Skip to main content

View Diary: 5 Myths about Stand Your Ground Debunked (79 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  A key point: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    herbanreleaf

    ... who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used...

    Surely an adult man following a minor is provocation? Do you think the Travvon case would have wheels in Texas?

    202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

    by cany on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 05:32:10 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Good Point (11+ / 0-)

      I have heard this point argued before and it has some draw to it. It certainly makes common sense that a person who thinks they are being followed by some creep might want to make a pre-emptive strike. However, looking at how the cases have interpreted the clause that you quote, they all require that the provocation be the use of force or the threat of force. Of course you can try to stretch it and say that following someone is a threat of force. But, that isn't the strict construction of the words that the courts use. A threat of force is more like, "I'm going to kill you" or pointing a gun at you. This is all derived from the "initial aggressor" doctrine and, while it's understandable to want to apply it here, it really doesn't apply in the case where the only proven provocation was following him. Now, if there was solid evidence that Zimmerman grabbed him or made some threat to him, he would be the initial aggressor. Still, under Florida and most states' laws, the "initial aggressor" can resort to deadly force if the other person escalates the fight, but now loses the benefit of Stand Your Ground and must retreat if possible. Which brings us back to whether this was a case where retreat was possible once the alleged attack began. And, according to the only theory presented, retreat was not possible. Hence my strong conviction that this is not a Stand Your Ground case and it is not an Initial Aggressor case.

    •  cany - not under FL law (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theatre goon, PavePusher, erush1345

      The case is Gibbs v State.

      Not sure about Texas. I haven't researched it.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:46:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site