Trayvon Martin

[Y2HH]

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

 

It's not illegal to carry a knife in many states. Having a knife on you and threatening someone with it are two different things.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

You honestly need to get out more.

 

Tell me more stories about ax-wielding hockey players going 100 ft/s.

[StrangeSox]

It's not illegal to carry a knife in many states. Having a knife on you and threatening someone with it are two different things.

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

 

You guys are refusing to consider any scenario that wouldn't immediately preclude an ability to completely safely retreat.

[Y2HH]

Tell me more stories about ax-wielding hockey players going 100 ft/s.

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080761/

 

There are about 12 more of them for reference.

[StrangeSox]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080761/

 

There are about 12 more of them for reference.

 

:notworthy

[Jenksismyhero]

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.

 

OMG dude. I'm done with this if you're just going to ignore the statute you're arguing about:

 

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[Y2HH]

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

 

You guys are refusing to consider any scenario that wouldn't immediately preclude an ability to completely safely retreat.

 

If someone is threatening you with a knife from 100 feet away, odds are you wouldn't see them doing it...unless they narrated their actions from afar.

 

The only way you could be threatened by a knife is in pretty close proximity...and in such a case...retreat would probably be your best option. But that's not what we're talking about in MOST situations like this. Most of the time, the assailants are within hand to hand range...the scenarios you are laying out are unlikely at best, or all involve weapons such as guns where your odds of survival are already almost zero unless the assailant ALLOWS you to live (such as in a car jacking scenario).

[StrangeSox]

Well then at best the statute is nonsensical, right? If deadly force is necessitated by the situation, then there's already no duty to retreat.

[iamshack]

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

 

You guys are refusing to consider any scenario that wouldn't immediately preclude an ability to completely safely retreat.

Ok, fair enough...I wasn't clear exactly what the legal definition of brandishing was.

 

You are correct in that that instance they are performing an illegal act.

 

However, I guess my point was that if someone shoots that person, minus some situation where you live in some super rural area and there are very few ways to get help, the odds that you are someone that doesn't do illegal acts all the time are pretty low....that situation just really isn't going to occur anywhere near the amount of times where a woman is getting raped and wants to be able to kill her attacker in order to stop the illegal act.

[StrangeSox]

If someone is threatening you with a knife from 100 feet away, odds are you wouldn't see them doing it...unless they narrated their actions from afar.

 

The only way you could be threatened by a knife is in pretty close proximity...and in such a case...retreat would probably be your best option. But that's not what we're talking about in MOST situations like this. Most of the time, the assailants are within hand to hand range...the scenarios you are laying out are unlikely at best, or all involve weapons such as guns where your odds of survival are already almost zero unless the assailant ALLOWS you to live (such as in a car jacking scenario).

 

And those would still be defensible under "duty to retreat."

[StrangeSox]

Ok, fair enough...I wasn't clear exactly what the legal definition of brandishing was.

 

You are correct in that that instance they are performing an illegal act.

 

However, I guess my point was that if someone shoots that person, minus some situation where you live in some super rural area and there are very few ways to get help, the odds that you are someone that doesn't do illegal acts all the time are pretty low....that situation just really isn't going to occur anywhere near the amount of times where a woman is getting raped and wants to be able to kill her attacker in order to stop the illegal act.

 

And I'm totally cool with that woman doing that.

 

It seems like you guys think I'm arguing against the concept of a justifiable homicide in self defense. I'm not.

[Y2HH]

And those would still be defensible under "duty to retreat."

 

I don't see how.

[iamshack]

And I'm totally cool with that woman doing that.

 

It seems like you guys think I'm arguing against the concept of a justifiable homicide in self defense. I'm not.

I, for one, have enjoyed the debate.

 

I just have a hard time believing there is that much downside to codifying that there is no longer a duty to retreat when faced with someone committing a forcible felony against you.

[StrangeSox]

I don't see how.

 

If you're in a hand-to-hand situation, you can't know that you can completely safely retreat from your assailant. Turning and fleeing can still result in harm to you or others.

[Y2HH]

I, for one, have enjoyed the debate.

 

I just have a hard time believing there is that much downside to codifying that there is no longer a duty to retreat when faced with someone committing a forcible felony against you.

 

I agree with this. Can it be abused? Possibly...but not nearly as much as criminals abusing law abiding citizens knowing they have the advantage of getting to ignore the rules.

[StrangeSox]

Thought some might find this humorous:

 

dumb gun toting red necks usually aren't lawyers

Yeah. So, the odds of any of them reading the statute no matter what it says is pretty slim.

yeah, but the odds of them knowing about the law and completely missapplying it are not pretty slim, which is why it is no suprise that the number of jusitifiable homicides has tripled. that is a huge part of what makes a bad law a bad law, and this is a perfect example.

I am sure that attorneys had something to do with the increase in number of justifiable homicide. I doubt it was all a bunch of pro se rednecks pleading that defense.

[Y2HH]

If you're in a hand-to-hand situation, you can't know that you can completely safely retreat from your assailant. Turning and fleeing can still result in harm to you or others.

 

Maybe we have crossed signals here, because that's what I mean. These are the usual scenarios in these situations, close quarters, etc...the situations you're speaking of are almost unheard of...if a dude has an axe 100 feet away from me and audibly threatening me, of course I'll get the hell out of there...but that would be like winning the f***ing lottery of bad situations. More often than not, the situation will be nothing like that. As a matter of fact, of all the confrontations I've ever been in, they were nothing like any you posed where retreat was even an option. So, that's great, maybe we should concentrate on the 0.00001% of the real world situations where retreat is viable instead of the 99.9% where they aren't.

[Soxbadger]

Because there is absolutely no reason to codify it.

 

Self defense is self defense is self defense. The law has consistently recognized that if you have a fear for your life, you may use lethal/deadly force if it is reasonable.

 

Why do we need to codify anything more than that?

 

Ultimately reasonableness is a question of fact, which should be left to the jury.

 

You guys keep bringing up fact situations, the answer should always be: "Depending on the facts it may or may not be justified."

 

For example, the axe thrower situation. In most situations you would believe that a reasonable person would not shoot a person who was 1,000 yards away who was threatening them with an axe. But what if there was evidence that the previous day the axe wielder hit the mans house from 2,000 yards. Wouldnt that now change what reasonable is?

 

That is the problem with the law, that it somehow takes a question of fact from the jury and puts it in the police's hand. The police should be able to arrest the person the same way theyd arrest anyone else. Depending on the state, the burden may then shift to the Defendant to prove that it was actually justified. But in no way does it make sense for the police to have to make this decision.

[StrangeSox]

Maybe we have crossed signals here, because that's what I mean. These are the usual scenarios in these situations, close quarters, etc...the situations you're speaking of are almost unheard of...if a dude has an axe 100 feet away from me and audibly threatening me, of course I'll get the hell out of there...but that would be like winning the f***ing lottery of bad situations. More often than not, the situation will be nothing like that. As a matter of fact, of all the confrontations I've ever been in, they were nothing like any you posed where retreat was even an option. So, that's great, maybe we should concentrate on the 0.00001% of the real world situations where retreat is viable instead of the 99.9% where they aren't.

 

But that would mean there's nothing wrong with "duty to retreat" and that SYG is unnecessary.

 

I'm trying to google cases where self-defense claims were denied on "duty to retreat" grounds but I'm not having luck.

 

 

[Y2HH]

Because there is absolutely no reason to codify it.

 

Self defense is self defense is self defense. The law has consistently recognized that if you have a fear for your life, you may use lethal/deadly force if it is reasonable.

 

Why do we need to codify anything more than that?

 

Ultimately reasonableness is a question of fact, which should be left to the jury.

 

You guys keep bringing up fact situations, the answer should always be: "Depending on the facts it may or may not be justified."

 

For example, the axe thrower situation. In most situations you would believe that a reasonable person would not shoot a person who was 1,000 yards away who was threatening them with an axe. But what if there was evidence that the previous day the axe wielder hit the mans house from 2,000 yards. Wouldnt that now change what reasonable is?

 

That is the problem with the law, that it somehow takes a question of fact from the jury and puts it in the police's hand. The police should be able to arrest the person the same way theyd arrest anyone else. Depending on the state, the burden may then shift to the Defendant to prove that it was actually justified. But in no way does it make sense for the police to have to make this decision.

 

So your argument is that it since it's "implied law", it shouldn't need to be codified?

 

How about our judges and juries do their damned jobs and prevent slick lawyers/ambulance chasers from abusing laws as written, or rewrite them to close off any unforeseen loopholes to prevent further abuses? I mean, we wouldn't want do to that or anything.

[StrangeSox]

For example, the axe thrower situation. In most situations you would believe that a reasonable person would not shoot a person who was 1,000 yards away who was threatening them with an axe. But what if there was evidence that the previous day the axe wielder hit the mans house from 2,000 yards. Wouldnt that now change what reasonable is?

 

That is the problem with the law, that it somehow takes a question of fact from the jury and puts it in the police's hand. The police should be able to arrest the person the same way theyd arrest anyone else. Depending on the state, the burden may then shift to the Defendant to prove that it was actually justified. But in no way does it make sense for the police to have to make this decision.

 

damnit, well change it to a heavy, bludgeoning object instead of an ax that could be thrown.

 

It's just a hypothetical to illustrate a scenario where "duty to retreat" isn't some unreasonable burden.

 

[Y2HH]

damnit, well change it to a heavy, bludgeoning object instead of an ax that could be thrown.

 

It's just a hypothetical to illustrate a scenario where "duty to retreat" isn't some unreasonable burden.

 

So how do you prove it was or wasn't your duty to retreat sans video evidence?

[Soxbadger]

No my argument is that in my opinion case law is superior to statutory law.

 

Why?

 

Case law is derived from judges making rulings based on precedent. Statutory law is based on politicians passing laws.

 

How about our judges and juries do their damned jobs and prevent slick lawyers/ambulance chasers from abusing laws as written, or rewrite them to close off any unforeseen loopholes to prevent further abuses? I mean, we wouldn't want do to that or anything.

 

This makes no sense with your first point. The case of Treyvon Martin cant go to a judge or jury because the codification of the law made the police believe that they could not arrest Zimmerman.

 

No idea what you are trying to get at here.

[Jenksismyhero]

So your argument is that it since it's "implied law", it shouldn't need to be codified?

 

How about our judges and juries do their damned jobs and prevent slick lawyers/ambulance chasers from abusing laws as written, or rewrite them to close off any unforeseen loopholes to prevent further abuses? I mean, we wouldn't want do to that or anything.

 

I take offense!

[StrangeSox]

So how do you prove it was or wasn't your duty to retreat sans video evidence?

 

In court via testimony and evidence?