5226(c)(1), states that if an aggressor provokes a fight, they have no right to self defense unless (a) he has reasonable grounds to believe that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and (b) he "has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of deadly force."
The KS SYG statute, 21-5230, does not override the statute above, because it only applies to people who are "not engaged in unlawful activity" and are attacked.
So, if you're the "instigating a-hole with a firearm" and provoke the fight, you've got no right to SYG.
I read it as repealing the "exhaust" qualification above. Am I wrong?
These two statutes were passed as part of the same package on the same day. One does not repeal a portion of the other. The SYG statute only applies to people who are not engaging in unlawful activity and are attacked, whereas the other statute applies to the aggressor, so the two are not inconsistent.
-
I also really don't like how the law makes somebody who is engaged in unlawful activity open game for any type of punishment that somebody wants to give him/her with absolutely no legal means of defense.
-
The law should say
"A person has the right to use reasonable force in self defense."
That is where it should start and stop.
How about this:
A person is justified in the use of force against an agressor when and to the extent it appears to him and he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such agressor's imminent use of unlawful force.
(That used to be the law in kansas, and I don't see anything there that would require retreat where it is reasonable to not retreat)
I don't like the term "reasonably believes". Nobody knows what the person believes at the time. I would just strike "he reasonably believes that" and replace "necessary" with "reasonable".
Generally speaking, a vague law is a weak, unpredictable law. The legislature decided to give prosecutors, and jurors, some guidance in what constitutes self defense. While it ultimately boils down to subjective and objective definitions of "reasonable," we at least know with the current laws that (a) you have to have a reasonable fear or death or serious bodily harm before responding with lethal force (that's good for the aggressor), (b) if you're the aggressor, there are only certain very limited situations where you can act in self defense (good for those who are attacked), and (c) if you are attacked, your ability to retreat is irrelevant to your right to self defense (good for the those who are being attacked).
-
The law should say
"A person has the right to use reasonable force in self defense."
That is where it should start and stop.
How about this:
A person is justified in the use of force against an agressor when and to the extent it appears to him and he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such agressor's imminent use of unlawful force.
(That used to be the law in kansas, and I don't see anything there that would require retreat where it is reasonable to not retreat)
I don't like the term "reasonably believes". Nobody knows what the person believes at the time. I would just strike "he reasonably believes that" and replace "necessary" with "reasonable".
Generally speaking, a vague law is a weak, unpredictable law. The legislature decided to give prosecutors, and jurors, some guidance in what constitutes self defense. While it ultimately boils down to subjective and objective definitions of "reasonable," we at least know with the current laws that (a) you have to have a reasonable fear or death or serious bodily harm before responding with lethal force (that's good for the aggressor), (b) if you're the aggressor, there are only certain very limited situations where you can act in self defense (good for those who are attacked), and (c) if you are attacked, your ability to retreat is irrelevant to your right to self defense (good for the those who are being attacked).
Well, generally speaking, I think that self defense should be a vague and weak defense.
-
I also really don't like how the law makes somebody who is engaged in unlawful activity open game for any type of punishment that somebody wants to give him/her with absolutely no legal means of defense.
It doesn't. Read KSA 21-5226 above. Kansas has a whole statute dedicated to spelling out when someone engaged in unlawful activity might nonetheless be entitled to self defense.
-
The law should say
"A person has the right to use reasonable force in self defense."
That is where it should start and stop.
How about this:
A person is justified in the use of force against an agressor when and to the extent it appears to him and he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such agressor's imminent use of unlawful force.
(That used to be the law in kansas, and I don't see anything there that would require retreat where it is reasonable to not retreat)
I don't like the term "reasonably believes". Nobody knows what the person believes at the time. I would just strike "he reasonably believes that" and replace "necessary" with "reasonable".
Generally speaking, a vague law is a weak, unpredictable law. The legislature decided to give prosecutors, and jurors, some guidance in what constitutes self defense. While it ultimately boils down to subjective and objective definitions of "reasonable," we at least know with the current laws that (a) you have to have a reasonable fear or death or serious bodily harm before responding with lethal force (that's good for the aggressor), (b) if you're the aggressor, there are only certain very limited situations where you can act in self defense (good for those who are attacked), and (c) if you are attacked, your ability to retreat is irrelevant to your right to self defense (good for the those who are being attacked).
Well, generally speaking, I think that self defense should be a vague and weak defense.
Fair enough - just gonna have to disagree on that one.
-
I also really don't like how the law makes somebody who is engaged in unlawful activity open game for any type of punishment that somebody wants to give him/her with absolutely no legal means of defense.
It doesn't. Read KSA 21-5226 above. Kansas has a whole statute dedicated to spelling out when someone engaged in unlawful activity might nonetheless be entitled to self defense.
So basically the aggressor has exactly the same rights as the victim? Isn't the belief of the possibility of imminent great bodily harm exactly the same standard for people who aren't committing a crime? Why even mention unlawful activity, then?
-
The law should say
"A person has the right to use reasonable force in self defense."
That is where it should start and stop.
How about this:
A person is justified in the use of force against an agressor when and to the extent it appears to him and he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such agressor's imminent use of unlawful force.
(That used to be the law in kansas, and I don't see anything there that would require retreat where it is reasonable to not retreat)
I don't like the term "reasonably believes". Nobody knows what the person believes at the time. I would just strike "he reasonably believes that" and replace "necessary" with "reasonable".
Generally speaking, a vague law is a weak, unpredictable law. The legislature decided to give prosecutors, and jurors, some guidance in what constitutes self defense. While it ultimately boils down to subjective and objective definitions of "reasonable," we at least know with the current laws that (a) you have to have a reasonable fear or death or serious bodily harm before responding with lethal force (that's good for the aggressor), (b) if you're the aggressor, there are only certain very limited situations where you can act in self defense (good for those who are attacked), and (c) if you are attacked, your ability to retreat is irrelevant to your right to self defense (good for the those who are being attacked).
The law worked fine for 500 years. Also, please remember that self defense is a license to kill. The standard for using it should reflect that.
-
I also really don't like how the law makes somebody who is engaged in unlawful activity open game for any type of punishment that somebody wants to give him/her with absolutely no legal means of defense.
It doesn't. Read KSA 21-5226 above. Kansas has a whole statute dedicated to spelling out when someone engaged in unlawful activity might nonetheless be entitled to self defense.
So basically the aggressor has exactly the same rights as the victim? Isn't the belief of the possibility of imminent great bodily harm exactly the same standard for people who aren't committing a crime? Why even mention unlawful activity, then?
Yeesh - that's not what the law says at all...
-
I also really don't like how the law makes somebody who is engaged in unlawful activity open game for any type of punishment that somebody wants to give him/her with absolutely no legal means of defense.
It doesn't. Read KSA 21-5226 above. Kansas has a whole statute dedicated to spelling out when someone engaged in unlawful activity might nonetheless be entitled to self defense.
So basically the aggressor has exactly the same rights as the victim? Isn't the belief of the possibility of imminent great bodily harm exactly the same standard for people who aren't committing a crime? Why even mention unlawful activity, then?
Yeesh - that's not what the law says at all...
Minus the SYG garbage it appears to be exactly the same.
-
NK, advocating for self defense law and against syg statutes makes you look like an misinformed dolt
Shut up, idiot.
-
"Because when seconds count, the police are minutes away."
-
"Because when seconds count, the police are minutes away."
I have been to the majority of the continents on planet Earth. I've walked around after dark Aggieville, Austin, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Botswana, Venezuela, Italy, France and Spain and I have never once been accosted, threatened or robbed. Am I doing something wrong?
-
"Because when seconds count, the police are minutes away."
I have been to the majority of the continents on planet Earth. I've walked around after dark Aggieville, Austin, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Botswana, Venezuela, Italy, France and Spain and I have never once been accosted, threatened or robbed. Am I doing something wrong?
Yes, clearly assaults only happen to people looking to get assaulted. Just like the only women that get raped are those "asking for it". These are victimless crimes, ya'll.
Good grief, kk. Have you been taking Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) pills lately?
-
"Because when seconds count, the police are minutes away."
I have been to the majority of the continents on planet Earth. I've walked around after dark Aggieville, Austin, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Botswana, Venezuela, Italy, France and Spain and I have never once been accosted, threatened or robbed. Am I doing something wrong?
Yes, clearly assaults only happen to people looking to get assaulted. Just like the only women that get raped are those "asking for it". These are victimless crimes, ya'll.
Good grief, kk. Have you been taking Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) pills lately?
My point was, crime is pretty rare.
-
My point was, crime is pretty rare.
violent crime directed at young adult males by perpetrators unknown to them is pretty rare. the world looks like a very different place to a woman.
-
My point was, crime is pretty rare.
violent crime directed at young adult males by perpetrators unknown to them is pretty rare. the world looks like a very different place to a woman.
Good qualifications. Agree.
-
I don't see why people have an issue with individuals having the legal authority to defend themselves, yet have no fear of a police force being corrupt? I understand the lack of trust of some gun toting arm chair commando - I get that; how do people not mistrust those that choose a specific career that gives them authority? Especially when we continuously see no accountability for Barney Fifes on power trips.
Without laws that empower individuals to defend themselves, you've monopolized self defense and laid the ground work for a future police state.
-
I don't see why people have an issue with individuals having the legal authority to defend themselves, yet have no fear of a police force being corrupt? I understand the lack of trust of some gun toting arm chair commando - I get that; how do people not mistrust those that choose a specific career that gives them authority? Especially when we continuously see no accountability for Barney Fifes on power trips.
Without laws that empower individuals to defend themselves, you've monopolized self defense and laid the ground work for a future police state.
the Libtards that have overrun the Pit are begging for a police state, that's why.
-
I don't see why people have an issue with individuals having the legal authority to defend themselves, yet have no fear of a police force being corrupt? I understand the lack of trust of some gun toting arm chair commando - I get that; how do people not mistrust those that choose a specific career that gives them authority? Especially when we continuously see no accountability for Barney Fifes on power trips.
Without laws that empower individuals to defend themselves, you've monopolized self defense and laid the ground work for a future police state.
Most police have a lot more training as far as confrontation and using firearms go. I trust them more than arm chair commando. That said, when they do something stupid, there are instances where their closeness to the justice system prevents them from being treated fairly. I know of many lawyers/judges that receive preferential treatment from police and have no doubt that is frequently reciprocated.
-
Most police have a lot more training as far as confrontation and using firearms go. I trust them more than arm chair commando. That said, when they do something stupid, there are instances where their closeness to the justice system prevents them from being treated fairly. I know of many lawyers/judges that receive preferential treatment from police and have no doubt that is frequently reciprocated.
You're missing the point entirely - I'm not talking about some arm chair commando serving and protecting you - I'm saying you should have the option to protect yourself, just as you have the option to put your life in the hands of some other guy that may be a really good cop / some dude that was spanked as a child and now confuses respect with authority / some dweeb that got picked on in high school so badly that he went out and got a gun and a badge, then proceeded to spend the next 20 years of his life daydreaming about the next class reunion where he can talk about all of the drug dealers and gang bangers he's busted - then convince his tormentors they're pussies unless they let him taze the crap out of them and laugh as they drop to the floor in one big pants pissing convulsion in front of the prom queen.
I know a lot of douche bags I don't trust with guns and a lot of them are cops or in the military. Pedophiles have a natural motivation to become high school volleyball coaches or catholic priests. Authoritarians with small dick syndrome have natural motivation to become cops or join the military. Not that all cops get off on that sort of thing, but I'd wager a majority of them became cops because they enjoy force. They certainly didn't sign up for a job where most people hate them, doesn't pay crap & puts you in daily positions to get shot for any other reason. If even a quarter of cops are crap humans, well eff that being my only option for defense.
-
I don't see why people have an issue with individuals having the legal authority to defend themselves, yet have no fear of a police force being corrupt? I understand the lack of trust of some gun toting arm chair commando - I get that; how do people not mistrust those that choose a specific career that gives them authority? Especially when we continuously see no accountability for Barney Fifes on power trips.
Without laws that empower individuals to defend themselves, you've monopolized self defense and laid the ground work for a future police state.
Who has an issue with individuals having the legal authority to defend themselves?
-
Who has an issue with individuals having the legal authority to defend themselves?
Everyone that thinks Zimmerman should be in jail.
Last I checked, following someone because you're part of a neighborhood watch is not illegal. Following someone because they're black, although a dick move, is not illegal. Approaching someone to ask what they're doing, regardless of what police dispatch suggest you do, is not illegal.
On the other hand, TM punching Zimmerman in the face in response was illegal. Taking someone to the ground and MMA style face smashing them is illegal. Telling someone they're going to die as they slam their head into a curb is illegal.
-
Who has an issue with individuals having the legal authority to defend themselves?
Everyone that thinks Zimmerman should be in jail.
Last I checked, following someone because you're part of a neighborhood watch is not illegal. Following someone because they're black, although a dick move, is not illegal. Approaching someone to ask what they're doing, regardless of what police dispatch suggest you do, is not illegal.
On the other hand, TM punching Zimmerman in the face in response was illegal. Taking someone to the ground and MMA style face smashing them is illegal. Telling someone they're going to die as they slam their head into a curb is illegal.
Zimmerman used excessive force to defend himself in a situation that was completely of his own creation, though.
-
What the hell does excessive force even mean when someone is trying to kill you? Everyone keeps point out it was a 17 year old vs a 30 year old, like age has something to do with it... Do you not understand he was literally within a couple of months being old enough to join the military and kill people professionally?
I know some 15 year old kids that could kick the ass of most people in their twenties and thirties. Did you not play football in high school? Could you have held your own with most people when you were 17?
-
And of his own creation? Was it not also TM's own creation for not telling zimm to just "eff off" but instead attacking him? TM obviously thought he could handle himself if he felt confident enough to make things physical.
-
What the hell does excessive force even mean when someone is trying to kill you? Everyone keeps point out it was a 17 year old vs a 30 year old, like age has something to do with it... Do you not understand he was literally within a couple of months being old enough to join the military and kill people professionally?
I know some 15 year old kids that could kick the ass of most people in their twenties and thirties. Did you not play football in high school? Could you have held your own with most people when you were 17?
What 160 pound 17 year old do you know that is going to kill you by punching you in the face? Do you really believe that he was trying to kill Zimmerman?
-
And of his own creation? Was it not also TM's own creation for not telling zimm to just "eff off" but instead attacking him? TM obviously thought he could handle himself if he felt confident enough to make things physical.
None of us have any idea of the details of how the fight was started. We do know that Zimmerman scared Martin enough to send him running away, and then pursued him with a loaded gun. That's a real recipe for avoiding confrontation, let me tell you.
-
It was a neighborhood watch. These are performed under police guidance.
Pretend Zimmerman was a cop, minus the authority to arrest someone, that's basically the responsibilities he assumed when deciding to be a part of the neighborhood watch. If the cops saw a suspicious looking person and the guy started running, would they have not followed?
-
It was a neighborhood watch. These are performed under police guidance.
Pretend Zimmerman was a cop, minus the authority to arrest someone, that's basically the responsibilities he assumed when deciding to be a part of the neighborhood watch. If the cops saw a suspicious looking person and the guy started running, would they have not followed?
Did Zimmerman have anything to identify himself as neighborhood watch? Does the neighborhood watch allow their volunteers to carry guns? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the answer to both of those questions is "no".
The police have actual authority and have to assume that somebody running from them is trying to get away with some sort of illegal activity. Zimmerman was a large, suspicious-looking man following a kid on a rainy night. The kid ran from him because he was afraid.
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/354059/obama-voted-strengthen-illinoiss-stand-your-ground-law-2004-john-fund (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/354059/obama-voted-strengthen-illinoiss-stand-your-ground-law-2004-john-fund)
But now we need to reexamine them, sayeth the president, based on a case that was not impacted by SYG. :lol:
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/354059/obama-voted-strengthen-illinoiss-stand-your-ground-law-2004-john-fund (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/354059/obama-voted-strengthen-illinoiss-stand-your-ground-law-2004-john-fund)
But now we need to reexamine them, sayeth the president, based on a case that was not impacted by SYG. :lol:
I think it's great that the president has the maturity to admit that he was wrong in 2004 and wants to reevaluate bad laws.
-
Did Zimmerman have anything to identify himself as neighborhood watch? Does the neighborhood watch allow their volunteers to carry guns? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the answer to both of those questions is "no".
The police have actual authority and have to assume that somebody running from them is trying to get away with some sort of illegal activity. Zimmerman was a large, suspicious-looking man following a kid on a rainy night. The kid ran from him because he was afraid.
I don't know about Florida, but in Kansas if you have a CCL, you can carry a gun for whatever reason you want as long as its not state or federal property.
And fine, he ran. I would have too. And Zimmerman followed him. I would have done that also if I thought the person was suspicious and I was part of a neighborhood watch. I would have also been carrying a gun with the amount of break ins in that neighborhood. What I wouldn't have done though is stop before I got home, even though I was in a stones throw away from my front porch and initiated an assault. Once TM turned a verbal confrontation into a physical confrontation, he mumped up and tragically it cost him his life. Anyone in that situation after being attacked and fearing for their life would have pulled the trigger. Not everyone may not have gotten into that situation in the first place, as they may have better judgment, but nothing Zimmerman did to put himself into that situation was illegal.
-
Everything Zimmerman did was completely reckless with no regard for potential consequences. Sure, nothing he did was illegal, but using his gun to shoot an unarmed kid just because he got a boo boo absolutely should be illegal in this circumstance.
-
I'm curious, lets say Zimmerman didn't have a gun on him and TM didn't kill him, but put him in critical condition - awoke paralyzed or something. Minus the bullet hole, all other evidence is the same. The bruised knuckles on TM, the battered face of zimm, the following, the phone calls, the social network evidence and history of fighting/drug use etc. when zimm wakes up and says he told me I was going to die that night and I was scared for my life, does TM get attempted murder charges? If not, why? If so, how was zimm not justified in shooting him?
-
I'm curious, lets say Zimmerman didn't have a gun on him and TM didn't kill him, but put him in critical condition - awoke paralyzed or something. Minus the bullet hole, all other evidence is the same. The bruised knuckles on TM, the battered face of zimm, the following, the phone calls, the social network evidence and history of fighting/drug use etc. when zimm wakes up and says he told me I was going to die that night and I was scared for my life, does TM get attempted murder charges? If not, why? If so, how was zimm not justified in shooting him?
It depends on how the fight ended. If Martin decided that Zimmerman had enough and just quit beating, him, then no. I don't think you could charge him with attempted murder. If Martin was dragged off of Zimmerman by the police, then yes, you could probably charge him with attempted murder. The beating would have to be pretty severe to move beyond what constitutes self defense, though. Zimmerman's 911 call would really provide all the evidence Martin needs to get off of battery charges if he were to just beat on Zimmerman until he is incapacitated.
-
Beating on him until he is incapacitated?!? So beating someone until they're unconscious and leaving them for dead... That's not attempted murder when they themselves start the physical aspect of the confrontation? Even if he wasn't left for dead, and just beaten severely, you're okay with people being beaten severely for whatever reason and not having legal authority to defend themselves by whatever means necessary to prevent severe bodily harm?
Don't want to get killed? don't attack someone. It's pretty simple.
-
Everything Zimmerman did was completely reckless with no regard for potential consequences.
No, it wasn't. Trying to keep an eye on a suspicious person, especially when you're on the neighborhood watch, is not reckless. Approaching a suspicious person (if he did) and asking "what are you doing here?" is not reckless.
Now punching someone in the face in response - yeah, that's probably reckless.
-
Besides, telling someone you're going to kill them, then initiating a physical confrontation is grounds for attempted murder every time. So he decided he had enough and left him alone? Prosecution can say he left to get something to finish the job.
-
Beating on him until he is incapacitated?!? So beating someone until they're unconscious and leaving them for dead... That's not attempted murder when they themselves start the physical aspect of the confrontation? Even if he wasn't left for dead, and just beaten severely, you're okay with people being beaten severely for whatever reason and not having legal authority to defend themselves by whatever means necessary to prevent severe bodily harm?
Don't want to get killed? don't attack someone. It's pretty simple.
You have to remember that Zimmerman was armed with a gun. Martin could not stop beating him until Zimmerman was either disarmed or incapacitated if he wanted to walk out alive.
-
Besides, telling someone you're going to kill them, then initiating a physical confrontation is grounds for attempted murder every time. So he decided he had enough and left him alone? Prosecution can say he left to get something to finish the job.
What proof do you have of this "telling someone you're going to kill them"?
-
I would say the guy that has bruises all over his face, but none on his knuckles should be believed over the guy that has bruises all over his knuckles and none on his face.
-
Don't want to get killed? don't attack someone. It's pretty simple.
You're obviously a violent, gun toting, zealot, racist, homophobe. Sweet little baby Trayvon was gunned down in cold blood while skipping home from the store with his Skittles and Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail. You know what's good for a cough? Robitussin. You know what's even better? Robitussin, Skittles, and Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail.
-
You know what's good for a cough? Robitussin. You know what's even better? Robitussin, Skittles, and Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail.
well in that case, blast away
-
I would say the guy that has bruises all over his face, but none on his knuckles should be believed over the guy that has bruises all over his knuckles and none on his face.
I would say that anything either one of them says, other than an admission of guilt, is completely worthless and should not be relied upon. I would instead look at all of the circumstantial evidence and judge appropriately.
-
No way in hell zimmerman tries to find that kid without his gun.
-
Irrelevant
-
Irrelevant
I agree. Zimmerman did have a gun and he did pursue a fleeing unarmed kid. Then he got his ass kicked for about 10 seconds, so he shot and killed that unarmed kid. Then he put a bunch of cheesy movie lines into that kid's mouth to justify the shooting to the police force, and that was good enough for them. Case closed.
-
I would say the guy that has bruises all over his face, but none on his knuckles should be believed over the guy that has bruises all over his knuckles and none on his face.
I would say that anything either one of them says, other than an admission of guilt, is completely worthless and should not be relied upon. I would instead look at all of the circumstantial evidence and judge appropriately.
You mean like
... guy that has bruises all over his face, but none on his knuckles
vs.
guy that has bruises all over his knuckles and none on his face.
And knowing anyone can be killed after getting their skull smashed into concrete... Yeah... Attempted murder.
-
What happened between this
he did pursue a fleeing unarmed kid.
and this?
Then he got his ass kicked for about 10 seconds
-
Irrelevant
I agree. Zimmerman did have a gun and he did pursue a fleeing unarmed kid. Then he got his ass kicked for about 10 seconds, so he shot and killed that unarmed kid. Then he put a bunch of cheesy movie lines into that kid's mouth to justify the shooting to the police force, and that was good enough for them. Case closed.
So basically, you want to make it illegal to ask "what the eff are you doing here?"
-
Who has an issue with individuals having the legal authority to defend themselves?
Everyone that thinks Zimmerman should be in jail.
Last I checked, following someone because you're part of a neighborhood watch is not illegal. Following someone because they're black, although a dick move, is not illegal. Approaching someone to ask what they're doing, regardless of what police dispatch suggest you do, is not illegal.
On the other hand, TM punching Zimmerman in the face in response was illegal. Taking someone to the ground and MMA style face smashing them is illegal. Telling someone they're going to die as they slam their head into a curb is illegal.
Zimmerman used excessive force to defend himself in a situation that was completely of his own creation, though.
in response to NK and Hein...
TM ran for no provoked reason. If you are neighborhood watch, isn't it your responsibility to find out what is going on?
NK... listen to the tape.
-
I would say the guy that has bruises all over his face, but none on his knuckles should be believed over the guy that has bruises all over his knuckles and none on his face.
I would say that anything either one of them says, other than an admission of guilt, is completely worthless and should not be relied upon. I would instead look at all of the circumstantial evidence and judge appropriately.
You mean like
... guy that has bruises all over his face, but none on his knuckles
vs.
guy that has bruises all over his knuckles and none on his face.
And knowing anyone can be killed after getting their skull smashed into concrete... Yeah... Attempted murder.
Looking at the back of his head leads me to believe that the whole "head getting smashed into the concrete" story was overblown.
-
Irrelevant
I agree. Zimmerman did have a gun and he did pursue a fleeing unarmed kid. Then he got his ass kicked for about 10 seconds, so he shot and killed that unarmed kid. Then he put a bunch of cheesy movie lines into that kid's mouth to justify the shooting to the police force, and that was good enough for them. Case closed.
So basically, you want to make it illegal to ask "what the eff are you doing here?"
No, basically, I want to make it illegal to chase down scared kids with a gun and then shoot them.
-
in response to NK and Hein...
TM ran for no provoked reason. If you are neighborhood watch, isn't it your responsibility to find out what is going on?
NK... listen to the tape.
No, it's your responsibility to call the police and tell them what direction the kid is running. Pursuing the kid with a gun is assault.
-
Aside from all of this, you know what's really starting to piss me off. Fuckin Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) Facebook friends posting a story about white/Hispanic kids getting killed by black men and demanding people be outraged for those events.
This has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with conflict resolution and response justified by any initiates force.
-
in response to NK and Hein...
TM ran for no provoked reason. If you are neighborhood watch, isn't it your responsibility to find out what is going on?
NK... listen to the tape.
No, it's your responsibility to call the police and tell them what direction the kid is running. Pursuing the kid with a gun is assault.
isn't that what he did? He was on the phone before TM ran. You are not very good at life.
-
in response to NK and Hein...
TM ran for no provoked reason. If you are neighborhood watch, isn't it your responsibility to find out what is going on?
NK... listen to the tape.
No, it's your responsibility to call the police and tell them what direction the kid is running. Pursuing the kid with a gun is assault.
What world do you live in where pursuing someone while in possession of a gun is assault? Every time a suspected bad guy catches the attention of a cop, and the cop chases him, the cop is assaulting someone? You're rough ridin' nuts.
-
Aside from all of this, you know what's really starting to piss me off. Fuckin Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) Facebook friends posting a story about white/Hispanic kids getting killed by black men and demanding people be outraged for those events.
This has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with conflict resolution and response justified by any initiates force.
Yeah, that really does suck. It really outs the racists among your facebook friends, and many of them are people that I'm very disappointed in.
-
in response to NK and Hein...
TM ran for no provoked reason. If you are neighborhood watch, isn't it your responsibility to find out what is going on?
NK... listen to the tape.
No, it's your responsibility to call the police and tell them what direction the kid is running. Pursuing the kid with a gun is assault.
isn't that what he did? He was on the phone before TM ran. You are not very good at life.
Yeah. He identified a suspicious person. Then he phoned the police. Then he chased him down with a gun and killed him. Two things right and only one thing wrong.
-
Irrelevant
considering he ended up shooting and killing someone with the gun and say it's pretty relevant.
-
in response to NK and Hein...
TM ran for no provoked reason. If you are neighborhood watch, isn't it your responsibility to find out what is going on?
NK... listen to the tape.
No, it's your responsibility to call the police and tell them what direction the kid is running. Pursuing the kid with a gun is assault.
What world do you live in where pursuing someone while in possession of a gun is assault? Every time a suspected bad guy catches the attention of a cop, and the cop chases him, the cop is assaulting someone? You're rough ridin' nuts.
I live the same world as you do, where it's illegal to scare people with guns or other weapons.
From the Florida statute:
An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
Zimmerman following Martin around the neighborhood on a rainy night was perceived by Martin as a threat. That is why he fled. Zimmerman has carrying a handgun. That gives him the ability to perform a violent act. Zimmerman then pursued Martin. That created a well-founded fear that violence was imminent.
-
in response to NK and Hein...
TM ran for no provoked reason. If you are neighborhood watch, isn't it your responsibility to find out what is going on?
NK... listen to the tape.
No, it's your responsibility to call the police and tell them what direction the kid is running. Pursuing the kid with a gun is assault.
isn't that what he did? He was on the phone before TM ran. You are not very good at life.
Yeah. He identified a suspicious person. Then he phoned the police. Then he chased him down with a gun and killed him. Two things right and only one thing wrong.
chased him down
That's funny, because if you would actually listen to the tape, you can conclude that this "chase" is non-existent.
At the end of the tape...
I don't even know where he is
-
in response to NK and Hein...
TM ran for no provoked reason. If you are neighborhood watch, isn't it your responsibility to find out what is going on?
NK... listen to the tape.
No, it's your responsibility to call the police and tell them what direction the kid is running. Pursuing the kid with a gun is assault.
What world do you live in where pursuing someone while in possession of a gun is assault? Every time a suspected bad guy catches the attention of a cop, and the cop chases him, the cop is assaulting someone? You're rough ridin' nuts.
I live the same world as you do, where it's illegal to scare people with guns or other weapons.
From the Florida statute:
An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
Zimmerman following Martin around the neighborhood on a rainy night was perceived by Martin as a threat. That is why he fled. Zimmerman has carrying a handgun. That gives him the ability to perform a violent act. Zimmerman then pursued Martin. That created a well-founded fear that violence was imminent.
If it was a "threat", why didn't TM call 911? Why didn't he keep running?
-
How did he find him, then, mortons toe? How did he end up off the road in the grassy area between buildings if he wasn't following him?
-
How did he find him, then, mortons toe? How did he end up off the road in the grassy area between buildings if he wasn't following him?
Because the kid doubled-back on him. Good gawd :facepalm:
-
Pursuing the kid with a gun is assault.
If he was brandishing the gun, then yes. But that didn't happen (or if it did, then Trayvon was both violent and stupid).
-
How did he find him, then, mortons toe? How did he end up off the road in the grassy area between buildings if he wasn't following him?
Because the kid doubled-back on him. Good gawd :facepalm:
The location of the dead body doesn't really support that theory.
-
How did he find him, then, mortons toe? How did he end up off the road in the grassy area between buildings if he wasn't following him?
Because the kid doubled-back on him. Good gawd :facepalm:
also, tell me about this "grassy area" that cut the crap out of the back of GZ's head...
-
I live the same world as you do, where it's illegal to scare people with guns or other weapons.
Indeed, but that isn't what happened. Zimm likely did not approach TM with a gun in his hand, and the evidence suggest TM did not know he had a gun until half way through the physical altercation - which corroborates Zimms story.
What kind of a person attacks another individual holding a gun, then is lucky enough to not only get in a few punches, but take them down to the ground and MMA style slam his head into concrete. Only to get shot after pummeling them.
-
The fight went for 45 to 90 seconds before the shot was fired. It wasn't 10 seconds. Getting punched in the face for 45 seconds is a LONG time.
-
The fight went for 45 to 90 seconds before the shot was fired. It wasn't 10 seconds. Getting punched in the face for 45 seconds is a LONG time.
yes, and there was a witness...
-
The fight went for 45 to 90 seconds before the shot was fired. It wasn't 10 seconds. Getting punched in the face for 45 seconds is a LONG time.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/george-zimmerman-jury-told-injuries-insignificant/story?id=19552856 (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/george-zimmerman-jury-told-injuries-insignificant/story?id=19552856)
Dr. Valerie Rao testified that Zimmerman was struck as few as three times by Martin during the fight that night. She also asserted his head may have only been slammed on the concrete a single time. Zimmerman, who faces second-degree murder charges for the death of the unarmed teenager, said Martin repeatedly slammed his head on the concrete.
-
The fight went for 45 to 90 seconds before the shot was fired. It wasn't 10 seconds. Getting punched in the face for 45 seconds is a LONG time.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/george-zimmerman-jury-told-injuries-insignificant/story?id=19552856 (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/george-zimmerman-jury-told-injuries-insignificant/story?id=19552856)
Dr. Valerie Rao testified that Zimmerman was struck as few as three times by Martin during the fight that night. She also asserted his head may have only been slammed on the concrete a single time. Zimmerman, who faces second-degree murder charges for the death of the unarmed teenager, said Martin repeatedly slammed his head on the concrete.
sooo, tell me about this "grassy area" that you referenced...
-
Does anyone else think GZ should have let Trayvon know he had a gun before the fight started? "Brandished" it, if you will, at least once Trayvon (allegedly) approached him.
Don't they teach you that at your training for concealed carry? :dunno:
-
The fight went for 45 to 90 seconds before the shot was fired. It wasn't 10 seconds. Getting punched in the face for 45 seconds is a LONG time.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/george-zimmerman-jury-told-injuries-insignificant/story?id=19552856 (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/george-zimmerman-jury-told-injuries-insignificant/story?id=19552856)
Dr. Valerie Rao testified that Zimmerman was struck as few as three times by Martin during the fight that night. She also asserted his head may have only been slammed on the concrete a single time. Zimmerman, who faces second-degree murder charges for the death of the unarmed teenager, said Martin repeatedly slammed his head on the concrete.
sooo, tell me about this "grassy area" that you referenced...
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatelymcdanielmanor.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F04%2Fmartin-map.png%3Fw%3D529%26amp%3Bh%3D694&hash=521a91754b03c5b7caccc04ba936ed394674e2d3)
If the fight went as described by Zimmerman, Martin's body would be next to the "T" in the sidewalk, rather than in the grassy area between the houses.
-
The fight went for 45 to 90 seconds before the shot was fired. It wasn't 10 seconds. Getting punched in the face for 45 seconds is a LONG time.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/george-zimmerman-jury-told-injuries-insignificant/story?id=19552856 (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/george-zimmerman-jury-told-injuries-insignificant/story?id=19552856)
Dr. Valerie Rao testified that Zimmerman was struck as few as three times by Martin during the fight that night. She also asserted his head may have only been slammed on the concrete a single time. Zimmerman, who faces second-degree murder charges for the death of the unarmed teenager, said Martin repeatedly slammed his head on the concrete.
sooo, tell me about this "grassy area" that you referenced...
Here's the grassy area (http://gawker.com/this-courtesy-of-msnbc-is-trayvon-martins-dead-body-753370712) (not sure where the concrete is).
-
The fight went for 45 to 90 seconds before the shot was fired. It wasn't 10 seconds. Getting punched in the face for 45 seconds is a LONG time.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/george-zimmerman-jury-told-injuries-insignificant/story?id=19552856 (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/george-zimmerman-jury-told-injuries-insignificant/story?id=19552856)
Dr. Valerie Rao testified that Zimmerman was struck as few as three times by Martin during the fight that night. She also asserted his head may have only been slammed on the concrete a single time. Zimmerman, who faces second-degree murder charges for the death of the unarmed teenager, said Martin repeatedly slammed his head on the concrete.
sooo, tell me about this "grassy area" that you referenced...
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatelymcdanielmanor.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F04%2Fmartin-map.png%3Fw%3D529%26amp%3Bh%3D694&hash=521a91754b03c5b7caccc04ba936ed394674e2d3)
If the fight went as described by Zimmerman, Martin's body would be next to the "T" in the sidewalk, rather than in the grassy area between the houses.
and this kid couldn't have made it home? GZ has cuts on the back of his head? Do you not see the contradictions in the defense of TM?
Also, do you not think it is possible to stumble some distance before complete loss of motor control? You probably believe the old westerns where the bad guy dies on the spot, right?
-
The underrated part is where Trayvon Martin confronted Zimmerman non-violently and asked him why he was being followed. Zimmerman lied and said he wasn't following him, wasting an opportunity to resolve the issue.
Someone follows you, you ask why and they said they were not, then get out of the car and chased you. You tried for a straight answer and were clearly lied to your face and have a stranger pursuing you. Do you not feel threatened by this? Are you supposed to sit there and ask him again after he clearly lied to you the first time? This guy is stalking you and lying to your face, I'm not going to assume that we can reasonably hash that out.
-
The underrated part is where Trayvon Martin confronted Zimmerman non-violently and asked him why he was being followed. Zimmerman lied and said he wasn't following him, wasting an opportunity to resolve the issue.
Someone follows you, you ask why and they said they were not, then get out of the car and chased you. You tried for a straight answer and were clearly lied to your face and have a stranger pursuing you. Do you not feel threatened by this? Are you supposed to sit there and ask him again after he clearly lied to you the first time? This guy is stalking you and lying to your face, I'm not going to assume that we can reasonably hash that out.
riiiggghhhttt, and that is why he ran while GZ was still in his truck...
-
I'm curious, lets say Zimmerman didn't have a gun on him and TM didn't kill him, but put him in critical condition - awoke paralyzed or something. Minus the bullet hole, all other evidence is the same. The bruised knuckles on TM, the battered face of zimm, the following, the phone calls, the social network evidence and history of fighting/drug use etc. when zimm wakes up and says he told me I was going to die that night and I was scared for my life, does TM get attempted murder charges? If not, why? If so, how was zimm not justified in shooting him?
You forgot the part where Zimm has a much more documented history of criminal violence than TM.
-
Does anyone else think GZ should have let Trayvon know he had a gun before the fight started? "Brandished" it, if you will, at least once Trayvon (allegedly) approached him.
Don't they teach you that at your training for concealed carry? :dunno:
Pulling a gun out and "brandishing" it is illegal. Zimmerman was the guy trying to follow the law.
-
http://www.kansascity.com/2013/07/22/4359601/teen-beaten-in-kansas-city-suffers.html (http://www.kansascity.com/2013/07/22/4359601/teen-beaten-in-kansas-city-suffers.html)
Team A: Too bad he didn't have a gun.
Team B: Eh, his injuries looked pretty minor.
-
and this kid couldn't have made it home? GZ has cuts on the back of his head? Do you not see the contradictions in the defense of TM?
Also, do you not think it is possible to stumble some distance before complete loss of motor control? You probably believe the old westerns where the bad guy dies on the spot, right?
It was his dad's place and he had not been staying there long at all. It's pretty easy to get lost in an apartment complex like that, especially if it is dark, rainy, and you are being chased by some psycho.
I don't think it's possible that Martin stumbled some distance before loss of motor control, considering that Zimmerman says he restrained Martin after he shot him.
Do you think it's possible that Zimmerman was able to actually reach his gun while being ground and pounded? I don't. I think it's much more plausible that Martin decided Zimmerman had had enough and was getting up when he was shot.
-
http://www.kansascity.com/2013/07/22/4359601/teen-beaten-in-kansas-city-suffers.html (http://www.kansascity.com/2013/07/22/4359601/teen-beaten-in-kansas-city-suffers.html)
Team A: Too bad he didn't have a gun.
Team B: Eh, his injuries looked pretty minor.
So you mean it's possible for 3 kids to get in a fight with no deaths? Who would have thought?
-
Does anyone else think GZ should have let Trayvon know he had a gun before the fight started? "Brandished" it, if you will, at least once Trayvon (allegedly) approached him.
Don't they teach you that at your training for concealed carry? :dunno:
Pulling a gun out and "brandishing" it is illegal. Zimmerman was the guy trying to follow the law.
Well then he just have told TM he had a gun. Or at least pulled it before TM got close enough to beat the crap out of him. Concealed Carry 101.
-
Who has an issue with individuals having the legal authority to defend themselves?
Everyone that thinks Zimmerman should be in jail.
Last I checked, following someone because you're part of a neighborhood watch is not illegal. Following someone because they're black, although a dick move, is not illegal. Approaching someone to ask what they're doing, regardless of what police dispatch suggest you do, is not illegal.
On the other hand, TM punching Zimmerman in the face in response was illegal. Taking someone to the ground and MMA style face smashing them is illegal. Telling someone they're going to die as they slam their head into a curb is illegal.
Zimmerman used excessive force to defend himself in a situation that was completely of his own creation, though.
This sentence sums up the divide between the two "sides" in this debate.
-
http://www.kansascity.com/2013/07/22/4359601/teen-beaten-in-kansas-city-suffers.html (http://www.kansascity.com/2013/07/22/4359601/teen-beaten-in-kansas-city-suffers.html)
Team A: Too bad he didn't have a gun.
Team B: Eh, his injuries looked pretty minor.
So you mean it's possible for 3 kids to get in a fight with no deaths? Who would have thought?
"Critical head injuries" - but on the bright side, no deaths!!! Nuts, if the EU posted on this board, it would be you. Congrats brother. :cheers:
-
The underrated part is where Trayvon Martin confronted Zimmerman non-violently and asked him why he was being followed. Zimmerman lied and said he wasn't following him, wasting an opportunity to resolve the issue.
Someone follows you, you ask why and they said they were not, then get out of the car and chased you. You tried for a straight answer and were clearly lied to your face and have a stranger pursuing you. Do you not feel threatened by this? Are you supposed to sit there and ask him again after he clearly lied to you the first time? This guy is stalking you and lying to your face, I'm not going to assume that we can reasonably hash that out.
IIRC, when Zimm turned around to go back to his truck to wait for the police, Trayvon was behind him and asked GZ "what's your problem" and GZ responded "I don't have a problem" Boom, sucker punch. Not my story, GZ's story.
-
http://www.kansascity.com/2013/07/22/4359601/teen-beaten-in-kansas-city-suffers.html (http://www.kansascity.com/2013/07/22/4359601/teen-beaten-in-kansas-city-suffers.html)
Team A: Too bad he didn't have a gun.
Team B: Eh, his injuries looked pretty minor.
So you mean it's possible for 3 kids to get in a fight with no deaths? Who would have thought?
"Critical head injuries" - but on the bright side, no deaths!!! Nuts, if the EU posted on this board, it would be you. Congrats brother. :cheers:
Yes, it would have been much better if the kid would have just blasted those other 2 kids away. :jerk:
-
The underrated part is where Trayvon Martin confronted Zimmerman non-violently and asked him why he was being followed. Zimmerman lied and said he wasn't following him, wasting an opportunity to resolve the issue.
Someone follows you, you ask why and they said they were not, then get out of the car and chased you. You tried for a straight answer and were clearly lied to your face and have a stranger pursuing you. Do you not feel threatened by this? Are you supposed to sit there and ask him again after he clearly lied to you the first time? This guy is stalking you and lying to your face, I'm not going to assume that we can reasonably hash that out.
IIRC, when Zimm turned around to go back to his truck to wait for the police, Trayvon was behind him and asked GZ "what's your problem" and GZ responded "I don't have a problem" Boom, sucker punch. Not my story, GZ's story.
I love how Zimmerman actually chased this kid across an apartment complex because he thought he was a dangerous thug that had been robbing places, yet he allowed himself to get sucker punched after having a brief conversation with him.
-
Pretty clear zim wasn't looking for a fight
-
If you take your gun with you to Target you're always looking for a fight.
-
Yeah. I mean, we're talking about a guy who picked a fight with a cop, beat his ex-girlfriend, goes to an MMA gym, and carries his gun with him everywhere he goes.
-
Yeah. I mean, we're talking about a guy who picked a fight with a cop, beat his ex-girlfriend, goes to an MMA gym, and carries his gun with him everywhere he goes.
then disregarded a 911 operator's admonition and stalked a kid with his loaded pistol
-
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-emerged-hiding-truck-crash-rescue/storynew?id=19735432 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-emerged-hiding-truck-crash-rescue/storynew?id=19735432)
George Zimmerman, who has been in hiding since he was acquitted of murder in the death of Trayvon Martin, emerged to help rescue a family who was trapped in an overturned vehicle, police said today.
Zimmerman was one of two men who came to the aid of a family of four -- two parents and two children -- trapped inside a blue Ford Explorer SUV that had rolled over after traveling off the highway in Sanford, Fla. at approximately 5:45 p.m. Thursday, the Seminole County Sheriff's Office said in a statement.
The crash occurred at the intersection of I-4 and route Route 46, police said. The crash site is less than a mile from where Zimmerman shot Martin.
By the time police arrived, two people - including Zimmerman - had already helped the family get out of the overturned car, the sheriff's office said. No one was reported to be injured.
Zimmerman was not a witness to the crash and left after speaking with the deputy, police said.
It's the first known sighting of Zimmerman since he left the courtroom following his acquittal last week on murder charges for the death of Martin. Zimmerman, 29, shot and killed Martin, 17, in Sanford, Fla., on Feb. 26, 2012. The jury determined that Zimmerman shot Martin in self-defense.
Killing drug-addled punks, now rescuing people from overturned SUVs - GZ [he killed a kid] is like a fat Batman. He's Fatman. An effing hero.
-
Yeah. I mean, we're talking about a guy who picked a fight with a cop, beat his ex-girlfriend, goes to an MMA gym, and carries his gun with him everywhere he goes.
Sounds like it was their destiny to meet.
-
Well color me surprised, the reverse-racist, gunophobic, police state retards want to make up the law and apply it based on their own interpretation of the facts, conjecture and "it would have never happened if" speculation. How very police state-y of them.
Faced with an acquittal on all counts theyre still blithering about how the guy who was operating within the bounds of the law was at fault for the death of the guy who was operating outside the bounds of the law. Why? Because the guy they want to win was black, and the guy they want to lose had a gun. The wannabe street thug innocent; the wannabe cop deserves guilty. These people are pathetic, foolish and lack the capacity to understand how stupid and unworkable their idea of society is. We can only hope one or more of them chooses to accost a gun carrying, law abiding citizen in the very near future.
Even the most sophomoric understanding of the law leads one to the correct conclusion here.
-
If you take your gun with you to Target you're always looking for a fight.
If you wear sunglasses into to Target its cuz you're wantin to scope out the yummi mummies incognito.
-
If you take your gun with you to Target you're always looking for a fight.
If you wear sunglasses into to Target its cuz you're wantin to scope out the yummi mummies incognito.
Also a fair generalization.
-
One thing is for certain, this whole incident has been embarrassing for both liberals and conservatives. Both sides have shown they're incapable of rational thought. On the other hand, true moderates like myself have shined.
-
Well color me surprised, the reverse-racist, gunophobic, police state retards want to make up the law and apply it based on their own interpretation of the facts, conjecture and "it would have never happened if" speculation. How very police state-y of them.
Faced with an acquittal on all counts theyre still blithering about how the guy who was operating within the bounds of the law was at fault for the death of the guy who was operating outside the bounds of the law. Why? Because the guy they want to win was black, and the guy they want to lose had a gun. The wannabe street thug innocent; the wannabe cop deserves guilty. These people are pathetic, foolish and lack the capacity to understand how stupid and unworkable their idea of society is. We can only hope one or more of them chooses to accost a gun carrying, law abiding citizen in the very near future.
Even the most sophomoric understanding of the law leads one to the correct conclusion here.
Guys - can we please keep this thread on the topic of how GZ is a national hero? I'm thinking key to the city at least, and maybe a call from President Obama too? The guy didn't even take credit for rescuing a family of four from an overturned burning SUV! This happened last Wednesday, for eff's sake, and he just coolly gets out of his truck with a fire extinguisher (who carries a fire extinguisher around?! GZ, that's who), pulls the family free, gives his name to the responding deputy, and heads back home. Talk about an inspiring role model.
Also, I think the 25 or so states that don't have SYG laws ought to seriously consider them. True, they didn't help GZ, but they might help other Good Zamaritans (GZs).
-
Zamaritans
lol
-
K-S-Uwildcats is the new OKcat. Congrats on making jokes about dead people.
-
I think it should be Zimmaratans
-
One thing is for certain, this whole incident has been embarrassing for both liberals and conservatives. Both sides have shown they're incapable of rational thought. On the other hand, true moderates like myself have shined.
Yup, as the resident moderate of the pit, I just present the facts and let the chips fall where they may.
-
One thing is for certain, this whole incident has been embarrassing for both liberals and conservatives. Both sides have shown they're incapable of rational thought. On the other hand, true moderates like myself have shined.
Yup, as the resident moderate of the pit, I just present the facts and let the chips fall where they may.
Jeffy is more of a moderate than you are
-
SYG continues to wreak havoc. http://www.kansascity.com/2013/07/24/4364394/wayward-skydiver-kicks-shortstop.html (http://www.kansascity.com/2013/07/24/4364394/wayward-skydiver-kicks-shortstop.html)
It was a most unusual error on a baseball field.
A skydiver parachuting in before a summer league game accidentally kicked shortstop Mattingly Romanin in the face, knocking him to the ground and, as it turns out, ending his season.
...
Mangler and Smith jumped out of the way, but Romanin stood his ground - he said members of the skydiving crew told players to stand still because the divers would miss them.
-
What do you guys think of this?
http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1405965#ixzz2ZyXQssSt
-
What do you guys think of this?
http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1405965#ixzz2ZyXQssSt
I think it is most likely self defense, but it's hard to tell at this point.
-
What do you guys think of this?
http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1405965#ixzz2ZyXQssSt
That people in Texas need to learn how to rough ridin' speak properly.
-
What do you guys think of this?
http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1405965#ixzz2ZyXQssSt
I think it is most likely self defense, but it's hard to tell at this point.
So you think stand your ground is ok?
-
What do you guys think of this?
http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1405965#ixzz2ZyXQssSt
I think it is most likely self defense, but it's hard to tell at this point.
So you think stand your ground is ok?
I would say this is self defense in the absence of the SYG law. I think the SYG law blows. Like I said, though, I would need more details to know for sure. It is very suspicious that she had time to get into her trunk to retrieve a shotgun but did not have time to get in her car and just drive away. I will give her the benefit of the doubt and assume the car was fueling or something.
-
This is self defense specifically because of no retreat laws.
-
This is self defense specifically because of no retreat laws.
That is not accurate at all. The no retreat laws only make it so that by the letter of the law, this is self defense regardless of if we find out later that the guy was just asking for directions or something, and that she could have easily avoided the situation by just getting in her car and driving off.
Before SYG became the law of the land, the Kansas law read:
A person is justified in the use of force against an agressor when and to the extent it appears to him and he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such agressor's imminent use of unlawful force.
There is nothing in there about a duty to retreat. It just allows for common sense to prevail in the courtroom, and if the man was truly threatening the woman, she repeatedly asked him to leave her alone, he was holding a knife, and she pulled out the gun and aimed it at the ground warning him to go away and he came after her anyway, there is no way that a jury should convict her of murder, even without SYG laws.
-
One thing is for certain, this whole incident has been embarrassing for both liberals and conservatives. Both sides have shown they're incapable of rational thought. On the other hand, true moderates like myself have shined.
Yup, as the resident moderate of the pit, I just present the facts and let the chips fall where they may.
Jeffy is more of a moderate than you are
I use paper money and credit cards, so no.
-
One thing is for certain, this whole incident has been embarrassing for both liberals and conservatives. Both sides have shown they're incapable of rational thought. On the other hand, true moderates like myself have shined.
Yup, as the resident moderate of the pit, I just present the facts and let the chips fall where they may.
Jeffy is more of a moderate than you are
I use paper money and credit cards, so no.
:lol:
-
This is self defense specifically because of no retreat laws.
That is not accurate at all. The no retreat laws only make it so that by the letter of the law, this is self defense regardless of if we find out later that the guy was just asking for directions or something, and that she could have easily avoided the situation by just getting in her car and driving off.
Wrong. Even with SYG, you still have to have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm. SYG simply qualifies the standard self-defense doctrine to explain that if you have such a reasonable fear, you don't have to try to retreat before defending yourself.
And this case, and Nuts' posts, perfectly demonstrate why SYG laws are a good thing. Self defense is already murky enough with the "reasonable fear." At least with SYG, you don't have to worry about some asshat on a jury later whining about "well, I really think if I was in that situation, I would have had time to drive away...." This isn't Europe. In this country, we place a higher value on self-reliance, which includes self-defense.
-
This is self defense specifically because of no retreat laws.
That is not accurate at all. The no retreat laws only make it so that by the letter of the law, this is self defense regardless of if we find out later that the guy was just asking for directions or something, and that she could have easily avoided the situation by just getting in her car and driving off.
Wrong. Even with SYG, you still have to have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm. SYG simply qualifies the standard self-defense doctrine to explain that if you have such a reasonable fear, you don't have to try to retreat before defending yourself.
And this case, and Nuts' posts, perfectly demonstrate why SYG laws are a good thing. Self defense is already murky enough with the "reasonable fear." At least with SYG, you don't have to worry about some asshat on a jury later whining about "well, I really think if I was in that situation, I would have had time to drive away...."
No, they demonstrate why SYG is an awful thing. In a perfect world, this woman would face murder charges and have to state her case in front of a jury of her peers. I wouldn't vote to convict based upon the facts that are out there right now, but if 12 people unanimously believe she is guilty, so be it. If 12 jurors all decide that they easily would have had time to just drive away, then the lady probably did have time and could have easily avoided killing the guy.
There should be a high standard applied to when it is ok to take another person's life.
-
This is self defense specifically because of no retreat laws.
That is not accurate at all. The no retreat laws only make it so that by the letter of the law, this is self defense regardless of if we find out later that the guy was just asking for directions or something, and that she could have easily avoided the situation by just getting in her car and driving off.
Wrong. Even with SYG, you still have to have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm. SYG simply qualifies the standard self-defense doctrine to explain that if you have such a reasonable fear, you don't have to try to retreat before defending yourself.
And this case, and Nuts' posts, perfectly demonstrate why SYG laws are a good thing. Self defense is already murky enough with the "reasonable fear." At least with SYG, you don't have to worry about some asshat on a jury later whining about "well, I really think if I was in that situation, I would have had time to drive away...."
No, they demonstrate why SYG is an awful thing. In a perfect world, this woman would face murder charges and have to state her case in front of a jury of her peers. I wouldn't vote to convict based upon the facts that are out there right now, but if 12 people unanimously believe she is guilty, so be it. If 12 jurors all decide that they easily would have had time to just drive away, then the lady probably did have time and could have easily avoided killing the guy.
There should be a high standard applied to when it is ok to take another person's life.
:lol: Yes, in a perfect world, she should be charged with murder. I mean, if she's found not guilty, then what's the harm, right? :dunno: It's just a piddly little murder trial. No sweat, am I right?
-
:lol: Yes, in a perfect world, she should be charged with murder. I mean, if she's found not guilty, then what's the harm, right? :dunno: It's just a piddly little murder trial. No sweat, am I right?
Well, she did kill a man. Do you not think there should be any consequence for that at all?
-
:lol: Yes, in a perfect world, she should be charged with murder. I mean, if she's found not guilty, then what's the harm, right? :dunno: It's just a piddly little murder trial. No sweat, am I right?
Well, she did kill a man. Do you not think there should be any consequence for that at all?
Nice straw man. I think a prosecutor (hopefully not Angela Corey) should look at the evidence and decide whether to bring charges in light of self-defense laws that rightly give the benefit of the doubt to people in dangerous situations. You don't just try everyone for murder who is involved in a shooting.
-
:lol: Yes, in a perfect world, she should be charged with murder. I mean, if she's found not guilty, then what's the harm, right? :dunno: It's just a piddly little murder trial. No sweat, am I right?
Well, she did kill a man. Do you not think there should be any consequence for that at all?
Nice straw man. I think a prosecutor (hopefully not Angela Corey) should look at the evidence and decide whether to bring charges in light of self-defense laws that rightly give the benefit of the doubt to people in dangerous situations. You don't just try everyone for murder who is involved in a shooting.
If there were no SYG law, I think the prosecution would potentially have a reasonable case to move forward with murder charges, and I would hope that they would bring the case to a grand jury. The victim's family deserves as much.