Serious Defect In Stand Your Ground Laws

I love how trayvonites want to change the laws and rules when they don't get their way. Since George was found not guilty the rules on this forum were changed and a special section was created just so they could start idiotic threads and have a place to butt hurt. That is hilarious! LOL!

There is nothing wrong with the SYG law. It is only an extension of the Castle Doctrine that has been around for a long time. It doesn't look like it is going to change and Trayvon isn't coming back to life. Sorry Trayvonites but you need to face reality.

 

Forced retreat is based on French principles not american ones. you should be secure in your home and business. Tell other people to stop trying to kill others if they don't want it back at them.

 

Z should have expected Martin to come back and challenge him. He should have known from his training and education that he looked like a boy bumper. SYG just legalizes killing people if male posturing gets out of hand.

 

Seems you have a problem with whether or not Z should have reasonably thought he was going to be murdered. I have said from the beginning that was the real case, but the media and prosecutor focused on race and that is why Zimmerman walks.

But that is an argument if fact, not law.

 

Utah, Montana, Alaska, Wyoming... they're all controlled by street thugs who terrorize the locals and "force them to stay home in hiding."

Alaska is especially bad, with the mountain thugs making their annual foray down to the unsuspecting villagers and plundering the Junoites for their gold. And how about hoods in Idaho who repeatedly double park and pick potatoes in an offensive manner... Thankfully, SYG laws will save these states.

 

The law in SYG states are not really different from non-SYG states. The only thing SYG does is clarify additional legal protections for those who use self defense.
Someone who claims self defense can still be found guilty in SYG states, and vice versa.

 

I need to make a couple of points clear. At common law self-defence has always required a retreat, if possible. The retreat though stops at your front door. The fact that legislation exists to change this requirement is self-evident that the common law principles have been extended. Understand it now?

Your argument about due process is not accurate. If A attacks B and B fights back there's no judicial issue until it hits the courts.

- - - Updated - - -

Fine, maintain your opinion, it's yours to do whatever you like with it. The facts though, are not yours.

 

No your logic sucks. It's illegal for a cop to plan weed on a person. That exists separate to any authority to arrest for possession of marijuana. One doesn't relate at all to the other.

 

Gee....New York, and thus New York City, isn't on your map.

Illinois, home of Chicago, isn't on your map. Hundreds have died because the street thugs rule.

Your map doesn't have Los Angeles covered....yeah, there's no problem with street thugs in Los Angeles, of course not.

Your map doesn't cover the nation's capital. Naturally, there's no violent crime in the nation's capital.

Gee, Boston isn't covered by SYG...just recently, the entire state was terrorized by the cops, looking for that cute little boy bomber the Rolling Stone liked so. People had to hide in their houses, because they couldn't shoot back.

 

It's also illegal to aggravate assault. It's illegal to premeditate plan ahead to (*)(*)(*)(*) someone off on purpose for the purpose of killing him in "self defense". So yes your logic sucks.

 

Correct. His logic totally sucks.

 

Yes it's illegal to do those things. If they're proven then someone is in big trouble. But with a stand your ground defence law in place it makes it much easier for them to cover up their actions.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes it's illegal to do those things. If they're proven then someone is in big trouble. But with a stand your ground defence law in place it makes it much easier for them to cover up their actions.

 

It's much easier for a cop to cover up the fact that he planted weed on you prior to arresting you for possession.
It's the same (*)(*)(*)(*)ing thing. Your logic sucks. You don't base things on such (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

And??? Myself and many others would say tough (*)(*)(*)(*) to the guy who got decked and died. No one should have to face a 10 year sentence for manslaughter defending themselves from someone who attacked them. Person a defended himself with reasonable force in response to an attack. Person B dying from one punch is an accident of his own making.

Key to your original posts was stand your ground being used as cover for excessive force that results in death.

You have abandoned that argument without acknowledging that you have abandoned it. Hoping that I wont notice and you can claim victory. I've noticed. I'm not going to let you get away with it.

And? You are having a hard time getting me to feel sympathy for the guy who died as a result of his own actions.

No its not. You changed your argument becuase you knew your were losing. Lets look at a major leg of your original argument.

Notice that your original argument centered around stand your ground giving someone license to use excessive force and kill the attacker. As I pointed out the excessive force is still illegal and punishable as manslaughter even if you are standing your ground.

You then created an example where the person B who is attacked accidentally kills person A.

That is not excessive force. That is an accident. You have removed a fundamental part of your original argument because you know its untenable and are now hoping that I didn't notice. Oh I noticed.

Go scurry off now.

 

You missed the original point completely. But never mind.

 

Focus on the original argument for a moment. The stand your ground law of self-defence has been extended so that it is possible for an aggressor to use the colour of self-defence to be exculpated.

My example of the fight in the parking lot. A kills B. I can see in my example that I didn't make it clear enough.

The facts of this example are that there was a squabble and A attacked B. That point is clarified. When A attacked B, B went down on the deck and died. The defence A puts up is that he was attacked by B when he wasn't attacked by B. A may dress it up a bit by injuring himself, rending his clothes and so on so as to support his story.

It becomes important during the trial.

Defence: Can you tell the court what happened in the parking lot immediately before the incident which is before the court?

Defendant: I was looking for a car park, this guy in a black Cadillac took my car park. I stopped my car and got out to tell him that I was beginning to drive into the car park when he got in in front of me and parked. The driver got out of the car as I was talking to him and came at me like a crazy man, yelling and screaming and punching at me.

Defence: What did you do?

Defendant: I hit him.

Defence: What happened then?

Defendant: He fell on the ground.

Defence: Did you consider retreating to your car?

Defendant: No, I post on Political Forum and I know I don't have to retreat, I can stand my ground and use force to defend myself and that's what I was doing, this guy just up and attacked me, I was only talking to him, okay maybe I was yelling at him, but he attacked me so I defended myself.

That isn't what happened but it's plausible. Under the common law the defendant would have to retreat as far as his car but no further. He didn't but in this case he didn't have to.
If he had to prove a retreat to his car to be successful in self-defence he would have a hard time explaining why he struck the deceased so forcefully that the deceased fell to the ground and died from a brain injury. Not being required to retreat facilitates his lies.

 

Once again you are pivoting from you original point of stand your ground nullifying disproportionate force aka imperfect self defense which isn't true its still a crime. So we can say that you are admitting that you were wrong on that.

You have now pivoted again because in your first case you didn't say that person A really attacked person B and is lying to the cops. So once again your logic failed so you are adding facts to keep from admitting mistakes.

You have now extended this argument to the ridiculous. First of all the law shouldn't be written from the standpoint of what if the accused knows that law and fabricates a defense. The ultimate result of that point of thinking is many innocent people going to jail because you are assuming guilt of the accused. That being said, in your scenario person A knows the law and fabricates defense and a story. If A knows the law and is fabricating a story around the law why does stand your ground matter? If the scenario occurs in a state that has the requirement to flee A will simply say that he tried to flee but was unable. You argue that he has to prove that but you are wrong. Its up to the prosecution to prove that he did not try to flee. As you said in your scenario that he fabricated evidence by "rending his clothes" that supports that B had a hold of him and that A was trying to get away. The law just dictates what evidence the accused will fabricate and what story he will have to make up.

Your reasoning is absolutely asinine. You cant write law from the standpoint of what if the accused knows the law and is fabricating story and evidence. First, that puts an unfair burden on the accused because it assumes guilt and makes it very hard for the innocent to defend themselves. Second, its impossible to write a law that is bullet proof to someone fabricating a story and evidence. If there is a duty to retreat the accused will simply fabricate a story and evidence to fit the law. Your argument is fundamentally bogus.

 

There is no evidence for it. The witnesses mentioned seeing Trayvon assaulting Zimmerman, but nobody noticed your silly scenario above.

 

He might have witnessed the end he didn't see the first of it ,the witness doesn't know what Z said to TM Or If Tm was standing his ground against someone suspiciously following him ,then getting out of his vehicle approaching him possible with a drawn gun.NOBODY
KNOWS ALL YOU HAVE ARE THE LIES OF Z. Why can't everyone admit that!!!

 

This is my point – that the stand your ground law provides for an aggressor to put up a defence of self-defence which although false is bolstered by the lack of a requirement to retreat. Disproportionate force is not the issue, aggression and a first strike is the issue.

The concept of self-defence at common law was the recognition that if someone is attacked then they have the right to defend themselves from that attack.

It is obvious that at common law assault is both a criminal offence. Without the defence of self-defence it is possible that a person defending themselves could be charged with assault as a result of the affray that ensues when one person attacks another and the second person responds in kind.

The common law on self-defence has continually limited the scope of the defence in order to discourage people from attacking others and then claiming self-defence. This is the reason for the requirement to retreat. If someone is being attacked and could safely retreat from the melee then they should do so as to retreat reduces the disorder involved. If they are permitted to remain and respond by assaulting the attacker then the incident becomes escalated and may lead to further disorder and a heightened possibility of injury. All this has to be seen in the light of the requirement of all parties not to breach the peace (again a common law requirement). An assault is a breach of the peace. So where A assaults B there is a breach of the peace. But where B, in responding, assaults A, there is still a breach of the peace; in fact the original breach of the peace is compounded. But if A assaults B and B retreats and the assault ends, then the breach of the peace ends and the likelihood of further disorder evaporates. A can be charged with assault on B.
Now if there is no requirement to retreat then that sets up an escalation in the affray, where B, without retreating, can immediately respond by assaulting A. In terms of public order and breaching the peace it is clear that there is going to be an increase in disorder and an escalated breach of the peace.

At common law it was recognised that the self-defence law was necessary but that it had to be hedged with requirements before it could be successfully pleaded because it was entirely possible that an aggressor could use self-defence to cover an initial assault and it would be very difficult to prove the case if there was no requirement to retreat. The defendant who is pleading self-defence must show that there was a retreat for the defence to be successful. If there is no requirement to show a retreat on the part of the defendant then that makes it much easier to cover up the aggression by claiming self-defence and not being required to show that there was a retreat.

The defendant is only required to provide sufficient evidence which, on the balance of probabilities, amounts to exculpation; the prosecution still has to provide evidence which persuades the jury that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus the defendant is not at an unreasonable disadvantage.

 

If his gun was drawn, there would have never been a fight. TM would have been shot before GZ let himself suffer any injury. Why would he have his gun out? If he wanted to kill him he would have shot sooner. You think he would have detained him with his gun drawn? Anyone with a CCW knows that will land you in jail with assault with a deadly weapon.

 

No one knows but Z. Z broke every neighborhood watch rule. Z followed and confronted someone he had absolutely no right to. Z is responsible for initiating the altercation merely by confronting someone to had no right to, as to what happened after that all you have is Z's word and a supposed witness that supposedly saw the end of the fight. Eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable. I gave example earlier of a college law professor who staged her purse being snatched while class was in session. out of about 50 students not one was able to identify the perpetrator accurately. So much for eyewitness testimony!

 

It's really quite amazing the stuff you read in these forum threads. Pheeeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle)

EARTH TO DADOALEX: You go try that somewhere, and try telling the cop he has to set you free (while you stumble about in shackles)

 

What a crock. George didn't violate any NW "suggestions" and the forensic evidence supports his account of what happened. He didn't "confront" anyone either. That is just silly.

 

FALSE!

1. Following a suspect is standard/correct procedure as prescribed by the state of Florida (Florida Dept. Of Agriculture & Consumer Services, Division of Licensing), in the Security Officer Class D license training and manual. Suspects are profiled according to ANY attributes that are relevant to security breaches and identification, and following suspects is a necessary (and required) part of the Observe & Report routine.

2. Confronting suspects is standard/correct procedure as prescribed by the state of Florida (usually known as "Challenging" in security parlance), and Zimmerman didn't confront Martin.

3. Zimmerman was released because of the principle of presumption of innocence (AKA "innocent until proven guilty") With or without eyewitness testimony, people can't be considered guilty without proof. Zimmerman shouldn't even have been charged, and the people of the state of Florida should sue Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and whatever other race hustlers coerced the politicians to initiate this fiasco.

4. NW rules are a joke. They are often patterned after local police departments who are control freaks and whose methods most often contradict state guidelines for security.