Pages

Jump to bottom

167 comments

1 The Questionable Timing of a Flea  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 11:15:22am

Thanks for putting this up. It will take some time for me to read, process, and respond.

2 sattv4u2  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 11:21:13am

re: #1 The Ghost of a Flea

Thanks for putting this up. It will take some time for me to read, process, and respond.

huh!?!? you responded 6 minutes after he put it up, you speed reader you!!

///

3 sattv4u2  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 11:23:17am

Heard something somewhere that Zimmerman's own lawyer is saying that the "stand your ground" law has nothing to do with this case. I'll start searching

4 justaminute  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 11:41:11am

Thanks, that does shed some light on the situation. It will be interesting to see what Zimmerman's lawyer does argue in defense of his client.

In Oklahoma, many Okies were outraged at the conviction of that Pharmacist that came back after chasing the another assailant and executed that robber who was already on the ground, alive but injured. It will be interesting as Oklahoma has this law on the books too.

5 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 11:52:21am

re: #4 justaminute

Thanks, that does shed some light on the situation. It will be interesting to see what Zimmerman's lawyer does argue in defense of his client.

In Oklahoma, many Okies were outraged at the conviction of that Pharmacist that came back after chasing the another assailant and executed that robber who was already on the ground, alive but injured. It will be interesting as Oklahoma has this law on the books too.

I'd cheer that conviction. What a bastard.

6 Prideful, Arrogant Marriage Equality Advocate  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 12:30:56pm

I haven't read the links, but what you wrote is EXCELLENT.

7 Idle Drifter  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 2:07:37pm

re: #4 justaminute

I remember being in Oklahoma when that incident occurred. He ran out of his store firing his gun at them as they fled into a neighborhood. He had contained the threat the moment he dropped the first one after they pointed a weapon at him. While he was right to initially defend himself his actions while fueled by emotions and adrenaline to give chase, fire his weapon recklessly, and finally execute the downed assailant he step over some lines.

Now he every right to follow them to know which way they fled to inform police he never had to fire a shot. He also did not have to kill the one laying in the store; however, he did not have to help him either except by calling 911. The first assailant could have bled out without much a concern by the pharmacist. Bystanders could have stepped in to help the kid. The conviction was correct. Citizens retain the right to defend themselves but they don't have a license to give chase or execute.

8 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 2:39:02pm
He still must prove that he was in (1) REASONABLE (2) fear of [(3) imminent] death or serious bodily injury to himself or others, and (4) that he used deadly force in order to protect himself (or others).

Nowhere in the law does it say he must prove this, no.

9 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 2:42:24pm
If Zimmerman was chasing or pursuing Martin, the “Stand Your Ground” rule is not really applicable. It would not then have been a question of whether Zimmerman could have avoided the confrontation by retreating. It instead would be a question of whether Zimmerman precipitated that incident by his pursuit.

And again, this is a clear misreading of the law, especially considering the case history. Is the contention that the pursuit itself was illegal, or it put Zimmerman in a place he was not allowed to be?

If not, the pursuit itself is irrelevant.

The law is written to define the right to defend ones-self as it exists at the moment of the 'attack'. It is not written to consider elements outside of that-- it would be reasonable if it were, but it wasn't.

10 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 2:55:10pm

re: #9 Obdicut

And again, this is a clear misreading of the law, especially considering the case history. Is the contention that the pursuit itself was illegal, or it put Zimmerman in a place he was not allowed to be?

If not, the pursuit itself is irrelevant.

The law is written to define the right to defend ones-self as it exists at the moment of the 'attack'. It is not written to consider elements outside of that-- it would be reasonable if it were, but it wasn't.

The read I have has some legal support. If your point is that your read is the approach of Florida police, you are likely right. But it's still a bad read. Bad enough to fly in the stated intent on the creators of the law. Bad enough to wrongly protect Zimmerman. What motivated the police to skip so much due diligence? Racism not the text of this law. Zimmerman should have been detained to gather physical evidence. Medically tested for drugs. Nothing in this law told the police to skip giving this incident a far harder look.

Thought experiment-Would we get that read in a place like Los Angeles from LAPD and the DA if we had the same law on the books? Can you support the idea it would with anything concrete?

I think Zimmerman would have been detained, and a lot more evidence gathered at the least. None of this "look the other way" racial crap.

11 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 2:59:22pm

re: #8 Obdicut

You still leave a lot unanswered there. If the law was as you say I don't see how they would justify calling for the grand jury. That hearing might settle our disagreement.

12 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 2:59:28pm

re: #10 Daniel Ballard

The read I have has some legal support.

The read I has does too-- like the case history of the law. By 'legal support', do you mean the opinion of your friend?

If your point is that your read is the approach of Florida police, you are likely right.

No, it's the approach of the Florida courts, which interpret this law.

But it's still a bad read.

Then why are you suggesting it needs to be changed?

Bad enough to fly in the stated intent on the creators of the law.

When you say 'creator', you don't mean the person that actually came up with the idea for the law, right? You mean the sponsor of it, who used the ALEC template.

Thought experiment-Would we get that read in a place like Los Angeles from LAPD and the DA if we had the same law on the books? Can you support the idea it would with anything concrete?

You can't support thought experiments with anything concrete. But sure-- this same law, in California, should get the same reading. it defines your right to use lethal force at the moment of attack.

The contention is that Zimmerman placed himself outside of this law by his pursuit of Trayvon. Are you contending the pursuit was illegal?

What have you to say to Mr. Weissmans view?

That's what I"m responding to, isn't it?

13 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 3:00:29pm

re: #11 Daniel Ballard

You still leave a lot unanswered there. If the law was as you say I don't see how they would justify calling for the grand jury. That hearing might settle our disagreement.

The law has been as I say in numerous other cases. Are you willing to look at those at all?

14 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 3:02:48pm

re: #12 Obdicut

My attorney friend, and the sponsors of the bill. And the signer of the bill. I propose we table that angle until we get a read from the grand jury. That's legal enough.

IMHO-The case history of the law is likely more a measure of the racism in places like Sanford than the law.

15 The Questionable Timing of a Flea  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 3:03:02pm

An excerpt from the article Randall Gross just posted:

"In my legal opinion, that's not really applicable to this case. The statute on 'stand your ground' is primarily when you're in your house," said Craig Sonner, attorney for George Zimmerman.

"This is self-defense, and that's been around for forever -- that you have a right to defend yourself. So the next issue (that) is going to come up is, was he justified in using the amount of force he did?"

and

Sonner says his client was injured that night and went to the hospital with a broken nose and a serious cut on the back of his head.

Same thing as I said re Randall's post: Lawyer's going to claim self defense. The argument will be that Martin hit first or hit harder.

16 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 3:04:23pm

re: #13 Obdicut

The law has been as I say in numerous other cases. Are you willing to look at those at all?

I might be able to do that. Would you answer my thought experiment?

17 sattv4u2  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 3:05:49pm

DAN

great job

Don't know if this helps or hurts either Zimmerman, the family of the young man tragically shot or your excellent work, but here's the police report.

Looks like for at least some time Zimmerman was in custody and in cuffs

[Link: cnninsession.files.wordpress.com...]

18 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 3:10:01pm

re: #14 Daniel Ballard

My attorney friend, and the sponsors of the bill. And the signer of the bill. I propose we table that angle until we get a read from the grand jury. That's legal enough.

But dude, since I'm arguing that the law is a shitty law, saying "Well, the sponsor of the law thinks its dandy if you just read it this way" isn't any sort of support for your argument. You're citing people-- your friend aside-- with a vested interest in saying the bill is fine.

I can cite a lot of prosecutors-- who, you know, are 'legal' too-- who warned of the bad effects of this law.

IMHO-The case history of the law is likely more a measure of the racism in places like Sanford than the law.

Sorry, no, many of the cases don't involve multiple races.

I might be able to do that. Would you answer my thought experiment?

In LA, with this law, I think Zimmerman would have been arrested, charged, but eventually released or found not guilty as long as he claimed that Marvin attacked him and there wasn't anything to disprove that story.

The incompetence or malice of the police is a separate issue. It's the main reason this case has come to light, since you can see a long history of similar cases that didn't make the national news.

Again: Is it your contention that by his pursuit Zimmerman was committing a crime?

19 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 3:10:38pm

re: #17 sattv4u2

Thanks. Now I'm out to do that reading and see if I can find an unprejudiced list of case law. I want to add that there is another bad consequence to setting the standard for self defense too high. Fewer victims are preparted and equipped to make a proper use of the tools.

Easy example-Civilian pepper spray is far weaker than police sprays. So they fail to stop the attack more often and the victim now has a really pissed attacker right on them puncjing and grabbing and who knows what.

20 The Questionable Timing of a Flea  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 3:12:11pm

re: #14 Daniel Ballard

IMHO-The case history of the law is likely more a measure of the racism in places like Sanford than the law.

The case history of the law incorporates a lot of fails that don't incorporate racism, all of which have been cited on this board previously. Domestic disputes, shootouts between gangs, homeless people that were being loud and abusive but not actually attacking.

It's legally-encoded slut shaming for murder victims: as long as you can smear them somehow it's okay to commit a crime against them.

21 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 3:16:37pm

re: #18 Obdicut

Again: Is it your contention that by his pursuit Zimmerman was committing a crime?

No not exactly. Good question. I mean he violated the intented coverage of the law when he got out of the truck. Who goes where is an important principle in self defense law that is not always explicit in the language. It's not an issue at home usually. Apart from domestic violence obviously.

Florida I presume has a ways and means kind of thing? I can not completely dismaiss the stated intent of the sponsors and signer without taking a look at where the effect left the intent.

22 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 3:19:26pm

re: #21 Daniel Ballard

No not exactly. Good question. I mean he violated the intented coverage of the law when he got out of the truck.

But the law doesn't state that. It says that as long as he had a right to be where he was, he is covered by the law. Where do you see anything, at all, in the law that says him getting out of the truck moved him outside the coverage of the law?

Who goes where is an important principle in self defense law that is not always explicit in the language. It's not an issue at home usually. Apart from domestic violence obviously.

The language in the bill is explicit. It says that if he is somewhere he has a right to be.

Florida I presume has a ways and means kind of thing? I can not completely dismaiss the stated intent of the sponsors and signer without taking a look at where the effect left the intent.

You do realize they didn't actually create the bill, right, that it was adopted from model bill language?

And if you are trying to analyze whether the bill is well or badly written, then the intent of them doesn't matter except in so far as you can say "Well, the language of this bill doesn't match your intent at all, so congrats on writing a bad bill." or "The intent and language match-- congrats, the bill is well-written."

23 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 3:23:08pm

Also, one of the problems of carrying a gun is that any attack on you can be perceived as a deadly threat, since they could take your gun away and shoot you with it.

That was the ruling in one previous case on this, that a man 'lunging' towards the man who was armed was indeed making a reasonably deadly threat since it was reasonable to assume he was going for the gun. Which he probably was, since his daughter was there and the guy with the gun was sketchy-looking, and the man 'lunging' was a combat veteran.

24 The Questionable Timing of a Flea  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 3:25:27pm

2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[14]

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be 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 to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

25 The Questionable Timing of a Flea  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 3:25:44pm

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

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.

26 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 3:25:53pm

re: #22 Obdicut

It should be clear enough now why I believe what I wrote. What we have here is two good people coming to different conclusions on exactly how to read this for enforcement. We both can cite some good reasons why.

We have drilled down as far as I am equipped to go for now. Developments will shape this and I do have some reading to do. If this were in California I could drill right down to case law with you. But it was Florida with a far more problematic racial history. And a similar but differing set of laws and presedents.

As I said I await the grand jury read as well.

27 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 3:39:24pm

re: #26 Daniel Ballard

It should be clear enough now why I believe what I wrote.

It really, really isn't. At no point, at all, have you stated why you think exiting the truck put Zimmerman outside the bounds of the law. You've asserted it, but not with reference to the actual law itself. Apparently, you're referencing something that's not 'explicit in the language'.

The problem is that the bill is quite specific in it's language; the law protects Zimmerman as long as he was allowed to be in the place where he was, and, pursuant to what the Phantom Flea above posted, his pursuit 'provoked' the 'attack' by Trayvon. If that was judged to be so, then that would be semi-absurd-- anyone would then be allowed to attack anyone that followed them. And, again, if you are armed, you can make a reasonable case that someone trying to disarm you had deadly intentions.

28 reine.de.tout  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 3:46:35pm

A quote from your story:

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force,

If this is the case, and if Zimmerman got out of his car, with his gun, and chased down Trayvon, wouldn't this "stand your ground" law mean that it was Trayvon's actions that were covered by this law, not Zimmerman's?

29 sattv4u2  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 3:49:58pm

re: #28 reine.de.tout

A quote from your story:

If this is the case, and if Zimmerman got out of his car, with his gun, and chased down Trayvon, wouldn't this "stand your ground" law mean that it was Trayvon's actions that were covered by this law, not Zimmerman's?

SHE EXISTS !!!!!!!!!!

30 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 3:55:17pm

re: #28 reine.de.tout

A quote from your story:

If this is the case, and if Zimmerman got out of his car, with his gun, and chased down Trayvon, wouldn't this "stand your ground" law mean that it was Trayvon's actions that were covered by this law, not Zimmerman's?

No, it would mean that they both were, unless pursuing Trayvon is in itself illegal, or pursuit of someone gives them license to attack you.

I do not believe either of those are true.

31 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 3:55:25pm

re: #27 Obdicut

It really, really isn't. At no point, at all, have you stated why you think exiting the truck put Zimmerman outside the bounds of the law. You've asserted it, but not with reference to the actual law itself. Apparently, you're referencing something that's not 'explicit in the language'.

The problem is that the bill is quite specific in it's language; the law protects Zimmerman as long as he was allowed to be in the place where he was, and, pursuant to what the Phantom Flea above posted, his pursuit 'provoked' the 'attack' by Trayvon. If that was judged to be so, then that would be semi-absurd-- anyone would then be allowed to attack anyone that followed them. And, again, if you are armed, you can make a reasonable case that someone trying to disarm you had deadly intentions.

The answers you ask for are not found merely in the text of the law. We do have an implicit principle of who approaches who well established as a definition of self defense, we have a dramatic gap in the available force to use, we have a real lack of evidence for important facts, we have a difference in the application and intent of the law.

I'll ask you this again, for the readers of this Page
If I was a Florida State Prosecutor, would I not be well within my rights to charge Zimmerman? Would that be overzealous prosecution? I don't think so. Neither does the screaming multitudes that say in fact Zimmerman should be charged.

32 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 4:00:20pm

re: #31 Daniel Ballard

The answers you ask for are not found merely in the text of the law.

So where are they found? Not in the case history of how the law has been interpreted-- you've already dismissed that.

We do have an implicit principle of who approaches who well established as a definition of self defense,

I don't believe we do, no. If I approach someone, it does not in any way mitigate my right to defend myself if they attack me. Can you cite a law saying otherwise?

we have a dramatic gap in the available force to use,

Except, as I said, one of the dangers of being armed is that if someone takes the gun away from you, they are now armed. So, someone with a gun can make a reasonable claim that someone trying to take that gun-- or who they perceive as trying to take that gun-- has deadly intentions.

we have a real lack of evidence for important facts,

This isn't relevant to the law itself, though.

we have a difference in the application and intent of the law.

Which, to me, points to the law being quite badly written, since the text of it does not match the supposed intent of the sponsors.

I am not sure that it really does mismatch, though. It would be hard to craft a bill that gives people the right to not flee that isn't abuseable in this fashion. I don't think it's possible. If you write it so that there is an actual threat, rather than a perceived one-- again, a person who is armed, being attacked by someone who isn't, can reasonably argue that attack is quite a real, actual threat. That's the problem with guns-- they may work as a deterrent, but if they don't, you have to use them or risk them being used on you.

33 reine.de.tout  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 4:01:29pm

re: #29 sattv4u2

SHE EXISTS !!!

Heh. I'm trying to get a handle on this whole situation.

There is evidence, apparently, that Trayvon did some damage to Zimmerman. But I keep wondering what the hell Zimmerman was doing patrolling his neighborhood with a gun, and leaving his car with it to chase somebody down? Our sheriff's office tells us to CALL THEM right away if we see anybody suspicious; they have units in this area and can get here quickly, and THEY check 'em out. And NOBODY here goes out "patrolling" in their cars. We just keep watch on our neighbors' homes from our own homes.

On the one hand, there are folks who seem to be supporting Zimmerman's actions. On the other hand there are folks denouncing Zimmerman's actions.

I'm leaning toward Zimmerman being an overzealous idiot, resulting in him killing this young man for no reason whatsoever, other than he didn't like him being in the neighborhood, where Trayvon had every right to be.

But I sure don't see that the "stand your ground" law applies to Zimmerman's actions in any way. If anything, it applies more to Trayvon's actions, making the whole thing even more senseless and tragic than it was before (if that's possible).

Thinking out loud here; please, nobody jump all over me for not following anybody else's particular train of thought on this.

34 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 4:06:24pm

re: #33 reine.de.tout

But I sure don't see that the "stand your ground" law applies to Zimmerman's actions in any way. If anything, it applies more to Trayvon's actions, making the whole thing even more senseless and tragic than it was before (if that's possible).

Zimmerman's claim is that Trayvon attacked him. If Zimmerman had the right to be where he was, and was not committing a crime at the time-- so unless there was anything about his pursuit that was criminal-- he had the right under this law to resist with deadly force an attack if he had reasonable belief that Trayvon was attempting to commit a violent felony, or giving him cause to fear for his life or previous bodily harm-- for example, if Zimmerman claims Trayvon was trying to grab the gun away-- then he had the right, under this law I believe to be massively flawed, to shoot him.

In addition, the police force appears to have been massively incompetent, and there's reason to be believe race played a role, given previous incidents in the investigating officer's past alone.

35 sattv4u2  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 4:07:46pm

re: #33 reine.de.tout

I keep wondering what the hell Zimmerman was doing patrolling his neighborhood with a gun, and leaving his car with it to chase somebody down

Easy ,, he fancied himself as protecting his neighborhood. Whether he was 'officially" on the Neighborhood Watch or not ,, whether there is even AN official watch IN his neighborhood (one that is registered with the police and takes training and does walks with cops at times) is immaterial, really. He could have done the same thing if it he were walking from a neighbors after watching a game, and came across (in his mind) someone suspicious.

36 The Questionable Timing of a Flea  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 4:08:36pm

re: #33 reine.de.tout

Heh. I'm trying to get a handle on this whole situation.

There is evidence, apparently, that Trayvon did some damage to Zimmerman. But I keep wondering what the hell Zimmerman was doing patrolling his neighborhood with a gun, and leaving his car with it to chase somebody down? Our sheriff's office tells us to CALL THEM right away if we see anybody suspicious; they have units in this area and can get here quickly, and THEY check 'em out. And NOBODY here goes out "patrolling" in their cars. We just keep watch on our neighbors' homes from our own homes.

My experience with Neighborhood Watch is that both the police and the organization tell you not to try and intercede own your own, and to not carry weapons on patrol.

Zimmerman was well outside the NW mandate...and if I recall correctly, wasn't really a part of that (national) organization anyway. He was just vigilante-ing around with the passive consent of his neighbors.

(Oop. satt beat me to it.)

37 sattv4u2  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 4:11:03pm

re: #36 The Ghost of a Flea

Oop. satt beat me to it.

sorry,,,, I'm usually the one thats still typing after 4 people have posted what i was going too

38 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 4:11:19pm

re: #36 The Ghost of a Flea

And some of his neighbors were annoyed by it, too. I wonder if any of them had made any sort of protest with the HOA or anything.

39 reine.de.tout  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 4:12:06pm

re: #34 Obdicut

On the other hand, Trayvon's claim, if he were alive, could have been that he was being chased down with this guy with a gun, and had no clue WHY someone would be chasing him with a gun, in a neighborhood where he and his grandfather were quite legally visiting a friend.

I want to see how it plays out before deciding the law is massively flawed. Maybe it goes beyond what is necessary; maybe all that's needed is the regular "self-defense" law. I don't know. I do know that I'm not particularly keen on the idea that I must first turn my back on and try to flee from somebody who I believe is intent on doing me harm before I can defend myself. I turn my back - they've got me, no ifs, ands or buts about it.

40 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 4:12:23pm

re: #32 Obdicut

"I don't believe we do, no. If I approach someone, it does not in any way mitigate my right to defend myself if they attack me. Can you cite a law saying otherwise?"

The foundational principle of the Castle Doctrine itself. The underlying principle of it is you are in a place you belong. There is no question as to who initiated the incident with their very presence. That's why it gets tricky in public because this is less clear. And we still do not really know who made the final approach with intent.

"Except, as I said, one of the dangers of being armed is that if someone takes the gun away from you, they are now armed. So, someone with a gun can make a reasonable claim that someone trying to take that gun-- or who they perceive as trying to take that gun-- has deadly intentions."

While true, it does not change the basic assumption of a force disparity like gun and size vs unarmed kid.

"Which, to me, points to the law being quite badly written, since the text of it does not match the supposed intent of the sponsors."

A disparity like that is where change is indicated. Not necessarily tossing the whole thing.

41 sattv4u2  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 4:12:36pm

re: #36 The Ghost of a Flea

but you're right

The Neighborhood Watch angle is moot. As I said, he could have very well been three blocks from his house that night watching the NCAA tourney, and on his walk home saw someone "suspicious" and done the same thing

42 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 4:13:34pm

re: #39 reine.de.tout

On the other hand, Trayvon's claim, if he were alive, could have been that he was being chased down with this guy with a gun, and had no clue WHY someone would be chasing him with a gun, in a neighborhood where he and his grandfather were quite legally visiting a friend.

Exactly.

I want to see how it plays out before deciding the law is massively flawed. Maybe it goes beyond what is necessary; maybe all that's needed is the regular "self-defense" law. I don't know. I do know that I'm not particularly keen on the idea that I must first turn my back on and try to flee from somebody who I believe is intent on doing me harm before I can defend myself. I turn my back - they've got me, no ifs, ands or buts about it.

Well, if you can show that you couldn't flee on the basis of being obviously slower then them, then the avenue of escape thing really doesn't apply. It's only if you can actually flee.

This law has produced a lot of other situations like this one, and prosecutors warned that it would when it was introduced.

43 sattv4u2  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 4:14:27pm

re: #39 reine.de.tout

I turn my back - they've got me, no ifs, ands or buts about it.

heh

44 reine.de.tout  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 4:15:45pm

re: #42 Obdicut

Well, if you can show that you couldn't flee on the basis of being obviously slower then them, then the avenue of escape thing really doesn't apply. It's only if you can actually flee.

If I take time to figure out IF I can reasonably flee, then I'm dead, Obdi, and I can't show anything.

45 reine.de.tout  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 4:16:04pm

re: #43 sattv4u2

I turn my back - they've got me, no ifs, ands or buts about it.

heh

lol. Idjit!

46 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 4:16:10pm

Obdicut you may find some support for my points that Lidane has been finding. They were posted tweets, and as I said I trying to do more research on this as we speak. The dinner hour approaches, too. With all respect for your comments I'm going to hit a time crunch here pretty soon.

47 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 4:19:03pm

And again the more we focus on the law the less we look at what the Sanford police got wrong, to say nothing of the local prosecutor. I await the grand jury to put this right. Clear up some legal points. I want to point out that yet another way this may not apply is if it can be shown Zimmerman had racial hate in play.

The list of reasons this law should not apply is growing and growing.

48 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 4:20:48pm

re: #44 reine.de.tout

If I take time to figure out IF I can reasonably flee, then I'm dead, Obdi, and I can't show anything.

Trayvons last thoughts maybe?

This is so tragic. Zimmerman went looking for trouble, managed to make it happen and killed a kid.

49 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 4:21:11pm

re: #44 reine.de.tout

If I take time to figure out IF I can reasonably flee, then I'm dead, Obdi, and I can't show anything.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're referring to. If you're being attacked by someone who's obviously more fit than you are, you're not going to be reasonably able to flee. Pardon the inference, but since you had daughter of college age I was assuming you were a woman of maturity and might not be the fleetest of foot.

And even this law still requires you to figure out-- to have a reasonable claim-- that the attack on you is likely to be lethal or cause you serious injury. So there's always some figuring that you'll have to do.

There is no way to make self-defense laws crafted so that private citizens are on equal footing with criminals. This is because criminals are willing to break the law. The only way to make citizens equal with criminals in a confrontation is to remove the law entirely.

50 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 4:22:09pm

re: #46 Daniel Ballard

Obdicut you may find some support for my points that Lidane has been finding. They were posted tweets, and as I said I trying to do more research on this as we speak. The dinner hour approaches, too. With all respect for your comments I'm going to hit a time crunch here pretty soon.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't seem you're really paying much attention to what I'm writing. I think this law would allow them BOTH to claim stand your ground defense, as it did to the two groups of gang members who exchanged fire with each other and killed a passer-by.

51 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 4:23:23pm

re: #47 Daniel Ballard

And again the more we focus on the law the less we look at what the Sanford police got wrong, to say nothing of the local prosecutor.

No, that's false. We can look at both of them.

The list of reasons this law should not apply is growing and growing.

Even if the law was found to not apply in this circumstance, for whatever reason, that doesn't make the many, many, many other cases where this law has provided a defense in obviously unjust circumstances go away.

52 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 4:27:56pm

In my opinion, what is needed is not a law that enshrines self-defense in a 'stand your ground' fashion, but a law that explicitly criminalizes pursuit while you're armed, or in any way initiating a confrontation while you're armed. Vigilantes are not police. They should not act like police. They are not trained like police. Even the cops screw up often enough.

53 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 4:30:09pm

re: #49 Obdicut

There is no way to make self-defense laws crafted so that private citizens are on equal footing with criminals. This is because criminals are willing to break the law. The only way to make citizens equal with criminals in a confrontation is to remove the law entirely.

Sorry, but that is just wrong. What you have to do is allow the innocent the means to have a fighting chance to save themselves. You can not rely on the text of a law alone. You use the whole system as intended, to look at the available evidence and make the best decision possible. You have laws that allow us the tools to survive an attack.

Where you don't do that you have more victims that go down to criminal acts. And that is why the right to certain weapons in certain circumstances is appropriate. That is why martial arts are appropriate. That is why convicted criminals have to break the law to carry or own a weapon and you and I do not.

54 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 4:37:49pm

re: #52 Obdicut

Why just when armed? Oh and most of what you describe is already illegal. Assault, battery. Initiating a confrontation means like responding with road rage to being cut off right?

Why not enshrine our right to defend ourselves legally? In important ways we already have. Let's not toss all that out over Zimmerman. By definition defense is in response, not an initiation of anything. And that is a part of the operating principle I tried to illustrate to you above. Give the innocent the tools to prevail from a criminal attack.

55 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 4:39:07pm

re: #53 Daniel Ballard

Sorry, but that is just wrong. What you have to do is allow the innocent the means to have a fighting chance to save themselves.

I understand that this is your assertion. I am saying that, since criminals are willing to break the law, they will always have an advantage.

You can not rely on the text of a law alone. You use the whole system as intended, to look at the available evidence and make the best decision possible. You have laws that allow us the tools to survive an attack.

Sure. That's not what I said, though.

Where you don't do that you have more victims that go down to criminal acts.

Do you think I'm arguing against the right to self-defense in general or something?

And that is why the right to certain weapons in certain circumstances is appropriate. That is why martial arts are appropriate. That is why convicted criminals have to break the law to carry or own a weapon and you and I do not.

But I'm not arguing against the right to self-defense, and I don't know why you think I am.

As a side note;

I really dislike martial arts being touted as a way to fend off attackers. Avoidance is the best self-defense technique, with flight second. Especially when the attacker is larger, and especially since most attackers are themselves 'trained', with more practical experience in hand-to-hand fighting than someone who's taken martial arts classes.

56 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 4:41:19pm

re: #54 Daniel Ballard

Why just when armed?

Because when you're armed, any confrontation is inherently deadly, as I've repeatedly explained above, because there is now a gun involved in the scuffle.

Oh and most of what you describe is already illegal. Assault, battery. Initiating a confrontation means like responding with road rage to being cut off right?.

Nope. I'm talking about what Zimmerman did that set the grounds for the tragedy. I think it should be illegal. Do you think it should be legal to pursue someone you suspect, with no cause, while armed, and confront them?

57 reine.de.tout  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 4:43:06pm

re: #49 Obdicut

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're referring to. If you're being attacked by someone who's obviously more fit than you are, you're not going to be reasonably able to flee. Pardon the inference, but since you had daughter of college age I was assuming you were a woman of maturity and might not be the fleetest of foot. . .
.

I was referring to your statement in #42, "Well, if you can show that you couldn't flee on the basis of being obviously slower then them".

I never was the fleetest of foot. But I'm not exactly completely decrepit either. Yet.

58 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 4:43:19pm

re: #54 Daniel Ballard

Why not enshrine our right to defend ourselves legally?

Why claim that's what I said?

In important ways we already have. Let's not toss all that out over Zimmerman.

Please, for the love of god, stop saying that I"m saying we should toss all that out.

And that is a part of the operating principle I tried to illustrate to you above. Give the innocent the tools to prevail from a criminal attack.

I'm fine with that. They should flee if they can, which is the best defense, and if they can't, they can use whatever means necessary in self-defense, in accordance with the force used against them.

What exactly is the problem with that?

59 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 4:43:48pm

re: #51 Obdicut

Even if the law was found to not apply in this circumstance, for whatever reason, that doesn't make the many, many, many other cases where this law has provided a defense in obviously unjust circumstances go away.

And you expect I have absorbed all that enough to answer already? This afternoon? While I was doing my best to respond over the last couple dozen comments here already? Those too will be case by case. And questions remain. How do we address and proportion the positive difference this law might have made out there? What of good proper outcomes that no one has complained about?

Not gonna happen today.

60 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 4:50:17pm

re: #59 Daniel Ballard

And you expect I have absorbed all that enough to answer already? This afternoon?

To answer what?

Those too will be case by case.

I'm not sure what this means. Of course they'll be case by case.

nd questions remain. How do we address and proportion the positive difference this law might have made out there?

I'm sure it may have made some positive differences. So would a law that allowed people to hunt down and shoot people. That's not that relevant.

What of good proper outcomes that no one has complained about?

The difference between this law, and other self-defense laws, is it takes away the obligation to retreat if able.

I see no value, at all, in taking away that obligation, since retreat is always the best way to avoid being injured or killed, anyway.

I fully support the use of self-defense when unable to retreat, or when you're responsible for others-- children, an invalid wife-- who can't flee. But in those cases, I still don't support the right to simply open fire, but the need to warn beforehand.

This is a perfectly reasonable position, and not some sort of crazy "I hate guns" position, and it's getting really aggravating that it's being treated as such.

61 Decatur Deb  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 4:51:13pm

re: #57 reine.de.tout

I was referring to your statement in #42, "Well, if you can show that you couldn't flee on the basis of being obviously slower then them".

I never was the fleetest of foot. But I'm not exactly completely decrepit either. Yet.

Are you going to hang in and do local color for a thread on the LA primary?

62 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 4:59:49pm

re: #60 Obdicut

"To answer what?"
That would be who not what. You, on case law. How did you miss that?

"I'm sure it may have made some positive differences. So would a law that allowed people to hunt down and shoot people. That's not that relevant."

That hunt thing looks like an absurd stretch, is that what they call an ad absurdum point? And if you propose dismissing positive outcomes you have departed what most would call a fair look at the subject.

"This is a perfectly reasonable position, and not some sort of crazy "I hate guns" position, and it's getting really aggravating that it's being treated as such."

You must be referring to someone else there. I did not treat your position as you describe. If I did by accident I'll retract and apologize fully. But I do not recall ever intending such. As much as we have disagreed today I respect you more than that. Both our positions are reasonable today.

63 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 5:04:04pm

re: #58 Obdicut

Why claim that's what I said?
Please, for the love of god, stop saying that I"m saying we should toss all that out.

You do not want the entire stand your ground law removed? Sorry I misunderstood you.

64 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 5:04:47pm

re: #62 Daniel Ballard

"To answer what?"
That would be who not what. You, on case law. How did you miss that?

I still have no clue what you're asking.

That hunt thing looks like an absurd stretch, is that what they call an ad absurdum point? And if you propose dismissing positive outcomes you have departed what most would call a fair look at the subject.

Okay then.

You must be referring to someone else there. I did not treat your position as you describe.

Then why do you keep referring to throwing out all the self-defense laws?

The only thing I object to is removing the obligation-- an obligation which would save the lives of the defenders, I strongly believe, at a higher rate than standing their ground-- to retreat if able.

If I did by accident I'll retract and apologize fully. But I do not recall ever intending such. As much as we have disagreed today I respect you more than that. Both our positions are reasonable today.

I'm not sure what your position is, still, I'm afraid. You've said that the law needs to be altered. I'm not sure if what you mean is that you think people should retreat if they're able, or not, or how you would want this law altered that would be in any way better.

65 reine.de.tout  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 5:06:17pm

re: #61 Decatur Deb

Are you going to hang in and do local color for a thread on the LA primary?

Oh, CRAP. Can you believe it? I forgot all about it. I'm so sick and tired of politics and politicians - just fed up with all of it - I've been avoiding all of it like the plague. If there's a thread, I may pop in.

66 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 5:07:38pm

re: #63 Daniel Ballard

You do not want the entire stand your ground law removed? Sorry I misunderstood you.

I AM saying that we should toss out the 'stand your ground' law. I am NOT saying we should toss out all the rights to self defense. There is no way of making a stand your ground law that won't be prone to this form of abuse.

The existing self-defense law without the need for retreat is still open to abuse anyway, but at a lower rate. But it is possible Zimmerman might have successfully pled to self-defense without a stand-your-ground law, by claiming Trayvon attempted to grab his gun.

Which is why I was saying that I think that pursuit while armed-- acting like a cop-- should not be legal.

Do you think it should be legal to pursue someone while armed in the manner Zimmerman did, and if so, why?

67 The Questionable Timing of a Flea  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 5:08:36pm

re: #59 Daniel Ballard

And you expect I have absorbed all that enough to answer already? This afternoon? While I was doing my best to respond over the last couple dozen comments here already? Those too will be case by case. And questions remain. How do we address and proportion the positive difference this law might have made out there? What of good proper outcomes that no one has complained about?

Not gonna happen today.

SYG doesn't make the act of self-defense easier. It makes the act of killing in self-defense easier to justify by altering law-enforcement's handling of a defendant in a self-defense shooting and by placing it before a grand jury rather than pushing it immediately to trial and prosecution.

68 Decatur Deb  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 5:08:41pm

re: #65 reine.de.tout

Oh, CRAP. Can you believe it? I forgot all about it. I'm so sick and tired of politics and politicians - just fed up with all of it - I've been avoiding all of it like the plague. If there's a thread, I may pop in.

Makes a big difference when we can see what votes are coming from where. Thought you LAians had an cynical protective shell for political theater.

69 reine.de.tout  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 5:11:23pm

re: #68 Decatur Deb

Makes a big difference when we can see what votes are coming from where. Thought you LAians had an cynical protective shell for political theater.

We do usually. This is me personally - I've just had it, don't feel like listening to 'em, don't feel like talking about politicians, don't feel like praising anyone, nor insulting anyone . . . just fed up.

70 Decatur Deb  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 5:13:03pm

re: #69 reine.de.tout

We do usually. This is me personally - I've just had it, don't feel like listening to 'em, don't feel like talking about politicians, don't feel like praising anyone, nor insulting anyone . . . just fed up.

So I'll just put you down for the $2,499 pledge to the campaign.

71 reine.de.tout  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 5:13:08pm

re: #68 Decatur Deb

Makes a big difference when we can see what votes are coming from where. Thought you LAians had an cynical protective shell for political theater.

However, a prediction:
Votes for Romney will come from the NOLA and BR area.
Santorum will get the votes from other areas.
We'll see. Maybe it would be interesting to pop in.

72 reine.de.tout  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 5:13:32pm

re: #70 Decatur Deb

So I'll just put you down for the $2,499 pledge to the campaign.

hehahahaha. Riiiiiiight.
If I had $2,499? I'd be taking a vacation.

73 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 5:13:48pm

re: #64 Obdicut

When feasible retreat is the best. But Reine had a great point. Often the attacker gets us by surprise and the fight to even escape is on. Like when a womans hair is grabbed. Tough escape right? At least without those skills you "hate to see touted".

Please remember retreat is often attempted and the bad guy is too much to evade. Literally turning your back is a deadly mistake against a weapon or physical assault. How fast can you run backwards? I do say and teach that you give up the wallet and go in a mugging.

Frankly I want the victim to have some reasonable advantages. I'm not afraid of victims, I'm afraid of attackers.

74 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 5:18:45pm

re: #66 Obdicut

I AM saying that we should toss out the 'stand your ground' law. I am NOT saying we should toss out all the rights to self defense. There is no way of making a stand your ground law that won't be prone to this form of abuse.
Do you think it should be legal to pursue someone while armed in the manner Zimmerman did, and if so, why?

I have posted many times the error Zimmerman made was to pursue Trayvor. So the answer to your last line is not just no but hell no. Why did you ask after all those comments that are clear as day?

Okay now that we are apparently misunderstanding each other some, might we agree we have both made our points for today?

75 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 5:19:29pm

re: #73 Daniel Ballard

When feasible retreat is the best. But Reine had a great point. Often the attacker gets us by surprise and the fight to even escape is on. Like when a womans hair is grabbed. Tough escape right? At least without those skills you "hate to see touted".

Which I've already covered-- in a situation like that, it's not feasible to escape, so any means of defense are okay with me. You do see that I"ve said that, right?

Please remember retreat is often attempted and the bad guy is too much to evade. Literally turning your back is a deadly mistake against a weapon or physical assault. How fast can you run backwards? I do say and teach that you give up the wallet and go in a mugging.

Then don't literally turn your back. I'm not saying that when attacked you should instantly turn on your heel and run pell-mell. I am saying the completely goddamn reasonable thing- which I really hope that you teach people-- that whenever you're presented an opportunity to retreat, you should take it.

Frankly I want the victim to have some reasonable advantages. I'm not afraid of victims, I'm afraid of attackers.

I'm afraid of victims like Zimmerman, and many others who resort to deadly force when 'attacked'.

I'm afraid of victims who open fire in a panic and shoot a passerby.

I'm afraid of victims who think they're being attacked when they're not.

I'm afraid of people claiming to be victims who were actually the attackers.

76 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 5:19:35pm

re: #71 reine.de.tout

However, a prediction:
Votes for Romney will come from the NOLA and BR area.
Santorum will get the votes from other areas.
We'll see. Maybe it would be interesting to pop in.

I hope you do pop in.

77 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 5:20:27pm

re: #74 Daniel Ballard

I have posted many times the error Zimmerman made was to pursue Trayvor. So the answer to your last line is not just no but hell no. Why did you ask after all those comments that are clear as day?

Because you've said he shouldn't have done it, NOT that it should have been illegal for him to pursue. Do you, in fact, think it should have been illegal for him to pursue Trayvon while armed?

Okay now that we are apparently misunderstanding each other some, might we agree we have both made our points for today?

You can leave whenever you want, man.

78 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 5:23:26pm

re: #75 Obdicut

I'm afraid of victims like Zimmerman, and many others who resort to deadly force when 'attacked'.

I'm afraid of victims who open fire in a panic and shoot a passerby.

I'm afraid of victims who think they're being attacked when they're not.

I'm afraid of people claiming to be victims who were actually the attackers.

Obdicut, 3 of four of those are not really even victims. That's obfuscating. As to the one kind of actual victim you cited, training and education are the best solutions. Some of us face felons with guns that hunt us for real. For our gender or our money or for a serial killer thrill. So when I say victim, take me as meaning actual victims.

79 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 5:25:15pm

Is anyone following this exchange besides Obdicut and myself? I fear this debate is between two people in an empty arena.

80 sattv4u2  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 5:26:53pm

re: #79 Daniel Ballard

Is anyone following this exchange besides Obdicut and myself? I fear this debate is between two people in an empty arena.

I went for popcorn and a hot dog and a beer

Reine was supposed to be taking notes!!!!

81 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 5:28:10pm

re: #78 Daniel Ballard

Obdicut, 3 of four of those are not really even victims. That's obfuscating.

God damn it, that's my point. The law doesn't have a magical way of distinguishing between those groups.

As to the one kind of actual victim you cited, training and education are the best solutions

They are very incomplete solutions. Police are very well-trained, and police very often make mistakes of this nature.

. Some of us face felons with guns that hunt us for real. For our gender or our money or for a serial killer thrill. So when I say victim, take me as meaning actual victims.

But the law doesn't just apply to actual victims. It applies to anyone who can credibly claim the law intended to protect actual victims in their defense. That is the whole damn point-- that the law is open to abuse. The law, as used by real victims, in ideal circumstnaces-- of course that's going to be great. What is being pointed out is that this law is widely, widely open to abuse.

Is anyone following this exchange besides Obdicut and myself? I fear this debate is between two people in an empty arena.

Again, feel free to leave whenever you want.

82 Decatur Deb  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 5:28:13pm

re: #79 Daniel Ballard

Is anyone following this exchange besides Obdicut and myself? I fear this debate is between two people in an empty arena.

HUHH?? 1492, or 1066, or...

83 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 5:33:36pm

re: #82 Decatur Deb

UUHU?? 1492, or 1066, or...

Yup.
Looks like all that can and should be answered has been. Does anyone besides Obdicut have any questions for me? Anyone else failing to understand me here?

84 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 5:35:04pm

re: #83 Daniel Ballard

Are you planning on answering the question about whether you think Zimmerman's pursuit of Trayvon should have been legal or illegal, by the way?

85 The Questionable Timing of a Flea  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 5:35:19pm

re: #78 Daniel Ballard

I'm afraid of victims like Zimmerman, and many others who resort to deadly force when 'attacked'.

I'm afraid of victims who open fire in a panic and shoot a passerby.

I'm afraid of victims who think they're being attacked when they're not.

I'm afraid of people claiming to be victims who were actually the attackers.

Obdicut, 3 of four of those are not really even victims. That's obfuscating. As to the one kind of actual victim you cited, training and education are the best solutions. Some of us face felons with guns that hunt us for real. For our gender or our money or for a serial killer thrill. So when I say victim, take me as meaning actual victims.

Give a precise definition of a "real victim."

86 sattv4u2  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 5:35:57pm

re: #83 Daniel Ballard

Yup.
Looks like all that can and should be answered has been. Does anyone besides Obdicut have any questions for me? Anyone else failing to understand me here?

Yes

Whens the best time to plant corn?
Who's going to win the second race at Aqueduct
And whats this lump on my neck?

87 Decatur Deb  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 5:36:06pm

re: #83 Daniel Ballard

Yup.
Looks like all that can and should be answered has been. Does anyone besides Obdicut have any questions for me? Anyone else failing to understand me here?

Bottom line is that you've both shown there is a real function for courts and clever lawyers. I'm not sure Zimmerman is going to have to face them.

88 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 5:36:48pm

re: #84 Obdicut

I refer you to the comment above that says "Not exactly good question" My #21.

89 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 5:39:40pm

re: #88 Daniel Ballard

I refer you to the comment above that says "Not exactly good question" My #21.

Okay. So you don't think that it should be a crime to pursue someone while you're armed, right? Since you said 'no, not exactly'?

If someone does so, and the person they're pursuing, seeing that they're being pursued by an armed man, attempts to disarm their armed pursuer, does that armed pursuer have the right to shoot the person who is trying to take their gun?

90 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 5:39:42pm

re: #87 Decatur Deb

Bottom line is that you've both shown there is a real function for courts and clever lawyers. I'm not sure Zimmerman is going to have to face them.

Thank you. Obdicut it's been fun sparring with you. But the appeal of a cold shot of Tito's vodka, a smoke of California's finest and the undertaking of cooking a fine Salmon dinner is beginning to appeal more than this debate. So a toast to all who took the time to read and or chime in to this Page today.

91 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 5:40:26pm

re: #90 Daniel Ballard

I think Ghost of A Flea's question deserves an answer, and it's exactly to the point I was trying to make.

92 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 5:43:38pm

re: #85 The Ghost of a Flea

Give a precise definition of a "real victim."

I mean the common ordinary non tricksy kind-
[Link: www.yourdictionary.com...]
"A victim is a person who has had something bad happen to him. (noun)

An example of a victim is a person who was killed or robbed or otherwise had a crime committed against him.
An example of a victim is a person who was cheated out of money by a scam."

Juries often have to make the final decision. That's the justice system, good laws and bad.

93 reine.de.tout  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 5:45:35pm

re: #80 sattv4u2

I went for popcorn and a hot dog and a beer

Reine was supposed to be taking notes!!!

I went out for chips. SORRY!

94 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 5:46:45pm

Shall I hold an intermission for drinks?

95 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 5:51:23pm

re: #92 Daniel Ballard

But what you're championing is actually something to prevent people from becoming victims, by that definition. Which is a perfectly admirable goal.

But the point is that the same thing can be claimed-- and has been claimed-- by people who there is at least enormous doubt as to whether or not they really were being attacked, or attacked to the level that they needed to use the force that they did.

Like the gang members who returned fire with other gang members, and killed a passer-by.

And sadly for responsible CCW holders, Zimmerman was a CCW holder-- and still is, for that matter. It can be argued he was a bad apple, but one thing I've been often assured is that CCW permits are only issued to people who really demonstrate the calmness and sensibility to hold one. This guy clearly did not. He was an accident waiting to happen.

I also think that the root-- often an expressed root-- of many Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground advocates (and this does NOT include you) is a belief that it is okay to use deadly force to defend property. This is actually in law in Texas.

96 sattv4u2  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 5:54:55pm

re: #94 Daniel Ballard

Shall I hold an intermission for drinks?

Vodka Martini ,, straight up,, with olives

And put them on Obdicuts tab

97 sattv4u2  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 5:59:31pm

re: #95 Obdicut

a belief that it is okay to use deadly force to defend property. This is actually in law in Texas.

Far from the only place

Montana, for one

Use of force in defense of occupied structure.

(1) A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry into or attack upon an occupied structure.

(2) A person justified in the use of force pursuant to subsection (1) is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if:

(a) the entry is made or attempted and the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent an assault upon the person or another then in the occupied structure; or

(b) the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in the occupied structure.

98 sattv4u2  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:00:44pm

Kentucky

Kentucky

Kentucky Revised Statute 503.080: Protection of property.

(1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent:

(a) The commission of criminal trespass, robbery, burglary, or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055, in a dwelling, building or upon real property in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts; or
(b) Theft, criminal mischief, or any trespassory taking of tangible, movable property in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts.

(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable under subsection (1) only when the defendant believes that the person against whom such force is used is:

(a) Attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or
(b) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary, robbery, or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055, of such dwelling; or
(c) Committing or attempting to commit arson of a dwelling or other building in his possession.

(3) A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be

99 sattv4u2  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:04:41pm

re: #93 reine.de.tout

I went out for chips. SORRY!

Mister Chips? Chip and Dale?
Chip on your shoulder??
Chip off the old block?

100 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:10:09pm

re: #95 Obdicut

But what you're championing is actually something to prevent people from becoming victims, by that definition. Which is a perfectly admirable goal.

But the point is that the same thing can be claimed-- and has been claimed-- by people who there is at least enormous doubt as to whether or not they really were being attacked, or attacked to the level that they needed to use the force that they did.

Like the gang members who returned fire with other gang members, and killed a passer-by.

And sadly for responsible CCW holders, Zimmerman was a CCW holder-- and still is, for that matter. It can be argued he was a bad apple, but one thing I've been often assured is that CCW permits are only issued to people who really demonstrate the calmness and sensibility to hold one. This guy clearly did not. He was an accident waiting to happen.

I also think that the root-- often an expressed root-- of many Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground advocates (and this does NOT include you) is a belief that it is okay to use deadly force to defend property. This is actually in law in Texas.

Oh I understand that some have falsely claimed self defense. That's why in a previous post I did advocate a narrowing of this law even though like some other I think it irrelevant in the Zimmerman case. Defining in actual threat would help. Excluding those who by their actions have demonstrated a mutual desire for conflict. Certainly life and limb, not property. This is not complete just a quick couple concepts. Nothing will be perfect. I endorse Castle doctrine for life and limb, but not property. I endorse the victims right to use force enough to overcome an attack.

101 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:12:19pm

A small digression-
If a Brinks guard who is held up shoots first an armed robber is that lethal force to defend mere property?

102 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:12:50pm

re: #100 Daniel Ballard

Oh I understand that some have falsely claimed self defense. That's why in a previous post I did advocate a narrowing of this law even though like some other I think it irrelevant in the Zimmerman case. Defining in actual threat would help. Excluding those who by their actions have demonstrated a mutual desire for conflict. Certainly life and limb, not property. This is not complete just a quick couple concepts. Nothing will be perfect. I endorse Castle doctrine for life and limb, but not property. I endorse the victims right to use force enough to overcome an attack.

I know you don't support the right to use deadly force to defend property; I'd never lay that accusation against you.

Do you think Zimmerman, by following Trayvon demonstrated a mutual desire for conflict?

103 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:15:58pm

re: #102 Obdicut

I know you don't support the right to use deadly force to defend property; I'd never lay that accusation against you.

Do you think Zimmerman, by following Trayvon demonstrated a mutual desire for conflict?

I don't think mutual as Trayvon was just going about his own perfectly legit way. By mutual I mean two guys who argue about a girl take it out side and square off. My read on Zimmerman is the aggressor. He made a false allegation. That Treyvor was "suspicious".

104 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:16:12pm

re: #101 Daniel Ballard

A small digression-
If a Brinks guard who is held up shoots first an armed robber is that lethal force to defend mere property?

If you have a gun trained on you, you've got reason to believe there's a deadly threat, obviously.

105 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:17:49pm

re: #103 Daniel Ballard

I don't think mutual as Trayvon was just going about his own perfectly legit way. By mutual I mean two guys who argue about a girl take it out side and square off. My read on Zimmerman is the agressor.

Okay, so sticking with Zimmerman, you think his pursuit was legal but that by pursuing he should have vacated his right to a self-defense claim if he was attacked after pursuing? You lose the right to self-defense if you pursue someone?

106 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:18:26pm

re: #104 Obdicut

I meant just drawn and held, my scenario excludes a direct personal threat. Maybe just displayed. Setting aside some overlap there for the thought experiment. Are the guards supposed to just hand it over under the law? I honestly don't know.

107 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:20:48pm

re: #105 Obdicut

Okay, so sticking with Zimmerman, you think his pursuit was legal but that by pursuing he should have vacated his right to a self-defense claim if he was attacked after pursuing? You lose the right to self-defense if you pursue someone?

That's it. Yes. But there we hit the muddiest waters as we are uncertain about the exact movement of the two. AFAIK

108 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:21:34pm

re: #106 Daniel Ballard

I meant just drawn and held, my scenario excludes a direct personal threat. Maybe just displayed. Setting aside some overlap there for the thought experiment. Are the guards supposed to just hand it over under the law? I honestly don't know.

So they just have the guns, but they're avoiding pointing them at anyone? Not much of a stickup. I think you're in a weird place here.

109 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:22:13pm

re: #107 Daniel Ballard

That's it. Yes. But there we hit the muddiest waters as we are uncertain about the exact movement of the two. AFAIK

Um, so if i see a suspicious guy in my neighborhood, and I follow him, and he attacks me, I have no right to self-defense?

110 Decatur Deb  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:23:24pm

re: #101 Daniel Ballard

A small digression-
If a Brinks guard who is held up shoots first an armed robber is that lethal force to defend mere property?

No. I'd be thinking of the robber's policy on witnesses.

111 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:24:50pm

re: #108 Obdicut

So they just have the guns, but they're avoiding pointing them at anyone? Not much of a stickup. I think you're in a weird place here.

How about this hypothetical
"Drop the guns and nobody gets hurt. Walk away from the bag"
What happens next?

112 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:25:54pm

re: #110 Decatur Deb

So a bad guy with a gun is a presumed lethal threat right?

113 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:26:20pm

re: #111 Daniel Ballard

How about this hypothetical
"Drop the guns and nobody gets hurt. Walk away from the bag"
What happens next?

Who is saying this? Do they have a gun out? I really am not seeing the point of this 'thought exercise'. You're saying the robbers have guns but aren't pointing them at anyone? They just kind of have them in their waistbands or something?

114 Decatur Deb  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:28:24pm

re: #112 Daniel Ballard

So a bad guy with a gun is a presumed lethal threat right?

Almost always, unless he's not really a bad guy, but a PC cop.

115 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:28:28pm

re: #113 Obdicut

Something like that. A scenario where the guards can stand and fight or let the bad guys with guns take the goods.

116 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:30:23pm

re: #115 Daniel Ballard

Something like that. A scenario where the guards can stand and fight or let the bad guys with guns take the goods.

They don't have to fight. They just have to point their guns at the robbers and tell them to fuck off. Since the robbers haven't bothered to draw their guns, this shouldn't be a problem. The issue is not, in the least, the property, it is their own lives, and whoever else's life happens to be around. It is well-known that armor car robbers-- especially if they're not wearing masks-- often kill the guards.

Can you address 109, please, which is far more relevant?

117 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:35:23pm

re: #109 Obdicut

How close a follow are you talking about? A block or so? Or punching range?!
Following so closely you get into range of being easily by a smaller man attacked is pretty aggressive. Starts to look like you are the bad guy. Maybe not really just following.

118 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:36:06pm

re: #117 Daniel Ballard

How close a follow are you talking about? A block or so? Or punching range?!
Following so closely you get into range of being easily by a smaller man attacked is pretty aggressive. Starts to look like you are the bad guy. Maybe not really just following.

Follow, and eventually go up to and ask "What are you doing here?"

Do I lose the right to self-defense?

119 goddamnedfrank  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:36:34pm

re: #101 Daniel Ballard

A small digression-
If a Brinks guard who is held up shoots first an armed robber is that lethal force to defend mere property?

If one is being held up by an armed robber then generally life is also on the line, no?

120 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:37:56pm

re: #119 goddamnedfrank

Generally but I was referring to another kind of scenario. Armed bank guards let the goods go. I'm not sure armored car guards do. Anyway a digression.

121 Decatur Deb  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:38:09pm

re: #118 Obdicut

Follow, and eventually go up to and ask "What are you doing here?"

Do I lose the right to self-defense?

Not realistic. If someone needs following, it's 911 time. Otherwise you get two solid citizens standing their killing ground.

122 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:39:46pm

re: #118 Obdicut

Follow, and eventually go up to and ask "What are you doing here?"

Do I lose the right to self-defense?

Well I hate to think in absolutes. Your margin for it is shrinking fast if a jury got to know all this for sure, like from a good video. Which BTW I think would solve the Zimmerman issue.

By the time you are demanding answers from a person who has zero obligation to deal with you it's paper thin.

123 sattv4u2  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:40:00pm

re: #109 Obdicut

Um, so if i see a suspicious guy in my neighborhood, and I follow him, and he attacks me, I have no right to self-defense?

You have just described what happened that night in Sanford

Zimmerman, thinking he had a suspicious person in "his" neighborhood follows Trayvon
Trayvon gets nervous (rightfully so) with this guy following him. At some point one of them says WTF out loud and they go face to face. Under your question, does Zimmerman lose his right of self defense?

124 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:40:13pm

re: #121 Decatur Deb

Not realistic. If someone needs following, it's 911 time. Otherwise you get two solid citizens standing their killing ground.

Which is exactly my point. Why do you say it's not realistic? It just happened, didn't it?

I have totally followed people I felt were sketchy before, when I thought they might be targeting people for a mugging. Once I was right, and was able to interrupt a would-be attack.

125 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:41:03pm

re: #109 Obdicut

Um, so if i see a suspicious guy in my neighborhood, and I follow him, and he attacks me, I have no right to self-defense?

BTW what makes it ok to assume its not his neighborhood too?

126 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:41:25pm

re: #123 sattv4u2

Yes, that is, in fact, my question.

127 Decatur Deb  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:41:58pm

re: #124 Obdicut

Which is exactly my point. Why do you say it's not realistic? It just happened, didn't it?

I have totally followed people I felt were sketchy before, when I thought they might be targeting people for a mugging. Once I was right, and was able to interrupt a would-be attack.

It should not have happened. Zimmerman had no right to follow and challenge a citizen.

128 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:43:39pm

re: #127 Decatur Deb

It should not have happened. Zimmerman had no right to follow and challenge a citizen.

He had the perfect legal right to do so, though, unless there's some law I'm unaware of. Unless he brandished his gun and told Martin to freeze-- that'd obviously be a crime.

It's funny that simply brandishing the gun would be harder to get away with than using the gun. Not funny ha-ha.

129 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:43:52pm

re: #124 Obdicut

Which is exactly my point. Why do you say it's not realistic? It just happened, didn't it?

I have totally followed people I felt were sketchy before, when I thought they might be targeting people for a mugging. Once I was right, and was able to interrupt a would-be attack.

Did anything more legit than a hoodie make you think they were up to a crime?

130 The Questionable Timing of a Flea  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:47:43pm

re: #92 Daniel Ballard

I mean the common ordinary non tricksy kind-

Wasn't sure if there was a legal definition.

re: #100 Daniel Ballard

Oh I understand that some have falsely claimed self defense. That's why in a previous post I did advocate a narrowing of this law even though like some other I think it irrelevant in the Zimmerman case. Defining in actual threat would help. Excluding those who by their actions have demonstrated a mutual desire for conflict. Certainly life and limb, not property. This is not complete just a quick couple concepts. Nothing will be perfect. I endorse Castle doctrine for life and limb, but not property. I endorse the victims right to use force enough to overcome an attack.

Theoretically I agree with you.

But I still don't like the outcomes I'm seeing from SYG laws.

Maybe it's cynicism and maybe it's having done psych work on juries, but the very SYG category designation gives the shooter a favorable profile...it provides a built-in narrative of how things went down that favors the shooter. And check out the section in the Florida statute about what compensation can be sought--that's a dis-incentive to pursue investigation or prosecution of shooters claiming self-defense.

131 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:48:09pm

HAHAHA past 100 in my own Page so I can go O/T

Santorum wins Louisiana

132 Decatur Deb  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:48:24pm

re: #128 Obdicut

He had the perfect legal right to do so, though, unless there's some law I'm unaware of. Unless he brandished his gun and told Martin to freeze-- that'd obviously be a crime.

It's funny that simply brandishing the gun would be harder to get away with than using the gun. Not funny ha-ha.

His behavior would have given Martin a definite fear for his own safety. As WW and Sergey pointed out, that probably triggered Martin's SYG rights. This is a formula for a bunch of fatal 'misunderstandings". I'll let the lawyers figure out how legal Zimmerman's behavior was. Reckless endangerment, anyone?

133 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:48:37pm

re: #129 Daniel Ballard

Did anything more legit than a hoodie make you think they were up to a crime?

Yes, but obviously that's completely subjective, and we can't write laws based on things like that. I used my camera as my 'weapon' of choice there-- always a good way to deter people.

I really don't get the line of reasoning that removes self-defense there. Unless there's something criminal in the act of following someone, I don't see how it could legally impact your right to self-defense.

134 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:49:20pm

re: #130 The Ghost of a Flea

Wasn't sure if there was a legal definition.

re: #100 Daniel Ballard

Theoretically I agree with you.

But I still don't like the outcomes I'm seeing from SYG laws.

Maybe it's cynicism and maybe it's having done psych work on juries, but the very SYG category designation gives the shooter a favorable profile...it provides a built-in narrative of how things went down that favors the shooter. And check out the section in the Florida statute about what compensation can be sought--that's a dis-incentive to pursue investigation or prosecution of shooters claiming self-defense.

Well if we had video it's not so muddy. But I do agree we need to ditch the disincentive. Absolutely.

135 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:50:03pm

re: #132 Decatur Deb

His behavior would have given Martin a definite fear for his own safety. As WW and Sergey pointed out, that probably triggered Martin's SYG rights. This is a formula for a bunch of fatal 'misunderstandings". I'll let the lawyers figure out how legal Zimmerman's behavior was. Reckless endangerment, anyone?

I think both of them, according to this law, may have had valid SYG defenses, since Martin was being pursued by a strange, armed man, and Zimmerman may have been 'attacked' (for the best of reasons) by a young man attempting to disarm him.

136 Decatur Deb  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:51:06pm

re: #135 Obdicut

I think both of them, according to this law, may have had valid SYG defenses, since Martin was being pursued by a strange, armed man, and Zimmerman may have been 'attacked' (for the best of reasons) by a man attempting to disarm him.

Sanford needs more MYOB law.

137 sattv4u2  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:51:59pm

re: #136 Decatur Deb

Sanford needs more MYOB law.

Next time I throw a party, I'm instituting a BYOB law !!!

138 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:52:12pm

re: #133 Obdicut

Try to think of it as a spectrum. Not as a perfect gradient but try to get the gist of it.

Most powerful as the Castle Doctrine. Weaker when you go out. Weakest when you approach likely trouble knowingly. Non existent with a total force disparity.

139 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:53:59pm

re: #136 Decatur Deb

Sanford needs more MYOB law.

In retrospect, I probably was being an idiot the couple of times I followed suspicious characters, but I lived in an area of town where crime was very, very common. And I had a camera. It completely changes the equation when you go out armed.

Guns are important things. I defend 2nd amendment rights to own guns, and even the right to carry them if it's needful. I do not the defend the right to carry guns without need, and there was no need, at all, for Zimmerman to leave his house while armed and pursue Trayvon. I think that, in itself, playing cop, should be criminalized.

That would also remove his SYG defense, since he'd be involved in a criminal act.

140 Decatur Deb  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:56:05pm

re: #139 Obdicut

In retrospect, I probably was being an idiot the couple of times I followed suspicious characters, but I lived in an area of town where crime was very, very common. And I had a camera. It completely changes the equation when you go out armed.

Guns are important things. I defend 2nd amendment rights to own guns, and even the right to carry them if it's needful. I do not the defend the right to carry guns without need, and there was no need, at all, for Zimmerman to leave his house while armed and pursue Trayvon. I think that, in itself, playing cop, should be criminalized.

That would also remove his SYG defense, since he'd be involved in a criminal act.

Don't tell me you've been playing neighborhood watch on the West side? Shit, I'd never have got through Needle Park without my gallon of ice cream melting.

141 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:56:57pm

Eight hours working this Page. Not counting about six making it.

Charles I doubt you are hanging on our every post here but how do you do it all day every day?

142 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:57:53pm

re: #138 Daniel Ballard

Try to think of it as a spectrum. Not as a perfect gradient but try to get the gist of it.

Most powerful as the Castle Doctrine. Weaker when you go out. Weakest when you approach likely trouble knowingly. Non existent with a total force disparity.

Write that law and we can see how good that looks. But it's not what we have. And again, the force disparity is problematic when someone who is armed is 'attacked' by someone else. You really need to consider that. Previous cases involving this law have included a man shooting to 'defend' himself when a guy noticed he was armed and 'lunged' at him. This is because people may consider an armed man to be a credible threat to themselves.

143 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:58:33pm

re: #139 Obdicut

In retrospect, I probably was being an idiot the couple of times I followed suspicious characters, but I lived in an area of town where crime was very, very common. And I had a camera. It completely changes the equation when you go out armed.

Guns are important things. I defend 2nd amendment rights to own guns, and even the right to carry them if it's needful. I do not the defend the right to carry guns without need, and there was no need, at all, for Zimmerman to leave his house while armed and pursue Trayvon. I think that, in itself, playing cop, should be criminalized.

That would also remove his SYG defense, since he'd be involved in a criminal act.

+1 +1 +1

But I can only do 1

144 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:58:52pm

re: #140 Decatur Deb

Don't tell me you've been playing neighborhood watch on the West side? Shit, I'd never have got through Needle Park without my gallon of ice cream melting.

Chicago's Southside, near the U of C.

145 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 6:59:11pm

re: #143 Daniel Ballard

+1 +1 +1

But I can only do 1

No clue what that means.

146 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 7:00:08pm

re: #145 Obdicut

Oh, I get it-- but previously, you said you didn't want to criminalize Zimmerman's pursuit while armed. Have you changed your mind?

147 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 7:00:26pm

re: #142 Obdicut

Write that law and we can see how good that looks. But it's not what we have. And again, the force disparity is problematic when someone who is armed is 'attacked' by someone else. You really need to consider that. Previous cases involving this law have included a man shooting to 'defend' himself when a guy noticed he was armed and 'lunged' at him. This is because people may consider an armed man to be a credible threat to themselves.

We can only aspire to get it right he great majority of the time. We both know there are innocent men in jail for no better reason than a lack of evidence to clear them in questionable circumstances. Not necessarily any kind of misconduct involved.

148 sattv4u2  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 7:00:46pm

And on that note, the long quiet drive home beckons

149 Decatur Deb  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 7:01:26pm

re: #144 Obdicut

Chicago's Southside, near the U of C.

OK. If New Yorkers start following suspicious characters, they'd never get anything done and all wind up in Hoboken every night.

150 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 7:01:48pm

re: #146 Obdicut

Playing cop is already illegal. Strengthen that and we have a good adjustment. The rest of the cheering was the rest of the comment.

151 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 7:03:52pm

re: #146 Obdicut

Oh, I get it-- but previously, you said you didn't want to criminalize Zimmerman's pursuit while armed. Have you changed your mind?

And remember the spectrum that I think we do roughly have via many court decisions over the years. Your presumption of defender thins as you put yourself in harms way unnecessarily.

152 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 7:04:45pm

re: #149 Decatur Deb

OK. If New Yorkers start following suspicious characters, they'd never get anything done and all wind up in Hoboken every night.

Nah, this was just back when there was a rash of people getting jumped coming home drunk from parties to off-campus apartments. And some rapes. It wasn't something I did often, but if I saw someone who looked like he was sizing up people and following them, I'd follow him in turn, with my camera out, and take his picture. Not that bright, but if anyone had turned on me, I would have booked it.

153 goddamnedfrank  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 7:05:01pm

re: #138 Daniel Ballard

Try to think of it as a spectrum. Not as a perfect gradient but try to get the gist of it.

Most powerful as the Castle Doctrine. Weaker when you go out. Weakest when you approach likely trouble knowingly. Non existent with a total force disparity.

One problem is that the law isn't written that way, at all. It's written as a simple binary on/off test of whether the last man standing's fear was reasonable. The other problem is that SYG even rewritten as a gradient doesn't adequately address equivalent mutual combat; two domestics in the same home both covered under Castle, two antagonists on the street with a beef. The law itself is dangerous in how it throws out any consideration of opportunities for defensive withdrawal and avoidance.

154 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 7:05:31pm

re: #151 Daniel Ballard

And remember the spectrum that I think we do roughly have via many court decisions over the years.

You can think that we have that, but you haven't demonstrated it, and the cases in Florida have not demonstrated that. These laws are new laws, anyway, and would overturn established court decisions.

155 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 7:06:20pm

re: #153 goddamnedfrank

Courts have chosen to decide cases based on this spectrum. YOu just dont have the same presumption as a defender walking up on a stranger and demanding answers as you do in your car.

156 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 7:06:50pm

re: #150 Daniel Ballard

Playing cop is already illegal.

No, claiming to be a cop is illegal. Holding someone at gunpoint is illegal. But pursuing someone while armed and then confronting them and asking what they're up to is perfectly legal.

Strengthen that and we have a good adjustment. The rest of the cheering was the rest of the comment.

I don't know what you mean by 'strengthen that', I don't know what you mean when you say you want this law altered (and I'm confused, if you don't think this law is at fault, why you want it altered). The lack of specificity makes it hard to know what you mean.

157 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 7:09:37pm

re: #156 Obdicut

The approach need not be criminal to be illustrative as to who the aggressor is.

158 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 7:10:48pm

I'm out to get some spinach for dinner. BBL.

159 Decatur Deb  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 7:10:55pm

re: #152 Obdicut

Nah, this was just back when there was a rash of people getting jumped coming home drunk from parties to off-campus apartments. And some rapes. It wasn't something I did often, but if I saw someone who looked like he was sizing up people and following them, I'd follow him in turn, with my camera out, and take his picture. Not that bright, but if anyone had turned on me, I would have booked it.

Heh. I used to pass this guy standing in a bank doorway each day on my way to work and back. I guess I could have stopped an observed him for a few hours.

Image: moondog.jpg

(He was a brilliant poet, inventor, and jazz musician.)

160 Obdicut  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 7:11:18pm

re: #157 Daniel Ballard

The approach need not be criminal to be illustrative as to who the aggressor is.

I don't think it needs to be criminal. I am saying, flat out, that picking up your gun and heading out the door in order to 'pursue' someone that you suspect-- that should be illegal, because that is the function of the police, and you are choosing to act as a vigilante.

Carrying a gun to protect yourself when you are known to haul around precious jewels? Fine. Carrying a gun when you want to fantasize that you're going to stop a burglar? Criminal.

161 Prideful, Arrogant Marriage Equality Advocate  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 8:16:51pm

I learn so much from this blog. You all are awesome.

162 Talking Point Detective  Sat, Mar 24, 2012 9:44:06pm
Because the Castle Doctrine, which creates a presumption in favor of the use of deadly force, does NOT apply here, Zimmerman must prove that he was entitled to use deadly force. (The burden is on Zimmerman. The State would not have to prove that he was NOT acting in self-defense.)

Do you have evidence for this statement? I haven't researched this extensively, by my understanding is that Zimmerman can pretty much just say that he was acting in self-defense, and absent proof otherwise, he can use SYG to avoid prosecution. On what basis are you asserting that has the burden of proof that he acted in self-defense?

Also - I think you may have addressed this above in the discussion with Obdicut - but how do you get that there is some stipulation in the law that his following Martin negates his ability to claim that Martin threatened him with bodily harm - and because of no requirement that deadly force be a last resort - his use of deadly force in self-defense would be justified? I realize that politicians who are motivated by political expediency say that this case isn't covered by SYG - but where's the legal language that backs up that assertion?

163 Daniel Ballard  Sun, Mar 25, 2012 9:04:00am

re: #162 Talking Point Detective

If you look at cases where self defense was not allowed, due to circumstance or excessive force you see it right there. For all the complaints about use of force upheld under this law, nobody is publicly illustrating the positive outcomes. That leaves us with no objective sense of proportion.

164 Talking Point Detective  Sun, Mar 25, 2012 9:29:09am

re: #163 Daniel Ballard

Ok - that seems like a legit point. But the fact that benefit might exist in the other direction doesn't negate potential costs. And keep in mind, you'd have to demonstrate benefits as compared to situations where there was an expectation of retreat and the use of force only as a last resort - which used to be a common legal standard.

How many situations do you suppose have have a differentially positive benefit from SYG as compared to an expectation of retreat and use of deadly force as st resort? My guess is that the # of such cases would be rare.

165 Daniel Ballard  Sun, Mar 25, 2012 3:17:11pm

re: #164 Talking Point Detective

How do you prove you tried to flee?

166 Talking Point Detective  Sun, Mar 25, 2012 3:42:53pm

re: #165 Daniel Ballard

That's a problem at some level. But there are often ways that you can show an attempt to retreat.

But I don't think you've addressed the points I made. The standard of "last resort" was around for quite a while. It isn't perfect, but if you're questioning how to gain an objective evaluation of SYG, you have to consider it in the context of alternative standards.

167 Daniel Ballard  Sun, Mar 25, 2012 3:52:43pm

re: #166 Talking Point Detective

The next step is a case analysis if I can find one that is not loaded. Last resort might be best. But again it's all about how it's applied when we have inadequate evidence.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2016-01-01 10:29 am PST
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Square Cash Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Green Day - Oh Yeah! (Official Music Video) We’re throwing a party at the apocalypse and you and your 5 seconds of fame are invited. Go listen to Oh Yeah! out now - greenday.lnk.to BTW we sampled a song from the great Joan Jett’s Bad Reputation album. ...
Thanos
1 day, 2 hours ago
Views: 215 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
#Thegreatpoolpondconversion - 200126We are still pulling about 4-6 gallons of water a day.We're digging a little deeper as we go, and pounding the boards down further an inch at a time.The center layer of sand is probably still a foot and a ...
Dangerman (slowly converting a pool into a pond)
1 day, 20 hours ago
Views: 952 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
Brandi Carlile - the Times They Are A-Changin’ (Live on KEXP) Come senators, congressmen Please heed the call Don't stand in the doorway Don't block up the hall For he that gets hurt Will be he who has stalled There's a battle outside And it is ragin'. It'll soon shake ...
Thanos
4 days, 18 hours ago
Views: 546 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 2 • Share to Facebook
Cage the Elephant - Broken Boy (Audio) Ft. Iggy Pop “Broken Boy” feat. Iggy Pop available now: smarturl.it Get Cage The Elephant’s latest album ‘Social Cues’: smarturl.it I was born on the wrong side of the train tracksI was raised with a strap across my backLay me on my ...
Thanos
4 days, 18 hours ago
Views: 558 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 3 • Share to Facebook
Wolf Parade - Julia Take Your Man Home [OFFICIAL VIDEO]"Julia Take Your Man Home" from the album Thin Mind (Release Date: January 24, 2020) megamart.subpop.com Spotify: u.subpop.comAppleMusic: u.subpop.comAmazon: amazon.com Wolf ParadeFacebook: facebook.comBandcamp: wolfparade.bandcamp.comInstagram: instagram.comTwitter: @WolfParade VIDEO CREDITS: Animation by Chad VanGaalen YouTube
Thanos
4 days, 18 hours ago
Views: 548 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 4 • Share to Facebook
Stay ‘97 Listen to this bass - Gail Ann is superb. Previously this version was only available as a bootleg. Provided to YouTube by Rhino/ParlophoneStay '97 · David Bowie Stay '97 ℗ 2020 Jones/Tintoretto Entertainment Company LLC under exclusive licence to ...
Thanos
4 days, 18 hours ago
Views: 552 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Black Pumas - Fire (Official Live Session) Black Pumas’ debut album is available now - limited edition vinyl, CD and digital formats: smarturl.it FOLLOW BLACK PUMASTour Dates: theblackpumas.comFacebook: facebook.comTwitter: @blackpumasmusicInstagram: instagram.com Video Directed by Amos David McKayVideo Filmed at Arlyn Studios – Austin, TX LYRICSI’ve got ...
Thanos
5 days, 6 hours ago
Views: 561 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Sergio Mendes & Brasil 66 - Mas Que Nada (Introduced by Eartha Kitt / Something Special 1967)Sergio Mendes & Brasil 66 - Mas que nada, from Eartha Kitt's Something Special 1967.
Thanos
6 days, 6 hours ago
Views: 700 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Wes Montgomery - Here’s That Rainy Day - Live London 1965Stan Tracey (piano) Wes Montgomery (guitar) Rick Laird (bass) Jackie Dougan (drums)Television broadcast, "Tempo", ABC TV, London, England, May 7, 1965
Thanos
6 days, 6 hours ago
Views: 703 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Halsey - You Should Be Sad (Lyric Video) Halsey’s new album ‘Manic’ out now! halsey.lnk.toiTunes: halsey.lnk.toSpotify: halsey.lnk.to Apple Music: halsey.lnk.toAmazon: halsey.lnk.toGoogle Play: halsey.lnk.to Get tickets to #ManicWorldTour! Each ticket purchase comes with a physical copy of ‘Manic’.halsey.lnk.to Follow Halsey –Twitter: @halsey Facebook: facebook.com Instagram: instagram.comSpotify: halsey.lnk.toOfficial Site: ...
Thanos
6 days, 6 hours ago
Views: 686 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook