Trayvon Martin

[StrangeSox]

I guess I just don't see how this proves your point. You're trying to say more people are shooting each other because they have this new protection (ignoring the fact that i'd bet the vast majority had no idea this statute even existed at the time they shot someone). Most places had this protection anyway, it's now been codified. That's really the only change here.

 

It proves my point that it's a terrible law that results in dumb, nonsense outcomes.

[StrangeSox]

Is that the reason for the "or any other place" language in the Florida law?

 

I have been scratching my head as to the point of that language since this morning...

 

Right, it's an expansion of the Castle Doctrine from your home to yourself.

[Soxbadger]

Jenks,

 

The concern about not arresting immediately would be flight. Lets say I murder someone, get picked up quick. I tell the police it was self defense, they let me go, I flee the country.

 

I just dont see why the DA shouldnt be the one to make the call about a question of law.

 

And if anyone cares, here is the police report:

 

http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/20...policreport.pdf

 

It just doesnt make sense to not charge him, people have been charged with murder with much better defense stories.

[Jenksismyhero]

It proves my point that it's a terrible law that results in dumb, nonsense outcomes.

 

It proves nothing. It proves that people have decided to codify an existing common law defense and have used said defense. Hell, you don't even know if in those cases you're citing it was a good thing that the defense was used.

 

I just don't see your issue with this, at all. It's not a license to kill, no matter how much you want to believe that.

[Jenksismyhero]

Jenks,

 

The concern about not arresting immediately would be flight. Lets say I murder someone, get picked up quick. I tell the police it was self defense, they let me go, I flee the country.

 

I just dont see why the DA shouldnt be the one to make the call about a question of law.

 

And if anyone cares, here is the police report:

 

http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/20...policreport.pdf

 

It just doesnt make sense to not charge him, people have been charged with murder with much better defense stories.

 

He could be arrested, bond out and still have the flight risk.

 

I think we can all agree the cops and local DA's office screwed the pooch here. I don't think this is a great example for the broader fight against unlawful killings SS wants to make it into.

[StrangeSox]

It proves nothing. It proves that people have decided to codify an existing common law defense and have used said defense. Hell, you don't even know if in those cases you're citing it was a good thing that the defense was used.

 

I just don't see your issue with this, at all. It's not a license to kill, no matter how much you want to believe that.

 

You used to have a duty to retreat. The Castle Doctrine often removed that duty in your home. Stand Your Ground removes it anywhere you lawfully have a right to be. This was not an existing common law defense and I'm not sure where you picked up the idea that it was.

[Soxbadger]

Jenks,

 

Bond isnt perfect, but at least it would have been something. As for what it means, I dont know. I dont think many criminals who want to murder go out of there way to read up on self-defense laws. I think generally someone who wants to murder tries not to get caught, which basically kills the self-defense argument.

 

That being said, could this law result in more murderers walking, yes. Do I think that means there will be more murders, not really.

 

I dont think Zimmerman murdered him because he thought he could get away with it, I think he murdered him because he was not trained to deal with altercations and definitely had no experience with armed confrontations.

 

If I was going to make some sweeping statement, it would be that maybe we shouldnt allow people with a prior history of violence to carry guns on the street.

[StrangeSox]

It's not like there isn't widespread opposition to these laws, even from prosecutors and police. The idea that the Stand Your Ground laws simply codified existing practice is completely wrong.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_pol...secuted_.2.html

[Jenksismyhero]

You used to have a duty to retreat. The Castle Doctrine often removed that duty in your home. Stand Your Ground removes it anywhere you lawfully have a right to be. This was not an existing common law defense and I'm not sure where you picked up the idea that it was.

 

So you're telling me 25 years ago if someone with a gun was coming after you, shooting at you (or threatening to shoot you) you'd be charged with murder if you killed them first? No. You've always had a right to self defense. It's been a mess trying to figure out exactly WHEN it was appropriate to use deadly force, but it's ALWAYS been a defense tactic to claim you acted in self defense because your life was in danger.

 

This law simply codified it, and yeah, I suppose, to a certain degree it allowed you to justify a killing even in situations where you might have been able to leave. But that's not a bad thing. Why are we protecting morons that pick fights and/or people who are intentionally trying to hurt/kill you? Maybe criminals wouldn't feel so bold about going after people if they knew there was a legit chance that the person they're attempting to hurt has a gun and can shoot them.

 

Now, you'll immediately run with this and argue that we're going back to the wild wild west. But I just don't see how this is an issue in this particular case. I've said time and again this poor kid got screwed by stupid officials, not the law.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

So you're telling me 25 years ago if someone with a gun was coming after you, shooting at you (or threatening to shoot you) you'd be charged with murder if you killed them first? No. You've always had a right to self defense. It's been a mess trying to figure out exactly WHEN it was appropriate to use deadly force, but it's ALWAYS been a defense tactic to claim you acted in self defense because your life was in danger.

 

Many places still have a duty to retreat. That means that, if you can safely remove yourself from the situation, deadly force isn't justified. For instance, if I came up to your car window trying to carjack you and you could easily drive off, you would not be justified in shooting me.

 

The Stand Your Ground law significantly alters that. You have no duty to retreat or to safely remove yourself from the situation before resorting to deadly force.

Edited March 23, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

From an Illinois Supreme Court case in 1949:

 

The rule in this State is that a man may deliberately use a deadly weapon in self-defense and may intend to kill his opponent and yet not be guilty of either murder or manslaughter. People v. Davis, 300 Ill. 226, 133 N.E. 320. If one who is not the first assailant is in a place where he has a lawful right to be and is put in apparent danger of his life or of suffering great bodily harm, he need not attempt to escape but may lawfully stand his ground and meet force with force even to the taking of his assailant's life. People v. Durand, 307 Ill. 611, 139 N.E. 78. Nor is it necessary that the deceased should have used against his slayer a deadly weapon to justify a killing in self-defense. People v. Turner, 385 Ill. 344, 52 N.E.2d 712.

 

People v. Smith, 404 Ill. 350, 354, 88 N.E.2d 834, 836 (1949)

[StrangeSox]

Now, you'll immediately run with this and argue that we're going back to the wild wild west. But I just don't see how this is an issue in this particular case. I've said time and again this poor kid got screwed by stupid officials, not the law.

 

This poor kid was able to be screwed by stupid officials because of a terrible law.

[Y2HH]

You used to have a duty to retreat. The Castle Doctrine often removed that duty in your home. Stand Your Ground removes it anywhere you lawfully have a right to be. This was not an existing common law defense and I'm not sure where you picked up the idea that it was.

 

Do you live in a shell? I'm honestly just wondering.

 

Have you ever been in a fight or any kind of serious altercation? I ask, because it doesn't sound like you have.

 

If so, you'd know that "retreating" more often than not (as in almost always), puts you at a stark disadvantage from the aggressor, who is often at an advantage to begin with...you retreating often assists them even more, as you are backing up into blind sight lines while they are advancing with a full frontal line of sight.

 

When I think my life is at stake, f*** any law that claims I have a duty to retreat. I'd only retreat if there was a glaring opening of escape...otherwise you've probably negated any chance you had to begin with. My only duty in such a situation is to survive. Period.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

cool story bro, but there's still a duty to retreat in many places.

[Y2HH]

cool story bro, but there's still a duty to retreat in many places.

 

Even cooler story bro, that's why you're called victims.

[Jenksismyhero]

This poor kid was able to be screwed by stupid officials because of a terrible law.

 

Sigh...

[StrangeSox]

Even cooler story bro, that's why you're called victims.

 

I guess I don't understand what your point was, I was contending jenks' claim that the Stand Your Ground law really nothing new or different.

 

for example, Connecticut still has duty to retreat:

 

http://www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/part2/2.8-3.htm

 

Often (almost everywhere), exceptions are given for being in your own home, but extending it to public places is a relatively new concept.

[StrangeSox]

From an Illinois Supreme Court case in 1949:

 

 

 

People v. Smith, 404 Ill. 350, 354, 88 N.E.2d 834, 836 (1949)

 

This case involved the defendant being at his sister's house where he also sometimes lived, so it is inline with standard Castle Doctrine and not public spaces-expansion SYG.

 

edit: the defendant also attempted to retreat to his home but was pursued by the deceased, so this really doesn't support the idea that SYG has really been around for decades in common law.

Edited March 23, 2012 by StrangeSox

[iamshack]

I guess I don't understand what your point was, I was contending jenks' claim that the Stand Your Ground law really nothing new or different.

 

for example, Connecticut still has duty to retreat:

 

http://www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/part2/2.8-3.htm

 

Often (almost everywhere), exceptions are given for being in your own home, but extending it to public places is a relatively new concept.

How often in this situation do you think this duty of retreat even applies?

 

When you're in a situation where someone could potentially use deadly force against you, or commit a forcible felony (and honestly, how are you to know what the aggressor might limit his conduct to in such a situation), how often is there an absolute clean or complete avenue of retreat available, one in which the defendant will knowingly escape without any injury whatsoever?

[iamshack]

This case involved the defendant being at his sister's house where he also sometimes lived, so it is inline with standard Castle Doctrine and not public spaces-expansion SYG.

 

edit: the defendant also attempted to retreat to his home but was pursued by the deceased, so this really doesn't support the idea that SYG has really been around for decades in common law.

It still explicitly cites the "lawful place to be" language,however.

Edited March 23, 2012 by iamshack

[Y2HH]

How often in this situation do you think this duty of retreat even applies?

 

When you're in a situation where someone could potentially use deadly force against you, or commit a forcible felony (and honestly, how are you to know what the aggressor might limit his conduct to in such a situation), how often is there an absolute clean or complete avenue of retreat available, one in which the defendant will knowingly escape without any injury whatsoever?

 

The answer is almost never for so many reasons, both physical and psychological, in such a situation.

[StrangeSox]

How often in this situation do you think this duty of retreat even applies?

 

When you're in a situation where someone could potentially use deadly force against you, or commit a forcible felony (and honestly, how are you to know what the aggressor might limit his conduct to in such a situation), how often is there an absolute clean or complete avenue of retreat available, one in which the defendant will knowingly escape without any injury whatsoever?

 

Well, I gave you the carjacking scenario.

[Y2HH]

I guess I don't understand what your point was, I was contending jenks' claim that the Stand Your Ground law really nothing new or different.

 

for example, Connecticut still has duty to retreat:

 

http://www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/part2/2.8-3.htm

 

Often (almost everywhere), exceptions are given for being in your own home, but extending it to public places is a relatively new concept.

 

My point was you keep citing an obscure rule that says you should retreat...when it's usually the worst thing a person can do in a situation like that. Yes, there are situations when retreat is both viable and easy...but in most altercations like this, and I've been in many, it's easy to armchair quarterback than it is to be in that situation and "retreat".

[Jenksismyhero]

This case involved the defendant being at his sister's house where he also sometimes lived, so it is inline with standard Castle Doctrine and not public spaces-expansion SYG.

 

edit: the defendant also attempted to retreat to his home but was pursued by the deceased, so this really doesn't support the idea that SYG has really been around for decades in common law.

 

I was citing to that case just because it was the first one I saw. In it the IL Supreme Court set forth the established position of the state - that a duty to retreat doesn't exist, and hasn't maybe ever (at least 1949, probably much earlier).

 

The duty to retreat is a minority position in the states.

[iamshack]

Well, I gave you the carjacking scenario.

But you didn't elaborate...the aggressor could still shoot you...he could shoot out your tires...he could shoot at you and hit other vehicles which might then crash into you and/or others...

 

I don't think you could expect someone to retreat in that situation under the way the language is written.