Airstud wrote:I think maybe you do have a duty to retreat, if you're someone who irrationally considers shooting a person dead to be the only alternative to retreat.
I doesn't work that way. Whether an action is rational or irrational, reasonable or unreasonable, will be determined by law enforcement officials, and later by a jury, if it comes to that.
tommy1808 wrote:Pretty convenient arrangement..I wonder how many smart murderers make use of it.
It's not "convenient", it's the law. I'm not quite sure how you do it where you're from, but here in the United States you are supposed to be considered innocent until convicted in a court of law. That is why it is incumbent on the state to prove guilt, and not incumbent on the defendant to prove innocence.
Now, self-defense laws can be a little bit different. In essence, when someone claims self-defense, they are admitting that they have killed or injured someone, but with extenuating circumstances. The defendant will have to provide sufficient evidence that those circumstances exist. The state will be, and should be, required to prove that the actions taken were unreasonable for the given circumstances.
alfa164 wrote:It is not logical because (a) it is written so broadly that anyone can claim to be standing "their ground", whether or not there they have any more right to that "ground" than the other party;
I'd argue that as soon as a law was broken, the alleged law-breaker no longer has a"right" to that gorund.
alfa164 wrote: (2) it encourages and codifys the use of extreme violence in situations where, without the "stand your ground" excuse, such violence would not be sanctioned.
Actually, it does no such thing. Do you think that guy on the ground, in the video, sat there and thought to himself, "well, he pushed me to the ground, and I'm in a "stand your ground" state, so I'm going to shoot this guy"? Of course not. He reacted to a violent act done to him. "Stand your ground" is a justification or defense.
alfa164 wrote: laws still in force in the more reasonable states,
A quick look at Wikipedia reveals that:
-27 states have "stand you ground" adopted by their legislatures,
-7 states have de-facto adopted "stand you ground" through precedence,
-13 states claim you have a "duty to retreat".
So, 34 states have decided that a person who is not committing a crime has no legal duty to flee a situation where he is confronted with violence that he reasonably believes will cause him, or others, great physical harm or death. There is nothing unreasonable about that.
SESGDL wrote:The majority of people are justifying someone being killed because they parked in a handicapped spot??? Things get more outrageous everyday.
The victim was not killed because he parked in a handicapped spot. He was killed because he pushed someone to the ground. And, I'm not thinking the majority of the folks here are defending him, though most seem to be defending the "stand your ground" defense.
Again, absent other evidence, I really don't see a valid claim to self-defense here. Let me tell you why I think that way:
-He was the intial aggressor, he was not innocent.
-He did not disengage when confronted, as he would have been required to in order to claim self-defense, as the aggressor.
-I don't
think he was in any immediate danger after he was shoved. His assailant did not persue him...there was no kicking, there appeared to be no more threatening gestures, he was not standing over him the way Ali stood over Liston, in a gloating , threatening manner.
-his reaction was out of proportion with the threat. The question, of course, is what was the perceived threat, and was that perception reasonable?
Again, given the evidence we have seen, was his action a reasonable response? I don't think so.
I do hope the DA takes this on, and it goes to trial. Now, if ther's other evidence we don't see/hear, that may change the equation.
Kiwirob wrote:I wonder if the Florida waitress who took down the guy who groped her would have gotten on if she pulled and shot the guy. I think her response was out of line btw, this is even crazier than that.
Personally, I think her response was spot on. He committed battery. She responded and put an end to it, before it could escalate.