Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You have not provide one single scenario that would support your claim. Again, have you watched the video in Post #5? If your answer is no, then I don't have much to say to you except for pointing out your ignorance.
Actually my post is a scenario and the Zimmerman case is an example of that scenario.
Actually my post is a scenario and the Zimmerman case is an example of that scenario.
What scenario? A scenario where a murderer got away because there's no evidence and no witness? If there's no evidence and no witness, why shouldn't the murderer get away?
It seems that since George was not fighting back and was screaming the whole time, that he wished to withdraw from the fight. At that point it was no longer self defense for TM.
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
You are just being willfully ignorant and trying to twist the "logic" towards yourself.
Duty to Retreat
It is impossible to discuss stand your ground laws without first explaining the concept of the duty to retreat. In its most extreme form, the duty to retreat states that a person who is under an imminent threat of personal harm must retreat from the threat as much as possible before responding with force in self-defense. These days, states generally incorporate some modified form of the duty with somewhat less stringent requirements. Stand Your Ground
Stand your ground laws are essentially a revocation of the duty to retreat. Stand your ground laws generally state that, under certain circumstances, individuals can use force to defend themselves without first attempting to retreat from the danger. The purpose behind these laws is to remove any confusion about when individuals can defend themselves and to eliminate prosecutions of people who legitimately used self-defense even though they had not attempted to retreat from the threat.
How does no retreat = easier to get away with murder?
How are you supposed to "stand your ground" unless you are ARMED? A female is stalked by a strange man. No duty to retreat? Now, how is she supposed to SYG UNLESS she has a weapon? That law is sending the message (read between the line) to BUY A GUN. NRA lobbied for these SYG laws in these states. Sell MORE guns.
It seems that since George was not fighting back and was screaming the whole time, that he wished to withdraw from the fight. At that point it was no longer self defense for TM.
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
You can't use force against anybody including your non-violent follower.
How are you supposed to "stand your ground" unless you are ARMED? A female is stalked by a strange man. No duty to retreat? Now, how is she supposed to SYG UNLESS she has a weapon? That law is sending the message (read between the line) to BUY A GUN. NRA lobbied for these SYG laws in these states. Sell MORE guns.
You don't have to stand your ground, do you? Just like you don't have to buy a gun.
What scenario? A scenario where a murderer got away because there's no evidence and no witness? If there's no evidence and no witness, why shouldn't the murderer get away?
But the law has no issue. The issue is with your scenario.
Actually the issue with the law is that you can shoot and kill if you feel threatened.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
