StrangeSox

Bruce Bartlett examines the numbers on Paul Ryan's budget: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012...lity.aspx#page1

This wouldn't apply to this situation because Zimmerman was licensed for concealed carry and that would presumably include education on the relevant laws and statutes or at least easily could.

Because anyone could claim "but judge, I didn't know!"? I can't imagine a functional legal system where ignorance is a legit defense.

Right but that's still not a defense against breaking the law.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, good sir.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 02:20 PM) Geraldo is trying to play the peacekeeper here since neither of them is a white guy. While I shouldn't do this...I will anyway. If one of them was white, Geraldo would be placing 100% of the blame on them instead of doing what he's doing now with the shared blame garbage. Geraldo is playing giant blame-the-victim dummy who is also apparently completely oblivious to how ubiquitous hoodies are in all segments of society.

By the way, Geraldo has doubled-down on his blame-the-victim stance in a follow-up column. http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/.../#ixzz1pxSySChX This is the exact same terrible argument that those sluttly sluts wouldn't have been raped if they didn't dress so slutty.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 02:11 PM) Strangesox, Duty to retreat is messy and just further complicates something that should be pretty easy. If you have a reasonable fear of eminent grave bodily harm or death, you have the right to defend yourself. Why make it more complicated with duty to retreat? If you do not have a reasonable fear, you cant use deadly force. If you do have a reasonable fear, you can use deadly force. Retreating has nothing to do with the scenario because retreating is nothing more than a persons state of mind, and once again goes back to the same question, was it reasonable to defend yourself. If the trier of fact finds it was not reasonable, IE you were coming at me with a paperclip and I shot you, you dont need the duty to retreat to be codified, because simply put, it was unreasonable to kill you in the first place. the way I understand it, and it could be very wrong since I have zero legal training, is that "duty to retreat" gives restrictions under which you have reasonable necessity to use deadly force. If you could have retreated but did not, self-defense isn't justified. With SYG, it is still justified.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 02:05 PM) So how do you prove it was or wasn't your duty to retreat sans video evidence? In court via testimony and evidence?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 02:00 PM) 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.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 01:59 PM) 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.

Thought some might find this humorous:

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 01:49 PM) 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.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 01:48 PM) 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.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 01:47 PM) 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."

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.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 01:43 PM) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080761/ There are about 12 more of them for reference. :notworthy

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 01:41 PM) 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.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 01:40 PM) You honestly need to get out more. Tell me more stories about ax-wielding hockey players going 100 ft/s.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 01:35 PM) 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.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 01:35 PM) 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.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 01:34 PM) 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.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 01:32 PM) 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.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 01:27 PM) 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.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 01:29 PM) 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.