Serious Defect In Stand Your Ground Laws

Oh please your hypothetical was anything but. Such a "hypothetical" is a *******n joke and you know it. I don't play such bull(*)(*)(*)(*) games. Your hypothetical was your belief of what happened between Zimmerman and Martin nothing else. And I'm not going to treat it as anything else.

No its not. Its up to the prosecution to prove that it isn't beyond a reasonable doubt.

Again you are making (*)(*)(*)(*) up. I already posted the source where you can read the history of duty to retreat. It has nothing to do with demonstrating fear. That is something you made up out of thin air. I'm not going to give your made up legal argument any more respect than it deserves, which is zero.

 

Not speaking about Zimmerman. Please try to stay on topic.

 

this...

"So, theoretically, a person could walk into a collection of "conservative" worshipers of the Church of TrayvonDeservedIt and announce their support of gay marriage, a woman's right to choose, a Palestinian homeland, raising taxes, or any number of subjects, pull their semi-automatic from their belt with its 30 round magazine, announce their fear of being attacked for their legally held political views and begin firing."

Is what I believe happened between Zimmerman and Martin?

a little less dumb please.

 

OK, I went back and you are correct. I apologize for running astray. However as to your comment:

That is only part of the Florida law. The presumption that one has a reasonable fear of imminent peril or death has a caveat which is:

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

and...

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity

This seems to negate any assertion that anyone can shoot anyone for any reason and claim SYG.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

 

That refers to home defense and I have no qualms with a person defended their home.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

 

Here we depend on the phrase 'reasonably believes' which can only be interpreted after the fact but, let's not forget that 'safe retreat' also must be decided after the fact.

SYG seems to give more leeway to the victim instead of making the victim try to find an escape route especially if that victim is in unfamiliar territory.

 

Yes but, again, my issue with the law is the elimination of the "duty to retreat." Doing so make determining whether "reasonably believes" really is "reasonable."

I have no real issues with the pre-trial hearing or the immunity from civil causes but, to me, this encourages a "cowboy" mentality wherein only the guy with the gun gets to determine the definition of "reasonable."

to me, exercising the "right to bear arms" carries with it a special responsibility to be more careful, not less. A law that allows an armed person to be less "careful" then exempts them from both criminal and civil action is irresponsible.

 

I see your point however, I also see that the same determination of 'reasonable' applying to 'safe retreat' which may seem reasonable in retrospect but may not have been reasonable at the time which could put (IMO) an undue burden on the victim.

Anyone committing a criminal act with a gun is not concerned about 'safe retreat' nor would they be able to invoke SYG.

 

There are situations where there is no recourse and no opportunity to retreat.

Carjacking is a good example but self defense in a situation where there is no opportunity for retreat is protected under hundreds of years of legal precedent.

But, for example

The incident in Jacksonville a couple of months ago when a man got into an argument with some kids over the volume of music and ended up shooting one of them then claiming his actions were protected by SYG.

The incident a few days ago where a man shot a door to door salesman. The homeowner obviously felt threatened, he gave clear warning then shot when the "intruder" continued his "assault." He's claiming protection under the same law.

And, under a strict reading of the law, both claims have merit and could win at trial or provide grounds for appeal and yet,

Were it not for the law it is possible neither incident would have happened.

Perhaps if we could present evidence of "wrongful" convictions that would have been negated by this law there would be room for discussion about correcting jury instructions or more clearly defining "duty to retreat" but, as it is, the law seems to create, in some people, an attitude that makes them every bit as dangerous as any criminal on the street.

 

WTF school did you go to? In my school days it didn't matter who threw the first punch. All parties involved were in the same boat.

...but, other than that, your story sounds like a load of BS.

 

This seems to imply that adults (like adolescents) might be "provoked" into "violence" by mean-spirited words; and that one's initiating such "violence," under these circumstances, would be a perfectly reasonable reaction.

I just cannot imagine that an adult would think like this...

 

The shooter is toast in that one. There is no evidence he was in fear for his life he said they were "speaking to in a threatening manner" he says he saw what he believed to be a shotgun.

Now he goes to his glove compartment and pulls out his 9mms and says "You're not going to talk to me like that!"

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense at all. If the kids had a shotgun, that guy would be dead. Even if he thought they were armed his statement to the kids "You're not going to talk to me like that!" is strange in light of his stated belief that the kids had a shot gun aimed at him. He can claim SYG all day long....Ain't gonna fly. The kids were unarmed and there are lots of witnesses.

I don't know much about that one and don't have time right now to look it up. Can't offer and opinion regarding SYG on that one.

I don't see how even the strictist interpretation is going to get Micheal Dunn acquitted. Unless that shotgun turns up and is tied to the kids.

That is a good idea. Have any links?

 

You went to a pansy school. There is nothing wrong with self defense. In my school we would flunk Ag if we didn't have a knife on our belt. Today's schools are sissified.

 

I agree that there's nothing wrong with self defense and not distinguishing between aggressor and defender is asinine, however, to say that my HS was "a pansy school" just displays ignorance of reality. I didn't attend some backwater school with 4H clubs and kumbaya sing-a-longs. I attended a craphole in an urban city. It could be described as a lot of things but "pansy" isn't one of them.

 

I don't have time to read this long thread. However, my personal view is no one should be able to claim self-defense if they were the aggressor. I learned with this case that you can start a fight, start to lose it and use lethal force legally. A person could go up to someone in a biker bar and hit them with a pool stick, they start to fight and if the person who initiated it started to "lose", could legally shoot and kill that person. That's wrong. I support self-defense for victims only.

 

What is your evidence that George Zimmerman threw the first punch (or otherwise used violence, in initiating the assault)?

Yes, Zimmerman's trailing Trayvon Martin was unwise, in my opinion. But it was certainly not illegal. And it is just as certain that it did not rise to the level of "start[ing] a fight"...

 

I didn't say he threw the first punch, you don't have to throw the first one to be the aggressor. If someone was to stalk a women walking home and wanted to rape, even if doesn't get a chance to strike before she does after feeling threatened, the wanna be rapist was still the aggressor.

My point was this; in the law it doesn't matter who throws the first punch. You can legally go attack someone and start to lose and then use lethal force and claim self-defense. That is a dangerous loophole. In the Zimmerman case, he stalked thus was the aggressor.

If you stalk most men at night walking home, there going to feel threatened and when you feel threatened and your life is in danger, many see that as starting a fight, a fight to defend their self from a stranger who, by their actions appears to be a danger. I doubt you'd feel the same if you had to walk at night somewhere while some creepy person followed you.

 

I'm not saying he gets off. More importantly, does he produce the firearm absent a law that seems to protect his actions? Obviously you and I consider his actions "unreasonable" but, he needs only one juror to avoid conviction and the law does provide for a hearing, contesting at trial, and grounds for appeal.

Links?

for which? The "wrongful convictions" or changes to jury instructions?

I have links to neither.

What links I can find on wrongful "self defense" convictions are more related to inequities in the judicial system for African Americans than to actual uses of firearms in self defense. In fact, in the one I could find related to firearms, a black man was convicted of shooting a white man who had threatened the mans family with a knife, ignored a warning shot, and had a history of violence. I'd rather not take the conversation there.

It seems the law addresses a problem that does not exist and does so in a way that is irresponsible and dangerous.

there have been situations here in Florida where it appeared to shooter purposely created a "need" for "self defense" ( http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...n-valrico-leaves-community-bewildered/1124429 ). While it is not possible to know the minds of people one should wonder whether, absent the law, these people would have carried firearms into these situations.

This is not a 2nd issue for me. SYG does not allow more people to carry guns, or less. It does not impact the types or quantity of firearms that people can own or carry or the type of ammunition. What it does is create in some people the idea that they can use firearms to settle disputes and have their actions protected by law. We cannot get rid of the people so prudence dictates we should change the law.

 

What are you psychic? You can't react by what you think they are thinking or planning but what they actual do. Someone has to do a criminal act, like throw the first punch, before you can properly defend yourself.

- - - Updated - - -

Following someone does not make you the aggressor. Following someone is not illegal. Following someone is no excuse to start aggressive action.

 

Someone chases after me with a gun, I'd consider him aggressive.​

 

Makes sense, but let me rephrase your statement to make it more reflective of what actually happened and see if it still makes sense.

"While I was wandering around in the dark behind peoples homes in the rain with no obvious or purposeful destination with my features obscured by a hood, and I seen some creepy-cracka looking at me from his car I would be intimidated. And when that short tubby dude with those hiking boots got out of his car I would consider him aggressive and run from him even though I didn't see a gun or any other weapon and the fact that the guy probably couldnt catch me since I was an athlete that is 6'-1" and 158 lbs wearing sneakers".

Levity aside, it was Martin that first approached Zimmerman while he was in his car. Later, and further away when GZ got out of his car did Martin run.

Respectfully,

 

There are laws against stalking.

Obviously, George Zimmerman was not guilty of this crime, as he was never charged with stalking...