Juror#8 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I would be interested to know people's thoughts on the law itself. Hoping not to discuss the Trayvon Martin case too much here so as not to overlap with the other thrread. Just want to know your general impressions of the law and similar such pieces of legislation. Agree? Disagree? I really tried to find some articles that provide a "pro" stance, but couldn't find much, if anything; likely because of all the negative attention around the Trayvon Martin case. A few tidbits though: http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/03/19/anti-gun-advocates-use-teens-death-to-blast-the-nra-says-911-calls-prove-it-wasnt-self-defense/ http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2012/01/iowa-stand-your-ground-legislation-passes-committee!.aspx Interesting article (in opposition): http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/article1220845.ece Anyone have anything substantive about the intent/origins of the law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I haven't really followed the story but it doesn't sound like that law would apply to this situation based on the linked story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Holding someone who is under attack to a "duty to retreat” is as asinine as you can possibly get, but not surprising for our scumbag-loving society. I don't know anything about the case you mentioned other than a short article, but if the guy with the gun chased down the guy without one and shot him, that doesn't sound like a stand your ground case at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I think the biggest problem with the law is that there's no height/weight criteria specified... Seriously, I haven't looked into it, and won't have time soon. But in general, I would think a "Stand Your Ground" law is a decent idea ('cause I sure as hell have no intention of being a victim), but extremely easy to write poorly and in a way that can readily be abused. And somehow, I doubt Florida took the proper care in thinking through the ramifications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted March 20, 2012 Author Share Posted March 20, 2012 Holding someone who is under attack to a "duty to retreat” is as asinine as you can possibly get, but not surprising for our scumbag-loving society. I don't know anything about the case you mentioned other than a short article, but if the guy with the gun chased down the guy without one and shot him, that doesn't sound like a stand your ground case at all. States that have a "duty to retreat" usually only ask that if the "reasonable person" could retreat in such a way that wouldn't cause additional harm to themselves or others, then they should do so before causing aggravated bodily injury to an advancing entity. And most states that have a "duty to retreat" observe a castle doctrine. In effect, you have a "duty to retreat" in every place accept for your home. That is how the laws were in NC and NY (where I'm licensed) 10 years ago and I can't imagine that they changed much in the last decade. Do you not think that that is reasonable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 States that have a "duty to retreat" usually only ask that if the "reasonable person" could retreat in such a way that wouldn't cause additional harm to themselves or others, then they should do so before causing aggravated bodily injury to an advancing entity. And most states that have a "duty to retreat" observe a castle doctrine. In effect, you have a "duty to retreat" in every place accept for your home. That is how the laws were in NC and NY (where I'm licensed) 10 years ago and I can't imagine that they changed much in the last decade. Do you not think that that is reasonable? Depends on the definition of "retreat". Does a "duty to retreat" mean I have to hand over my wallet to a mugger? If so, then...no, that's not reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted March 20, 2012 Author Share Posted March 20, 2012 I think the biggest problem with the law is that there's no height/weight criteria specified... Seriously, I haven't looked into it, and won't have time soon. But in general, I would think a "Stand Your Ground" law is a decent idea ('cause I sure as hell have no intention of being a victim), but extremely easy to write poorly and in a way that can readily be abused. And somehow, I doubt Florida took the proper care in thinking through the ramifications. Agreed on the carelessly written part. The problem that seems to be coming out of Florida is that the law seems to be exercised VERY liberally because of very opened-ended language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 States that have a "duty to retreat" usually only ask that if the "reasonable person" could retreat in such a way that wouldn't cause additional harm to themselves or others, then they should do so before causing aggravated bodily injury to an advancing entity. And most states that have a "duty to retreat" observe a castle doctrine. In effect, you have a "duty to retreat" in every place accept for your home. That is how the laws were in NC and NY (where I'm licensed) 10 years ago and I can't imagine that they changed much in the last decade. Do you not think that that is reasonable? Nope. I'm innocent and minding my own business and you attack me for no reason other than you are a scumbag, than I should have every right to do everything in my power to stop you. Who's to judge what's "reasonable" for me in the split second I have to decide if my life is in peril or not, some arrogant government bureaucrat trying to make a name for himself? They tried Bernie Goetz for attempted murder, did they not? Sorry, I just have a very over-developed sense of justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted March 20, 2012 Author Share Posted March 20, 2012 Depends on the definition of "retreat". Does a "duty to retreat" mean I have to hand over my wallet to a mugger? If so, then...no, that's not reasonable. My memory of those circumstances says that in as between chattle and human beings, human beings win out. I remember a case in law school about some 70 year old guy setting up a shot gun trap because intruders kept breaking into his barn. The trap was rigged to shoot whomever opened the door. It turns out that local high school kids were burgling neighboring houses. One such young gentleman fell victim to this elderly gentleman's shot gun trap. He was convicted of manslaughter and went to jail for the rest of his life. Prosecutors tried to get him on a M1 arguing that it was premeditated but the jury wouldn't go for it. Analogizing those circumstances, and in cases where there is a duty to retreat and you refuse to protect your wallet, I'd think that you'd lose. Not that it's right though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 My memory of those circumstances says that in as between chattle and human beings, human beings win out. I remember a case in law school about some 70 year old guy setting up a shot gun trap because intruders kept breaking into his barn. The trap was rigged to shoot whomever opened the door. It turns out that local high school kids were burgling neighboring houses. One such young gentleman fell victim to this elderly gentleman's shot gun trap. He was convicted of manslaughter and went to jail for the rest of his life. Prosecutors tried to get him on a M1 arguing that it was premeditated but the jury wouldn't go for it. Analogizing those circumstances, and in cases where there is a duty to retreat and you refuse to protect your wallet, I'd think that you'd lose. Not that it's right though. My counter-argument is that taking my property from my person by coercion does not apply to any consideration of person vs. property, as it is a direct violation of my person. My further (weaker) counter-argument is that Castle Laws implicitly extend to the person and property on them at the time. But I understand your point, and that you're arguing precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Holding someone who is under attack to a "duty to retreat” is as asinine as you can possibly get, but not surprising for our scumbag-loving society. I don't know anything about the case you mentioned other than a short article, but if the guy with the gun chased down the guy without one and shot him, that doesn't sound like a stand your ground case at all. You can't safely retreat from a gun (well you mortals who can't run at 2000+ feet per second anyhow). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted March 20, 2012 Author Share Posted March 20, 2012 Nope. I'm innocent and minding my own business and you attack me for no reason other than you are a scumbag, than I should have every right to do everything in my power to stop you. Who's to judge what's "reasonable" for me in the split second I have to decide if my life is in peril or not, some arrogant government bureaucrat trying to make a name for himself? They tried Bernie Goetz for attempted murder, did they not? Sorry, I just have a very over-developed sense of justice. Agree 100%. But funny enough, in the law, there is "the reasonable person who only has a split second to make a decision" standard. Just like there is the "reasonable diabetic" and "the "reasonable microbiophobic," etc. You can't safely retreat from a gun (well you mortals who can't run at 2000+ feet per second anyhow). There is no duty to retreat, in any jurisdiction, from someone who has a firearm. My counter-argument is that taking my property from my person by coercion does not apply to any consideration of person vs. property, as it is a direct violation of my person. My further (weaker) counter-argument is that Castle Laws implicitly extend to the person and property on them at the time. But I understand your point, and that you're arguing precedent. A very good legal argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Wouldn't this just be considered the right to defend oneself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Do you not think that that is reasonable? I don't. I don't think victims should be forced to be victims. The "duty to retreat" empowers CRIMINALS because they don't have to face consequences of action immediately, which emboldens them. That's not necessarily in an overt manner, either. I think the situation in Florida is very unfortunate but the right to protect oneself from CRIMINALS is as fundamental as any other right a free society can afford it's citizens. Lawyers and Lawyers in $23 robes have ruined any chance of the average guy ever getting a fair shake when the "system" is involved. Congrats? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted March 21, 2012 Author Share Posted March 21, 2012 I don't. I don't think victims should be forced to be victims. The "duty to retreat" empowers CRIMINALS because they don't have to face consequences of action immediately, which emboldens them. That's not necessarily in an overt manner, either. I think the situation in Florida is very unfortunate but the right to protect oneself from CRIMINALS is as fundamental as any other right a free society can afford it's citizens. Lawyers and Lawyers in $23 robes have ruined any chance of the average guy ever getting a fair shake when the "system" is involved. Congrats? In the spirit of full disclosure, I agree with the reasoning behind the Stand Your Ground Law. But ... there is a grey area around this idea of objective reasonableness. The law exists to punish people who act so impulsively and so selfishly that it offends traditional notions of justice and fair play. There has to be an level of objectivity to the reasonabless consideration. If the standard becomes subjective resaonabless, then every little indiosyncratic thing becomes dispositive. Would the reasonable person with an anxiety disorder feel that they were being threatened? Would the reasonable narcoleptic feel that they were being threatened in the instance when they were worried but not entirely sure so they shot before falling asleep and guessing wrong? There has to be an objective standard. I'm concerned that Florida's law doesn't appear to observe an objective standard of reasonableness. It's all about the subjective standard. Basically they ask: "Is it reasonable to believe that ______ could feel threatened with potential bodily injury given the circumstances thus necessitating the defensive action?" That is waaaay to open-ended and subjective. What you're left with is people who shoot first and think after who are anxious, tense, on-edge, sleep deprived, biased, instigators, etc but who will get off because they, subjectively and in that individualized context, felt threatened. I'm not sure how that protects the citizenry. It should provide immunity when and only when the reasonable person would feel that the level of force was necessary to repel what would otherwise be the commission of a felony against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 I'm not sure how that protects the citizenry. Since law enforcement is has no legal obligation to protect the citizenry, I see that as a moot point. What we seem to be discussing is very isolated issues that no amount of wrangling or legislation will ever prevent. It's time for the legal community, politicians, and citizens to understand that the justice system will never be without cracks. That's not to say that things can't be improved upon but I'd rather have the current error rate with regard to "stand your ground" than the overt violence that plagues too many communities in this country. We're never going to be Malaysia and we shouldn't strive to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts