re: #73 Daniel Ballard

Would we agree the better interpretation of SYG would not cover a situation where the alleged defender deliberately went to the assailant?

.

My particular point of interest is how many conservatives assume that’s the case, in an attempt to justify SYG laws, without realizing that SYG is inherently ambiguous in that regard.

It’s wishful thinking. They, themselves, think that him following Martin should disallow a self-defense, defense. It’s common sense, right? But then they turn around and say this case “has nothing to do with SYG,” because Martin didn’t follow the 911 operators instructions, followed Martin, etc.

It’s wishful thinking, based on an arbitrary determination that the law shouldn’t allow for something they, themselves don’t think meets the bar of “self-defense,” so that they can ignore how the law opens up ambiguity, the potential for these kinds of situations, and actually puts more power in the hands of the ebul govment - but essentially allowing the police force to determine guilt/innocence and taking that decision out of the hands of a judge or jury or peers.re: #77 Dark_Falcon

The SYG ground law does address proportionality, in that it requires a reasonable fear of death or severe bodily harm before deadly force can be used.

What the law says is something about “meet force with force.” What it doesn’t do is specify proportionality - although the bill’s sponsor says that it does.

The type of parameters you describe are entirely subjective. Suppose you’re an out of shape diabetic and the smaller guy is a decathlete?

This is one of the problems with the law.