StrangeSox

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.

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.