Skip to main content

View Diary: Is the "Stand Your Ground Law" a license to kill? (92 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Quite sure. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Your comment verbatim.

    It's a statutory mismatch... (5+ / 0-)
    I think most Americans would agree that you have a right to self-defense, and that includes the right to use force to meet force. It can even mean the right to use deadly force if you're faced with deadly force. However, it should not mean that you have the right to use deadly force to avoid bodily injury... Deadly force in self-defense should not be self-defense if the threat is not itself deadly force.

    As for the duty to retreat -- that is also problematic for many Americans, but limiting that to situations where you're defending your home or property is reasonable. To provide that someone who has sought ought and provoked a confrontation, even chasing someone down to confront them has no duty to retreat to de-escalate a confrontation they have initiated? That's an absurd result.

    Whereas this,
    "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"
    Does not appear in the comment I was addressing.

    Any power that government amasses will not be relinquished and any right we give up we give up forever.

    by oldpunk on Tue Mar 20, 2012 at 03:37:39 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  There's a reason for that (0+ / 0-)

      My whole point us the statute is effed up.

      When I asked "are you sure", I was referring to this statement of yours:

      "If this is born out by facts then Florida's stand your ground law will not afford him any protection, nor should it. Prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law."

      It's great that DoJ is now looking into this, but local authorities were giving Zimmerman a pass when I made my comment. So, my question referred to whether you were sure that the "law will not afford him any protection..."

      Even if he were prosecuted understate law, are you sure that the law would not protect him? The law flips the burden of proof. Instead of offering self-defense as an affirmative defense which a defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence, the law effectively puts the burden on the prosecution to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that he was "Not engaged in unlawful activity" and to prove that he was the one "attacked." Since no one actually saw the incident, that's a tough burden of proof.

      The DOJ will charge him with violations of federal law for which the Florida law would be no defense.

      Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you:

      by FischFry on Wed Mar 21, 2012 at 08:01:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site