StrangeSox

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 01:24 PM) 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:

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 01:20 PM) 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.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 01:16 PM) 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.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 01:14 PM) 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.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 12:52 PM) 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?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 12:52 PM) 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.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 12:46 PM) 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.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 12:34 PM) 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.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 12:37 PM) 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.

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

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 12:30 PM) 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.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 12:30 PM) 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.

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

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 12:12 PM) 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.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 11:54 AM) 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.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 11:54 AM) 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.

wouldn't something like that typically be paid for by the campaign or covered by the Secret Service?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 11:46 AM) Please point out where this is limited to your home. damnit you are right, I am wrong. edit: but all this means is that Illinois has its own terrible law.

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials...icle1220845.ece

thanks soxbadger, good post.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 11:41 AM) again completely ignoring the part that it's the shooters burden to show that he reasonably believed it. You can reasonably believe that a forcible felony is being committed and not have your life be threatened. You would be 100% justified to kill someone in Florida thanks to this bad law.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 11:40 AM) There's nothing in Illinois law stating you have to leave. It's as much of a stand your ground law as Florida law is. Did you read the statute? The Illinois law justifies force that it likely to be deadly or inflict great harm only if you're in your home. Illinois does not have a retreat requirement, but this is still very, very different from Florida's Stand Your Ground law.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 11:19 AM) The law isn't the issue here, it's the piss poor police investigation/states attorneys office. You guys read this crap like people are just going to get away with blatant murder so long as the person that lives says "oh well i felt threatened." He's going to have to prove that. That's his burden and a jury could very easily not believe him. The assumption is one of justified homicide. In the first five years after this statute came into effect, justifiable homicides in Florida tripled. The Stand Your Ground law was invoked in almost all of those cases.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 11:19 AM) IF it's reasonable and necessary to prevent serious harm or death OR to prevent a forcible felony.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 11:26 AM) Btw, Illinois has pretty much the exact same statute on file, and it's been on the books for 8 years. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4...;SeqEnd=9700000 This has been such a HUGE issue before this recent case. Illinois has a standard "castle doctrine" type law, which is different from Florida's "stand your ground" law.