Trayvon Martin

[StrangeSox]

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".

 

It's not an obscure rule, it's the law in many states.

 

[StrangeSox]

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".

 

The duty to retreat applies if there's not an immediate threat to you or someone else, not if you're in hand-to-hand knife combat. e.g. someone is 100 feet away with an ax, but you can drive away in your car or lock yourself behind a secure door. Without a duty to retreat, you could justifiably shoot that person.

 

I gotta ask, have you really been in many life-and-death altercations?

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

It's not an obscure rule, it's the law in many states.

 

It's just as obscure as the statue you're arguing against here. The Connecticut version talks about a duty to retreat only when it's safe to do so. Well, what's that supposed to mean? How do we know in a given situation what an unpredictable criminal will do? Maybe him taping the gun on the glass is intimidation. Maybe as soon as I turn my head and put the car in gear he'll shoot me for fear of having to go to jail. We have no idea. So at the end of the day (just like in this case) we give evidence one way or the other and let a jury decide.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

The duty to retreat applies if there's not an immediate threat to you or someone else, not if you're in hand-to-hand knife combat. e.g. someone is 100 feet away with an ax, but you can drive away in your car or lock yourself behind a secure door. Without a duty to retreat, you could justifiably shoot that person.

 

I gotta ask, have you really been in many life-and-death altercations?

 

Under that factual scenario I don't think you could (1) successfully argue that you're under a reasonable fear of immediate danger of harm/death requiring deadly force, and (2) that the florida law would apply since that person that is 100 feet away with an axe isn't performing any illegal act.

[StrangeSox]

It's just as obscure as the statue you're arguing against here. The Connecticut version talks about a duty to retreat only when it's safe to do so. Well, what's that supposed to mean? How do we know in a given situation what an unpredictable criminal will do? Maybe him taping the gun on the glass is intimidation. Maybe as soon as I turn my head and put the car in gear he'll shoot me for fear of having to go to jail. We have no idea. So at the end of the day (just like in this case) we give evidence one way or the other and let a jury decide.

 

I took obscure to mean "uncommon" or long-forgotten law, not unclear or vague. Assumption on my part. But SYG completely removes the necessity of duty to retreat, so there's nothing to leave up to a jury to decide if you fulfilled that duty or not. It simply doesn't exist. If Martin was holding a knife and threatening Zimmerman while Zimmerman was in his car, he could reasonably feel that his life was in danger. But, since he has no duty to retreat, he can elect to shoot Martin or to drive away. Either would be legal. I don't think that's right.

 

A carjacker doesn't necessarily have a gone, either. Maybe he's got a knife and he's pulling on your door handle. It's my hypothetical.

[Y2HH]

The duty to retreat applies if there's not an immediate threat to you or someone else, not if you're in hand-to-hand knife combat. e.g. someone is 100 feet away with an ax, but you can drive away in your car or lock yourself behind a secure door. Without a duty to retreat, you could justifiably shoot that person.

 

I gotta ask, have you really been in many life-and-death altercations?

 

I've been in many altercations...but I can't say whether they were life-and-death altercations since I lived. If I had died, I could have said yes. I have had a knife and a gun pulled on me and a friend (separate situations). Retreated from neither, still alive from both. Had we retreated, it's possible they started shooting or chasing us down...I have no idea. And I'd rather not speculate.

 

Oh, and to be fair, just as easily, not retreated could have made it worse, but in that situation, the way I saw it is if he raises the gun, I have a better chance at grabbing his arm or something and living than I do if I gave him some distance. At the time, I can say that's the only thought going through my head.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

Under that factual scenario I don't think you could (1) successfully argue that you're under a reasonable fear of immediate danger of harm/death requiring deadly force, and (2) that the florida law would apply since that person that is 100 feet away with an axe isn't performing any illegal act.

 

Well I didn't think I needed to explicitly state that the person with the ax was threatening you in some manner and approaching you since we're talking about self-defense.

[StrangeSox]

I've been in many altercations...but I can't say whether they were life-and-death altercations since I lived. If I had died, I could have said yes. I have had a knife and a gun pulled on me and a friend (separate situations). Retreated from neither, still alive from both. Had we retreated, it's possible they started shooting or chasing us down...I have no idea. And I'd rather not speculate.

 

Unless you responded with lethal force, it's not a particularly relevant story.

[Y2HH]

Unless you responded with lethal force, it's not a particularly relevant story.

 

I'm glad it didn't come to that, but it just as easily could have.

 

Also, in fights I've been in -- or you -- who knows what weapons they may pull on you, if any? In no circumstance do I see it reasonable to assume otherwise.

[iamshack]

It's just as obscure as the statue you're arguing against here. The Connecticut version talks about a duty to retreat only when it's safe to do so. Well, what's that supposed to mean? How do we know in a given situation what an unpredictable criminal will do? Maybe him taping the gun on the glass is intimidation. Maybe as soon as I turn my head and put the car in gear he'll shoot me for fear of having to go to jail. We have no idea. So at the end of the day (just like in this case) we give evidence one way or the other and let a jury decide.

I asked the same questions...besides, do people really think of this when these situations occur, anyways? Well, the law says I have a duty to retreat here...so I'd better try and figure a way out of this...No, people are going to do what comes instinctively in order to survive. What the law is obviously designed for, is to protect those who killed in order to avoid being raped or brutally attacked from having a manslaughter charge levied against them. Unfortunately, good criminal defense attorneys have probably found applications for it that were not fully contemplated by the legislators who drafted it.

[Y2HH]

I did get caught up in the middle of a fight in some park off of Lake Shore Drive about 10 years ago...and about 8 feet from me, one of the guys "retreating" got shot in the back.

 

It was the only time I've seen someone shot in my life...and I gotta tell you, it was scary. But...he did exactly what you said...from a hand to hand combat position, he retreated...and got shot for his troubles.

 

And holy crap the place was swarming with police in about 20 seconds.

[Jenksismyhero]

Well I didn't think I needed to explicitly state that the person with the ax was threatening you in some manner and approaching you since we're talking about self-defense.

 

I don't think you're going to find many people who think that it's reasonable to fear someone with an ax 100 feet away such that you'll need to shoot them to escape unharmed/alive. The situation is gonna be that he comes up on you and then it becomes perfectly reasonable to respond in defense.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

I'm glad it didn't come to that, but it just as easily could have.

 

Also, in fights I've been in -- or you -- who knows what weapons they may pull on you, if any? In no circumstance do I see it reasonable to assume otherwise.

 

Duty to retreat doesn't apply only to hand-to-hand combat. In fact it'd be pretty clear that, at such close range, you could not completely safely retreat.

 

Here's a hypothetical I googled up similar to my ax-wielding murderer scenario:

 

Let's consider some hypotheticals. If you walk out your front door and are immediately attacked by two grown men with knives, it seems clear that you would be justified in using deadly force. You would be in imminent danger of serious injury or death, and no lesser amount of force would stop the attack. You would not be under a duty to retreat because there would be no possibility of retreating safely.

 

Now change the example slightly. You exit your front door and see two men walking toward you, both brandishing knives, but both one hundred yards away. You can safely lock yourself behind a sturdy door and dial 911. If you choose instead to engage and kill them, you may not be able to mount a successful claim of self-defense, at least in those states which impose a duty to retreat. To further complicate matters, whether a duty to retreat exists may depend on where you are at the time of the attack. Even in states which impose a duty to retreat before employing deadly force, there may be an exception if you are attacked in your home. A number of states have enacted 'make my day' laws which allow a person at home to use deadly force against an intruder even if there is no imminent danger of serious injury or death.

[StrangeSox]

I don't think you're going to find many people who think that it's reasonable to fear someone with an ax 100 feet away such that you'll need to shoot them to escape unharmed/alive. The situation is gonna be that he comes up on you and then it becomes perfectly reasonable to respond in defense.

 

SYG laws completely justify shooting someone 100 ft away who's coming at you with an ax. You have zero duty to retreat. Hell, it's in the name of the laws.

[Jenksismyhero]

I asked the same questions...besides, do people really think of this when these situations occur, anyways? Well, the law says I have a duty to retreat here...so I'd better try and figure a way out of this...No, people are going to do what comes instinctively in order to survive. What the law is obviously designed for, is to protect those who killed in order to avoid being raped or brutally attacked from having a manslaughter charge levied against them. Unfortunately, good criminal defense attorneys have probably found applications for it that were not fully contemplated by the legislators who drafted it.

 

Agreed. If we take what SS wants, victims are going to need to take an additional step to think about or in fact act affirmatively to avoid confrontation even though they could, in a split second, be killed for it. We're protecting a criminal performing a criminal act from something they should fear whenever they start that criminal act - I'm gonna get shot by this person and die if I do what I'm about to do. I don't see why this is good public policy.

[StrangeSox]

I did get caught up in the middle of a fight in some park off of Lake Shore Drive about 10 years ago...and about 8 feet from me, one of the guys "retreating" got shot in the back.

 

It was the only time I've seen someone shot in my life...and I gotta tell you, it was scary. But...he did exactly what you said...from a hand to hand combat position, he retreated...and got shot for his troubles.

 

And holy crap the place was swarming with police in about 20 seconds.

 

I don't think anyone would reasonably believe in a "completely safe" retreat from a large brawl. You can't limit these scenarios to close-up and hands-on ones.

[Jenksismyhero]

SYG laws completely justify shooting someone 100 ft away who's coming at you with an ax. You have zero duty to retreat. Hell, it's in the name of the laws.

 

Dude, just...ugh. No, it doesn't.

 

(1) what criminal act is that ax-wielder committing? Answer: none. Thus the justifiable shooting statute is inapplicable.

 

(2) is someone 100 feet away causing you, the victim, reasonable fear such that it is a NECESSITY that you use deadly force? No. That's not. And I don't think any jury would agree with you there.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

Agreed. If we take what SS wants, victims are going to need to take an additional step to think about or in fact act affirmatively to avoid confrontation even though they could, in a split second, be killed for it. We're protecting a criminal performing a criminal act from something they should fear whenever they start that criminal act - I'm gonna get shot by this person and die if I do what I'm about to do. I don't see why this is good public policy.

 

[iamshack]

Duty to retreat doesn't apply only to hand-to-hand combat. In fact it'd be pretty clear that, at such close range, you could not completely safely retreat.

 

Here's a hypothetical I googled up similar to my ax-wielding murderer scenario:

That is just a foolish hypothetical. The men brandishing knives are not yet engaged in an unlawful activity, are they? Secondly, if you just shoot them because of that, I cannot imagine there won't be other facts present which make it clear you were not using self-defense, such as, for instance, you are a bounty hunter or a sniper in Iraq or something.

[Y2HH]

SYG laws completely justify shooting someone 100 ft away who's coming at you with an ax. You have zero duty to retreat. Hell, it's in the name of the laws.

 

Maybe they shouldn't be wielding an axe, then.

 

It's pretty obvious you don't leave the house much, so hear me out. Let me tell you a true story...I was camping once and some hockey player wielding an axe was EASILY 100+ feet away from me, and a second later I ran into him while retreating the opposite direction.

 

YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT.

 

I tried retreating and it didn't work.

 

Now what, smart ass?

Edited March 23, 2012 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

Dude, just...ugh. No, it doesn't.

 

(1) what criminal act is that the ax-wielder is committing? Answer: none. Thus the justifiable shooting statute is inapplicable.

 

(2) is someone 100 feet away with an causing you, the victim, reasonable fear such that it is a NECESSITY that you use deadly force? No. That's not. And I don't think any jury would agree with you there.

 

That guy shouting "I'M GONNA CHOP YOU TO BITS" and charging at you with an ax is committing a crime and poses a threat to your life.

 

SYG doesn't say that the situation necessitates deadly force. In fact, by eliminating the duty to retreat, it explicitly allows for situations in which deadly force is not necessary.

[StrangeSox]

Maybe they shouldn't be wielding an axe, then.

 

It's pretty obvious you don't leave the house much, so hear me out. Let me tell you a true story...I was camping once and some hockey player wielding an axe was EASILY 100+ feet away from me, and a second later I ran into him while retreating the opposite direction.

 

YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT.

 

I tried retreating and it didn't work.

 

Now what, smart ass?

 

I'd say you should probably stop with the dumb stories.

[Y2HH]

 

Exactly how is that a straw man argument? Either explain it clearly or retract your post.

[StrangeSox]

That is just a foolish hypothetical. The men brandishing knives are not yet engaged in an unlawful activity, are they? Secondly, if you just shoot them because of that, I cannot imagine there won't be other facts present which make it clear you were not using self-defense, such as, for instance, you are a bounty hunter or a sniper in Iraq or something.

 

I'm pretty sure someone threatening you with a knife is engaged in an unlawful activity and poses a threat to your life.

[Y2HH]

I'd say you should probably stop with the dumb stories.

 

You honestly need to get out more.