Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  You are ignoring the entire "reasonable person"... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oldpunk, hagagaga

    restriction that you even mention in the same sentence.

    Stop the hyperbole and silliness.  Just stop.

    •  The threat is real. (0+ / 0-)

      You have a reasonable cause to fear for your life if that old fucker gets within stabbin' range.  There's nothing in the statute taht mentions a reasonable person -- it only lays out when a person is legally assumed to 'have held a reasonable fear of immanent peril.'

      "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."

      If you don't retreat -- which you are SPECIFICALLY NOT OBLIGATED TO DO BY STATUTE, and you've got that wheelchair-propelled stabbin' machine coming at you, you can shoot him.  He wants to stab you, and you don't have to move, and if you don't move, he'll stab you.  That's it.

      I suggest that you re-read the statute.

      •  The statute is as you quoted. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hagagaga, KVoimakas, PavePusher
        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.
        No sane person could possibly reasonably believe that "a geriatric old fart in a wheelchair...wheeling towards you at 2 mph brandishing a knife" is a forcible felony or something that could result in death or great bodily harm to themselves.

        Stand your ground laws say that if the above block quoted conditions are met then there is no obligation to retreat. No Stand Your Ground law gives permission to use deadly force when it’s not warranted. Stand your ground laws are not a license to pursue and kill which is what it looks like Zimmerman did. Tryvon was not engaging in a forcible felony nor was Zimmerman facing death or great bodily harm prior to him initiating contact. Zimmerman picked a fight, Trayvons screams for help are evidence enough for me to say he wasn't the aggressor. i believe that Zimmerman will be prosecuted and will probably be found guilty of manslaughter unless intent to murder can be proven.

        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 10:18:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm sorry, but you're wrong. (0+ / 0-)

          You're reading things into the statute that simply aren't there, or you do not understand

          Someone is going to stab you if they can get to you.

          You have no legal obligation to flee -- you can stand your ground, thus allowing the person to reach you.

          Now -- because you did not retreat -- the guy in the wheelchair -will- engage you.  He's got a knife, and even a geriatric old fart can kill you or inflict grievous bodily harm if he gets in a good stab.  Therefore, because you've got a knife-wielding maniac closing on you, and you are not attempting to move away, you can reasonably believe that you're going to wind up with a knife stuck in you.

          Therefore, under this statute, you can shoot them dead.

          Remember, the law explicitly removes any obligation for you to remove yourself from the area or attempt to otherwise avoid the confrontation.  In fact, it expressly permits it.  The only way to avoid the attack is to move off.  Therefore, you will be attacked with a deadly weapon -- and therefore, it's 'reasonable' to fear for your life in this situation -- particularly since competency in self-defense against an armed person cannot be assumed, legally.

          Please, point out the flaw in my argument, without bringing up anything about the Trayvon case, which is immaterial to this particular discussion.

          These 'stand your ground' laws are utter shit.  They allow people to escalate engagements to lethal levels with no legal repercussions.  They're also wholly unnecessary, except to satisfy a rather Wild West version of 'justice', which is generally incompatible with actual justice.  All they do is make it easier to legally kill people when it could have been avoided.

          •  Don't be sorry for your opinion of my position (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            hagagaga, KVoimakas, PavePusher

            as being wrong. All you seem to offer is hyperbole to serve as the rule instead of the exception that it might be. Your fantastical scenario of a wheelchair bound knife wielding geriatric assailant is so far beyond reality and the risk it could pose is so low that it can't really be considered as possible, let alone probable.

            ...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.
            It is not reasonable to believe that a wheelchair bound knife wielding geriatric assailant can cause me death or great bodily harm, let alone commit a forcible felony. Therefore I don't believe that deadly force would be justified nor do I believe that stand your ground laws would  protect someone who did use deadly force in such a situation.

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

            by oldpunk on Wed Mar 21, 2012 at 01:09:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  In a "Last Ditch" state -- a Jury decides at trial (0+ / 0-)

              if a crazed geriatric in a wheelchair constituted a sufficient threat as to justify the use of deadly force ...  

              If you were on the jury you'd have the option of voting to convict, if the defendant did not convince you that the threat was not sufficient to justify the use of deadly force.

              But, in a Stand Your Ground State, police and prosecutors decide those issues on the spot ... and they do not have to consider the nature of the threat -- only the state of mind of the suspect.   It is  great savings of time and paperwork in those pesky  "Public Service Homicides."

               

              •  Then the police and prosecutors are the problem. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KVoimakas

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

                by oldpunk on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 09:02:51 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  In THIS case ... "well, yeah!" (0+ / 0-)

                  And it looks like Sandford Police Chief  Bill Lee will probably be thrown to the Media over it.  And in return the Media will not make a big deal over the fact that the Sandford PD has some institutional history of racial brutality, itself.

                  But it was neither the Police  nor the Prosecutors'  that crafted, promoted and passed this law.

                  Seven years ago this was a VERY POPULAR law with licensed handgun owners  ... and no sooner did Florida enact it but 21 copycat state legislatures passed THEIR versions.

                  There were cooler heads who argued that Stand Your Ground WOULD have some undesired (but not unexpected) consequences.  They were shouted down as Left Liberal Girlie-Men and Anti-Liberty Gun Haters.

                  So yeah.  This time the police/prosecutor establishment was customarily blatant about siding with the white vigilante over the black teenager ...

                  But isn't the option to do that when called for what everyone loved about the law in the first place ?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site