Shyster wrote:Can someone please offer an explanation of how and why the Martin/Zimmerman case justifies—as many people and rallies are now claiming—the repeal of Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground (“CD/SYG”) laws?
topshelf wrote:Shyster wrote:Can someone please offer an explanation of how and why the Martin/Zimmerman case justifies—as many people and rallies are now claiming—the repeal of Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground (“CD/SYG”) laws?
Because the media brought up "Stand Your Ground" a billion times from day one until the verdict, which caused people to look into the law and see it's flaws.
In my opinion, there is far too much room for interpretation in the law, and fact that (without witnesses) we are only able to hear 50% of the story and it is from the person holding the gun, the potential for bias and embellishment outweighs the potential for good. That's just my opinion, though.
Shyster wrote:But for the most part, CD/SYG laws only provide that someone does not have a duty to retreat when confronted in a public space before they may resort to the use of deadly force. Those laws don't change the standard for using deadly force, namely, that one must reasonably believe that deadly force is necessary to prevent himself or herself from death or serious bodily harm.
If you (or any other poster who wants to chime in) were revising your state's self-defense law, what would you require a defendant to show in order to claim self-defense? For example, you mention only hearing 50% of the story as problematic. Are you saying that if the defendant cannot produce witnesses to back up his story, he or she should automatically be convicted of some form of homicide?
topshelf wrote:My problem with the law is the verbage and that surrounds it: "if one reasonably believes". How do you define reasonable belief when it is based upon both opinion and then the retelling of the story? It is too vague and broad, as one's threshold of fear and distress could be largely different than another's. With this in mind, you could have a guy who is a hothead and a loose cannon shoot someone in a situation where most people wouldn't have shot. To make matters worse, he can then get his story straight so that it benefits him and not the truth. While this scenario is hypothetical, it is still very plausible, and that window of corruption negates the validity of the law, in my opinion.
I believe that if I kill someone based upon my own assumptions, and my assumptions prove to be wrong (said person wasn't armed), then I should be punished for my misjudgement.
Shyster wrote:You may not be aware of it, but the “reasonable person” standard is a longstanding feature of our legal system and applies to both civil and criminal law. For example, the standard of whether one has been negligent for, say, a personal-injury lawsuit incorporates a test of whether you did/did not do something that a reasonable person in like circumstances would/would not have done. Whether something is reasonable is up to the finder of fact—typically a jury—and not the defendant. So someone who is a hothead and a loose cannon will not have his word taken as truth that he acted reasonably. Rather, the jury trying him will compare his behavior to what they believe the “reasonable person” would have done under the same circumstances.
So self-defense is only acceptable when facing an armed assailant? What about a 5', 100 lb. woman being attacked barehanded by a 6'5", 250 lb. man? What about a frail 80-year-old man being choked by a strong 19-year-old woman? Neither of them could shoot to protect themselves?
"The law has created a massive amount of confusion as to what exactly constitutes self-defense and exactly how to apply the new law,'' said defense attorney Bill Mathewman, who hopes the Florida Supreme Court will grant immunity to a client currently facing trial for aggravated assault in Palm Beach County."
columbia wrote:It certainly makes it easier to get away with killing people.
topshelf wrote:But how does the jury know that said guy is a hothead or a loose cannon? It is his story to concoct, no? For example, say I am this guy and I approach some random dude and begin harassing him and running my mouth. He turns around a decks me, and I pull out a gun a shoot him. At that point, my hotheadedness both prompted and ended the scenario, and, on top of that, it is my privilege to retell the story in a way that benefits me.
topshelf wrote:columbia wrote:It certainly makes it easier to get away with killing people.
Exactly, and that's my beef with it. When the gray area of a law constitutes lives being taken, then one has to question the validity of the law.
I don't think anyone has a problem with someone standing their ground in a breaking and entering, muggings, etc., but beyond that the law is left open to interpretation and I don't see that as a good thing.
Shyster wrote:columbia wrote:I'd prefer you to melt your guns.
columbia wrote:Shyster wrote:columbia wrote:I'd prefer you to melt your guns.
This is one of the things that is wrong about some guns owners.
There are those of us in the world who would prefer that they didn't exist and your reaction is threaten violence in self-defense over an idea.
The idea being peace.
What is wrong with you?
Users browsing this forum: Mr. Colby and 7 guests