Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 01:13 PM) 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? 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 01:06 PM) It's not an obscure rule, it's the law in many states. 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 12:45 PM) 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. I was citing to that case just because it was the first one I saw. In it the IL Supreme Court set forth the established position of the state - that a duty to retreat doesn't exist, and hasn't maybe ever (at least 1949, probably much earlier). The duty to retreat is a minority position in the states.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 12:34 PM) This poor kid was able to be screwed by stupid officials because of a terrible law. Sigh...

From an Illinois Supreme Court case in 1949: People v. Smith, 404 Ill. 350, 354, 88 N.E.2d 834, 836 (1949)

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 12:20 PM) 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. 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. This law simply codified it, and yeah, I suppose, to a certain degree it allowed you to justify a killing even in situations where you might have been able to leave. But that's not a bad thing. Why are we protecting morons that pick fights and/or people who are intentionally trying to hurt/kill you? Maybe criminals wouldn't feel so bold about going after people if they knew there was a legit chance that the person they're attempting to hurt has a gun and can shoot them. 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.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 12:02 PM) Jenks, The concern about not arresting immediately would be flight. Lets say I murder someone, get picked up quick. I tell the police it was self defense, they let me go, I flee the country. I just dont see why the DA shouldnt be the one to make the call about a question of law. And if anyone cares, here is the police report: http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/20...policreport.pdf It just doesnt make sense to not charge him, people have been charged with murder with much better defense stories. He could be arrested, bond out and still have the flight risk. I think we can all agree the cops and local DA's office screwed the pooch here. I don't think this is a great example for the broader fight against unlawful killings SS wants to make it into.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 11:57 AM) It proves my point that it's a terrible law that results in dumb, nonsense outcomes. 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.

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... probably. Illinois' law breaks it out into two situations - one generally, and one specifically when defending your "dwelling"

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 11:48 AM) http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials...icle1220845.ece 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.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 11:42 AM) Jenks, Its this portion that I dont think youll find in IL law: Its not about stand your ground laws, those are questions of fact, just like every other case. Its about a specific law that stated the police, may not arrest someone unless there is probable cause the force was unlawful. To me that is backwards. The law should be that you get arrested and if there is evidence that it was justifiable, then the DA in their discretion may decide not to bring the charges. Otherwise justifiable defense would be evidence for the jury. Just poor logic. That's the standard in ever criminal action. Obviously the police can't be involved if there's not probable cause that the offender did something in violation of the statute. I don't really see how arresting someone right away is going to prevent them from investigating the case enough to then get probable cause that the force wasn't lawful. As soon as they talked to the chick on the phone they had their probable cause to arrest him for questioning.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 11:42 AM) 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. Please point out where this is limited to your home.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 11:39 AM) 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. Is that really a surprise that people would try and use that defense if they could? And btw, it doesn't say whether or not it was successful.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 11:34 AM) That's not how I read this: (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. You can use deadly force if it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. One problem is a bad law, but there are many. The "stand your ground" justifiable killings are new and a pretty clear expansion from the standard "castle doctrine" again completely ignoring the part that it's the shooters burden to show that he reasonably believed it. Given what's come about in this case (as summarized by Rex) he'll have a hard time doing that here.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 11:36 AM) Illinois has a standard "castle doctrine" type law, which is different from Florida's "stand your ground" law. 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.

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.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 11:09 AM) "and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual." That's just weird. I feel every other jurisdiction says deadly force may be used in self-defense ONLY if deadly force is being used against the victim. This opens it up way more. Normally deadly force is never acceptable until it's a self defense thing. I know for sure it's never acceptable for defense of property. Every state has a common law "self defense" defense. Florida (and other states) have decided to codify it. This idea that "justifiable killings" is somehow new is just wrong.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 11:05 AM) I was pointing out that you don't need to be threatened with a gun in order to justifiably use a gun. You are allowed to escalate force levels if you perceive that you are threatened. Yeah, we're anal about bad laws the lead to terrible results, like a black kid getting murdered because he was wearing a hoodie and the murderer not even being arrested. I tend to seek out legal blogs that are populated with lawyers and not mainstream/general political blogs for issues like these. If my reading of these two statutes are correct, you're legally allowed to meet any use of force at all in the commission of a felony with deadly force. FWIW I was saying that I, personally, was unaware of what a 'forcible felony' is. It is defined here: http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/776.08 IF it's reasonable and necessary to prevent serious harm or death. It's a defense not unlike changing a 1st degree murder (pre-meditated) to a lesser murder charge like involuntary manslaughter. 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.

yeah, i suppose that's true. just seems like given all the kills this would have been a good R movie.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 09:12 AM) No, that's not the point. You don't have to meet with equal force. You can also shoot to kill if they are committing a "forcible felony," which I'm not sure if its clearly defined what that means. Well sorry, i'm not going to chance my life if I feel that threatened based on whether SS agrees with me that I don't need to meet with equal force in a particular situation. And i'm sure forcible felony has been defined somewhere in Florida law. You guys are just too anal about this stuff. There's the blogosphere/internet headline reading version of reality, and there's reality. Is this the most articulately drafted piece of legislation in history? No, but that's the nature of the law.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 08:19 AM) Nobody saw THE HUNGER GAMES midnight showing? Movie is poised to break every box office record, with only the final Harry Potter and Twilight franchise standing in its way. I have to confess I had never even heard of this "phenomenon" until a couple of weeks ago, since I'm out of the country, so I read the first two books in the trilogy over the last couple of days and now I sort of understand a LITTLE of the appeal, but maybe not $125-130 million worth. Then again, I was also foolish enough to try to sit through JOHN CARTER, thinking how bad could it be, and it was pretty darned awful, especially some of the fight sequences on Mars/Barsoon and the whole jumping thing got old so quickly, feeling like it was the lamest superpower ever. Shouldn't anyone on Mars be able to jump in a similar fashion? I read the first book and i'm half way through the second and I agree, i'm not sure what the appeal is. They're fun reads and entertaining, but they remind me of those condensed stories you'd read in high school literature courses. Not sure how a movie, especially a pg-13 rated movie, has that much appeal.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 09:01 AM) Anybody else incredibly bored by this year's tourney? The Duke/Missouri upsets were fun (for some of us), but with no buzzer beaters, no great individual performances, it feels like this tourney has been pretty blah so far. Agreed. Most games have been decided pretty early. And I don't think there's been a single buzzer beater or near buzzer beater.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 06:59 AM) To the best of my knowledge, no, they have not enacted policies similar to Walker's Wisconsin. The numbers aren't being fudged. The conservative mantra is that cutting government will "free" private businesses and results in economic growth and more employment for everyone. It doesn't. Walker promised growth and instead there's been losses. This supports the argument that simply dismantling government doesn't reduce unemployment or create net positive effects. Yet. It's been a year and a half. A year and a half into all the bailouts and stimulus, was everything all hunky dory?

QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 07:23 AM) Here is an interesting thought, what would the law be if Martin was armed also and during the fight Zimmerman was killed? I would hope the same non arrest. That would mean in this situation, where both seem to fear the other, that there could be a shootout in the streets with neither person charged. Amazing. That's the point of the statute - if someone comes at you with a gun, you should have every right to protect yourself if you reasonably believe its necessary to prevent serious harm or death. BTW I read this morning that the county prosecutor has recused him/herself and now a state prosecutor is looking into it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 22, 2012 -> 11:53 PM) But the law itself says you can't arrest unless you're absolutely certain you can prove your case. The law is pretty clear that arrest is only appropriate in extreme circumstances. What law says that? I find that incredibly hard to believe.