Florida stand Your ground law?

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 21 - 40 of total 1862 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

Barbarian

Trad climber

New and Bionic too!

Mar 21, 2012 - 03:26pm PT

I'm afraid for my safety with laws like this on the books. What are the implications of that?

Toker Villain

Big Wall climber

Toquerville, Utah

Mar 21, 2012 - 03:34pm PT

Heinlein predicted it. The world gets more and more dangerous.
Being out in public puts you at risk.

Lock yourselves in. Work from home. Order food.

Climb in your dreams...

My prediction;
Zimmerman gets convicted of violating the civil rights of the kid in federal court, then gets taken to the cleaners in civil court but the victim's family never collects half.

Gary

climber

"My god - it's full of stars!"

Mar 21, 2012 - 04:05pm PT

I'm afraid for my safety with laws like this on the books. What are the implications of that?

When "stand your ground" laws are combined with more and more concealed carry laws, the implications are pretty clear.

If somebody gives you a dirty look on the street, you can just cap their ass. You believed they were a threat. They might be carrying, after all.

I once knew a group of NRA and CRPA competition shooters. When they were all sitting around together, the main topic of conversation was hoping somebody would screw with them on the street. They were all drooling to plug somebody. Now these new laws are bringing paradise to their door.

JEleazarian

Trad climber

Fresno CA

Mar 21, 2012 - 04:11pm PT

Thanks, Gary, for the clarification. The broad interpretation of the "fear" defense makes the law's application irrational, if not immoral. It sickens me to think that a Zimmerman can escape prosecution, much less, As El Cap points out, that he's potentially even insulated from civil liability. I wonder if federal Civil Rights legislation applies. That would at least trump the immunity from civil suits.

In contrast, I think someone inside a dwelling or a car has every right to believe he or she is in imminent danger of great bodily harm if someone else is trying to enter forcibly. People entering forcibly should have to overcome a very high burden of proof to show that an occupant used unreasonable force. Frankly, a law like Florida's seems, to me, perfectly justified if confined to forcible entry of occupied dwellings or cars, or walking into your home and finding an intruder. The Zimmerman situation, however, looks like a travesty right out of the worst days of the post-Reconstruction South.

John

Edit: Piton Ron, I see you beat me to it.

Gary

climber

"My god - it's full of stars!"

Mar 21, 2012 - 04:15pm PT

In contrast, I think someone inside a dwelling or a car has every right to believe he or she is in imminent danger of great bodily harm if someone else is trying to enter forcibly.

You betcha. John, your a professional, how do you think this will evolve?

JEleazarian

Trad climber

Fresno CA

Mar 21, 2012 - 04:25pm PT

Gary,

There have been plenty of civil cases in which an intruder has sued the homeowner for excessive force. In most places, there's no presumption or immunity to help the homeowner. The intruder usually loses, but so does the homeowner, because the allegations require an expensive defense, and there is no "loser pays" shifting of attorney's fees.

Contrast that with the booby-trap cases. For example, an owner of a seldom-used cabin rigs a spring gun while he or she is absent. Intruder opens the door and gets shot. The homeowner loses in that situation, because he or she was not at bodily risk.

The real problem with the Florida law is section (3) which, as you point out, basically allows violence whenever and wherever you feel like it. If one Zimmerman-type killed another Zimmerman-type, that would just be Darwinian promotion of natural selection. When, on the other hand, Zimmerman kills a completely innocent victim . . . I don't even need to finish the sentence. The unspeakable injustice is obvious.

John

graniteclimber

Trad climber

The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division

Mar 21, 2012 - 04:50pm PT

The state attorney in Tallahassee, Willie Meggs, was beside himself. "Basically this law has put us in the posture that our citizens can go out into the streets and have a gun fight and the dead person is buried and the survivor of the gun fight is immune from prosecution," he said at the time.

This law favors whoever is the fastest to draw and shoot, so long as is able to shoot to kill. Dead men tell no tales.

This law is good, if are a killer.

StahlBro

Trad climber

San Diego, CA

Mar 21, 2012 - 06:22pm PT

How fast would the guy have gone to jail if he was black and shot a white kid?

There are some freaking ignorant SOB's overseeing the application of our laws in some of these places. His ass should be in jail until he can prove he was in danger. He F-ing killed an unarmed kid on a public street for Buddhas sake!

I lived in Georgia for a while and love the South for the most part, but some of them haven't joined the 21st century yet.

Pretty soon some will bust a cap on you for flipping them off.

They should fence off part of Texas for people that want to believe they still live in the Wild West. They can carry in the open and kill eachother for any percieved insult.

BTW - If someone breaks into my house, they better see me first. I don't have a gun, but I have a pretty sharp samurai sword and won't hesitate to remove the threat or portions there of.

Toker Villain

Big Wall climber

Toquerville, Utah

Mar 21, 2012 - 06:29pm PT

Sean Connery's line in The Untouchables comes to mind when I hear somebody boast of their ability with a hand held edged weapon.

StahlBro

Trad climber

San Diego, CA

Mar 21, 2012 - 06:39pm PT

Yep. Not a boast though. It is all I have ;-)

Haven't heard of too many people getting accidentally killed with sword.

Just a personal choice.

StahlBro

Trad climber

San Diego, CA

Mar 21, 2012 - 06:54pm PT

Fattrad,

I remember. I lived in LA during the peak of the road rage shootings.

I remember a movie with Steve Martin (I think the programable freeway signs were talking to him) where he told the passenger "Cover me, I am going to change lanes".

Gary

climber

"My god - it's full of stars!"

Mar 21, 2012 - 07:11pm PT

There have been numerous cases in So. Calif. of shots fired over getting flipped off on the freeway.

The difference, fattrad, is that in Florida, and the other states that are adapting this, the shooter will get off. A car is a deadly weapon, after all.

The Indiana law is interesting, too. You can plug "public servants" entering your house. The Republicans that passed it say it won't do what it says, but...

Toker Villain

Big Wall climber

Toquerville, Utah

Mar 21, 2012 - 07:52pm PT

In Cal they shoot for flipping the bird but in Florida they don't bother flipping off drivers because they are mostly octogenerians who can't see to begin with.

You might not be safe from pistolero vigilantes walking around the neighborhood but the roads are worse!

graniteclimber

Trad climber

The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division

Mar 22, 2012 - 02:47pm PT

You says that he is following Trayvon and then at 2:18 mutters "f*#king coons." You can clearly hear it.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/03/22/probably_a_bad_idea_to_mutter_a_racial_slur_on_a_911_call.html

[Click to View YouTube Video]

Gary

climber

"My god - it's full of stars!"

Mar 22, 2012 - 05:11pm PT

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/florida-shooting-focuses-attention-on-stand-your-ground-law/

Trevor Dooley stood his ground, brandished his gun and killed a man after an argument over local skateboarding rules in a Florida town.

He argued in court last month that he had a right to do so under the state’s Stand Your Ground law...

...the law is currently being invoked as a key defense by Mr. Dooley.

The man he killed, David James, had been playing basketball with his 8-year-old daughter in September 2010 when he and Mr. Dooley began arguing over whether a boy on a skateboard had a right to ride on the court, according to an account in The St. Petersburg Times. There was a “physical confrontation,” the police said, during which Mr. Dooley fired the weapon he was carrying, killing Mr. James in front of his daughter.

“You agree you do not want to go to prison for killing David James?” he was asked at the trial, according to televised footage from the courtroom.

“I don’t think I should,” responded Mr. Dooley, who has been charged with manslaughter but says he feared for his life during the altercation with Mr. James.

His lawyers are seeking to have the case dismissed by a judge on the grounds that the Stand Your Ground law permitted him to defend himself with deadly force...

...Q: Can an unarmed person legally pose a deadly threat?

In case after case during the past six years, Floridians who shot and killed unarmed opponents have not been prosecuted. Former National Rifle Association President Marion Hammer, a major force behind the law’s passage, cited her own size and age in 2006 interview with the Sentinel about what she would do if confronted by a younger and larger aggressor.

“I’m 4-foot-11. I’m 67 years old,” she said. “If you came at me, and I felt that my life was in danger or that I was going to be injured, I wouldn’t hesitate to shoot you.”

StahlBro

Trad climber

San Diego, CA

Mar 22, 2012 - 05:32pm PT

I changed my mind...Let's fence off Florida instead of Texas.

In recent times, "stand your ground" laws extended this concept in many states beyond the home to any place where a person might lawfully be found, such as a bar or a public sidewalk. Florida's version enacted in 2005 (over the objection of many in law enforcement) is one of the most far reaching.
The law states that a person "who is attacked" anywhere he is lawfully present 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."
Importantly, a person cannot invoke this provision if he is "engaged in unlawful activity" or "initially provokes the use of force against himself." Finally, in Florida, once self-defense becomes an issue at trial, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense -- a heavy burden.

Read more: http://www.wxii12.com/news/30728543/detail.html#ixzz1pspnyytD

"reasonably believes"...wow...there is something that is not open to intepretation.

Chaz

Trad climber

greater Boss Angeles area

Mar 22, 2012 - 05:52pm PT

How does one claim to be attacked, when he's the one doing the attacking?

This law doesn't apply here.

I don't understand why this guy hasn't been arrested.

TradEddie

Trad climber

Philadelphia, PA

Mar 22, 2012 - 05:58pm PT

This case presents the road-map for any would-be murderers in Florida: simply make sure your victim isn't around to contradict you.

At best, it's vagueness will obstruct or deter prosecution of actual criminals, at worst, this law and the coverage of this case could achieve the real intent of the NRA who proposed it; even more gun sales.

TE

tradmanclimbs

Ice climber

Pomfert VT

Topic Author's Reply - Mar 22, 2012 - 06:37pm PT

again the real huge loophole is in #3 he or she precieves the threat of grave bodily harm. Seems like any good lawer can get you off the hook with that preception clause.