Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 07-17-2013, 07:35 PM
 
Location: Just over the horizon
18,461 posts, read 7,092,496 times
Reputation: 11707

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamofmonterey View Post



Leaves the door open, to shoot anyone to death if you 'believe' they are a danger.




[/indent]


So lets say you have to rely on a more "conventional" notion of self defence rather than stand your ground.

In the moments before a victim is stabbed, shot, head pummeled into concrete or whatever.
The victim must make a possibly split second decision on whether or not the threat is gravely dangerous to life or health and if it's possible and safe to flee or if it's safer for them to defend themselves with deadly force if they can.

What if they are wrong about any part of the decision?
What if they decide to flee and get shot in the back?
Then a lack of stand your ground just cost them their lives.

What if the decide to defend themselves and it turns out that they could have ran but for some reason did not, maybe they were too scared to run?
Then the lack of stand your ground means they go to jail for being a victim of a crime.

Without stand your ground laws it puts an awful lot of decisions on the person who is the victim that they should not have to make, nor be penalized for if they decide wrong.

 
Old 07-17-2013, 07:37 PM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,569,031 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamofmonterey View Post
Transcript Quote
An issue in this case is whether the defendant acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the offense with which George Zimmerman is charged if the death
of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.

"Deadly force" means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent (1) imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or (2) the imminent commission of aggravated battery against himself or another.

Aggravated battery is intentionally touching or striking another against his or her will, and in committing the battery, intentionally or knowingly causing great bodily harm, permanent disability or permanent disfigurement to the other person.

In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.

If the defendant was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of the defendant and Trayvon Martin.

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.

However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

Judge Nelson Reads Self-Defense Instruction to Jury



Leaves the door open, to shoot anyone to death if you 'believe' they are a danger.





If you haven't noticed, every self defense law is written like that. Nothing to do with SYG.
 
Old 07-17-2013, 07:59 PM
 
Location: Long Island
57,314 posts, read 26,217,746 times
Reputation: 15647
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
If you haven't noticed, every self defense law is written like that. Nothing to do with SYG.
Those were the judges instructions to the jury, one of the jurors indicated that was one of the reasons GZ was exonerated, how is SYG a non-issue.
 
Old 07-17-2013, 08:00 PM
 
6,331 posts, read 5,211,294 times
Reputation: 1640
The jury was instructed to follow stand your ground law criteria right before they made their decisions.
 
Old 07-17-2013, 08:05 PM
 
Location: DFW
40,951 posts, read 49,198,692 times
Reputation: 55008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Draper View Post
The jury was instructed to follow stand your ground law criteria right before they made their decisions.
He had no duty to retreat. Which is hard to do when you're on the ground.
 
Old 07-17-2013, 08:06 PM
 
6,331 posts, read 5,211,294 times
Reputation: 1640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakin View Post
He had no duty to retreat. Which is hard to do when you're on the ground.
Because of Florida's stand your ground law, which the jury was asked to use as a criteria.
 
Old 07-17-2013, 08:07 PM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,569,031 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Those were the judges instructions to the jury, one of the jurors indicated that was one of the reasons GZ was exonerated, how is SYG a non-issue.
Because GZ was not in a position that he could even stand his ground. LOL.
 
Old 07-17-2013, 08:10 PM
 
Location: DFW
40,951 posts, read 49,198,692 times
Reputation: 55008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Draper View Post
Because of Florida's stand your ground law, which the jury was asked to use as a criteria.
And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that either.

Someone being attacked / raped should not have to prove they "Retreated"
 
Old 07-17-2013, 08:10 PM
 
6,331 posts, read 5,211,294 times
Reputation: 1640
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
Because GZ was not in a position that he could even stand his ground. LOL.
I thought stand your ground had nothing to do with the case?????
 
Old 07-17-2013, 08:16 PM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,569,031 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Draper View Post
I thought stand your ground had nothing to do with the case?????
Therefore it has nothing to do with it. :-)
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:49 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top