Are the various 'Stand Your Ground Law' a license to murder?
bob
2012/03/22 16:26:06
|
|
|||||
|
12 votes
|
|
29% | ||
|
11 votes
|
|
27% | ||
|
0 votes
|
|
0% | ||
|
2 votes
|
|
5% | ||
|
3 votes
|
|
7% | ||
|
4 votes
|
|
10% | ||
|
0 votes
|
|
0% | ||
|
9 votes
|
|
22% | ||
Top Opinion
-
tomcat IFBTSD 2012/03/22 16:59:34None of the above
+4If someone breaks into my home, a single female, and I can get to my pistol (which I can), they will leave in a hearse.
He cannot be arrested until the investigation proves that he did not have "Probable Cause" for the shooting. Which I would expect to be the case withthe 911 recording that is shown.
In some states that do not have that law, if you were to shoot a Home Invader, or any intruder on your property, you would be immediately arrested, and spend time in Jail until it was resolved. And if he were to get off your property, you could be indited for Manslaughter, or be sued by his estate.
None of these laws allow you to simply say i was scared so I shot him.
What they do, is recognize that a person is Justified to use deadly force when they have a reasonable belief that their life is in immediate danger.
They also acknowledge that a person willing to break into an occupied home is considered a threat to the people inside.
The Florida Statute Chapter 776 which is considered the Stand Your Ground Law has little to do with this case at all.
In fact statute 776.041 states that the Aggressor is specifically not protected by Stand Your Ground.
"776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In ...
None of these laws allow you to simply say i was scared so I shot him.
What they do, is recognize that a person is Justified to use deadly force when they have a reasonable belief that their life is in immediate danger.
They also acknowledge that a person willing to break into an occupied home is considered a threat to the people inside.
The Florida Statute Chapter 776 which is considered the Stand Your Ground Law has little to do with this case at all.
In fact statute 776.041 states that the Aggressor is specifically not protected by Stand Your Ground.
"776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force."
But they do give you the right to remain out of jail until there is Probable Cause that it was not a valid defense.
Personally I think they should have to have probable cause that you did something illegal before they can arrest you, but maybe you feel different.
They are going to find probable cause and the guy is going to jail. I'm sure of that. But it wil;l be done legally, and have a good chance of nailing him for at least Manslaughter.
The stand your ground law does not offer protections to the aggressor.
If you would ever read the law you would know this.
Texas has the castle law and it's citizens use it.
What Bob said was he's too ignorant to actually look up the law he and every liberal idiot in the media is demonizing.
Florida Statute 776.012 basically states that you are legally justified to use deadly force against an attacker, without first attempting to retreat if, you reasonably believe you are in danger of imminent death or great bodily harm.
So for this kid's death to be covered under this law, the shooter had to have been in a situation where it is reasonable believe he was in immediate danger.
Unless there's something we haven't heard about, for example the kid had a baseball bat or knife and attacked the shooter, then I don't see where there is a reasonable danger in this case.
But of course that doesn't matter to the anti-gun media. They use any excuse to drum up support to get rid of a pro gun law, even if the excuse is completely invalid.
At this point however I think the law is working perfectly.
If this was a White Kid, there would be no problem. It would have been lucky to appear on page 20 or the Orlando Newspaper.
We have one of our local Lib stationsthat puts on the news every gunshot that happens in the city. Very anti Gun. Whats funny is that most of it seems to be Black on Black Gang violence. Or black/Hios[anic robberies gone bad, etc.
And they as well show ever ppossible anti NRA program possible.
Zimmerman claims he was hit from behind as he walked back to his car.
He had a busted nose and some type of cut on the back of his head.
There's one witness claiming they say Trayvon on top punching Zimmerman who lay on his back.
It's been accepted in self defense cases that being in danger of getting knocked out in a fight while in possession of a gun is considered an immediate threat and justifies shooting.
But by Florida law the instigator of a conflict forfeits most of the protections in the stand your ground law.
The only thing this law does is state you don't have to try to run away before fighting back when you are attacked.
If you use deadly force to defend yourself, you have to be in immediate danger of death or serious injury, or truly believe you are in such danger. (Doesn't matter that it was a toy, if you think the gun is real you can defend yourself as if it was.)
"The only thing this law does is state you don't have to try to run away before fighting back when you are attacked." I don't need a law to tell me this.
The duty to retreat wasn't in any law. But certain judges decided years ago that you needed to try to retreat before you used force.
Without Stand Your Ground on the books, you are legally required to retreat.
Moral rights and wrongs mean nothing to the law.
The law requires you to be in reasonable fear of death or serious injuries. So most people if placed in the same situation would have to be in fear of the same.
If that's not the case then you aren't protected under this law.
Someone standing near you unarmed doesn't even come close to qualifying.
ALL determinations of applicability of the current "stand your ground laws" are based upon the SURVIVORS statement.
One dead teen with no voice vs a live shooter with a story with no eye witnesses. If there is no witnesses and no recording of the incident then the shooter is off free and clear.
All he has to do is say "He came at me and I feared for my life"
These laws are WRONG.
Tell people that lost there entire life savings and spent months in prison before being acquitted how wrong these laws are.
The way the laws were before these laws were passed is just as wrong.
The Florida Statute specifically DOES NOT protect the aggressor. So does Virginia Common Law, and every stand your ground law I've read.
Again the flaw in your statement is very obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of our Criminal Justice System.
"He came at me and I feared for my life."
May keep you out of handcuffs right then, but you will still be required to explain the entire situation under oath. You will have to be able to explain exactly why you were in fear of immediate death or major injury.
Against an unarmed person that's going to be extremely difficult to explain.
Even basic forensics can go a long way in verifying your story.
If you woke up at night and found a home invasion taking place, would you defend yourself, or just hide? You cvlaim to own a large farm etc. So your are not going to protect it in the case of someone trespassing wit hte intent to steal or harm you or yours.
I guess my question to you Mr Farmer would be, do you have wweapons on your property, and would you sue them to protect your family, your life, or your property?
And if you did, Would it be right to put you in jail immediately, until you could prove your innocense in court. Which is what got this law passed in the first place. A guy spent months in the system in a case where he was justified in the use of force to protect himself.
If it is proven that there was no Probable cause, and the 911 tape released say that there may not have been, he will be indited at least for Manslaughter. But till the investigation is done, he has the right under the law to remain free.
So far I have been in positions like the ones you describe three times. Twice I held them at gunpoint until the sheriff got there, the third the party rushed me and I knocked him cold with the butt of my rifle instead of shooting him.
NONE of the three times did I need to use deadly force but could have. Returning to the case at hand, Zimmerman was on the hunt, driven, by his own inner prejudices and was set to do what he felt was necessary. That predisposed him to his actions and makes the charge of premeditated murder an easy one to charge but prove also. After listening to the tape several times, I can only hope he likes a 6x10 cell for the rest of his natural life, cause that is where he is going to end up.
This turkey used this excuse as a license to kill will be surprised when the grand jury gets thru with him. Hope he has a lawyer already and I am sure his uniform is ready. If not the needle.