Serious Defect In Stand Your Ground Laws

this is foolishness. we do and should hold law enforcement and the elements of the state in general to a higher standard than those they prosecute. the common man does not have the same resources to protect himself that authority has in the commission of its duties. what you and your ilk are essentially demanding is that each individual, as he goes about protecting himself, act as if he had the full weight of government behind him. this is something we know to be a naive pipe dream. law enforcement cannot protect us and we must be given a certain amount of leeway to protect ourselves. this is called reality and i suggest you join the rest of us in acknowledging it.

 

you really do need to get over it already

 

HOW might those police and prosecutors be held to the same legal standards as applied in SYG ? Could you clarify what you mean ?

 

Why? Because we've given police and prosecutors the power to take your freedom? Your life?

Isn't that what SYG does?

 

That they don't actually have to have evidence of a crime. They can arrest, prosecute, imprison, and even execute based on "reasonable feelings."

That is the standard of SYG and that is why it is bad law.

 

NO, That is NOT the standard of SYG, nor does that looniness you described even have a remote relationship to SYG. SYG simply means you need not retreat when exercising your right of self defense.

 

No, SYG has nothing to do with that. The self-defense law (much older than SYG) give you the power to take away a life, BUT, ONLY WHEN that is necessary.

 

No, the law does not require you to be in any situation where your are actually defending yourself. Only that you "reasonably" believe that to be the case.

There is no requirement that the "threat" be real, only that you believe it is.

That is looniness.

 

Only when your actions indicate you've demonstrated you believe the "threat" is real by trying to escape or avoid.

SYG does not do that and does not require the "threat" to be based in reality. Only that you "reasonably" believe.

Again, would you give the government the power to take your life based on what they "reasonably" believe?

Bad law.

 

no, because we've given law enforcement the power to do this on a massive scale. we have given them the power to walk into a room and do nearly anything they wish, all in the name of "protecting" the people.

that you can't see the difference between enforcing laws and protecting yourself is a pity. i both feel sorry for and despise those who would rather be dependent on authority to protect us from crime than be allowed to actively participate in that protection. i feel only disgust for those who see self-defense as evil and would put as many roadblocks as possible in our way to achieving our own personal security. i think you can figure out where on that scale i would place someone who refuses to realize that "stand your ground" laws are merely intended to allow the individual to do what law enforcement is incapable of.

 

Your actions have nothing to do with it. It is the actions of the attacker that bring self-defense (which simply happens to include SYG) into effect.

 

FALSE! You must be under attack to be legal with Florida's self-defense law. It sounds like you've been listening to the loons on MSNBC. You have, haven't you. Come on! Come on now! Tell the truth!

 

Save your "pity" and your "despise" for the guy in the mirror.

By refusing to answer or answering in the negative you acknowledge the simple fact that the law in unconstitutionally vague.

Unconstitutionally vague = bad law

 

No,it is what you "believe" the actions of the "attacker" are. That belief need not have any foundation in reality.

- - - Updated - - -

Show me that in the SYG law.

 

Its case law force or the threat of force.

 

And "reasonably believe" absent a duty to withdraw eliminates the element of "fear" which demonstrates the claim of "self defense" is accurate makes it a bad law.

 

What does the duty to retreat have to do with the element of fear?

 

reasonable man.

A "reasonable man" will attempt to avoid or withdraw from a situation in which he has a "reasonable fear" of great injury or death.

A person who does not attempt to withdraw or avoid does not demonstrate fear which leads to one of two possible conclusions. the person is not "reasonable" or the "reasonable fear" of injury or death does not exist.

SYG eliminates that requirement from self defense and that is why it is bad law.

 

Duty to retreat has nothing to do with the situation. You are again creating your own law. Duty to retreat deals only with your response to force or threat of force used upon you. If someone brings force or the threat of force upon you in a state that has duty to retreat you are required to try and retreat. That is it. It has nothing to do with the circumstances leading up to the force or threat of force. Everything that deals with the circumstances leading up to the event falls under manslaughter's culpable negligence. The jury considered if Zimmerman's actions amounted to culpable negligence when deciding on the manslaughter charge. They concluded that Zimmerman's actions may have been stupid they did not amount to culpable negligence.

 

Did I mention anything about Zimmerman?

SYG removes the duty to retreat from the self defense claim. But, it is that duty that demonstrates that the person making the claim genuine. that, whatever the reality of the threat, he genuinely believed the threat was real and therefore his actions are reasonable. SYG removes the duty to retreat and, therefore, the demonstrable "fear" that the threat exists.

It is just bad law.

 

Not only do you have to reasonably believe that you might die, it has to be reasonable for the investigators and probably the jury to believe it as well. You will have to articulate to investigators that there assailant had the ability and the intent to kill you. If they didn't have the ability to do so then it wouldn't be "reasonable" would it?

 

Ah yet another pivot. You realize that what you just claimed was false so you pivot to a new argument never admiting that you were wrong.

Okay lets work on this new argument. Bad law is putting the onus on the defendant to prove his innocence. You are arguing that tyring to retreat helps prove the claim is genuine. First, that puts the onus on the accused. No law in our system should be written from that preservative. That is simply bad law. Second under common law retreat has nothing to do with showing that the fear is genuine. This reasoning is something you made up on the spot. Which is pretty much what all your legal arguments are. Your own inventionis made up in your mind at the drop of a hat with absolutely no legal precedence to back them.

We can look to Blackstone's commentary on the law. Blackstone recognizes 3 types of homicide, justifiable homicide, excusable homicide, and felonious homicide. Justifiable homicide requires no duty to retreat. If you are under a forcible assault there is was no duty to retreat under common law. Under common law the duty to retreat applied only to sudden affrays. In other words a mutual fight that has gotten out of hand with one party escalating to deadly force. The duty to retreat is to signal that one no longer wishes to engage in what was once a mutual the affray.

Good reading here on where duty to retreat comes from
http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/11/20/duty-to-retreat-in-common-law/

 

really?

and you can show me that in the law?

I shall await the quoted passage.

 

Please. you bring Zimmerman into the conversation and claim I "pivot" when I ask "when did I mention Zimmerman?

You drifted off topic and I repeated the same thing I've been saying from my first post.

You want to discuss Zimmerman there's lots of people and threads just waiting for you. This is about the SYG law in Florida and the absolute fact that it is bad law.

In a self defense claim the onus is ALWAYS on the person making the claim to prove its validity. The defendant is already admitting to committing a homicide. The only question is whether the homicide is "justifiable." the defendant's claim under "self defense" is two parts. That the defendant "reasonably believes" that great harm or death is imminent AND that the defendant could not retreat and therefore had to resort to deadly force.

The attempt to retreat demonstrates that the "reasonable belief" part is true even if an outside party doesn't agree on the level of threat.
SYG removes the duty to retreat and in doing so removes any requirement that the person making the claim of self defense demonstrate the validity of the claim.

Given that the person making the claim has used deadly force removing the requirement that he demonstrate the need is simply bad law.

 

Once again, SYG was not a factor in the trial because the defense did not invoke it. Z won on self defense.

- - - Updated - - -

That's a moot point. Zimmerman had no chance to retreat once attacked by Martin.